Abstract
Introduction
Problem- and team-based learning strategies have been introduced in the revised integrated curriculum of our medical college. This study aims to assess perceptions of students regarding recently introduced group learning activities into our hybrid curriculum.
Materials and Methods
This descriptive cross-sectional study has used a pre-validated questionnaire to find out the perceptions of medical students studying at College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU). The response of students on the questionnaire was recorded by using a 5-point Likert scale. The data was analyzed by using one-way ANOVA. Mean and standard deviation were calculated. Additionally, three open-ended questions were asked to assess the merits and demerits of these newly implemented group learning approaches.
Results
Out of 736 students, 190 (25.81%) completed the questionnaire. Among the 190 respondents, 64 were from second year, 65 were from third, and 61 were from fourth. Overall, the results show a positive response of students and that they favor the introduction of group learning instructional design in the hybrid curriculum. Students perceived group learning to be helpful in developing their critical thinking, socialization, motivation, and communication skills.
Conclusion
This study concludes that group learning activities introduced in a hybrid curriculum have remained successful in promoting group dynamics and overall satisfaction of students toward group learning. However, some issues have been reported too. The views of the students recorded in this study might be helpful in evaluating the implemented hybrid curricula and in optimizing the group environment and function.
Keywords: Group learning, Group dynamics, Group functioning, Team-based learning, Problem-based learning, Hybrid curriculum
Introduction
Many medical schools are using group learning as a fundamental educational strategy. Group learning has a valuable role in education whether it is problem-based learning, team-based projects, or in a more traditional academic scenario such as tutorials or seminars. Group learning is a process in which students collaborate to achieve mutual educational goals [1]. Learning in groups helps students develop deeper understanding of the educational content, express their ideas, and establish a rapport with the academic staff. The small group sessions also provide an opportunity to the learners to develop their listening, presentation, communication, and teamwork skills [2]. Most importantly, small group learning empowers students to regulate their own learning and foster their autonomy to become self-directed and independent learners [3].
To achieve the optimal benefits of group learning, certain procedures and skills are required within the group so that the students can learn beyond factual knowledge [4, 5]. One such imperative feature that affects the students’ learning is group dynamics. Students work together in a collaborative learning setting to address their educational problems, cases, and questions, and their group dynamics play pivotal role in their knowledge and skill acquisition [6]. The literature suggests that student performance and group cohesiveness are significantly related to each other [1]. One such example is the study which reported that students of organized groups outperformed the students of a discorded group [7]. Group cohesion, however, is a slow process and it develops over time. In a recent study, de Hei et al. [8] have highlighted four significant factors that decrease group functionality and cohesiveness. These factors include students and/or teacher resistance, inappropriate technology usage, teaching and learning theories not grounded in group learning design, and misalignment between design components (learning goals, tasks, instructions, and support) [8].
Considering the vital importance of group learning, the College of Medicine, IAU, has introduced problem-based and team-based learning strategies in their revised integrated curriculum. A major portion of didactic lectures has been replaced with tutorials and case-based teamwork. Students are allocated into groups from the beginning so that they can develop an understanding of each other and can learn to work collaboratively. In pre-clinical years, the problem-based learning sessions take place once a week, whereas team-based learning sessions are commenced once every 2 weeks. The students devise their own session learning outcomes and they learn together.
Based on the differences in previous annual student feedback reports regarding the educational experiences and institutional concerns regarding the impact of curricular reform, the authors wanted to assess the perceptions of students regarding the recently introduced group learning activities and also wanted to see students’ level of acceptability at the same time. The purpose of this investigation was to explore the effectiveness of newly implemented problem-based and team-based learning strategies and to identify the potential problems within the study groups so that they can be catered to at an early stage.
To attain the aforementioned objectives, the authors did a comprehensive literature review of the published inventories which particularly evaluate group learning environments. In past studies, many tools have explored the attitudes of students in an educational climate, one of which is the famous The Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM) [9] instrument. It has been used in many health professional domains around the globe. However, one recognized limitation of the DREEM inventory is that it focuses predominantly upon course content and structure rather than the students’ perceptions of their study group [9]. In our study, we wanted to use an inventory that identified student perceptions regarding group functioning and the positive and negative elements that may affect group learning. After discussing the merits and pitfalls of many tools and questionnaires, we selected a recently published inventory by Morris and Batchelder [10] which was designed specifically to evaluate the small group learning experiences of medical students.
