How to configure blended problem based learning–Results of a randomized trial

Figures & data

Table

Practice points

bPBL is an adequate alternative to cPBL bPBL should concentrate on technically fostering the group process bPBL best profits from supporting asynchronous communication (here: Wiki) Chat and IDC do not yield further improvements of bPBL if a Wiki is available and cannot compensate for its absence

Table 1.  Overview of the results

Hypothesis	Wiki	Chat	IDC
Better learning effect	✓	−	−
Better communication	✓	−	Ø
Better collaborative effect	✓	−	Ø
Higher amount of satisfaction	✓	−	−
More specific diagnostic approach	Ø	Ø	✓/−
More realistic bPBL	Ø	Ø	−

Note: Notice that the table refers to each eLearning component in every combination in comparison to non-component groups.

✓, hypothesis proven; −, hypothesis not proven; ø, does not apply.

Figure 1. Distribution of participants: the participants (n = 237) are divided into cPBL (n = 99) and bPBL (n = 138).

Figure 2. Distribution of course configurations: the figure shows the distribution of the eLearning components Wiki, Chat, and IDC within the bPBL groups.

Figure 3. Evaluation flow chart: the chronological order of the evaluation-interventions is shown.

Table 2.  Comparison of learning effects: p-values

Mann–Whitney U test: two-sided significance	Difficulty of the case	Acceptance of the case's difficulty	Feeling to have covered everything	Preparedness for the exam	Right diagnosis (%)	Number of right answers (maximum five) in the self-test
Wiki
Group only with Wiki vs. bPBL negative control	0.044	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
Group only with Wiki vs. all other bPBL groups	0.001	>0.1	>0.1	0.093	>0.1	>0.1
All groups with Wiki vs. all groups without Wiki	0.002	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
Chat
Group only with Chat vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
Group only with Chat vs. all other bPBL groups	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
All groups with Chat vs. All groups without Chat	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	0.006	0.070	0.082
IDC
Group only with IDC vs. bPBL negative control	0.012	0.002	>0.1	0.064	>0.1	0.049
Group only with IDC vs. all other eGroups	0.001	0.007	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
All groups with IDC vs. All groups without IDC	0.004	0.020	0.098	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1

Note: Underlined values signify α < 5% and italic values signify α < 10.

Table 3.  Self-assessment of all bPBL groups: Mean(SD) on a five-point scale from 1to 5

Item	Pre start	Retrospective	Post course
Movement physiology	2.17 (0.895)	2.22 (0.801)	2.57 (0.877)
Genetics in pediatrics	2.19 (0.943)	2.23 (0.974)	2.72 (0.942)
Diagnostic of ataxias	1.42 (0.544)	1.80 (0.822)	2.91 (0.935)
Differential diagnosis of movement disorders	1.73 (0.766)	2.15 (0.848)	2.88 (0.931)
Structured diagnostic approach	2.36 (1.019)	2.95 (1.035)	3.34 (0.935)

Note: All numbers were rounded to the hundredth.

Table 4.  Friedman test for the H0-hypothesis: The self-assessments (I) pre start, (II), retrospective, and (III) post course are equal

	Movement physiology	Genetics in pediatrics	Diagnostic of ataxias	Differential diagnosis of movement disorders	Structured diagnostic approach
bPBL groups	0.001	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
cPBL groups	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Wiki groups	0.007	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Non-Wiki groups	0.125	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Chat groups	0.003	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Non-chat groups	0.162	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
IDC groups	0.099	0.001	0.000	0.000	0.000
Non-IDC groups	0.013	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
Wiki and Chat group	0.021	0.044	0.001	0.003	0.006
Wiki and IDC group	0.264	0.368	0.047	0.039	0.116
Chat and IDC group	0.174	0.368	0.002	0.001	0.001
Only Wiki group	0.943	0.085	0.004	0.097	0.050
Only Chat group	0.472	0.066	0.048	0.048	0.050
Only IDC group	0.097	0.012	0.002	0.005	0.012

Note: Underlined values signify α ≤ 5%.

Table 5.  Comparison of communication: p-values

Mann–Whitney U test: two-sided significance	Online communication	Adequacy of the time needed to operate communication	Organization of work flow via communication	Density of the communication within the program	Longevity of information communicated within the program	Comparison of the organization achieved in bPBL to cPBL
Wiki
Group only with Wiki vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	>0.1	0.066	>0.1	>0.1	0.001
Group only with Wiki vs. all other bPBL groups	>0.1	0.005	0.005	0.032	0.040	0.000
All groups with Wiki vs. all groups without Wiki	>0.1	0.063	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	0.007
Chat
Group only with Chat vs. bPBL negative control	0.005	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
Group only with Chat vs. all other bPBL groups	0.035	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	0.042
All groups with Chat vs. All groups without Chat	>0.1	0.014	0.007	>0.1	0.062	0.019
IDC
Group only with IDC vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	0.047
Group only with IDC vs. all other eGroups	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	0.058	>0.1	0.078
All groups with IDC vs. all groups without IDC	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1

Note: Underlined values signify α < 5% and italic values signify α < 10.

Table 6.  Comparison of collaboration and satisfaction: p-values

Mann–Whitney U test: two-sided significance	Cooperation within the group	Overall grade in German school grades (1 –6 )
cPBL vs. bPBL	>0.1	0.000
Wiki
Group only with Wiki vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	>0.1
Group only with Wiki vs. all other bPBL groups	>0.1	0.001
All groups with Wiki vs. all groups without Wiki	>0.1	>0.1
Chat
Group only with Chat vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	0.026
Group only with Chat vs. all other bPBL groups	0.000	0.063
All groups with Chat vs. all groups without Chat	0.001	0.000
IDC
Group only with IDC vs. bPBL negative control	0.068	0.002
Group only with IDC vs. all other eGroups	>0.1	0.070
All groups with IDC vs. all groups without IDC	>0.1	>0.1

Note: Underlined values signify α < 5% and italic values signify α < 10.

