Measuring group function in problem-based learning: development of a reflection tool.
Curriculum design
Problem-based learning
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Oct 2023
10 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
06
07
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
medline:
1
11
2023
pubmed:
11
10
2023
entrez:
10
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogy involving self-directed learning in small groups around case problems. Group function is important to PBL outcomes, but there is currently poor scaffolding around key self-reflective practices that necessarily precedes students' and tutors' attempts to improve group function. This study aims to create a structured, literature-based and stakeholder-informed tool to help anchor reflective practices on group function. This article reports on the development process and perceived utility of this tool. Tool development unfolded in four steps: 1) a literature review was conducted to identify existent evaluation tools for group function in PBL, 2) literature findings informed the development of this new tool, 3) a group of PBL experts were consulted for engagement with and feedback of the tool, 4) four focus groups of stakeholders (medical students and tutors with lived PBL experiences) commented on the tool's constructs, language, and perceived utility. The tool underwent two rounds of revisions, informed by the feedback from experts and stakeholders. Nineteen scales relating to group function assessment were identified in the literature, lending 18 constructs that mapped into four dimensions: Learning Climate, Facilitation and Process, Engagement and Interactivity, and Evaluation and Group Improvement. Feedback from experts informed the addition of missing items. Focus group discussions allowed further fine-tuning of the organization and language of the tool. The final tool contains 17 descriptive items under the four dimensions. Users are asked to rate each dimension holistically on a 7-point Likert scale and provide open comments. Researchers, faculty, and students highlighted three functions the tool could perform: (1) create space, structure, and language for feedback processes, (2) act as a reference, resource, or memory aid, and (3) serve as a written record for longitudinal benchmarking. They commented that the tool may be particularly helpful for inexperienced and poor-functioning groups, and indicated some practical implementation considerations. A four-dimension tool to assist group function reflection in PBL was produced. Its constructs were well supported by literature and experts. Faculty and student stakeholders acknowledged the utility of this tool in addressing an acknowledged gap in group function reflection in PBL.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogy involving self-directed learning in small groups around case problems. Group function is important to PBL outcomes, but there is currently poor scaffolding around key self-reflective practices that necessarily precedes students' and tutors' attempts to improve group function. This study aims to create a structured, literature-based and stakeholder-informed tool to help anchor reflective practices on group function. This article reports on the development process and perceived utility of this tool.
METHODS
METHODS
Tool development unfolded in four steps: 1) a literature review was conducted to identify existent evaluation tools for group function in PBL, 2) literature findings informed the development of this new tool, 3) a group of PBL experts were consulted for engagement with and feedback of the tool, 4) four focus groups of stakeholders (medical students and tutors with lived PBL experiences) commented on the tool's constructs, language, and perceived utility. The tool underwent two rounds of revisions, informed by the feedback from experts and stakeholders.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nineteen scales relating to group function assessment were identified in the literature, lending 18 constructs that mapped into four dimensions: Learning Climate, Facilitation and Process, Engagement and Interactivity, and Evaluation and Group Improvement. Feedback from experts informed the addition of missing items. Focus group discussions allowed further fine-tuning of the organization and language of the tool. The final tool contains 17 descriptive items under the four dimensions. Users are asked to rate each dimension holistically on a 7-point Likert scale and provide open comments. Researchers, faculty, and students highlighted three functions the tool could perform: (1) create space, structure, and language for feedback processes, (2) act as a reference, resource, or memory aid, and (3) serve as a written record for longitudinal benchmarking. They commented that the tool may be particularly helpful for inexperienced and poor-functioning groups, and indicated some practical implementation considerations.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A four-dimension tool to assist group function reflection in PBL was produced. Its constructs were well supported by literature and experts. Faculty and student stakeholders acknowledged the utility of this tool in addressing an acknowledged gap in group function reflection in PBL.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37817205
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04726-y
pii: 10.1186/s12909-023-04726-y
pmc: PMC10566193
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
745Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Acad Med. 1996 May;71(5):488-94
pubmed: 9114868
Med Teach. 2022 Apr 7;:1-11
pubmed: 35389310
Med Teach. 2005 Sep;27(6):534-8
pubmed: 16199361
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88
pubmed: 16204405
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 May;27(5):455-458
pubmed: 28157421
Med Educ. 1994 Nov;28(6):550-8
pubmed: 7862020
Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2009;6:Article37
pubmed: 19954422
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2005;10(1):23-35
pubmed: 15912282
Simul Healthc. 2012 Oct;7(5):288-94
pubmed: 22902606
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016 Dec;21(5):1087-1112
pubmed: 26563722
Med Teach. 2002 Sep;24(5):495-501
pubmed: 12450469
J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Aug;9(4):430-439
pubmed: 28824754
Acad Med. 1998 Oct;73(10 Suppl):S22-4
pubmed: 9795641
Evid Based Nurs. 2013 Oct;16(4):98
pubmed: 23943076
Med Educ. 2006 Jan;40(1):64-71
pubmed: 16441325
Med Educ. 2000 Sep;34(9):754-61
pubmed: 10972755
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Dec 29;22(1):900
pubmed: 36581848
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2012 Sep-Dec;25(3):198-203
pubmed: 23823640
Med Educ. 2005 Apr;39(4):380-7
pubmed: 15813760
Med Educ. 1998 May;32(3):262-8
pubmed: 9743779
J Adv Nurs. 1998 May;27(5):1048-53
pubmed: 9637333
Acad Med. 2009 Oct;84(10 Suppl):S124-7
pubmed: 19907373
Med Educ. 2008 May;42(5):468-75
pubmed: 18412886
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016 May;21(2):341-57
pubmed: 26307371
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2011 Oct;16(4):465-79
pubmed: 21243425
Med Teach. 2011;33(2):145-50
pubmed: 20874030
Med Educ. 2009 Apr;43(4):377-83
pubmed: 19335580
Med Teach. 2005 Sep;27(6):521-6
pubmed: 16199359
Med Educ. 1986 Nov;20(6):481-6
pubmed: 3796328
Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 29;12:786754
pubmed: 34912280
Acad Med. 2020 Jun;95(6):919-924
pubmed: 31789845
Med Educ. 1999 Nov;33(11):818-22
pubmed: 10583789
Med Teach. 2010;32(3):e133-7
pubmed: 20218829
Educ Prim Care. 2012 Jan;23(1):9-12
pubmed: 22306139