ArticleBMC medical education2026
Does medical students' perception of team-based learning have an impact on achieving planned learning outcomes?
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudents’ perceptions of pedagogies can be a barrier for active learning. We explored whether students’ opinion of team-based learning (TBL) impacted knowledge acquisition. METHODOLOGY: A mixed method study was conducted during the Infectious diseases and Immunity module for undergraduate Year 2 medical students. Student evaluation after each TBL session was collected using eight parameters on a 5-point Likert scale. Scores of the end-of-session test were compared with individual readiness assurance test (iRAT) scores. Statistical analysis was done to compare and correlate knowledge scores and students’ ratings. Focused group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with students for in-depth feedback on their perceived value and effectiveness of TBL.
resultsA total of 96 students participated in the study. End-of-session test scores were significantly higher than iRAT scores (p-value < 0.0001). There was no difference in end-of session test scores (p-value < 0.664) between students who gave an overall rating of 1/2 versus 4/5. Pearson correlation showed no relationship between student rating and iRAT or end-of-session test scores. A higher proportion of students agreed that TBL enhanced critical thinking, engagement, accountability, and conceptual understanding, but only half of the students wanted TBL as a strategy in other modules. FGD with fifteen students predominantly identified that extensive pre-reading material led to learner dissatisfaction and disengagement. Though they affirmed that the quizzes and application exercises were helpful in clarification of difficult concepts.
conclusionTBLs improved students’ knowledge acquisition independent of their rating of TBL sessions. Lengthy pre-reading material, longer duration, and lack of equal participation were attributed to a lower rating. Redesigning TBL sessions according to students’ feedback may improve students’ perception of TBL in the future. This study contributes to the literature on the effectiveness and acceptability of TBL by assessing academic performance and feedback and exploring student perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.