Keywords
We tested for feasibility, acceptance, and “non-inferiority” of small-group teaching applying blended learning (i.e., the integration of face-to-face and online instruction) to problem-based learning (bPbL) compared to conventional PbL (cPbL). In a just pre-pandemic, randomised controlled trial, 317 students attended either bPbL or cPbL groups. The first meeting of the bPbL groups took place online via written internet chat, while cPbL groups met on site. All groups met on site the second time. All students had the opportunity to attend lectures either on site or as videos on demand. We analysed student evaluation data, results in a final summative exam, attendance of lectures on site and use of lecture videos. Furthermore, we performed a qualitative analysis of student statements made in semi-structured group interviews about pros and cons of the bPbL approach. There was no difference between students of either bPbL or cPbL groups with respect to exam results (score: 14.3 ± 2.8 vs. 13.8 ± 2.7) or course evaluation. However, relatively more bPbL than cPbL students reported having used lecture videos, while the proportion of those attending lectures on-site was higher among cPbL students. Interviews revealed that some of the bPbL students’ experiences were unexpected and feared disadvantages seemed to be less severe than expected. Participation in a blended PbL format did not worsen course evaluations or exam results, but seemed to influence lecture attendance. The combination of face-to-face and digital elements could be suitable as a hybrid approach to digital instruction in the post-pandemic era.Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.