Table 7.  Comparison of diagnostic approach: p-values

Mann–Whitney U test: two-sided significance	Amount of selectivity during the diagnostic process	Influence of the costs of a diagnostic step	Importance of the diagnostic steps being adequate
Wiki
Group only with Wiki vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	0.056	>0.1
Group only with Wiki vs. all other bPBL groups	0.009	0.034	0.041
All groups with Wiki vs. All groups without Wiki	0.002	>0.1	0.077
Chat
Group only with Chat vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	0.065	>0.1
Group only with Chat vs. all other bPBL groups	>0.1	0.099	>0.1
All groups with Chat vs. All groups without Chat	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
IDC
Group only with IDC vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
Group only with IDC vs. all other eGroups	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
All groups with IDC vs. all groups without IDC	>0.1	0.013	>0.1

Note: Underlined values signify α < 5% and italic values signify α < 10.

Table 8.  Comparison of realism: p-values

Mann–Whitney U test: two-sided significance	Online brainstorming	Online clarification of terms	Online hypothesis formation	Online documentation of results	Online working on tasks
Wiki
Group only with Wiki vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
Group only with Wiki vs. all other bPBL groups	>0.1	>0.1	0.058	0.021	0.008
All groups with Wiki vs. all groups without Wiki	0.071	>0.1	0.017	0.014	0.018
Chat
Group only with Chat vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
Group only with Chat vs. all other bPBL groups	>0.1	>0.1	0.054	>0.1	>0.1
All groups with Chat vs. all groups without Chat	>0.1	0.028	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
IDC
Group only with IDC vs. bPBL negative control	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1
Group only with IDC vs. all other eGroups	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	0.052
All groups with IDC vs. all groups without IDC	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1	>0.1

Note: Underlined values signify α < 5% and italic values signify α < 10.

Table 9.  Item values on a five-point scale (1–5) as measured through the questionnaires: mean (standard deviation)

Item	All cPBL	All bPBL	Wiki	Chat	IDC
Cooperation	3.88 (0.916)	3.67 (1.139)	3.63 (1.202)	3.33 (1.116)	3.71 (1.107)
Overall grade (in German school grades: 1 –6 )	2.79 (0.979)	3.07 (0.971)	2.93 (0.897)	3.42 (0.970)	3.21 (0.950)
Online communication	ø	1.61 (1.153)	1.74 (1.195)	1.60 (1.196)	1.55 (1.060)
Online brainstorming	ø	2.49 (1.468)	2.75 (1.519)	2.36 (1.456)	2.58 (1.423)
Online-clarification of terms	ø	2.89 (1.364)	2.90 (1.376)	2.60 (1.335)	2.84 (1.288)
Online-hypothesis formation	ø	2.67 (1.316)	2.96 (1.283)	2.47 (1.295)	2.67 (1.233)
Online-documentation of results	ø	2.95 (1.484)	3.31 (1.380)	2.89 (1.456)	2.918 (1.418)
Online working on tasks	ø	2.71 (1.333)	3.02 (1.350)	2.62 (1.304)	2.65 (1.220)
Adequacy of the time needed to operate communication	ø	3.00 (1.319)	3.25 (1.266)	2.72 (1.199)	2.96 (1.228)
Organization of work flow via communication	ø	2.35 (1.153)	2.49 (1.120)	2.09 (1.165)	2.22 (0.994)
Density of the communication within the program	ø	2.64 (1.302)	2.80 (1.212)	2.45 (1.153)	2.46 (1.284)
Longevity of information communicated within the program	ø	2.26 (1.126)	2.31 (1.140)	2.06 (1.066)	2.13 (1.085)
Comparison of the organization achieved in bPBL to cPBL	ø	2.25 (1.289)	2.65 (1.426)	2.00 (1.286)	2.16 (1.172)
Amount of selectivity during the diagnostic process	3.59 (0.960)	3.47 (0.973)	3.16 (1.032)	3.45 (1.152)	3.55 (0.862)
Influence of the costs of a diagnostic step	2.48 (1.279)	3.64 (1.161)	3.47 (1.345)	3.62 (1.114)	3.93 (0.953)
Importance of the diagnostic steps being adequate	3.64 (1.029)	3.80 (1.034)	3.57 (1.207)	3.84 (1.118)	3.91 (1.031)
Difficulty of the case	3.39 (1.050)	3.37 (1.226)	2.98 (1.326)	3.29 (1.165)	3.71 (1.124)
Acceptance of the case's difficulty	3.44 (0.968)	3.47 (1.061)	3.45 (0.997)	3.53 (0.858)	3.22 (1.109)
Feeling of having covered everything	2.35 (1.048)	2.76 (1.133)	2.69 (1.079)	2.57 (1.191)	2.58 (1.068)
Preparedness for the exam	2.22 (1. 049)	2.44 (1.219)	2.44 (1.208)	2.11 (1.155)	2.30 (1.190)
Right diagnosis (in %)	75	92	91	87	91
Number of right answers (maximum five) in the self-test	3.81 (1.075)	3.96 (1.064)	4.02 (0.913)	3.80 (1.061)	3.91 (0.996)

Note: ø = does not apply. Underlined values signify scores > 3.8 of 5.