Abstract
Background: Many medical and veterinary schools have curricula in which they use seminars of approximately 25 students to achieve their learning goals. There is not much research on seminar learning.
Aim: To explore students’ views regarding aspects that affect seminar learning.
Methods: Twenty-four second-year students of a 3-year bachelor curriculum participated in semi-structured focus group interviews. The sessions were audio-taped and transcribed. Two researchers independently coded the data using qualitative methods. An iterative process of data reduction resulted in emerging aspects. The participating students were asked to comment on the preliminary results.
Results: Course schedule, coherence and alignment of the different educational methods, the amount and type of seminar questions and the amount and clarity of the preparation materials affected seminar learning. Also, the didactic approach and facilitating methods used by the teachers, the group composition, size and atmosphere, the amount of active student participation and interaction and assessment influenced seminar learning according to students.
Conclusion: Most aspects that affect seminar learning are consistent with aspects affecting small group learning. Course schedule and alignment seem to have a stronger impact on seminar learning.
Introduction
Many medical schools have introduced small group methods, such as tutorials and seminars, in their undergraduate curricula based on social constructivist theory of learning (Vygotskii & Cole Citation1978), which posits that interaction in small groups stimulates elaborate cognitive processing activities (Slavin Citation1996). Socio-constructivists take the view that knowledge is internalised as a result of learners’ interacting with the social environment (Fetsco & McClure Citation2005). For example, students can stimulate each others’ ‘process of thinking’ by translating unusual or unfamiliar vocabulary into familiar terms, by describing the relationships between different concepts or by providing detailed justifications of the reasoning used in explaining the problem (Webb & Sullivan Palincsar Citation1996).
Despite the widespread use of small group learning in medicine, there has been surprisingly little research on small group learning other than in problem-based learning (PBL) (Edmunds & Brown Citation2010). One example of research on small group learning other than in PBL is Steinert's (Citation2004) study on tutorials. She investigated students’ perceptions of learning in tutorial groups of 12 students in a medical curriculum and found that effective small group learning depended on a non-threatening group atmosphere, clinical relevance and integration of questions and pedagogical materials that encourage independent thinking and problem solving. A seminar is another example of an educational method used in many (veterinary) medical curricula. In seminar learning, groups of some 25 students, facilitated by a teacher, discuss questions and issues emerging from assigned readings on a topic of practical relevance (Jaarsma et al. Citation2008). In a quantitative study, focused on factors from the literature on small group learning (Schmidt & Moust Citation2000) to elucidate seminar learning, Jaarsma et al. (Citation2008) investigated the nature of the relationships between student groups’ perceptions of teacher performance, group interaction and the quality of assignments and the perceived learning effects of seminars. A more recent, comparative study on the effectiveness of interactive seminars versus small group tutorials showed that small group tutorials lead to greater student satisfaction but not to better learning results, and the researchers concluded that seminars may offer a good alternative to small group learning, because they also enable active participation and interaction but are less of a drain on resources (de Jong et al. Citation2010).
Although the studies by Jaarsma et al. (Citation2008) and de Jong et al. (Citation2010) afforded some insight into seminar learning, they did not seem to clarify the underlying reasons for their findings. To understand more in depth what exactly happens in seminar learning, a qualitative approach is necessary. This study reports on a focus group study with the research question:
Which aspects influence seminar learning according to students?
Methods
Educational context
The study was conducted at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, the Netherlands, which offers a 3-year bachelor programme and a 3-year master programme. The systems-based curriculum of the bachelor programme is organised around organ systems (digestive system, respiratory system) and focuses on basic science knowledge, clinical science knowledge and practical skills. The educational methods that are used are lectures, practicals and seminars. Contact time between students and teachers takes up 30–40% of the total study time and the remaining time is designated for self-study in preparation for educational sessions and exams. Assessment consists mainly of written end-of-course exams.
