ArticleMedical education online2022
Determinants of peer selection for collaborative group work of third-year bachelor students in a medical degree programme with learning communities.
Article in Medical education online, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The social capital theory reveals the importance of peer relationships on students' learning. However, it is unclear how students select their collaborators under the influence of their previous collaborations and backgrounds. This study explores to what extent students' free selection choices for collaborators among their peers are based on previous collaboration in formally structured groups (i.e., learning communities (LCs)) and based on different students' background characteristics. A parallel program was studied where students studied in one of four LCs for two years and after that, they have to find their own group members within or across LCs to finish their bachelor thesis in the third year. In total, 1152 students' selections of their peers were analyzed. This paper presents the percentages of students choosing group members within or across LCs. It also considered the influence of students' backgrounds, like sex, nationality, and academic performances on their peerchoices by logistic regression analysis. More than half of the students chose group members within their own LC, regardless of which LC they were in. Although the majority of the students chose collaborators within their own LC, still around 40% of students were willing to collaborate with others from different LCs with whom they had never collaborated before in the formal curriculum. Students' backgrounds (i.e., sex, and academic performance) were also associated with their decisions. A high frequency of collaboration within formally structured groups enhances the students' preference of group members from the same groups, but also informal peer relationships are crucial in students' choices for collaboration. Students' sex and academic performance influence their free choice of group members while nationality does not. Students with different academic levels have a higher chance to become group members when they collaborated before in formally structured groups than those students who had not had such a collaboration experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.