The tutorial group and its dynamics are a cornerstone of problem-based learning (PBL). The tutor’s support varies according to the setting, and it is pertinent to explore group effectiveness in relation to different settings, for example online or campus-based. The PBL groups’ effectiveness can partly be assessed in terms of cognitive and motivational aspects, using a self-report tool to measure PBL group effectiveness, the Tutorial Group Effectiveness Instrument (TGEI). This study’s aim was to explore tutor participation in variations of online and campus-based tutorial groups in relation to group effectiveness. A secondary aim was to validate a tool for assessing tutorial group effectiveness in a Swedish context. A cross-sectional study was conducted with advanced-level nursing students studying to become specialised nurses or midwives at a Swedish university. The TGEI was used to measure motivational and cognitive aspects in addition to overall group effectiveness. The instrument’s items were translated into Swedish and refined with an expert group and students. The responses were calculated descriptively and compared between groups using the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests. A psychometric evaluation was performed using the Mokken scale analysis. The subscale scores were compared between three different tutor settings: the tutor present face-to-face in the room, the tutor present online and the consultant tutor not present in the room and giving support asynchronously. All the invited students (n = 221) participated in the study. There were no differences in motivational or cognitive aspects between students with or without prior PBL experience, nor between men and women. Higher scores were identified on cognitive aspects (22.6, 24.6 and 21.3; p < 0.001), motivational aspects (26.3, 27 and 24.5; p = 002) and group effectiveness (4.1, 4.3, 3.8, p = 0.02) for the two synchronously tutored groups compared to the asynchronously tutored group. The TGEI subscales showed adequate homogeneity. The tutor’s presence is productive for PBL group effectiveness. However, the tutor need not be in the actual room but can provide support in online settings as long as the tutoring is synchronous.

中文翻译：

---

PBL 导师应该在场吗？同步和异步环境中群体有效性的横断面研究


辅导小组及其动态是基于问题的学习（PBL）的基石。导师的支持根据环境的不同而有所不同，探索与不同环境（例如在线或校园）相关的小组有效性是相关的。 PBL 小组的有效性可以部分地从认知和动机方面进行评估，使用自我报告工具来衡量 PBL 小组的有效性，即辅导小组有效性工具（TGEI）。本研究的目的是探讨导师参与在线和校园辅导小组的变化与小组有效性的关系。第二个目标是验证一种在瑞典背景下评估辅导小组有效性的工具。对瑞典一所大学学习成为专业护士或助产士的高级护理学生进行了一项横断面研究。除了总体团队效率之外，TGEI 还用于衡量动机和认知方面。该仪器的项目被翻译成瑞典语，并由专家组和学生进行完善。使用 Mann–Whitney U 和 Kruskal–Wallis 检验对反应进行描述性计算并在各组之间进行比较。使用莫肯量表分析进行心理测量评估。比较了三种不同导师设置之间的子量表分数：导师在房间里面对面，导师在线，顾问导师不在房间并异步提供支持。所有受邀学生（n = 221）都参加了这项研究。有或没有 PBL 经验的学生之间以及男性和女性之间在动机或认知方面没有差异。认知方面得分较高（22.6、24.6 和 21.3；p < 0。001)、两个同步辅导组与异步辅导组相比的动机方面(26.3、27和24.5；p = 002)和小组有效性(4.1、4.3、3.8、p = 0.02)。 TGEI 分量表显示出足够的同质性。导师的存在对于 PBL 小组的效率非常有成效。不过，导师不一定要在实际的房间里，只要辅导是同步的，就可以在在线环境中提供支持。