Interactive learning in seminars of around 25 students is the dominant educational method, taking up 40–60% of student–teacher contact time. In accordance with the principles of small group learning, the objective of seminar learning is to promote active and deep learning in interactive student-centred sessions in which students discuss questions and issues relating to subjects of practical relevance. Preparation consists of reading assignments with questions, published in the study guide. Several 2-h seminars, facilitated by different content experts, are offered every week (depending on the course schedule). Attendance is optional. Students are required to prepare for the seminar but are free to do so individually or in a group. Except for the duration (2 h maximum) and the number of students (25), there is no prescribed format for sessions, and teachers can structure sessions as they see fit. Groups remain together for the duration of a semester, but teachers vary depending on seminar content.
Participants
In the academic year 2009–2010, we e-mailed all second-year students (N = 237) inviting them to participate in a focus group study about seminar learning. We assumed that more than 1 year of seminar experience would offer a solid basis for an in-depth discussion about learning in seminar groups. Students were offered a small reward for participation.
Twenty-four students were assigned to one of the three groups depending on their date and time preferences (). Each group participated in two focus group sessions. The students were representative of the second-year cohort in age (median 20.5 years) and study results. The male:female ratio (1:6) reflected the gender ratio in the bachelor curriculum. Three of the twenty-four participants were unable to participate in the second session due to personal reasons.
Table 1. Overview of participants per focus group
Instrument and procedure
We used focus groups because we wanted to explore students’ knowledge and experiences and why they think that way (Kitzinger Citation1995) and because we expected them to yield more varied results than individual interviews would (Barbour Citation2005). The purpose of the focus group sessions was to explore students’ perceptions with regard to aspects affecting learning in seminar groups. In the first session, aspects were identified which, according to the students, influenced seminar learning. These aspects were discussed more extensively in the second session. All sessions were semi-structured with predefined open questions about seminar objectives, the group, the teacher, preparation materials and assessment (Appendix). The open-ended questions were organised in a logical and developmental sequence with opening and introductory questions followed by transition questions, key questions and ending questions. Students did not know the questions ahead of the focus groups. The moderator (AJJAS) posed the questions during the sessions. If students’ answers to the predefined questions needed explanation, the moderator was free to ask another (not pre-described) question to specify the answer. Each group met twice for about 2 h with an interval of 6 weeks. The same moderator facilitated all group sessions and an observer (ADCJ) took notes and recorded the discussion. At the end of each session, the moderator summarised the key points of the session and asked the participants to verify this. After each session, the students received a summary and were invited to offer corrections and comments. Data collection was stopped after three groups had participated in two sessions each, at which point it was decided that saturation had been reached as no new topics were emerging.
Analysis
The discussions were audio-taped and transcribed literally. The first author (AS) listened to all the tapes, read all the transcripts and wrote a preliminary descriptive summary of the findings. The observer reviewed the summary and discussed it with AS until consensus was reached. For respondent validation (Barbour Citation2005), all participants were asked to comment on the preliminary findings. A minor modification led to total consensus.
After that, AS analysed the data, using a method based on the work of Miles and Huberman (Citation1994) and following the guidelines of conventional content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon (Citation2005). We used the software ATLAS-ti (version 5.0) for coding. AS approached the text by making notes of her first impressions, thoughts and initial analysis. Labels for codes emerged and were used to construct the initial coding scheme. In order to enhance the reliability of the analysis, the second author (ADCJ) independently read and coded 10% of the transcripts. Discrepancies between the coding schemes were reconciled through discussion between the two researchers. The codes then were sorted into categories based on how they were related and linked (see, e.g. ). The content of each transcript was then analysed using these coding categories, and additional codes were created for new topics that emerged during the iterative analysis process. The final stage of the analysis involved the reduction of all data sources to the major aspects and the identification of exemplar quotes illustrating each aspect. Further agreement on the final coding scheme and aspects was reached in an expert meeting with the two researchers (AS, ADCJ), two medical education experts (HAPW, AJJAS) and one expert in veterinary education (PvB).
