Identifying group metacognition associated with medical students' teamwork satisfaction in an online small group tutorial context.
Medical education
Metacognition
Online collaborative learning
Regulation skills, small group tutorial
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Oct 2024
09 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
13
08
2024
accepted:
01
10
2024
medline:
10
10
2024
pubmed:
10
10
2024
entrez:
9
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Collaborative learning is an essential pedagogy in medical education, within which small group learning constitutes an integral component. Online small group teaching has been widely applied and blended with in-person sessions in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. This study examined whether group metacognition was associated with teamwork satisfaction in an online small group teaching curriculum for medical students. We enrolled medical students of the 2nd and 4th years during the 2021 fall semester after they participated in 3 consecutive sessions of online small group tutorials (SGTs), which have been implemented in our medical school for more than 20 years. The students completed a group metacognitive scale (GMS) and a teamwork satisfaction scale (TSS) after the sessions. We analyzed whether group metacognition in 4 dimensions (knowledge of cognition, planning, evaluating, and monitoring) could be connected with medical students' teamwork satisfaction using partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). A total of 263 medical students participated in this study. Both GMS and TSS exhibited good reliability and validity. Three of the 4 dimensions of group metacognition (cognition, planning, and evaluating) positively correlated with teamwork satisfaction (path coefficients 0.311, 0.279, and 0.21; p = 0.002, 0.002, and 0.043, respectively) following the online SGT curriculum, whereas the monitoring dimension did not (path coefficient 0.087; p = 0.357). The model achieved an adjusted R square of 0.683. We discovered that group metacognition correlated positively with better teamwork satisfaction, supporting the importance of group metacognitive competency for online collaborative learning.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Collaborative learning is an essential pedagogy in medical education, within which small group learning constitutes an integral component. Online small group teaching has been widely applied and blended with in-person sessions in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. This study examined whether group metacognition was associated with teamwork satisfaction in an online small group teaching curriculum for medical students.
METHODS
METHODS
We enrolled medical students of the 2nd and 4th years during the 2021 fall semester after they participated in 3 consecutive sessions of online small group tutorials (SGTs), which have been implemented in our medical school for more than 20 years. The students completed a group metacognitive scale (GMS) and a teamwork satisfaction scale (TSS) after the sessions. We analyzed whether group metacognition in 4 dimensions (knowledge of cognition, planning, evaluating, and monitoring) could be connected with medical students' teamwork satisfaction using partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 263 medical students participated in this study. Both GMS and TSS exhibited good reliability and validity. Three of the 4 dimensions of group metacognition (cognition, planning, and evaluating) positively correlated with teamwork satisfaction (path coefficients 0.311, 0.279, and 0.21; p = 0.002, 0.002, and 0.043, respectively) following the online SGT curriculum, whereas the monitoring dimension did not (path coefficient 0.087; p = 0.357). The model achieved an adjusted R square of 0.683.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We discovered that group metacognition correlated positively with better teamwork satisfaction, supporting the importance of group metacognitive competency for online collaborative learning.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39385170
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06116-4
pii: 10.1186/s12909-024-06116-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1114Subventions
Organisme : National Taiwan University Hospital
ID : 113-N0029 and 113-TMU172
Organisme : Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
ID : NSTC 112-2314-B-002-232-MY3
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Boekaerts M. Self-regulated learning: where we are today. Int J Educational Res. 1999;31(6):445–57.
doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2
Paris SG, Paris AH. Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology: Routledge; 2003. pp. 89–101.
Rivas SF, Saiz C, Ossa C. Metacognitive strategies and development of critical thinking in Higher Education. Front Psychol. 2022;13.
Rezvan S, Ahmadi S, Abedi M. The effects of metacognitive training on the academic achievement and happiness of Esfahan University conditional students. Counselling Psychol Q. 2006;19(4):415–28.
doi: 10.1080/09515070601106471
Abdelrahman RM. Metacognitive awareness and academic motivation and their impact on academic achievement of Ajman University students. Heliyon. 2020;6(9):e04192.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04192
Swing SR. Perspectives on competency-based medical education from the learning sciences. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):663–8.
doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.500705
Hong WH, Vadivelu J, Daniel EG, Sim JH. Thinking about thinking: changes in first-year medical students’ metacognition and its relation to performance. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:27561.
