As expected in most undergraduate courses, most students had entered this course soon after some form of secondary education. Some were mature age students, which is common in Australian universities. Both groups face transition challenges as they move into a tertiary education setting. While it is normal for students to feel somewhat alienated by the new university setting, PBL seemed to escalate the confusion in many students’ minds and this was reflected in their approaches to learning.
Analysis of the data collected for this study indicates that the students’ views of PBL were essentially positive. Most students who participated in this study expressed a willingness to participate and learn in the PBL context as PBL gave them the opportunity to take ownership of, to control and to regulate their learning, for example, Matt, Jeff, Bruce, Phillip and Claire.
The students displayed an awareness of the different roles that they needed to take in PBL. Some students were willing to take on multiple roles, but many retained the roles that they assumed in the beginning of each semester, e.g. Timothy, Matt and Jeff. They generally displayed some commitment to learning generic skills such as delegating tasks among team members, managing problem-solving and learning to meet deadlines. Understanding these processes is important for students learning to work in groups and
131 most appeared to gain some understanding of these processes. However, only those students who were willing to take responsibility for their own learning fully contributed to the PBL process.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the literature strongly recommends the use of active teaching and learning methods to promote deeper approaches to learning. It is argued in the literature that problem-based and project-based methods provide an environment that encourages a deep approach to learning (Biggs, 2003). However, it was found that most students in this PBL setting adopted a surface approach to learning. It was apparent that many of these students were extrinsically motivated and engaged in gaining a qualification rather maximising their learning. They therefore focused on completing their individual task with minimal efforts, thus adopting a surface strategy. Because of this, they did not tend to see interconnections between their task and the tasks of their fellow team members. They also appeared to not bother much about the meanings or implications of what was learned. Edward, Ali, Jacob, Khadir and Theo are examples of students who used a surface approach to learning.
On the other hand, it was found that students who consistently used a deep approach to learning were intrinsically motivated. They were curious, sought meaning in what they learnt and had a personal commitment to learning. A few students related subject material to personally meaningful contexts or to existing prior knowledge. Claire, Matt, Jeff and Bruce are examples of students who regularly adopted a deep approach to learning. There were many instances when Jeff and Claire searched for analogies for their newly acquired knowledge. Matt was also observed relating problem-solving tasks to his previous knowledge. Claire’s portfolio provided excellent evidence of what she perceived she had learnt through PBL. Jeff constantly looked for alternative solutions thus deriving extensions and exceptions.
Although Claire and Matt had deep motives for their learning, their interpretation of what PBL required appeared to influence their strategies towards achieving an approach. It is also possible that the roles that they assumed in their team and the tasks that they preferred to handle encouraged them to focus on solving the problem on hand with a view to obtaining a high grade.
132 Timothy clearly focussed on the quality of the product. Although he assumed roles that involved optimal engagement in the task, similar to the deep approach, his engagement appeared to be a means to achieve high grades. Students like Timothy and Claire, who were hoping to learn technical knowledge and skills, were disappointed and felt that PBL was badly managed by their supervisors or the School. These students explained that they expected some implementation problems in Semester 1, but blamed the School for not adequately planning the curriculum and its implementation in Semester 2. As illustrated in the accounts of the students presented in this chapter, the ways that they approached learning in PBL were influenced by their attitudes and behaviours and by factors in the learning environment.
5.4 Summary and conclusion
In this chapter, the three sub-questions of the first research question stated in Chapter 3 have been explored by identifying individual student attitudes, behaviours, and their approaches to learning in a PBL setting.
Data collected about twelve students were analysed systematically by searching and rearranging the field notes and the transcripts of video-recorded observations, and the transcripts of individual and focus group interviews. It was found that individual student attitudes towards group learning influenced their behaviour within their teams; their individual behaviours while learning as a team influenced their approaches towards learning in PBL and their individual learning approaches influenced their learning outcomes.
It was found that most of the students in this sample adopted a surface approach to learning rather than a deep approach that PBL purports to encourage. This may reflect the learning context of this implementation of PBL. It is possible that aspects of the learning environment, for example the course structure, the teaching methods used by supervisors and the assessment system influence their perceptions of what was expected of them in this PBL setting. However, it was evident that the individuals making up a PBL team had a strong influence on what is learnt within that team. Some individuals strongly influenced the behaviour of other members of their team and their perceptions of problem-based learning and group learning.
133 This chapter focussed on individual students and it should be remembered that the learning approaches identified are the approaches taken by individual students. However, the learning approaches adopted by the individuals in a team no doubt determined in part the learning culture of that team while the learning approaches of the individuals who were its members at the same time influenced the learning culture that developed in that team.
