How cognitive engagement fluctuates during a team-based learning session and how it predicts academic achievement
The objective of the paper is to report findings of two studies that attempted to find answers to the following questions: (1) What are the levels of cognitive engagement in TBL? (2) Are there differences between students who were more exposed to TBL than students who were less exposed to TBL? (3) To which extent does cognitive engagement fluctuate as a function of the different activities involved in TBL? And (4) How do cognitive engagement scores collected over time correlate with each other and with academic achievement? The studies were conducted with Year-1 and -2 medical students enrolled in a TBL curriculum (N = 175, 62 female). In both studies, six measurements of cognitive engagement were taken during the distinct TBL activities (preparation phase, individual/team readiness assurance test, burning questions, and application exercises). Data were analysed by means of one-way repeated-measures ANOVAs and path modelling. The results of the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that cognitive engagement systematically fluctuated as a function of the distinct TBL activities. In addition, Year-1 students reported significantly higher levels of cognitive engagement compared to Year-2 students. Finally, cognitive engagement was a significant predictor of performance (β = .35). The studies presented in this paper are a first attempt to relate the different activities undertaken in TBL with the extent to which they arouse cognitive engagement with the task at hand. Implications of these findings for TBL are discussed.
KeywordsAcademic achievement Cognitive engagement Medical education Micro-analytical measurement Team-based learning
- Clarke, J., & Wells, M. (2008). Making technology work for you: Why might academic staff want to engage with and promote e-learning? A case study. Reading, NR: Academic Conference LTD.Google Scholar
- Davidson, L. (2009). Educational innovation in an undergraduate medical course: Implementation of a blended e-learning, team-based learning model. Thesis (Master, Education), Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/1974/1667.
- Haidet, P., Levine, R. E., Parmelee, D. X., Crow, S., Kennedy, F., Kelly, P. A., et al. (2012). Perspective: Guidelines for reporting team-based learning activities in the medical and health sciences education literature. Academic Medicine, 87(3), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318244759e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent systems. In R. Cudeck, S. D. Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
- Kelly, P. A., Haidet, P., Schneider, V., Searle, N., Seidel, C. L., & Richards, B. F. (2005). A comparison of in-class learner engagement across lecture, problem-based learning, and team learning using the STROBE classroom observation tool. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 17(2), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1702_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (Eds.). (2002). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups. Portsmouth, NH: Greenwood publishing group.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, M., Benzing, V., & Kamer, M. (2016). Classroom-based physical activity breaks and children’s attention: Cognitive engagement works! Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1474.Google Scholar