doi: 10.3402/meo.v20.27561
Cale AS, Hoffman LA, McNulty MA. Promoting metacognition in an allied health anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2023;16(3):473–85.
doi: 10.1002/ase.2218
Anthonysamy L. The use of metacognitive strategies for undisrupted online learning: preparing university students in the age of pandemic. Educ Inform Technol. 2021;26(6):6881–99.
doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10518-y
Burgess A, van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Facilitating small group learning in the health professions. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(2):457.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02282-3
Edmunds S, Brown G. Effective small group learning: AMEE Guide 48. Med Teach. 2010;32(9):715–26.
doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.505454
Chao CT, Chiu YL, Tsai CL, Lin MW, Yang CW, Ho CC, et al. Moving from tangibility toward digitalization: investigating team dynamics and facilitator support among medical students in conventional and digital small-group tutorials. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):814.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03893-8
Shih-Li T, Fen-Yu T, Tzong-Shinn C, Ming-Been L, Bor-Shen H, Shan-Chwen C. Cultural considerations of Reform and Evolution of Medical Education. J Med Educ. 2017;21(4):137–47.
Chao CT, Tsai CL, Lin MW, Yang CW, Ho CC, Chen HL, et al. Fully digital problem-based learning for undergraduate medical students during the COVID-19 period: practical considerations. J Formos Med Assoc. 2022;121(10):2130–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2021.11.011
Kaur S, Bir M, Chandran DS, Deepak KK. Adaptive strategies to conduct participant-centric structured virtual group discussions for postgraduate students in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Adv Physiol Educ. 2021;45(1):37–43.
doi: 10.1152/advan.00136.2020
Kan CWY, Wong FMF. How students learn in small group through online mode during the coronavirus pandemic: descriptive narratives. Teach Learn Nurs. 2023;18(2):281–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.teln.2022.12.003
ChanLin L-J, Chan K-C. Group learning strategies for online course. Procedia - Social Behav Sci. 2010;2(2):397–401.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.033
Kim SH, Park S. What contributed to students’ online learning satisfaction during the pandemic? Distance Educ. 2023;44(1):6–23.
doi: 10.1080/01587919.2022.2150147
Conrad C, Deng Q, Caron I, Shkurska O, Skerrett P, Sundararajan B. How student perceptions about online learning difficulty influenced their satisfaction during Canada’s Covid-19 response. Br J Educ Technol. 2022;53(3):534–57.
doi: 10.1111/bjet.13206
Rajabalee YB, Santally MI. Learner satisfaction, engagement and performances in an online module: implications for institutional e-learning policy. Educ Inform Technol. 2021;26(3):2623–56.
doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10375-1
Tabatabaeichehr M, Babaei S, Dartomi M, Alesheikh P, Tabatabaee A, Mortazavi H et al. Medical students’ satisfaction level with e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic and its related factors: a systematic review. J Educational Evaluation Health Professions. 2022;19.
Yavuzalp N, Bahcivan E. A structural equation modeling analysis of relationships among university students’ readiness for e-learning, self-regulation skills, satisfaction, and academic achievement. Res Pract Technol Enhanced Learn. 2021;16(1).
Hidayatullah A, Csíkos C. Association between psychological need satisfaction and online self-regulated learning. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2023. doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09910-9
Zheng Y, Xiao A. A structural equation model of online learning: investigating self-efficacy, informal digital learning, self-regulated learning, and course satisfaction. Front Psychol. 2024;14.
Schraw G, Moshman D. Metacognitive theories. Educ Psychol Rev. 1995;7(4):351–71.
doi: 10.1007/BF02212307
Biasutti M, Frate S. Group metacognition in online collaborative learning: validity and reliability of the group metacognition scale (GMS). Education Tech Research Dev. 2018;66(6):1321–38.
doi: 10.1007/s11423-018-9583-0
Fidan A, Koçak Usluel Y. Emotions, metacognition and online learning readiness are powerful predictors of online student engagement: a moderated mediation analysis. Educ Inform Technol. 2024;29(1):459–81.
doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12259-6
Kim JY, Lim KY. Promoting learning in online, ill-structured problem solving: the effects of scaffolding type and metacognition level. Comput Educ. 2019;138:116–29.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.001
Xun G, Land SM. A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Education Tech Research Dev. 2004;52(2):5–22.