Methods
This is a descriptive study to evaluate the group learning environment and group learning dynamics at both individual and group levels. To conduct this study, ethical approval was obtained from the ethical review committee of IAU.
Setting and Participants
This study was carried out among second-, third-, and fourth-year undergraduate students of College of Medicine, IAU. The questionnaire was administered to the full classes of second-year, third-year, and fourth-year medical students. These particular classes were selected because these were the first three batches who have undergone through the hybrid curriculum. First-year students were not included because in our college, the first year is preparatory. Also, fifth- and sixth-year students were excluded because they were enrolled in traditional curriculum. The participation of the students was on a voluntary basis and the anonymity of the participation and confidentiality of their responses was assured.
Inventory
To achieve the objectives of our study, the inventory by Morris and Batchelder [10] was used which consisted of 24 items sub-grouped under four themes: members’ attitudes to members, group’s attitude to members, members’ interaction with work, and group’s interaction with work (Table 1). The items from 1–5 were grouped under members’ attitudes to members; items from 6–10 were grouped under group’s attitude to members; items from 11–15 were grouped under members’ interaction with work, and items from 16–24 were grouped under group’s interaction with work. The description of these four domains is as follows:
Members’ attitude to members: This domain measures the support offered by the group members to their peers within the study group.
Group’s attitude to members: This domain evaluates the group collegiality and the effect of the group behavior on individuals.
Members’ interaction with work: This domain explains the enthusiasm and motivation level of individual students toward completion of group work tasks.
Group’s interaction with work: This domain primarily describes the engagement level of the group with the work tasks and how the group adopts to fulfill the task.
Table 1.
Item-wise response of three classes on group learning
| Inventory items | Second year (n = 64) | Third year (n = 65) | Fourth year (n = 61) | p value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreement level n (%) |
Mean ± SD (median) |
Agreement level n (%) |
Mean ± SD (median) |
Agreement level n (%) |
Mean ± SD (median) |
||||
| 1 | Members’ attitude to members | Group members are only interested in learning for themselves | 19 (29.2) |
2.9 ± 1.1 (3) |
38 (62.3) |
3.4 ± 1 (4) |
29 (45.3) |
3.1 ± 1.2 (3) |
0.059 |
| 2 | Group members understand my needs | 27 (41.5) |
3.1 ± 1 (3) |
16 (26.2) |
3.1 ± 0.8 (3) |
17 (26.6) |
3 ± 0.9 (3) |
0.561 | |
| 3 | Group members have developed a sense of trust between each other | 31 (47.7) |
3.3 ± 1 (3) |
39 (63.9) |
3.4 ± 0.9 (4) |
30 (46.9) |
3.7 ± 1 (4) |
0.028* | |
| 4 | Group members expect everyone to study the same way | 6 (9.2) |
2.4 ± 0.9 (2) |
19 (31.1) |
3 ± 1.1 (3) |
11 (17.2) |
2.6 ± 1.1 (3) |
0.633 | |
| 5 | Group leaves the slower members behind | 23 (35.4) |
2.9 ± 1.1 (3) |
24 (39.3) |
3.1 ± 0.9 (3) |
23 (35.9) |
3.4 ± 1.1 (3) |
0.007* | |
| 6 | Groups’ attitude to members | Group uses competition with other groups positively | 30 (46.2) |
3.1 ± 1.2 (3) |
28 (45.9) |
3.3 ± 1 (3) |
23 (35.9) |
3 ± 1.1 (3) |
0.274 |
