Number
413
Name
Evaluation of Differing Preclinical Case-Based Learning Designs Using an Effective Learning Criteria Rubric
Date & Time
Monday, June 8, 2026, 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM
Location Name
Oglethorpe Ballroom
Speakers
Authors
A. Laurel Gorman, Temple University Lewis Katz School of Medicine
Sheila Pierson, Temple University Lewis Katz School of Medicine
Presentation Topic(s)
Instructional Methods
Description
PURPOSE
Despite the prevalence of preclinical small group case-based learning
(SG-CBL) in healthcare education, disagreement persists on how to design CBL
to incorporate effective evidence-based medical education (EBME) learning. In
a previous study, we developed and validated a rubric with 6 EBME categories.
The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate different
preclinical medical school SG-CBL designs using the rubric to determine which
approach best aligned with effective learning components.
METHODS
The rubric had a 0-4 scale (anchored 0 [lacks criteria] to 4 [greater 75%
meets criteria]). Components (with n=number criteria) were: Accountability
(“ACC”, n=2), Active learning/engagement (“AL’, n=2), Cognitive load (“CL”,
n=3), Interdependency (“ID”, n=2), Feedback ( “FB”, n=1) , Time Efficiency
(“TE”, n=1). All SG-CBL, were implemented previously with second year medical
students. The ambiguous design (“AMB-CBL”, n=4 CBLs) had vague clinical
vignettes with group designed end-products; linear CBL (“L-CBL” n=11 CBLs)
used classic processes/ ordered steps with correct answers and defined group
reports. All had peer-evaluation.
RESULTS
For most categories, AMB-CBL scored significantly higher than L-CBL on the
rubric components. Data are means per AMB-CBL vs L-CBL, significance by
non-paired T-tests: ACC, group(4.0 vs 2.1, p<0.01); Al (3.6 vs 2.0,
p<0.01);CL, (3.3vs2.1p<0.05); ID(3.0vs1.9, p<0.01);FB(4.0vs2.0,
p<0.01); Differences were non-significant for TE(3.0vs2.6,) and ACC,
individual(3.0vs3.4).
CONCLUSIONS
Results support that AMB-CBL designs incorporated more accountability,
engagement, appropriate cognitive load, interdependency, and individualized
feedback than commonly used L-CBL models. The L-CBL scored slightly higher
for individual accountability because many L-CBLs required pre-case quizzes.
Observations during the activities also showed that learners worked together
collaboratively during complex AMB-CBL to solve problems but often used
“divide and conquer” strategies to derive basic answers for L-CBL reports. In
conclusion, other institutions may benefit by incorporating more AMB-CBL
traits into their SG-CBL design to improve effectiveness, engagement, and
collaboration.
Despite the prevalence of preclinical small group case-based learning
(SG-CBL) in healthcare education, disagreement persists on how to design CBL
to incorporate effective evidence-based medical education (EBME) learning. In
a previous study, we developed and validated a rubric with 6 EBME categories.
The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate different
preclinical medical school SG-CBL designs using the rubric to determine which
approach best aligned with effective learning components.
METHODS
The rubric had a 0-4 scale (anchored 0 [lacks criteria] to 4 [greater 75%
meets criteria]). Components (with n=number criteria) were: Accountability
(“ACC”, n=2), Active learning/engagement (“AL’, n=2), Cognitive load (“CL”,
n=3), Interdependency (“ID”, n=2), Feedback ( “FB”, n=1) , Time Efficiency
(“TE”, n=1). All SG-CBL, were implemented previously with second year medical
students. The ambiguous design (“AMB-CBL”, n=4 CBLs) had vague clinical
vignettes with group designed end-products; linear CBL (“L-CBL” n=11 CBLs)
used classic processes/ ordered steps with correct answers and defined group
reports. All had peer-evaluation.
RESULTS
For most categories, AMB-CBL scored significantly higher than L-CBL on the
rubric components. Data are means per AMB-CBL vs L-CBL, significance by
non-paired T-tests: ACC, group(4.0 vs 2.1, p<0.01); Al (3.6 vs 2.0,
p<0.01);CL, (3.3vs2.1p<0.05); ID(3.0vs1.9, p<0.01);FB(4.0vs2.0,
p<0.01); Differences were non-significant for TE(3.0vs2.6,) and ACC,
individual(3.0vs3.4).
CONCLUSIONS
Results support that AMB-CBL designs incorporated more accountability,
engagement, appropriate cognitive load, interdependency, and individualized
feedback than commonly used L-CBL models. The L-CBL scored slightly higher
for individual accountability because many L-CBLs required pre-case quizzes.
Observations during the activities also showed that learners worked together
collaboratively during complex AMB-CBL to solve problems but often used
“divide and conquer” strategies to derive basic answers for L-CBL reports. In
conclusion, other institutions may benefit by incorporating more AMB-CBL
traits into their SG-CBL design to improve effectiveness, engagement, and
collaboration.