doi: 10.1007/BF02504836
Choi I, Land SM, Turgeon AJ. Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate Metacognition during Online Small Group discussion. Instr Sci. 2005;33(5–6):483–511.
doi: 10.1007/s11251-005-1277-4
Socratous C, Ioannou A. Evaluating the impact of the Curriculum structure on Group Metacognition during Collaborative Problem-solving using Educational Robotics. TechTrends. 2022;66(5):771–83.
doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00738-5
Kuhn D, Capon N, Lai H. Talking about group (but not individual) process aids group performance. Int J Computer-Supported Collaborative Learn. 2020;15(2):179–92.
doi: 10.1007/s11412-020-09321-7
Chen S-L, Sun J-L, Jao J-Y. A predictive model of student nursing competency in clinical practicum: a structural equation modelling approach. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;95:104579.
doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104579
Halmo SM, Bremers EK, Fuller S, Stanton JD. Oh, that makes sense: Social Metacognition in Small-Group Problem solving. Cbe-Life Sci Educ. 2022;21(3).
Zheng LQ, Li X, Zhang X, Sun W. The effects of group metacognitive scaffolding on group metacognitive behaviors, group performance, and cognitive load in computer-supported collaborative learning. Internet High Educ. 2019;42:13–24.
doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.03.002
Nonose K, Kanno T, Furuta K. Effects of metacognition in cooperation on team behaviors. Cogn Technol Work. 2014;16(3):349–58.
doi: 10.1007/s10111-013-0265-8
Wilhelmsson M, Pelling S, Uhlin L, Owe Dahlgren L, Faresjö T, Forslund K. How to think about interprofessional competence: a metacognitive model. J Interprof Care. 2012;26(2):85–91.
doi: 10.3109/13561820.2011.644644
Tseng H, Wang C, Ku H-Y, Sun L. Key factors in online collaboration and their relationship to teamwork satisfaction. Q Rev Distance Educ. 2009;10(2):195–206.
Ku H-Y, Tseng HW, Akarasriworn C. Collaboration factors, teamwork satisfaction, and student attitudes toward online collaborative learning. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(3):922–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.019
Hair JF Jr, Matthews LM, Matthews RL, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. Int J Multivar Data Anal. 2017;1(2):107–23.
doi: 10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988;103(3):411–23.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Lt H, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 1999;6(1):1–55.
doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics: Pearson Boston. MA; 2013.
Pintrich PR. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Pract. 2002;41(4):219–25.
doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press; 1991.
Channa MA, Nordin ZS, Siming IA, Chandio AA, Koondher MA. Developing reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies: a review of previous studies. Engl Lang Teach. 2015;8(8):181–6.
Bolton MK. The role of coaching in Student teams: a just-in-Time Approach to Learning. J Manage Educ. 1999;23(3):233–50.
Halpern DF. Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. Am Psychol. 1998;53(4):449.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
Zimmerman BJ. Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: an analysis of exemplary instructional models. 1998.
Schneider SJ, Kerwin J, Frechtling J, Vivari BA. Characteristics of the discussion in online and Face-to-Face Focus Groups. Social Sci Comput Rev. 2002;20(1):31–42.
doi: 10.1177/089443930202000104
Pfeiffer S, Chen Y, Tsai D. Progress integrating medical humanities into medical education: a global overview. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2016;29(5):298–301.
doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000265
Slade S, Galpin F, Prinsloo P. Online learning: Narratives of (dis) location. 2008.
Versteeg M, Bressers G, Wijnen-Meijer M, Ommering BWC, De Beaufort AJ, Steendijk P. What were you thinking? Medical students’ metacognition and perceptions of self-regulated learning. Teach Learn Med. 2021;33(5):473–82.
doi: 10.1080/10401334.2021.1889559
Medina MS, Castleberry AN, Persky AM. Strategies for improving learner metacognition in health professional education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017;81(4).
Hogenkamp L, Van Dijk AM, Eysink THS. Analyzing socially Shared Regulation of Learning during Cooperative Learning and the role of equal contribution: a grounded theory Approach. Educ Sci. 2021;11(9):512.
doi: 10.3390/educsci11090512
Efklides A, Metacognition. Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. Eur Psychol. 2008;13(4):277–87.
doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277