| 7 | Group manages the diversity of its members badly | 41 (63.1) |
3.7 ± 0.8 (4) |
50 (82) |
3.8 ± 0.8 (4) |
43 (67.2) |
4.1 ± 0.8 (4) |
0.014* | |
| 8 | Group gets on well together outside of medical school | 22 (33.8) |
2.8 ± 1.3 (3) |
29 (47.5) |
3.1 ± 1.1 (3) |
26 (40.6) |
3.3 ± 1.3 (3) |
0.045* | |
| 9 | Group is dominated by one or two forceful people | 28 (43.1) |
3.1 ± 1.1 (3) |
31 (50.8) |
3 ± 1.2 (4) |
29 (45.3) |
3 ± 1.2 (3) |
0.975 | |
| 10 | Group listens carefully to what each person has to say | 32 (49.2) |
3.3 ± 1.2 (3) |
29 (47.5) |
3.4 ± 1.2 (3) |
31 (48.4) |
3.3 ± 1.2 (3) |
0.908 | |
| 11 | Members’ interaction with work | Group members are enthusiastic about the work we do | 20 (30.8) |
3 ± 1 (3) |
31 (50.8) |
3.1 ± 1.3 (3) |
26 (40.6) |
3.2 ± 1 (4) |
0.711 |
| 12 | Group has members who are lazy | 6 (9.2) |
2.3 ± 1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1.9 ± 0.7 (2) |
3 (4.7) |
2.1 ± 0.8 (2) |
0.038* | |
| 13 | Group is held back by members’ active social life | 28 (43.1) |
3.2 ± 1 (3) |
12 (19.7) |
2.9 ± 0.8 (3) |
16 (25) |
3 ± 0.8 (3) |
0.13 | |
| 14 | Group has members with a poor attendance record | 22 (33.8) |
2.9 ± 1.2 (2) |
12 (19.7) |
2.5 ± 1 (2) |
18 (28.1) |
2.7 ± 1.2 (2) |
0.318 | |
| 15 | Group prepares tasks on time | 28 (43.1) |
3.3 ± 1 (3) |
17 (27.9) |
3 ± 1.1 (3) |
20 (31.3) |
3.1 ± 1 (3) |
0.311 | |
| 16 | Groups’ interaction with work | Group discusses concepts to enhance understanding | 41 (63.1) |
3.6 ± 1.1 (4) |
47 (77) |
3.7 ± 0.8 (4) |
44 (68.8) |
3.6 ± 1 (4) |
0.603 |
| 17 | Group is flexible about working in sub-groups | 41 (63.1) |
3.5 ± 0.8 (4) |
42 (68.9) |
3.6 ± 1.1 (4) |
37 (57.8) |
3.5 ± 1 (4) |
0.712 | |
| 18 | Group works too fast in order to finish up early | 39 (60) |
3.3 ± 1.1 (3) |
30 (49.2) |
3.3 ± 1.2 (3) |
32 (50) |
3.2 ± 1.2 (3.5) |
0.87 | |
| 19 | Group refocuses well after going “off task” | 26 (40) |
3.5 ± 0.7 (3) |
23 (37.7) |
3.1 ± 1 (3) |
25 (39.1) |
3.3 ± 0.9 (3) |
0.115 | |
| 20 | Group goes into things in far too much details | 15 (23.1) |
2.9 ± 0.9 (3) |
25 (41) |
3.2 ± 0.8 (3) |
24 (37.5) |
3.1 ± 0.9 (3) |
0.299 | |
| 21 | Group works together to complete any remaining tasks | 31 (47.7) |
3.2 ± 1.3 (3) |
37 (60.7) |
3.6 ± 1.1 (4) |
41 (48.4) |
3.9 ± 1.2 (4) |
0.028* | |
| 22 | Group is able to relate work to our future role as doctors | 34 (52.3) |
3.3 ± 1.1 (4) |
45 (73.8) |
3.6 ± 1.1 (4) |
38 (59.4) |
3.3 ± 1.2 (4) |
0.363 | |
| 23 | Group took a long time to establish how to work together | 27 (41.5) |
3 ± 1.1 (3) |
24 (39.3) |
3.1 ± 1 (3) |
28 (43.8) |
3.3 ± 1.1 (3) |
0.968 | |
| 24 | Group is slow to speak up when answers are called for | 26 (40) |
3.1 ± 1 (3) |
21 (34.4) |
2.9 ± 1.1 (3) |
23 (35.9) |
3.2 ± 1 (3) |
0.714 | |
Negative items, where scores have been reversed, are in italics
*Statistically significant difference between the three years
In addition to this inventory, three open-ended questions were added to explore the perceptions of students further. However, the response to the open-ended questions was optional and on a voluntary basis so as not to overwhelm the students. The open-ended questions used in the survey were as follows:
What are the benefits of learning in a group as compared to other individual teaching and learning approaches?
What are the major challenges of learning in a group?
What would you like to change if you are asked to make the group learning experience more convenient and productive?
