Table 3 The study’s joint display showing how the data is effectively integrated to create a whole that is more than the sum of its parts
Qualitative → | Meta-inferences parameters | ← Quantitative |
|---|---|---|
Perceived positive attributes | 1. Success factors of TBL in FM experience | • Each of the four components need to be considered satisfactory for the experience, as a whole, to be considered satisfactory (by the students) • Satisfaction with pre-reading phase (i.e., 1) is not associated with the satisfaction with the team discussion phase (i.e., 4) • Perception of pre-reading and team discussion phases (i.e., 1 & 4), independently, are not associated with the overall level of students’ satisfaction • The test phases (i.e., 2 & 3) can be considered “foundational”: satisfaction with each of these phases, independently, is associated with satisfaction with each of the rest of the TBL in FM phases, independently (and with the overall level of students’ satisfaction with the TBL in FM) |
• Perceived positive attributes • Perceived added value • Suggested improvements | 2. Perceived efficacy of TBL in FM experience | • Each phase was perceived as satisfactory • The experience, as a whole, was perceived as satisfactory • Positive change in FM impression due to the TBL in FM experience was evident • Positive change in FM impression was associated with overall level of students’ satisfaction with the TBL in FM |
• Mutually reinforcing relationship between team cohesion and level of engagement with course • A set of “facilitators” seem to be fuelling the abovementioned mutually- reinforcing relationship | 3. Variables associated with perceived efficacy of TBL in FM experience | • Team cohesion was associated with increased satisfaction with phase 3: team test phase • Level of engagement with the course was associated with satisfaction with the intervention (as a whole, and each phase of it, independently) • Level of engagement with the course was associated with positive change in FM impression |