Table 2. Examples of transcript analysis
Ethical considerations
The institution where the study was conducted does not require ethical approval for this type of study, but all participants received an informed consent form stating the goals of the research, the goals of the focus group method and the way the data were handled. At the start of the first session, the moderator explained the interview procedure and assured the students of confidentiality. The moderator obtained signed informed consent forms from all participating students.
Results
The coding categories identified through analysis of participant's comments were clustered into eight overarching aspects. These aspects are described and illustrated by quotes.
Seminar teacher
“The best experience I have had in a seminar was with a teacher who was very enthusiastic about the seminar subject and succeeded in motivating every student to join in the discussions. I think because he asked a lot of questions and gave nice clinical examples.”
According to the students, teachers have a substantial impact on what they learn during a seminar. Students said that a good seminar teacher should be enthusiastic about the subject, serious and act as a leader. Good seminar teachers were expected to have adequate subject knowledge as well as teaching skills to stimulate students to actively participate in discussions, promote thinking and guide students gradually towards the answers to the questions. Ideally, teachers should be able to imagine what it is like to be a student. In the focus groups, attention was also given to undesirable teacher characteristics.
“A teacher who is unable to control a group, who acts paternalistically and who answers questions him/herself cannot be a good seminar teacher.”
Students disapproved of teachers who answered questions themselves without stimulating the students to think and talk about the questions first. They also disliked manifest differences of opinion between teachers. It was considered important for seminar teachers to be really motivated to teach. The students advocated pedagogical training for all the teachers.
Student
According to the students their role in seminars involved active participation, appropriate preparation, discussing theory and explaining concepts to one another.
“I really learn more in a seminar when I participate actively and know what I’m talking about as a result of good preparation for the seminar.”
Students put forward multiple objectives for seminars. Seminars should help them to understand theory, allow them to verify their interpretations of the preparation materials and enable them to process and integrate theory and apply it to clinical situations. They also wanted to know what was important in the preparation materials and to be able to ask questions. Some students, however, merely wanted to be given the right answers to the seminar questions.
Student motivation for the seminar was also mentioned as an aspect affecting seminar learning. According to students, motivation depends on aspects like the subject under discussion, the timing of the seminar in the day and the amount of contact time on the same day. Student behaviour during the seminar also influenced the learning process.
Seminar questions
Students said that questions that enhance learning are those that stimulate discussion and are case based and clinically relevant.
“The reasoning questions are the most interesting ones. You really have to work with it and think about those, in contrast to the knowledge questions where you can copy the answers from the book without thinking about it.”
According to students, the seminar questions should increase in difficulty and the last questions should summarise and integrate the seminar topic. Students emphasised that the number of questions should be geared to the duration of the seminar. In their experience, most seminars were overloaded.
“Most of the time there are too many questions in a seminar, so there is just no time left for discussion.”
It was suggested that this problem could be resolved by making the answers available after the session. According to the students, this would enable them to focus on the discussion instead of on note taking during seminars.
Facilitating methods
Students remarked on the various facilitating methods used by the teachers. According to students, facilitating methods have a substantial impact on learning.
“Another important aspect that has an influence on what I learn during a seminar, is the way the teacher structures the seminar.”
Some teachers asked students to discuss the seminar questions in subgroups of two to six students and then present the answer to the whole group. Other teachers asked students to prepare the questions individually before discussing them in the entire group.
“I like it when the teacher gives us some time to discuss the question in a small group. I think it is essential that thereafter we discuss the question with the whole group, so we know for sure that we all have learnt the same.”
The best facilitating method according to the students was the buzz group + plenary session method, where students briefly discuss questions in small groups, followed by plenary discussion. This method was popular because students felt they learned a great deal from the buzz group discussion while the plenary discussion ensured that all students acquired the same knowledge. Moreover, with this method, subjects were discussed twice, which facilitated retention of knowledge according to the students.