Data Collection and Analysis
The questionnaire was electronically distributed through an online survey tool, QuestionPro® (Survey Analytics LLC, Beaverton, OR, USA), and the data was collected during the months of January and February 2019. The responses of students on their level of agreement on all 24 items were recorded by using a 5-point Likert scale: 1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, not sure; 4, agree; and 5, strongly agree. The overall possible maximum score was 120 and the minimum was 24. The raw data was exported and statistically analyzed by SPSS version 23 (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York, USA). The data was analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Mean, median, and standard deviation of all items and sub-groups were calculated [11]. Additionally, the agreement levels were also calculated for each item. This agreement level represents the number and percentage of students strongly agreeing to the items on the Likert scale. In the inventory, item numbers 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 23, and 24 (11 items) were negatively worded. The scoring was reversed for these negative statements so that a higher score could uniformly reflect a more positive perspective toward group learning in all items. The comments of students in response to the open-ended questions were gathered and a thematic analysis was performed to identify and allocate suitable themes to them.
Results
Out of 249 second-year, 248 third-year, and 239 fourth-year medical students (total = 736), 190 (25.81%) completed the questionnaire. Among the 190 respondents, 64 were from second year, 65 were from third year, and 61 from fourth year, 127 (67%) were female and 63 (33%) were male students. The age range of the group was from 18–25 years.
The mean score, standard deviation, median, and p value of individual items and sub-groups are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. In addition to it, the agreement level has also been provided for individual item in Table 1. An overall strong agreement level was observed in 3 items. These items were as follows: item 16 (the group discusses concepts to enhance understanding), item 17 (the group is flexible about working in sub-groups), and item 22 (the group is able to relate work to our future role as doctors). On the other hand, the minimum agreement level was observed in item 12 (the group has members who are lazy).
Table 2.
Domain-wise comparison of class responses
| Inventory domains | No. of items per domain | Second year (n = 64) | Third year (n = 65) | Fourth year (n = 61) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD (median) |
Mean ± SD (median) |
Mean ± SD (median) |
|||
| Members’ attitude to members | 5 |
14.6 ± 3.4 (15) |
15.2 ± 3.3 (15) |
16.3 ± 2.6 (17) |
0.01* |
| Groups’ attitude to members | 5 |
16.1 ± 4.3 (16) |
16.2 ± 4.3 (17) |
16.7 ± 4.1 (17) |
0.67 |
| Members’ interaction to work | 5 |
13.4 ± 3.1 (14) |
13.8 ± 3 (14) |
14.5 ± 2.9 (15) |
0.11 |
| Groups’ interaction to work | 9 |
29.6 ± 5.2 (30) |
29.5 ± 5.5 (31) |
30.5 ± 5.1 (31) |
0.26 |
*Statistically significant difference between the three years
In our results, a statistically significant p value was observed in 6 items. These were as follows: item 3 (group members have developed a sense of trust between each other), item 5 (the group leaves the slower members behind), item 7 (the group manages the diversity of its members badly), item 8 (the group gets on well together outside of medical school), item 12 (the group has members who are lazy), and item 21 (the group works together to complete any remaining tasks). In domain-wise comparison, only one domain (members’ attitude to members) showed statistically significant difference between the three years.
The comments of students in response to open-ended questions suggested that they find group learning quite beneficial (Table 3). However, certain challenges to optimal group functioning were also expressed (Table 4) and a potential solution was also suggested for making the group learning experience more productive (Table 5).
Table 3.
Benefits of group learning
| Benefits | Quotes from students |
|---|---|
| Self-confidence | “Thinking out loud in the group boosts my self-confidence.” |
| Communication skills | “It helps me in developing my communication skills when we are discussing something in a group. I think it is a necessary skill for doctors.” |
| Understanding complex information | “Sometimes I find some information too complex to understand. For example, physiology. My group helps me in understanding the complex physiological phenomena in an easy way by using metaphors and daily life examples.” |
| Exchange of learning resources |
“One of the biggest benefits of group tasks for me is sharing ideas, information and resources with one another.” “It is a good platform to share knowledge and ideas with others.” “My workload has been reduced because we share and exchange our notes and ideas very frequently.” |
| Critical thinking |
“Learning with my group encourages me to think deeper. It helps me in making connections between different diseases.” “It has helped me in developing my critical thinking and evaluation skills.” |
| Motivation | “I feel motivated and less stressed when I realize that I am not alone, and I have group buddies who can help me in my studies.” |
| Socialization |
“I am a shy person who faces difficulty in socializing. Group learning has helped me to overcome my shyness. Now, I interact and socialize with my class fellows more easily.” “I often hangout with my group outside the college to discuss our group assignments. It helps me in socializing with my class fellows beyond classroom.” “I got to know my fellows better after our grouping.” |
Table 4.