The theory of reasoned action discussed in Chapter 2, emphasises the influence of attitudes on behaviours and provides a foundation for addressing the way individual attitudes lead to individual behaviours and then to individual actions. If the normative beliefs of students concerning teamwork are added to this, it may be possible to shed some light on how students form a successful or unsuccessful PBL team.
To be precise, both the normative beliefs of a student when he/she is under the direct supervision of a staff member and the normative beliefs of the same student in the unsupervised PBL team activities deserve consideration. Factors such as authoritarianism, introversion-extroversion, sex, age, social class, race, social role, status, socialisation, intelligence and relationship patterns must also be considered. The individual student factors such as age, prior engineering experience, confidence, paid-work and participation and the attitudes and behaviours of individuals towards their team members including racism, sexism, individualism, collectivism as well as approach to learning identified in this chapter had an impact on the learning cultures that emerged in the PBL teams in this study.
These factors will be explored further in Chapter 6, which focuses on the learning cultures that developed in the PBL teams in this study. It examines the ways in which these individual students approached learning as a team, the way they directed and controlled their learning as well as the learning of other members of their teams and the way they influenced the group processes of their team and roles assumed by their team members.
134
Chapter 6
The team: Learning cultures
6.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, the ways in which individual students approached their learning in a PBL setting and the ways in which their attitudes and behaviour influenced their approaches to learning were explored. It was evident that individuals in the teams had a strong influence on what is learnt as a team. Some also had an influence on the behaviours and learning approaches of other members in their team and their perceptions about problem-based learning and group learning. These ideas will be discussed and presented in detail in this chapter.
The main aim of this chapter is to describe the different learning cultures adopted by student teams in this PBL setting. As explained in Chapter 5, it was expected that analysing the shared beliefs and responses of students to learning as a team, that is the ways in which students in a PBL team behave, contribute and interrelate with members of their team and the ways in which they approach and direct their learning as a team will provide an insight into different learning cultures in PBL teams. In this study, “learning culture” means the shared approach to learning that develops in a PBL team arising from the attitudes, behaviours, actions and beliefs of the members of that team.
Jaques (1992) suggested that teaching and learning in small groups allows students to negotiate meaning, to express themselves in the language of the subject and to establish a more intimate contact with teachers thereby helping students to develop instrumental skills such as listening, presenting and persuading. As the team develops maturity and ability, relationships establish, and leadership styles evolve (Tuckman, 1965). Belbin (2007) identified a model of team roles that underlie a team success. While theories such as these informed the analysis of data presented in this chapter, attempts have been made to identify the different learning cultures that developed in PBL teams and relate them to key attributes such as team membership, group processes, team leadership, individual learning approaches and approaches to PBL as
135 a team. The learning culture that develops in a PBL team emerges from a combination of interrelationships between these and other factors.
As explained in Chapter 3, the data presented in this chapter were gathered over two semesters by various methods including observations, individual interviews, focus group interviews and student portfolios. Data were analysed by simultaneously reducing the data, displaying the summarised data and drawing conclusions from the presented data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Firstly, data collected from interviews and video-recorded observations were transcribed. Video-recorded observation transcripts were then merged with field notes taken during observations to form an integrated observation summary. The transcripts of interviews and the integrated observation summary were coded and clustered using the NVivo software application. It is recalled here that the categories and sub-categories that emerged during the coding process were called attributes and dimensions in this dissertation. In this chapter, the codes that are used to explain the findings are referred to as elements.
After the coding process a description (narrative) of each team was generated by systematically searching and arranging the codes and the data that they described. Narratives of eight PBL teams are presented in this chapter. Further, the narratives were manually recoded and clustered to check and refine the attributes and dimensions that emerged during the analysis phase. Cross-case analysis was performed to identify similarities and differences between these attributes. Teams exhibiting similar traits were clustered together and an appropriate term was used to describe the emergent learning culture. Three different learning cultures emerged through the cross-case analysis. The common attributes that define each of the different learning cultures that emerged through cross-case analysis are also presented in this chapter.
Accordingly, this chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section, the learning cultures adopted by PBL teams are discussed by presenting narratives of eight PBL teams in which the twelve students discussed in Chapter 5 were members. These narratives are organised and presented according to the learning culture that the teams adopted. The learning cultures identified represent a hierarchy in terms of both their complexity and their support for effective learning. The three learning cultures are explored below in the order of this hierarchy – from least complex and least
136 successful in supporting learning to most complex and most successful in supporting learning. The narratives of teams presented in this chapter describe the membership of each team and the group processes, team leadership, individual learning approaches and the team’s approaches to PBL.
In the second section, the key elements that influenced the learning culture adopted by each PBL team are discussed according to attributes and dimensions from which they were analysed. The summary and conclusion to this chapter provides of a synthesis of the learning cultures adopted by student teams in PBL.