Seminar group functioning
Seminar groups were considered to function well when there was a great deal of discussion between students and teacher. It was emphasised that more interaction in the group resulted in more learning.
“After a seminar, I feel satisfied when we have been actively participating. But sometimes we are tired and we just don’t want to discuss with each other and just want to listen to the teacher and hear the answers.”
Group size was considered very important for learning. Students thought that a group of 25 students was too large, because it was impossible for the teacher to give attention to each student and the climate was not safe enough. This was thought to inhibit group interaction.
“When the group is smaller, for example 15 students a group, you get more personal attention from the teacher, so I’m more inclined to ask questions … Seminar questions are answered more efficiently and the answers are more to the point, because there are fewer useless conversations in class and there is less distraction. In a smaller group I also feel more responsible to participate, so I think that would be better.”
Fifteen students were considered an ideal group size, which was expected to enhance effectiveness because it reduced useless conversation, while still allowing interactive methods like buzz groups. Variation in group composition was considered another important aspect for learning.
“Sometimes I wish our group had a permanent teacher in stead of each seminar another one. I think this creates a safer learning environment because you get to know the teacher and his/her expectations better.”
“The stability of the group also depends on the students. Some students do not attend a seminar in their designated group but in another group scheduled at a more convenient time. Because of that we do not really have a ‘group feeling’ and do not really get to know each other.”
It was said that a stable group with a permanent teacher and the same group of students improved group functioning. With changing group composition, students and teacher hardly get to know each other, which was considered detrimental to a safe learning climate and effective group functioning, and consequently to learning.
Students also mentioned aspects relating to the infrastructure of the classroom. It should be big enough and well ventilated with appropriate audio-visual equipment.
“I think the classroom and the equipment are also important. For example, classroom C018 is very small and not well ventilated, so I really cannot concentrate there.”
The students preferred seating arrangements that promoted group work.
Preparation
Preparation was considered to have a major impact on learning.
“If all students come to the seminar well prepared, discussions are broader and more in depth.”
The amount of time scheduled for preparation was considered important. There should be sufficient time between seminars and other educational activities to allow effective preparation. The amount of readings and questions should be in proportion to the available time. It was considered discouraging when too many assignments were included in the preparation materials.
“I want the preparation materials to be clear and manageable. Too much assigned preparation materials can really scare me off, and then I just don’t do it at all.”
Students also set great store by well-structured preparatory materials, preferably presented in a uniform format for all courses. Different presentation formats cause confusion and discourage preparatory work, students said. Preparation materials had to be clear and should preferably be made attractive by illustrations. Clear questions of increasing difficulty were important to guide students through the material.
Another problem with regard to preparation was the absence of consequences of not preparing. This depended on the individual teacher and the other students in the group.
“If the other students in the group or the teacher would criticise me when I am not prepared, I probably would prepare for the next time.”
Students mentioned that if preparation is to be worthwhile, it should enhance the value of participation in the seminar. If students feel preparation is not required to benefit from the seminar, they are not stimulated to prepare for subsequent sessions.
“When I have prepared for a seminar and feel that the preparation was really necessary to be able to participate in the seminar, I am very motivated to prepare for the next seminar.”
Students’ motivation, prior knowledge, interest in the subject and extracurricular activities also played a role in whether or not they prepared for a seminar.
Schedule
Effective use of time was considered important and the course schedule had a strong effect on group learning. One student said:
“Even if all other aspects within and around the seminar are perfect, if the schedule is inadequate, the goals of seminar learning can never be met.”
Different educational methods should be used appropriately. After the introduction of a new theme in a large group lecture, students should have sufficient time to prepare for the seminar in which the theme is discussed in depth. According to the students, this was the ideal sequence of learning activities. In addition to appropriate sequencing, the distribution of activities over the course was considered important to avoid an excess of contact time on certain days. Some students favoured a fixed week schedule, while others preferred more variation. Students indicated that course timetables should allow time for preparation for the summative assessment at the end of the course.