Challenges of group learning
| Challenges | Quotes from students |
|---|---|
| Personal gains |
“…some members in my group do not share their notes and ideas. They like to keep everything for their own benefit.” “My group members focus more on their exam grades than the group task.” “A couple of my group fellows do not concentrate on the group activity and they are busy in preparing for the coming exams and quizzes which is frustrating, sometimes.” |
| Time consuming |
“I find the group learning too much time consuming. We keep repeating the same information over and over again.” “Some of my group members are too slow to understand simple things. This wastes my time.” |
| Restrictive |
“When our grouping is the choice of our tutor rather than the personal preference, we face the problem of having non-serious members in the group who are not much concerned about their grade. This jeopardizes my learning and overall group achievement.” “I found it very restrictive approach. It takes a lot of effort and time to arrange a meeting, to get people on board and to assign the tasks to every member. We often end up in conflict and we waste too much time in debating the roles of every member in the group task to get the job done in time.” |
| Lack of tutor support |
“I feel that some tutors take the easy route by saying ‘go figure’. I think it is unfair to leave everything on students.” “Sometimes, teachers do not help us at all and we feel helpless at that time because none of the other group members have the adequate information regarding the given problem.” |
| Poor communication | “Sometimes, the tasks are not clearly assigned to the members which creates ambiguity and mismanagement” |
| Poor attendance |
“There have been occasions when we could not arrange a meeting or couldn’t find a suitable time to discuss the group task. This was primarily because of the other commitments (academic and social) of fellow members.” “A couple of my group members are not punctual. They always have an excuse for their absence which affects our overall group task.” “Being the group leader, I am responsible for sending emails to other group members. Sometimes group members respond very late to the email and also do not answer their mobile phones which shows their non-serious attitude.” “In my group, certain individuals have endless excuses for their absence and for not finishing their given task in time.” |
| Non-serious attitude |
“I felt that some students of the group rely on other students to complete the group tasks. Maybe they were in the group for a ‘free ride’.” “I have a student in my group who is constantly busy with his phone during the discussion which is annoying.” |
Table 5.
Ideas to enhance group learning experience
| Ideas | Quotes from students |
|---|---|
| Group formation |
“Students should be allowed to pair up and assimilate their own group.” “Student input should be considered while making the groups. If someone is not comfortable in her group, then she should be re-allocated to another group.” “I would prefer to select my own group members next year.” |
| Tutor guidance |
“Tutors should be more involved during the session. Their timely guidance is very important for our correct learning.” “I will be more focused on the task if my tutors guide me from time to time and answer my queries” “Tutors should be able to facilitate our group by giving us explicit instructions about the given problem or task in hand.” “Teachers should be more supportive. They should help us in dealing with our problems and also encourage us.” |
| Individual grading |
“I think, all students should be graded individually so that they feel more responsible.” “Although we have both individual and group grading in place, I prefer the individual grading method because it is fairer and just.” |
| Group training |
“There should be dedicated training sessions for the students on developing their teamwork, time management and conflict resolution skills.” “Training workshops are required to prepare students for the formal team-based learning.” |
| Constructive feedback | “Tutors should not only evaluate but also give us feedback on our performance and guide us on how we can improve our learning experience.” |
| Attendance compulsion | “I think, there should be strictness on attendance. Only then the non-serious attitude of some students can be addressed.” |
| Availability of resources |
“The institute should ensure the availability of more resources to facilitate our learning activities.” “The library resources should be improved, especially, the e-learning resources.” |
| Student support system |
“There should be dedicated student support center on campus where students can share their personal and academic problems.” “I want to see a student center which is responsible for student wellbeing.” |
Discussion
A positive learning atmosphere and a cohesive group are known to improve the perceptions of students toward the curriculum and the learning environment [12, 13]. This strengthens the pre-existing theories which argue that the supportive educational environment not only promotes students’ competence but also helps in creating a humanistic orientation in the delivery of healthcare [13]. Therefore, cohesiveness of the team has a significant role in educating students, improving their skills, such as management and leadership, and in creating competent medical doctors [14].
In a medical curriculum, various methods are often tried and tested to support students’ learning. There is a plethora of research confirming the effectiveness of team-based and problem-based learning in health sciences which have been introduced in the hybrid curriculum of our medical school. However, currently, the effectiveness of these newly implemented small group teaching and learning methods was still under question. In this study, we have explored the effectiveness of group functioning by obtaining the perceptions of students involved in these educational activities at IAU. The pre-validated questionnaire that was used for this purpose mainly focuses on how students think about their fellow group members, their group work, and the group dynamic as a whole.
