Does your group matter? How group function impacts educational outcomes in problem-based learning: a scoping review

10Citations
Citations of this article
103Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Problem-based learning (PBL) is a common instructional method in undergraduate health professions training. Group interactions with and within PBL curricula may influence learning outcomes, yet few studies have synthesized the existing evidence. This scoping review summarized the literature examining the influence of group function on individual student PBL outcomes. Following Kirkpatrick’s framework, experiential, academic, and behavioral outcomes were considered. The impacts of three aspects of group function were explored: (1) Group Composition (identities and diversity), (2) Group Processes (conduct and climate, motivation and confidence, and facilitation), and (3) PBL Processes (tutorial activities). Methods: A literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, and APA PsychInfo from 1980–2021, with the help of a librarian. English-language empirical studies and reviews that related group function to learning outcome, as defined, in undergraduate health professions PBL curricula were included. Relevant references from included articles were also added if eligibility criteria were met. The methods, results, discussions, and limitations of the sample were summarized narratively. Results: The final sample (n = 48) varied greatly in context, design, and results. Most studies examined junior medical students (n = 32), used questionnaires for data collection (n = 29), and reported immediate cross-sectional outcomes (n = 34). Group Processes was the most frequently examined aspect of group function (n = 29), followed by Group Composition (n = 26) and PBL Processes (n = 12). The relationships between group function and outcomes were not consistent across studies. PBL experiences were generally highly rated, but favorable student experiences were not reliable indicators of better academic or behavioral outcomes. Conversely, problematic group behaviors were not predictors of poorer grades. Common confounders of outcome measurements included exam pressure and self-study. Conclusions: The main findings of the review suggested that (1) group function is more predictive of experiential than academic or behavioral PBL outcomes, and (2) different Kirkpatrick levels of outcomes are not highly correlated to each other. More research is needed to understand the complexity of group function in PBL tutorials under variable study contexts and better inform curricular training and design. Standardized tools for measuring PBL group function may be required for more conclusive findings.

References Powered by Scopus

PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation

19675Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?

2839Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A taxonomy of problem‐based learning methods

1224Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Escape the Desert Island: Blended Escape Rooms in the First-Semester Problem-Based Learning

11Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Effectiveness of flipped classroom in pharmacy education – a meta-analysis

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Fostering creativity in kindergarten: The impact of collaborative project-based learning

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, A., Bilgic, E., Keuhl, A., & Sibbald, M. (2022). Does your group matter? How group function impacts educational outcomes in problem-based learning: a scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03966-8

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 9

35%

Lecturer / Post doc 7

27%

Researcher 6

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

15%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 12

57%

Social Sciences 5

24%

Business, Management and Accounting 2

10%

Computer Science 2

10%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free