Teamwork significantly improves pathology slide diagnosis: students’ perspective

Dragan Jovanovic; Tatjana Gazibara; Adlekha Shashikanth; Olubukola Yeku; Andrew Wolfram; Christina Krupinsky; Teya Van Biljouw Bath

doi:10.37022/wjcmpr.v6i2.327

Dragan Jovanovic Trinity Medical Sciences University, United States of America,SVG campus,2 Institute of Epidemiology,Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Tatjana Gazibara Trinity Medical Sciences University, United States of America,SVG campus,2 Institute of Epidemiology,Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Adlekha Shashikanth Trinity Medical Sciences University, United States of America,SVG campus,2 Institute of Epidemiology,Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Olubukola Yeku Trinity Medical Sciences University, United States of America,SVG campus,2 Institute of Epidemiology,Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Andrew Wolfram Trinity Medical Sciences University, United States of America,SVG campus,2 Institute of Epidemiology,Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Christina Krupinsky Trinity Medical Sciences University, United States of America,SVG campus,2 Institute of Epidemiology,Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Teya VanBiljouw-Bath Trinity Medical Sciences University, United States of America,SVG campus,2 Institute of Epidemiology,Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI https://doi.org/10.37022/wjcmpr.v6i2.327

Abstract

Background & objectives: Team-based learning is a pedagogical strategy that enhances student knowledge through individual testing and group collaboration. The objective of this preliminary study was to examine if students’ collaborative annotation improved understanding of microscopic morphology and diagnosis of pathological slides.

Methods: Mean individual and then group scores of pathology slides analysis by Path2 students were compared by the Wilcoxon signed rank test and group differences by ANOVA. Students' attitudes toward TBL were examined using a short 8-item questionnaire which graded responses on a 5-point Likert scale. Analyses were performed in the SPSS version 20.Probability level of p<0.05 was statistically significant.

Results: The average individual scores ranged from 44.0 to 50.0 out of 100. The differences between the groups were not observed. The average group scores ranged from 75.0 to 82.0percentage. Compared with the average individual score, all group scores were statistically
significantly higher (p<0.001). Group scores among students who had low performance were statistically significantly higher compared to their individual scores. This was also observed among high performance students (p<0.003). In terms of TBL attitudes, all average attitude scores were positive (the highest were reported for active learning). Attitudes score did not
correlate with the Path1 grade. No difference in attitudes was found between high and low performing students.

Conclusion: Group analysis of pathology slides significantly improves the success in making a pathological diagnosis, both for low performance and for high performance students. The strongest positive attitude was observed for “Promotes opportunity for active learning”, “Group dynamics potentiate learning outcome” and “Encourage discussion for differential diagnosis”. We progressively incorporated these collaborative approaches into virtual environment in pathology courses at our medical faculty that have been shown to further improve students’ engagement and learning outcomes, promotes opportunities for active engagement and interaction.

Keywords: Students’ teamwork, Pathology slides, Analysis, Diagnosis, Perception

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Jovanovic, D., Gazibara, T., Solanki, R., Ackerman, C., Satkovich, E. (2020). Perception of health-related case studies in the context of introduction to clinical medicine course: student’s and teachers’ perspective.Ir J Med Sci, 189(1):373-379.
2. Blouin, R. A., Riffee, W. H., Robinson, E. T.,Beck.,D. E., Green, C., Joyner, P. U.,et al. (2009). Roles of innovation in education delivery. Am J Pharm Educ. 73(8), Article 154.
3. Haidet, P., Morgan, R. O., O’Malley, K., Moran, B.J., Richards, B. F. (2004). A controlled trial of active versus passive learning strategies in a large group settings. Adv Health Sci Educ. 9:15-27.
4. Subramanian, A., Timberlake, M., Mittakanti, H., Lara, M., Brandt, M. L. (2012). Novel educational approach for medical students: improved retention rates using interactive medical software compared with traditional lecture-based format. J Surg Educ. 69:449-452.
5. Sisk, R. J.(2011). Team-based learning: Systemic Research Review. J. Nursing Education. 50(12):665-9.
6. Kumar, R.K., Velen, G. M., Korell, S. O., Kandara, M., Wakefield, D. (2004). Virtual microscopy for learning and assessment pathology. J Pathol. 204(5):613-8.
7. Fonyad, L., Gerely, L., Cserneky, M., Molnar, B., Matolcsy, A. (2010). Shifting gears higher-digital slides in graduate education-4 years experience at Semmelweis University. DiagnPathol. 5:73.
8. Sahota, M., Leung, B., Dowdell, S., Velan, G. M.(2016). BMC Medical Education. 16:311.
9. Simon, P. (2011). Case study research: design and method. Eval Res Educ 24(3):221-222.
10. Keen, J., Packwood, T. (1995). Qualitative research: case study evaluation. BMJ 311(7002):444-446.
11. Wilson, A. B., Taylor, M. A., Klein, B. A., Sugrue, M. K., Whipple, E. C., Brokaw, J. J. (2016). Meta-analysis and review of learner performance and preference: virtual versus optical microscopy. Med Educ. 50(4):428-40.
12. Wiener, H., Plass, H., Marz, R. (2009). Team-based learning in intensive course format for first-year medical students. Croat Med J. 50(1):69e76.
13. Woo, Y., Reeves, T.C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist Interpretation. Internet High Educ. 10(1):15-25.
14. Letassy, N. A., Fugate, S. E., Medina, M. S., Stroup, J.S., Britton, M.L. (2008). Using team-based learning in an endocrine module taught across two campuses. Am J Pharm Educ. 72:1-6.
15. Kibble, J. D., Bellew, C., Asmar, A., Barkley, L. (2016). Team-based learning in large enrolment classes. AdvPhysiol Educ. 40:435-442.
16. Koles, P. G., Stolfi, A., Borges, N. J., Nelson, S., Parmelee, D. X.(2010). The impact of team-based learning on medical students’ academic performance. Acad Med. 85:1739-1745.
17. Husmann, P.R., O’Loughlin, V. D., Braun, M. W. (2009). Quantitative and qualitative changes in teaching histology by means of virtual microscopy in an introductory course in human anatomy. AnatSci Educ. 2(5):218-26.
18. Bridge, P., Trapp, J. V., Kastanis, I., Pack, D., Parker, J.C. (2015). A virtual environment for medical radiation collaborative learning. AustralasPhysEngSci Med. 38(2):369-74.

Teamwork significantly improves pathology slide diagnosis: students’ perspective

Abstract

Downloads

References

Copyright © Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.