Learning processes in formal groups.

<p><i>This Figure depicts mean perceptions of the four parameters for effective group processes. These learning processes were assessed in two modules in the second curriculum year. The * represents a difference from the control group with a p-value≤0.05. The arrow represents a significant difference when both intervention groups were combined to improve power and overcome the low number of students in the intervention groups in year 2 (approximately 40 students). Please note that Y-axis starts at 4 since this was ‘neutral’ on the scale.</i></p

Learning in formal groups over time: a problem of power?

<p><i>Since the subsets of the class (A and B) are composed of only approximately 40 students in curriculum year 2, the lack of power could explain why differences between the control group and the subsets of the classes did not reach significance in year 2. Therefore, the intervention groups were combined in the analyses of the modules in the second year. Again, the control group (C) is compared to the intervention groups (A+B) and the non-randomised student group (nR).</i></p><p><i>*signifies p-value≤0.05.</i></p

Medical Students Perceive Better Group Learning Processes when Large Classes Are Made to Seem Small

<div><p>Objective</p><p>Medical schools struggle with large classes, which might interfere with the effectiveness of learning within small groups due to students being unfamiliar to fellow students. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of making a large class <i>seem</i> small on the students' collaborative learning processes.</p><p>Design</p><p>A randomised controlled intervention study was undertaken to make a large class seem small, without the need to reduce the number of students enrolling in the medical programme. The class was divided into subsets: two small subsets (n = 50) as the intervention groups; a control group (n = 102) was mixed with the remaining students (the non-randomised group n∼100) to create one large subset.</p><p>Setting</p><p>The undergraduate curriculum of the Maastricht Medical School, applying the Problem-Based Learning principles. In this learning context, students learn mainly in tutorial groups, composed randomly from a large class every 6–10 weeks.</p><p>Intervention</p><p>The formal group learning activities were organised within the subsets. Students from the intervention groups met frequently within the formal groups, in contrast to the students from the large subset who hardly enrolled with the same students in formal activities.</p><p>Main Outcome Measures</p><p>Three outcome measures assessed students' group learning processes over time: learning within formally organised small groups, learning with other students in the informal context and perceptions of the intervention.</p><p>Results</p><p>Formal group learning processes were perceived more positive in the intervention groups from the second study year on, with a mean increase of β = 0.48. Informal group learning activities occurred almost exclusively within the subsets as defined by the intervention from the first week involved in the medical curriculum (E-I indexes>−0.69). Interviews tapped mainly positive effects and negligible negative side effects of the intervention.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Better group learning processes can be achieved in large medical schools by making large classes seem small.</p></div

Effect sizes of the learning processes in formal groups over time.

<p><i>Hierarchical cross-classified data analyses reveal that the intervention groups A and B perceive higher group learning processes in curriculum year 2 compared to the control group (C) at observation 0, the start of the module. GLB: Group learning behaviour, Potency: Group Potency, Cohesion: Social cohesion, Safety: Psychological Safety. Effect sizes are given in regression coefficients, with standard errors between brackets. Obs 0: starting point in the module. Slope: increase (β) between the start and the end of the module. C = control group, A & B are the intervention groups (small subsets), and nR is the non-randomised group of students.</i></p><p><i>*signifies p-value≤0.05.</i></p

Overview of the randomised controlled trial allocation procedure and intervention.

<p>The class of 2010–2011 was randomised into two intervention groups (A and B) with 50 students in each subset and the control <i>group (n = 102). The control group was mixed with the non-randomised students representing the large subset of the class. The intervention consisted of allocating students within the subsets of the class to new tutorial groups while progressing through the curriculum. This way, students in the small subsets frequently interacted with the same students over time.</i></p

How 38 students from the intervention groups perceived the intervention.

<p>How 38 students from the intervention groups perceived the intervention.</p

Overview of the instrument assessment over time.

<p><i>Students progressed through six modules every study year. Formal interaction was assessed in the first tutorial group (M1 and M2; since the composition of first two modules did not change), the second tutorial group (M3) and in year two the second and penultimate tutorial groups (M2 and M5 in curriculum year two). The assessment consisted of two observations within the module, indicated as * in the orange boxes. The first observation took place in the second week of the tutorial group and the second in the penultimate week. Informal learning in social networks was assessed during the first three modules in the first year and during two modules in the second study year (T1–T5). Finally, semi-structured interviews assessed the perceptions of the intervention during M2 and M6 of the second curriculum year.</i></p

Students learn primarily within the subsets of the class in the informal context.

<p><i>The E-I indexes show strong internal orientations when interacting in the informal context over time in three networks (friendship, giving and getting module-related information). The large subset is composed of a mixed group of students from the control group and the non-randomised group. All E-I indexes are significantly different (p<0.05) from H₀ hypothesis E = I.</i></p

Characteristics of the students in the subsets.

<p>202 students <i>were randomised in three groups using stratification on the Grade Point Average (GPA). Students in the non-randomised group differed from the control group in the GPA and age respectively.</i></p><p><i>*β = −0.53 SE = 0.17 p = 0.002.</i></p><p><i>**β = 0.68 SE = 0.20 p = 0.001.</i></p><p><i>n/a signifies ‘not applicable’. Re-takers of modules were automatically placed in the non-randomised group of students. Therefore, the number of this non-randomised group changed continuously and loss-to-follow-up could not be calculated. Moreover, students that stopped participating in the intervention or control groups were allocated to the non-randomised group of students.</i></p