Author:
Edelbring Samuel,Alehagen Siw,Mörelius Evalotte,Johansson AnnaKarin,Rytterström Patrik
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The tutorial group and its dynamics are a cornerstone of problem-based learning (PBL). The tutor’s support varies according to the setting, and it is pertinent to explore group effectiveness in relation to different settings, for example online or campus-based. The PBL groups’ effectiveness can partly be assessed in terms of cognitive and motivational aspects, using a self-report tool to measure PBL group effectiveness, the Tutorial Group Effectiveness Instrument (TGEI).
This study’s aim was to explore tutor participation in variations of online and campus-based tutorial groups in relation to group effectiveness. A secondary aim was to validate a tool for assessing tutorial group effectiveness in a Swedish context.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted with advanced-level nursing students studying to become specialised nurses or midwives at a Swedish university. The TGEI was used to measure motivational and cognitive aspects in addition to overall group effectiveness. The instrument’s items were translated into Swedish and refined with an expert group and students. The responses were calculated descriptively and compared between groups using the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests. A psychometric evaluation was performed using the Mokken scale analysis. The subscale scores were compared between three different tutor settings: the tutor present face-to-face in the room, the tutor present online and the consultant tutor not present in the room and giving support asynchronously.
Results
All the invited students (n = 221) participated in the study. There were no differences in motivational or cognitive aspects between students with or without prior PBL experience, nor between men and women. Higher scores were identified on cognitive aspects (22.6, 24.6 and 21.3; p < 0.001), motivational aspects (26.3, 27 and 24.5; p = 002) and group effectiveness (4.1, 4.3, 3.8, p = 0.02) for the two synchronously tutored groups compared to the asynchronously tutored group. The TGEI subscales showed adequate homogeneity.
Conclusions
The tutor’s presence is productive for PBL group effectiveness. However, the tutor need not be in the actual room but can provide support in online settings as long as the tutoring is synchronous.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Education,General Medicine
Reference26 articles.
1. Savin-Baden M, Major CH. Foundations of problem-based learning: McGraw-hill education (UK); 2004.
2. Neville AJ. The problem-based learning tutor: teacher? Facilitator? Evaluator? Med Teach. 1999;21(4):393–401.
3. Eckler U, Greisberger A, Höhne F, Putz P. Blended learning versus traditional teaching-learning-setting: evaluation of cognitive and affective learning outcomes for the inter-professional field of occupational medicine and prevention/blended learning versus traditionelles Lehr-Lernsetting: Evaluierung von kognitiven und affektiven Lernergebnissen für das interprofessionelle Arbeitsfeld Arbeitsmedizin und Prävention. Int J Health Prof. 2017;4(2):109–21.
4. Segerman J, Crable E, Brodzinski J. E-learning and medical residents, a qualitative perspective. Inf Syst Educ J. 2016;14(1):35.
5. Tudor Car L, Kyaw BM, Dunleavy G, Smart NA, Semwal M, Rotgans JI, Low-Beer N, Campbell J. Digital problem-based learning in health professions: systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2):e12945.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献