Elaboration during problem-based group discussion: effects on recall for high and low ability students

Effective Learning in Virtual Conferences: The Application of Five Principles of Learning

In this article, we examine the adaptation of learning among scientists and healthcare professionals in conferences and symposia from face-to-face to fully virtual meetings accelerated in the last years. Advantages and limitations for both settings have been described in different research studies but the effectiveness of learning can be reflected similarly by applying five fundamental principles of learning, which are based on empirical research in cognitive psychology. From a practical context, we compared the individual learning outcomes from two satellite symposia conducted face-to-face in 2019 and virtually in 2021 at the European Congress of Urology, EAU. Although both conference formats were almost identical, the five principles of learning were applied in both symposia. There were also some differences due to adaptation to online conferences, and our findings suggest that the virtual conference was perceived as significantly more effective than the face-to-face conference on all five criteria, and digital learning is a valid alternative to face-to-face conferences. What still needs to be better understood and analysed is the informal learning that is taking place during conferences, but suggesting an active design of any digital event by combining "technical literacy· with "learning literacy" will enable us to better analyse and study the impact of learning using the five learning principles in the design of other events in the future.

Group interaction in problem-based learning tutorials: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This review aimed at identifying studies on group interaction in problem-based learning (PBL) and elucidate methods used, factors affecting group interaction and the relationship between interaction and student's learning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and HighWire were searched (January 1999 to June 2013) using a combination of pre-specified search terms. The search words were also used in searching nine journals in dental and medical education. Also edited research books on PBL were searched. Both qualitative and descriptive studies of group interaction were selected and critically appraised.

RESULTS

Finally, 42 of 10,606 papers were included (35 journal articles and seven from research books). The materials used in assessing group interaction varied depending on the methodology design. Forty-three percent of the studies used video recording to evaluate group interaction. Other studies used indirect approaches such as focus groups, interviews and questionnaires. Factors affecting group interactions were students' and tutors' perceptions, tutor's subject-matter expertise, training students, tutor's group dynamics. There was no conclusive evidence about the impact of interaction in PBL on learning. Most studies were from medicine (64%), and 35 papers were published in the last 10 years. The majority of studies were conducted in Europe, North America and Asia.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is a progressive increase in publications on PBL group interaction during the last 10 years, there are knowledge gaps and deficiencies in this area and most studies are lacking solid theoretical basis and are descriptive. There is a deficiency in the literature in this area from dentistry and other allied health disciplines.

Effects of learning content in context on knowledge acquisition and recall: a pretest-posttest control group design

BACKGROUND

It is generally assumed that learning in context increases performance. This study investigates the relationship between the characteristics of a paper-patient context (relevance and familiarity), the mechanisms through which the cognitive dimension of context could improve learning (activation of prior knowledge, elaboration and increasing retrieval cues), and test performance.

METHODS

A total of 145 medical students completed a pretest of 40 questions, of which half were with a patient vignette. One week later, they studied musculoskeletal anatomy in the dissection room without a paper-patient context (control group) or with (ir)relevant-(un)familiar context (experimental groups), and completed a cognitive load scale. Following a short delay, the students completed a posttest.

RESULTS

Surprisingly, our results show that students who studied in context did not perform better than students who studied without context. This finding may be explained by an interaction of the participants' expertise level, the nature of anatomical knowledge and students' approaches to learning. A relevant-familiar context only reduced the negative effect of learning the content in context. Our results suggest discouraging the introduction of an uncommon disease to illustrate a basic science concept. Higher self-perceived learning scores predict higher performance. Interestingly, students performed significantly better on the questions with context in both tests, possibly due to a 'framing effect'.

CONCLUSIONS

Since studies focusing on the physical and affective dimensions of context have also failed to find a positive influence of learning in a clinically relevant context, further research seems necessary to refine our theories around the role of context in learning.

Challenging students to formulate written questions: a randomized controlled trial to assess learning effects

BACKGROUND

Underutilization of dialogue among students during small-group work is a threat to active meaningful learning. To encourage small-group learning, we challenged students to generate written questions during a small-group work session. As gender differences have been shown to affect learning, these were also inventoried.

METHODS

Prospective randomized study during a bachelor General Pathology course including 459 (bio) medical students, 315 females and 144 males. The intervention was to individually generate an extra written question on disease mechanisms, followed by a selection, by each student group, of the two questions considered to be most relevant. These selected questions were open for discussion during the subsequent interactive lecture. Outcome measure was the score on tumour pathology (range 1-10) on the course examination; the effect of gender was assessed.

RESULTS

The mean score per student was 7.2 (intervention) and 6.9 (control; p = 0.22). Male students in the intervention group scored 0.5 point higher than controls (p = 0.05). In female students, this was only 0.1 point higher (p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Formulating and prioritizing an extra written question during small-group work seems to exert a positive learning effect on male students. This is an interesting approach to improve learning in male students, as they generally tend to perform less well than their female colleagues.