Assessment
The written end-of-course exam was considered to have a negative impact on learning during the last seminars in a course. Students needed time to prepare for the exam and that ‘went at the expense’ of preparation time for seminars.
“When the exam is near, preparation for a seminar takes second place. It is just not important enough then.”
Discussion
We conducted a focus group study to explore students’ perceptions with regard to aspects that affect seminar learning. The study expands on previous research by seeking answers to the research question: Which aspects influence seminar learning according to students, in order to clarify seminar learning. The major aspects that emerged from the analysis were: seminar teacher, student, seminar questions, facilitating methods, seminar functioning, preparation, schedule and assessment.
One of the principal findings is that most aspects that affect seminar learning are consistent with aspects affecting small group learning, as described in the literature (Schmidt & Moust Citation2000; Jaques Citation2003; Steinert Citation2004; Edmunds & Brown Citation2010; McCrorie Citation2010). For example, students’ comments on the importance of the teachers and their skills are consistent with literature (Jaques Citation2003; Steinert Citation2004) on small group learning. Like teachers in smaller groups, teachers in seminars are expected to have good skills with regard to questioning, listening, reinforcing, reacting, summarising and leadership. The results for questions were also similar to those reported by Steinert (Citation2004): too many questions in a session hinder the discussion. Students did value the group discussion, because it stimulated construction and integration of knowledge, which is in line with constructivist principles of learning. This finding is in contrast to earlier research where seminar students negatively associated group interaction with perceived learning effect (Jaarsma et al. Citation2008).
Another striking finding is that course scheduling, course alignment and preparation seem to have a very strong effect on seminar learning. These aspects of a (veterinary) medical curriculum have received scant attention from researchers. Our results on preparation are in line with results reported by Vos (Citation1992, Citation1998), who found that time to prepare for a session should be scheduled immediately preceding the session. The students in our study recommended that sufficient time for preparation be scheduled between the large group lectures and seminars. Although we are aware of logistical barriers to effective scheduling, such as availability of teachers, rooms and materials, we nevertheless think that this issue deserves serious consideration in educational practice. Further studies on this topic are warranted, given the absence of research evidence regarding the impact of coherence and appropriate sequencing of educational methods on learning. It seems that research may have focused too exclusively on separate curriculum elements, while ignoring their interactions.
A final interesting finding was that the veterinary students appeared to confirm what is stated in the AMEE guide (Edmunds & Brown Citation2010) about the effect of facilitating methods on group learning. They agreed with Edmunds and Brown (Citation2010) that a group size of 25 students combined the efficiency of a fairly large group with the opportunity to enhance learning by splitting the group into smaller groups for intensive discussion, although the students would prefer groups of 15 students. The absence of clear guidelines on methods for facilitating group learning in the setting where the study was conducted results in the use of a variety of methods depending on teachers’ differing preferences. We would argue that, as a result, the facilitating methods depend on individual teachers’ beliefs and experiences. Since teachers are content experts with usually limited specific pedagogical training in how to facilitate a seminar, some seminars may be more teacher centred than is compatible with the philosophy underlying student-centred interactive group learning.
Practical implications
The students also offered practical suggestions for ways to improve seminar learning. Faculty development programmes and curriculum reviews should focus on:
Student preparation: preparation materials should be manageable, guided by questions and essential for effective participation in group sessions.
Course schedule and coherence of different educational methods: different methods should be aligned appropriately and scheduled to allow sufficient time for preparation at the right moment (after a lecture and before a seminar or practical) in order to enhance deep learning during seminars.
Group size: groups of 25 students should be divided into groups of five to six students to enhance learning through active participation in discussion before the plenary group discussion.
