Adapting Team‐Based Learning Concepts Into an Effective Anatomy Revision Session
Authors: Croker Sarah , Burgess Annette 
Published: April 2020

INTRODUCTIONTowards exams, students want to get the most out of revising, but some study methods may be ineffective and boring. Using quizzes for retrieval practice is a valuable technique, and peer learning can help with understanding topics in a new way. We adapted aspects of the team‐based learning method into an engaging revision session; e.g. students undertaking a test individually then as a team, thereby incorporating retrieval practice and peer learning. Including many questions in a short timeframe was designed to reveal knowledge gaps and keep the session enjoyable.AIMThis study sought to explore students’ experience of teamwork during a broad‐ranging, fastpaced anatomy revision session.METHODSThe revision session formed the final anatomy “laboratory” session before end‐of‐year exams for the 2019 cohort of Stage 1 postgraduate students (n=274) in the Sydney Medical Program (University of Sydney). Students were allocated to one of three classes, and were asked to form teams of 6 – 7 students. Multiple choice questions (MCQs) were presented in three rounds of 10 questions, with 30 seconds per question. Students attempted each round of 10 MCQs first by themselves, then immediately completed the same MCQs as a team. Correct answers were then explained to all students. Four extended matching questions (EMQs) providing anatomically‐themed clinical scenarios were also presented for team discussion only. All teams revealed their answers simultaneously, before solutions were explained. Paper‐based surveys were distributed at the end of the session, asking students to rate the usefulness of the MCQs and teamwork on a five‐point Likert‐type scale; freeform comments were also requested. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics. Ethics approval was obtained via the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.RESULTSFrom the 191 students who attended (70% of cohort), 518 individual sets of MCQ responses could be compared with team responses across all rounds. Most (83.2%) responses were higher in their team scores than individual scores. Only 3.7% of responses were lower in team rather than individual scores (13.1% achieved the same score). The mean rate of improvement from individual to team score was 157.7%. Surveys were returned by 157 students (82.2%). Of these, 72.6% “strongly agreed” (a further 21.0% “agreed”) that the MCQs helped identify knowledge gaps. Regarding working as a team following individual work, almost all strongly agreed (79.0%) or agreed (15.9%) that it had been beneficial to their learning process. Written feedback reflected these feelings, with students also complimenting the range of questions, though a few felt they were too difficult, especially for the short time allowed. More EMQs were requested.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONStudents responded positively to this team‐based revision. Although fast‐paced, most students coped with the short timeframes, and appreciated being exposed to multiple high‐quality questions (and, importantly, answers). Through collaboration in their small teams, students benefitted from peer learning, and at the same time enjoyed the teamwork and camaraderie in the otherwise tense build‐up to exams.