Group learning setting

Guiding questions:

Should students work individually on VPs or in groups?
If in groups, how large should the groups be?
If in groups, what should be the group composition?

Interaction is key when learning clinical reasoning using VPs. Some students appreciate discussing VPs with their peers and teachers [Nagji 2020], whereas some prefer to interact with the technology while working with VPs individually. Both scenarios are possible in VPs [Edelbring 2012] and based on our experiences it will depend on the purpose of VPs and learner’s preferences. In some settings, self-directed individual learning might be necessary because of limited opportunities for small-group learning [Johnson 2014]. Yet, there are many advantages of working in small groups. In fact, a meta-analysis of 122 studies (not limited to VPs) found that collaborative learning is more effective on several cognitive, process and affective outcomes in diverse disciplines like health, math or physics, than individual learning [Lou 2001]. Furthermore, working in small groups enables open discussion in a supportive learning environment [Naumann 2016]. Students who solved VPs in teams achieved significantly greater learning gains, better diagnosed cranial nerve palsies and were more satisfied than students working individually [Johnson 2013, Johnson 2014]. Also Cendan et al. found that students in a group of 3 learn more compared to those working with VPs individually. They hypothesized that this performance improvement is related to a lower cognitive load effect on the group users [Cendan 2012]. Working in groups fosters skills in clinical reasoning, but also in team collaboration [Naumann 2016], allowing the application of cooperative learning strategies [Huwendiek 2008]. The VPs designed for group work can be of lower complexity since the reflection and reasoning will come from the interaction inside of the collaborative working experience [Edelbring 2011, Ellaway 2015].

Regarding group sizes, even though there are examples of use of VPs in large groups like lectures [Hooper 2015], smaller groups are advised as they increase the exposure of each student to VPs and impose greater responsibility to each student [Edelbring 2012]. The literature does not specifically define “small groups”. According to Edelbring et al., students felt that working in pairs broadened their reasoning the most when compared to individual and larger groups [Edelbring 2011]. Poulton et al. report that the use of VPs in digital problem-based learning sessions with 6-8 students was accompanied by good performance improvement outcomes [Poulton 2014]. Facing the lack of clear preferences in the literature, we recommend adjusting the decision to local settings.

We did not find firm evidence on how the group composition in student groups working on VPs should look like. Johnson et al. hypothesize, based on Vygotsky’s Zone of proximal development theory, that groups should contain a balanced mix of high and low-performing students [Johnson 2014]. Those struggling with the tasks would be supported in learning by better performing ones. This is indirectly confirmed by their observations that students who had scored low in pretests benefited more from working in teams on VPs than from working individually [Johnson 2013, Johnson 2014]. Another opportunity that comes from working on VPs in teams with specified roles is the development of interprofessional collaboration skills. The feasibility and educational gains of such educational scenarios in teams consisting of medical, nursing, pharmacy, physical and occupational therapy students have been demonstrated in several studies [Shoemaker 2015, Martini 2019, Edelbring 2022].

In summary, we would like to encourage the use of VPs by students for small group learning, but at the same time notice that VPs are flexible enough to be used in various scenarios including individual work in self-study scenarios.

Recommendations:
– Students who solved VPs in groups achieve significantly greater learning gains, diagnose better, and are more satisfied than students working individually.
– When working with VPs small groups are advisable, but the specific number of participants varies from 2-8 students.
– In terms of group composition you can be flexible depending on your needs and possibilities.

Phase of the curriculum	4th year of medical school
Goal in the curriculum	The iCoViP collection was implemented to practice selected VPs in the subject of Occupational Medicine (a voluntary subject in the University of Zaragoza in the 4th year of medical school).
Effective use of resources	The collection was used asynchronously so it was not necessary to have a computer infrastructure or a specific room and all students in Spain have laptops or access to the medical school computers. However, issue of updating content not yet solved.
VP alignment	The collection is used while students are doing their clinical placements having a teacher revising the responses and explaining to students most frequent mistakes.
Prioritization/relevance	For Occupational Medicine, the use of the iCoViP collection was a mandatory assignment needed to pass, but did not add points to the final grade.
Relation to other learning activities	None
Time allocation	One week was given to complete the assignment but more time was available for those who wanted to do the activity remote from home.
Group allocation	Students worked alone at home, when the educator discussed the solution of the VP, it was allocated in class (face-to-face or online).
Presence mode	Asynchronous
Technical Integration	It was integrated into Moodle.
VP use orientation/training	VPs were related to a specialty of medicine, but were randomly assigned to students regardless of where in the specialty they were rotating at the time.
Technical infrastructure	We used the technical infrastructure of the iCoViP project without any additions at the University of Zaragoza.
Learning activities around VPs	The teacher explained each VP and how to resolve them after getting the responses of all the students.
Assessment	Students had to complete the VPs, but there was no grade at the end. Only credit (pass/fail).
Quality assurance, maintenance, and sustainability	Frequent revision of the VPs by medical doctors.

