A simple approach of applying blended learning to problem-based learning is feasible, accepted and does not affect evaluation and exam results-a just pre-pandemic randomised controlled mixed-method study.

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.

Progress testing anytime and anywhere - Does a mobile-learning approach enhance the utility of a large-scale formative assessment tool?

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of mobile devices among students favors the use of mobile learning scenarios at universities. In this study, we explore whether a time- and location-independent variant of a formative progress test has an impact on the students' acceptance, its validity and reliability and if there is a difference in response processes between the two exam conditions. METHODS: Students were randomly assigned to two groups of which one took the test free of local or temporal fixations, while the other group took the test at the local testing center under usual examination conditions. Beside the generated test data, such as test score, time-on-test, and semester status, students also evaluated the settings. RESULTS: While there was no significant effect on the test score between the two groups, students in the mobile group spent more time on the test and were more likely to use the help of books or online resources. The results of the evaluation show that the acceptability among students is increased by a mobile version of the formative progress test. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the acceptance and motivation to participate in formative tests is enhanced by lifting local and temporal restrictions. The mobile version nonetheless does not have an impact on the students' performance.