Examines a clay-based icebreaker to enhance collaboration in medical education, indicating improved interaction among students.
Background: Effective team formation is an important but often underestimated requirement for problem-based learning (PBL). Newly formed student groups may hesitate to speak, negotiate, or share emerging ideas, particularly at the beginning of a session. Icebreaker activities can help, but many are limited to verbal or cognitive tasks and may not fully engage learners in integrated medical education settings. Methodology: We introduced a clay-based puzzle icebreaker at the start of an integrated PBL session for a total of 55 second-year MBBS students, divided into groups of 5 in each. Each group received clue-based questions, a short rhyming hint, and four pieces of coloured clay. Students solved the clues, identified a target concept, and constructed a clay model using all the clay provided. Faculty observed the group process and informally evaluated the completed models for creativity, representational accuracy, teamwork, and use of materials. Results: The activity appeared to promote early interaction among students who were initially unfamiliar with one another. Groups began discussing the clues, sharing construction ideas, and negotiating roles within the first few minutes. Faculty observed increased peer communication, reduced hesitation among quieter students, visible psychomotor engagement, and a more energetic learning climate before the main PBL discussion. Conclusion: This clay-based puzzle icebreaker was a low-cost and feasible strategy for initiating collaborative work in an integrated PBL setting. By combining puzzle-solving, interpretation, and hands-on model construction, the activity appeared to engage cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains within a brief time. Further studies using structured learner feedback, validated engagement measures, and comparison groups are needed before stronger conclusions about effectiveness can be drawn.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Malathi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: