Group discussions play a pivotal role in medical education, as students benefit significantly from small group teaching (SGT). George Brown (1988) characterizes small group teaching as a method that encourages students to engage in dialogue and critical thinking. In recent years, there has been a substantial evolution in medical education, particularly in curriculum design and pedagogical approaches, with small group teaching being a key component. Typically, a small group consists of 8 to 12 learners along with a facilitator. Students are assigned specific objectives that they work collaboratively to achieve. The facilitator's responsibility is to ensure that the learning outcomes are met within the designated timeframe. The advancements in science and technology have introduced various teaching modalities, further enhancing the educational experience. The body of literature surrounding active learning points to the significant benefits of discussions; yet, our understanding of the influence of the discussion setting on these benefits is relatively sparse. For instance, do small group discussions provide equivalent advantages to learners as those that engage the entire class? Moreover, there is a lack of information regarding whether participation rates differ among various types of students based on the context of the discussion. So the present study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of small group teaching in comparison to large group teaching on medical undergraduate students.

AIM: To assess the effectiveness of small group teaching in comparison to large group teaching on medical undergraduate students.

A prospective study was conducted on 1st MBBS students and faculty. They were asked to respond to structured questionnaire based on 3-point LIKERT scale regarding small group teaching and large group teaching.

Student questionnaire

Faculty based questionnaire regarding effectiveness of short group teaching or large group

Teaching

A total of 176 MBBS students and 20 faculty members participated in the questionnaire. The analysis revealed that a significant majority of students perceived the environment as student-friendly (90.9%), with approximately 95.4% expressing comfort with this teaching approach. Furthermore, 81% of students regarded small group teaching as a superior learning method, while 91% believed it fosters critical thinking. Additionally, 84% reported feeling motivated, 85% indicated improved knowledge retention, and 92% felt that small group teaching provides equal opportunities for participation compared to large group settings. Faculty members also showed a preference for small group teaching over larger groups (88%), citing its benefits for their professional development (80%) and its role in promoting student-centered learning (76%). Nonetheless, they expressed concerns about resource availability (40%) and the need for standardization in the delivery of goals and objectives (74%). Notably, 89% of faculty members felt that small group teaching enhances the student-teacher relationship, while the remaining faculty favoured large group teaching. In the context of small group teaching, student teams must engage in thorough preparation to effectively convey topics to their classmates and address questions that arise during discussions. In contrast, students participating in large group teaching are not required to prepare in advance, as they typically take on a more passive role. The implementation of small group teaching demands considerable resources and personnel, whereas large group instruction does not require such extensive manpower. One significant benefit of small group learning is its capacity to deliver pertinent knowledge to learners more efficiently than traditional lecture formats. Various studies have validated the effectiveness of group discussions in promoting better synthesis and retention of information compared to traditional teaching methods. For an extended period, small group teaching and learning activities have been prominent in medical education, incorporating techniques such as problem-solving, role-playing, team-based learning, brainstorming, leadership, and debate. The concept of small group learning emerged in the late 1950s, specifically in 1958, when Michael and Enid Balint introduced it in England. They organized small group seminars that dealt with genuine patient problems for general practitioners. This format of small group discussions provides considerable advantages in developing students' reasoning and problem-solving skills, which are essential for addressing real-world clinical challenges. Small group discussions are designed to foster individual learning within a collaborative environment, where participants work together and share their educational journeys. As highlighted in [2], the primary characteristic of small group learning is the active involvement of students, which allows for effective task execution, achievement of goals within the allotted timeframe, and a rich learning experience. Ismail (2002) posits that the small group discussion model serves as a learning process wherein students engage in discussions within small groups, thereby acquiring the skills necessary to address problems related to core subject matter and everyday challenges (3). Furthermore, it is noted that this model involves the interaction of two or more individuals in a global and face-to-face manner, focusing on specific goals or objectives through the exchange of information, articulation of opinions, or resolution of issues. In summary, the small group discussion model is characterized by its emphasis on active student participation through collaborative learning discussions. This active approach to teaching and learning enhances students' capabilities as future medical professionals by fostering their problem-solving and reasoning skills. While traditional didactic lectures can effectively convey extensive information to large audiences, they often lead to challenges for both educators and students, as they tend to encourage passive learning and may not sufficiently engage students

In conclusion, small group teaching for medical students is highly regarded by both students and faculty, as it fosters effective learning, enhances communication skills, and supports an integrated approach to medical education

1. Knowles MS. “Self-directed learning”, a guide for learners and teachers. N.Y. Cambridge Books; 1975.
2. Piaget J. The construction of reality in the child. New York, Basic Books; 1954.
3. Von Glaser Feld E. Constructivism in education. In: Husen T, Postlethwaite TN, editors. The international encyclopedia of education. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press; 1989. [Google Scholar]
4. Armson H, Kenzie S, Hawes D, Roder S, Wakefield J, Elmslie T. Translating learning into practice. Lessons from the practice-based small group learning program. Can Fam Physician. 2007; 53:1477–1485. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Meyer, Katrina A. (2003). “Face-To-Face Versus Threaded Discussions: The Role of Time and Higher Order Thinking.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7, 55-65.
6. Nicol, David J. & Boyle, James T. (2003). “Peer Instruction versus Class-Wide Discussion in Large Classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom.” Studies in Higher Education, 28, 457-473.
7. Occhipinti, John D. (2003). “Active and Accountable: Teaching Comparative Politics Using Cooperative Team Learning.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (1): 69-74.
8. Phillips, Rob. (2005). “Challenging the Primacy of Lectures: The Dissonance Between Theory and Practice in University Teaching.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 2(1), 1-12