Our results showed an overall positive response of students toward the introduction of collaborative learning instructional design in the hybrid curriculum. Some interesting findings were observed in the agreement level analysis. Students expressed pronounced willingness and flexibility toward working in groups and they preferred group discussions over studying individually to enhance their conceptual understanding. Also, the students strongly believed that they can relate their group work to their future roles as doctors and healthcare providers.
The items that showed significant difference between the groups mostly belong to members and their attitudes within the group. These significant findings suggest that with increased seniority level, the students experience more collegiality, trust, and mutual understanding of each other in group learning. Similarly, a year-wise increment in positive attitude was observed in the overall responses. This increased positive response of fourth-year students as compared with third year and second year can be attributed to their additional experience with group learning and their better adjustment to group dynamics over a period of time. In a recent study, de Hei et al. [15] observed similar kinds of response where senior students recognized more positive learning environment as compared with their juniors. The authors advocated that this difference was primarily because the more experienced students had superior coping skills and a better understanding of the educational environment.
We wanted to look deeper into the group learning process by identifying the factors which could improve or hamper group functioning. Therefore, we placed open-ended questions in the survey. Most of the students responded that they enjoyed working within a group and that they felt relaxed with their group members. The students preferred group learning over individual teaching and learning approaches. Also, students believed that learning with their peers helped them to use their skills and abilities optimally. These observations support the results of previous studies which suggest that group learning is generally a positive experience for students [16–18]. Students also added that group tasks helped them to exchange ideas and think critically over the clinical scenarios presented during problem-based learning sessions.
Nothing is perfect in this world; group learning has its challenges too. Students expressed some criticism, out of which the more pronounced were lack of tutor support, poor student attendance, and non-serious attitude of some students. Some students also expressed their dislike toward group learning activities, finding them time-consuming and restrictive. These findings are in congruence with the research reports of McGraw and Tidwell [19] and Hassanien [20] who expressed that certain problems or challenges do exist in group learning activities. However, students also gave interesting and practical ideas to cater these issues and to enhance the group learning experience. The most notable suggested solutions include tutor training, student training, individual grading, and ensuring student attendance. Students also suggested to establish a student support center which would bolster overall student wellbeing. Moreover, they suggested that the institute should improve the available learning resources including the library, e-learning, and high-speed internet. Additionally, students suggested that self-selection type of group formation will improve their group functioning. However, previous research concluded that the performance of students in self-assigned teams was generally similar to that of the instructor-selected teams [21].
Our findings suggest that group learning will not automatically thrive by placing students in groups and then expecting them to learn together. This study further shows that the initial findings are convincingly positive, yet, there is a room for improvement. An explicit student training program needs to be established to help them in developing their teamwork skillset. These skills include learning collaboratively, setting goals, dividing tasks, performing self-evaluations, resolving conflicts effectively, and using effective communication skills [22]. Another important pillar of team-based learning pedagogy is teachers. Our results, as well as the previous studies, suggest that tutors may not always be prepared to perform their role as small group facilitators and thus require appropriate training [23].
Limitations
The findings of the current study are institute specific and therefore may not be generalizable to other educational contexts. In addition, there might be some cultural bias in our results because Saudi students are usually reluctant in expressing their opinions which could have restricted us in capturing their perceptions about group learning in-depth. Other limitations of this study include lack of analysis of the effects of demographic factors such as age, gender, and nationality on the overall inventory. Another limitation was the overall lower response rate of students which was most likely due to the element of voluntary participation.
Conclusion
This study concludes that the introduction of group learning activities in our hybrid curriculum has remained somewhat successful in promoting group dynamics and in the overall satisfaction of students toward group learning. However, some serious concerns have been noted which will be reported to the concerned committees and suitable actions will be taken to address them. The views of the students recorded in this study will be helpful in creating meaningful and reliable data that will assist in the evaluation of the implemented hybrid curricula and in optimizing the group environment and function.
Authors’ Contribution
MHA: Conception of idea, literature review, manuscript writing, and revision. MZI: Data collection, data analysis, literature review, and manuscript writing.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical review committee of IAU.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statement
This manuscript is an original work and has not been submitted to any other journal in part or full.