Phase of the curriculum	Year 3 and 4 of medical school
Goal in the curriculum	Students learn basic steps of clinical reasoning including identifying relevant findings, developing differential diagnoses, deciding about a final diagnosis, ordering tests to rule out / confirm differentials, and suggesting treatment options.
Effective use of resources	Course tutors needed time to familiarize themselves with the VPs and time had to be planned during the synchronous meetings to discuss the VPs
VP alignment	VPs were part of the modules (e.g. Abdomen, cardiovascular system, pulmonary system, etc.) in year 3 and 4 of medical school and aligned with the objectives of these modules based on key symptoms. In addition a pool of 41 VPs was available for deliberate practice across key symptoms and diagnoses.
Time allocation	5 VPs / module
Group allocation	Students could choose whether to work in groups or individually.
Presence mode	Students could decide when and where to work on the VPs during the period of the module.
Technical Integration	VPs were integrated into the school's learning management system Moodle via a SingleSignOn interface.
VP use orientation/training	No specific familiarization, but general introduction at the beginning of year 3.
Learning activities around VPs	Depending on the modules other learning activities were embedded.
Assessment	The topics of the VPs were part of modules assessment.
Quality assurance, maintenance, and sustainability	We used the built-in feedback functionality to receive qualitative feedback from students and VPs were part of the regular evaluation activities of the medical school.

Phase of the curriculum	Year 1 and 2 of medical school
Goal in the curriculum	Students learn basic steps of clinical reasoning such as identifying & prioritizing findings and composing a summary statement. They also can follow the reasoning process of the VP author concerning differential diagnoses, ordered tests, and treatments.
Effective use of resources	Course tutors needed time to familiarize themselves with the VPs and time had to be planned during the synchronous meetings to discuss the VPs.
VP alignment	VPs were part of the longitudinal clinical course and aligned with the other modules in year 1 and 2 (In case of Augsburg this was Contact, Movement, and equilibrium). We aligned the key symptoms of the VPs with these modules, so that students worked in parallel on these VPs and the corresponding module.
Time allocation	15 VPs over two years / 5 VPs per module.
Group allocation	Students could choose whether to work in groups or individually.
Presence mode	Students could decide when and where to work on the VPs during the period of the module.
Technical Integration	VPs were integrated into the school's learning management system Moodle via a SingleSignOn interface.
VP use orientation/training	At the beginning of year 1 students were introduced into clinical reasoning and how they can train this ability with VPs.
Learning activities around VPs	Depending on the key symptoms during the longitudinal clinical course other learning activities were embedded.
Assessment	The topics of the VPs were part of the clinical longitudinal course assessment.
Quality assurance, maintenance, and sustainability	We used the built-in feedback functionality to receive qualitative feedback from students and VPs were part of the regular evaluation activities of the medical school.

Phase of the curriculum	Basic sciences/pre-clinical years: - At Jagiellonian University Medical College in Kraków we have integrated it in the “Introduction to Clinical Sciences” course in 2nd year of medicine. - At University of Porto in the “Propedeutics/Semiology” course in the 3rd year of medicine.
Goal in the curriculum	- To provide the students with an opportunity to challenge their knowledge at home in between classes with an interactive, clinical-oriented task. - To support learning by linking basic science knowledge with clinical reasoning. Students had the opportunity to practice on undiagnosed cases the skill of differentiating common symptoms, such as dyspnea, abdominal pain, headache.
Effective use of resources	Use of iCoViP VPs in native language of the students. No extra cost needed.
VP alignment	- In Kraków we have selected a few VPs (seven) with common diseases (e.g. pneumonia, pancreatitis, pulmonary embolism) with common symptoms. - In Porto, VPs are chosen according to the common symptoms to promote clinical reasoning.
Prioritization/relevance	- In Kraków the completion of all VPs is mandatory. - In Porto, VPs are introduced on a voluntary basis and are available on demand.
Relation to other learning activities	We used the time students had at home between seminars (Kraków: between on-campus based PBL sessions). VPs were spaced-activated (a new VP appeared biweekly synchronized with changing topics of the PBL seminars that focus on different leading symptoms).
Time allocation	Around 30 minutes biweekly, repeated 7 times in a semester.
Group allocation	Students worked alone at home to reflect but could consult the VPs with their peers or instructors in small groups of the face-to-face PBL seminars.
Presence mode	Students worked on the VPs asynchronously and self-directed at home to have time to reflect and consult textbooks.
Technical Integration	VPs were integrated with a course to which all students were enrolled on the official university learning management system Moodle using Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) interface.
VP use orientation/training	Students were provided with an introductory email with instructions and had additionally the opportunity to technically practice using CASUS in a parallel “Telemedicine” (Medical informatics) course. Instructors received test-codes to practice the VPs at home.
Technical infrastructure	Students used their own computers from home. An email address was provided to a person responsible for technical support.
Learning activities around VPs	Students were asked to complete concept maps for all VPs they solve. Moreover, in Kraków students were provided with links to additional online articles to help them with topics difficult at this stage of education.
Assessment	Students were asked to complete the cases prior to the end of the term. They were not given grades for the activity - just credit. Their answers were randomly inspected to see common mistakes and provide general feedback to all students.
Quality assurance, maintenance, and sustainability	We checked the diagnostic accuracy of individual cases (and detected one case with imprecise diagnosis). Students evaluated the course using the iCoViP case collection evaluation questionnaire.

Group learning setting

Leave a comment Cancel reply