Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35272639›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2022

Collaborative learning in small groups in an online course - a case study.

Mildrid Jorunn Haugland, Ivar Rosenberg, Katrine Aasekjær

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mildrid Jorunn HauglandFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Department of Health and Functioning, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences/Høgskulen på Vestlandet, Inndalsveien 28, 5063, Bergen, Norway. mha@hvl.no.
Ivar RosenbergFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Academic Affairs, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences/Høgskulen på Vestlandet, Inndalsveien 28, 5063, Bergen, Norway.
Katrine AasekjærFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Department of Health and Caring Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences/Høgskulen på Vestlandet, Inndalsveien 28, 5063, Bergen, Norway.
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ability to learn collaboratively and work in teams is an essential competency in both educational and healthcare settings, and collaborative student activities are acknowledged as being an important part of the pedagogical approach in higher education and teaching. The course that was the focus of this research, a 15-ECTS-credit online course in philosophy of science, ethics, and research methods, was offered online as part of 11 master's-level health programmes at a university in Norway. Collaborative learning in combination with digital teaching tools was the preferred pedagogical approach in the online course. The aim of the study was to describe, explore and discuss how the students collaborated in small groups in an online course to learn.

methodsWe performed six focus groups and 13 individual interviews from February 2018 to May 2019, conducting a qualitative case study with a content analysis of the data collected. The participants were master students in the same faculty at a university in Norway. All the included participants had fulfilled the 15 ECTS credit course.

resultsOur study revealed that the collaboration in small groups resulted in three different working processes, depending on the students' ability to be flexible and take responsibility for their own and common learning. The three different working processes that emerged from our data were 1. joint responsibility - flexible organization; 2. individual responsibility - flexible organization; and 3. individual responsibility - unorganized. None of the groups changed their working process during their course, even though some experienced their strategy as inadequate.

conclusionsOur study showed that despite similar factors such as context, assignments and student autonomy, the students chose different collaboration strategies to accomplish the online course learning objectives. Each group chose their own working process, but only the strategy 1. joint responsibility - flexible organization seemed to promote collaboration, discussion, and team work to complete the complex assignments in the online course. The result from our study may be helpful in designing and planning future online courses; hence online learning requires a focus on how students collaborate and learn online, to gain knowledge and understanding through group discussion.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceInterdisciplinary PlacementFacultyHumansLearningStudentsCase studyCollaborative learningOnline courseQualitative studySmall groupWorking process

Identifiers

PMID35272639
PMCPMC8908554
OpenAlexW4221036358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.