Presentation at a Meeting
Nil
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Mona Hmoud AlSheikh, Email: monaalsheikh@gmail.com.
Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Email: drzafariqbal@live.com.
References
- 1.Janssen J. Opening the black box of collaborative learning: a meta-analysis investigating the antecedents and consequences of collaborative interactionReport (no. 411-11-632) Commissioned by NWO-PROO and NRO. Utrecht: University of Utrecht; 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jackson D, Hickman LD, Power T, Disler R, Potgieter I, Deek H, et al. Small group learning: graduate health students’ views of challenges and benefits. Contemp Nurse. 2014;48(1):117–128. doi: 10.1080/10376178.2014.11081933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Edmunds S, Brown G. Effective small group learning: AMEE guide no. 48. Med Teach. 2010;32(9):715–726. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.505454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bate E, Hommes J, Duvivier R, Taylor DCM. Problem-based learning (PBL): getting the most out of your students - their roles and responsibilities: AMEE Guide No. 84. Med Teach. 2014;36(1):1–12. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.848269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Holen AR. The PBL group: self-reflections and feedback for improved learning and growth. Med Teach. 2000;22(5):485–488. doi: 10.1080/01421590050110768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dolmans D, Michaelsen L, Van Merrienboer J, van der Vleuten C. Should we choose between problem-based learning and team-based learning? No, combine the best of both worlds! Med Teach. 2015;37(4):354–359. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.948828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mullen B, Copper C. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: an integration. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(2):210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.de Hei M, Strijbos JW, Sjoer E, Admiraal W. Thematic review of approaches to design group learning activities in higher education: the development of a comprehensive framework. Educ Res Rev. 2016;18:33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Roff S, McAleer S, Harden RM, Al-Qahtani M, Ahmed AU, Deza H, et al. Development and validation of the Dundee ready education environment measure (DREEM) Med Teach. 1997;19(4):295–299. doi: 10.3109/01421599709034208. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Morris H, Batchelder A. The development of an inventory to explore study group function. Med Sci Educ. 2018;28(4):707–714. doi: 10.1007/s40670-018-0617-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Vaughan B, Carter A, Macfarlane C, Morrison T. The DREEM, part 1: measurement of the educational environment in an osteopathy teaching program. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):99. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ortega JB, Pérez CV, Ortiz LM, Fasce EH, McColl PC, Torres GA, et al. An assessment of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) in Chilean university students. Rev Med Chil. 2015;143(5):651–657. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872015000500013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kelly M, Bennett D, Muijtjens A, O’Flynn S, Dornan T. Can less be more? Comparison of an 8-item placement quality measure with the 50-item Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM) Adv Health Sci Educ. 2015;20(4):1027–1032. doi: 10.1007/s10459-015-9582-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ungaretti T, Thompson KR, Miller A, Peterson TO. Problem-based learning: lessons from medical education and challenges for management education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2015;14(2):173–186. doi: 10.5465/amle.2013.0245. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.de Hei M, Admiraal W, Sjoer E, Strijbos JW. Group learning activities and perceived learning outcomes. Stud High Educ. 2017;5079(May 2017):1–17. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Barfield RL. Students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with group grades and the group experience in the college classroom. Assess Eval High Educ. 2003;28(4):355–370. doi: 10.1080/0260293032000066191. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Mills P. Group project work with undergraduate veterinary science students. Assess Eval High Educ. 2003;28(5):527–538. doi: 10.1080/02602930301676. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gupta ML. Enhancing student performance through cooperative learning in physical sciences. Assess Eval High Educ. 2004;29(1):63–73. doi: 10.1080/0260293032000158162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.McGraw P, Tidwell A. Teaching group process skills to MBA students: a short workshop. Educ Train. 2001;43(3):162–171. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005461. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hassanien A. A qualitative student evaluation of group learning in higher education. High Educ Eur. 2007;32(2–3):135–150. doi: 10.1080/03797720701840633. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wolfe K, Lee K-E, C-ME W, Gould R. An assessment of self-selected versus instructor-assigned teams in an introductory tourism course. J Teach Travel Tour. 2003;3(3):1–18. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ashman A, Gillies R. Cooperative learning: the social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups: Routledge; 2003.
- 23.Iqbal MZ, Al-Eraky MM, AlSheikh MH. Designing entrustable professional activities for training health professional educators: a review of current practices. Med Sci Educ. 2018;28(4):797–802. doi: 10.1007/s40670-018-0623-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]