Pedagogical teacher training: teachers should be trained in the educational philosophy of seminars and guidelines on ways to optimise seminar learning, such as improving the quality of preparation materials and stimulating group interaction.
Limitations
It is a limitation of this study that the focus groups were conducted at one university and only among second-year students. Since students’ comments and observations may be context dependent, it is not clear to what extent the findings are transferable to other settings (Barbour Citation2005). In order to gain a full picture of aspects that impact on seminar learning, it is therefore important to also investigate the perceptions of students in other years and at other institutions. The gender imbalance of the participants of the focus groups is in line with the gender imbalance at our faculty, but it cannot be ruled out that the predominance of female participants had an effect on the results. Finally, we only explored students’ perceptions and further studies should explore different perspectives, such as those of teachers and administrators.
Future research
The results of this study suggest areas for further research focused on aspects such as preparation time, materials and scheduling. The strong feelings of the students in this respect suggest that these aspects may be just as important as specific teaching and teacher-related elements, such as faculty development. It seems worthwhile to investigate whether optimising these aspects could have a beneficial effect on student learning.
Conclusion
It seems important for research on seminar learning to focus not only on aspects of events and processes that happen during the seminar. Conditions and processes around seminars also appear to contribute to the quality of seminar learning and are therefore well worth further investigation.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the participating students for their contribution to this study. They also thank T.B.B. Boerboom and G.J. Bok for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and M. Gorsira for editing the final version.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no declaration of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.
References
- Barbour RS. Making sense of focus groups. Med Educ 2005; 39(7)742–750
- de Jong Z, van Nies JAB, Peters SWM, Vink S, Dekker FW, Scherpbier AJJA. Interactive seminars or small group tutorials in preclinical medical education: Result of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 2010; 10: 79
- Edmunds S, Brown G. Effective small group learning: AMEE guide no. 48. Med Teach 2010; 32: 715–726
- Fetsco T, McClure J. Educational psychology: An integrated approach to classroom decisions. Pearson Higher Education, Inc, New York 2005
- Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15(9)1277–1288
- Jaarsma ADC, de Grave WS, Muijtjens AMM, Scherpbier AJJA, van Beukelen P. Perceptions of learning as a function of seminar group factors. Med Educ 2008; 42(12)1178–1184
- Jaques D. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine. Teaching small groups. BMJ 2003; 326(7387)492–494
- Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995; 311(7000)299–302
- McCrorie P. Teaching and leading small groups. Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory and practice, T Swanwick. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford 2010; 124–138
- Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook2nd. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 1994
- Schmidt HG, Moust JHC. Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of research. Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions, DH Evensen, CE Hmele. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 2000; 19–51
- Slavin RE. Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemp Educ Psychol 1996; 21: 43–69
- Steinert Y. Student perceptions of effective small group teaching. Med Educ 2004; 38(3)286–293
- Vos P. Het ritme van het rooster [The rhythm of the schedule]. Onderzoek Van Onderwijs 1992; 21(4)51–53
- Vos P. Over de ware aard van uitstellen [About the true nature of delay]. Tijdschrift Voor Hoger Onderwijs 1998; 16(4)259–274
- Vygotskii LS, Cole M. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 1978
- Webb NM, Sullivan Palincsar A. Group processes in the classroom. Handbook of educational psychology, DC Berliner, RC Calfee. Simon & Schuster Mac Millan, New York 1996; 841–873
Appendix
Pre-structured questions posed by moderator to students in focus groups
First session
What is your best experience during a seminar?
What is your worst experience during a seminar?
What makes a seminar effective?
Which aspects influence seminar learning?
What would you do when you were director of education to enhance learning during seminars?
Second session
What makes for an effective teacher?
What makes for an effective group?
What is your ideal group size?
What makes for effective seminar questions?
What facilitating method of a seminar most enhances learning during a seminar?
What could enhance preparation?
What would be an ideal course schedule for improving seminar learning?