gms | German Medical Science

Introduction: Doctors and scientists educate students as it is their duty according to the NKLM (National Competence Based Catalogues of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Education). Two widespread teaching formats are interactive learning seminars (ILS) and problem based learning (PBL). In both formats, teachers play a key role concerning group functioning, yet there are differences. In PBL, tutors are required to hold back, thus the group has to coordinate most of its learning process. ILS teachers determine learning contents and guide the group through the session. They may have more influence but often oversee larger groups. At the Ruhr-University Bochum, doctors and scientists teach in PBL and ILS (in Physiology) over the first two years of the medical course. Group size is 10 students in PBL, 20 in ILS.

Objective: This study examines the influence of teachers on group functioning at different workplaces as perceived by students. Observation units are PBL groups and Physiology ILS groups.

Methods: Data on tutors' and teachers' influence and group functioning was collected by means of questionnaires from 261 first year medical students. All students participated in both formats. Group functioning was defined as productivity (P), member-support (MS) and well-being (WB) [1]. All items were measured with a five-step Likert scale, from 0 (do not agree at all), to 4 (agree totally). Data was analyzed using Kendall's tau b coefficient and Mann-Whitney U-test, where appropriate.

Results: Means: PBL-Tutors' influence: P=1.9; MS=2.0; WB=2.0. ILS-Teachers' influence: P=1.8; MS=1.5; WB=1.3. Differences were significant (p<0.001). In ILS, influence was only mild but positively associated with P. MS and WB were fairly independent. In PBL, tutors' influence was higher, however of less relevance as group functioning was high overall. There was significant correlation between the influence in PBL and ILS (r=0.15-0.35; p<0.001).

Conclusion: We found that in the ILS setting teachers have less impact, although they are supposed to guide groups stronger than PBL tutors. Their influence is observable for productivity, though low for well-being and member-support. This might be due to group size and responsibility for learning contents yet less for group climate. PBL tutors have a positive influence on all items. However up to one third of the students considers group functioning high without tutorial support or, precisely, because the tutor holds back. It is to consider that the degree of influence correlates between settings. This indicates that perceived influence might also depend on individual factors.