Problem-based learning group behaviour and observation 97

Research that describes a method to gain an understanding of the group processes within problem-based learning is presented in a paper by Chiriac (2007) in which she advocates a method of analysing groups based on a combination of Steiner’s (Steiner 1972, 1974, 1976) work on variables that affect group performance and Bion’s (Bion 1961) theory of the professional work group. She created a theoretical table combining the activities that a group can undertake from Steiner’s research with Bion’s descriptions of how a group is acting (in other words the group mentality) and used this table to analyse problem-based learning groups in action. Chiriac (2007 p.505) found that “it is possible to give a comprehensive and descriptive picture of the group processes that occur in tutorials” and produced a table (Table 3.2) of the dynamics found in the tutorials.

Table 3.2 A theoretical combination of Steiner’s and Bion’s theories source taken from Chiriac (2007)

Type of activity Work group Dependence group

Fight group Flight group Pairing group

Additive

Disjunctive

Conjunctive

Compensatory

Complementary

Table 3.2 is a combination of the emotional state of the group (i.e work group or flight group etc.) and the type of activity that the group is involved in (additive or conjunctive etc.) A group could be observed and table 3.2 could be used to interpret the observations of the group over a time period. For a full description of both the emotional states and the types of activities see Appendix C. Chiriac’s research is similar in theme to the research being presented in this thesis in that its emphasis is in finding out exactly what is going on within the groups during problem-based learning sessions. However, it differs in focus as Chiriac’s research is looking at the group as a whole whereas the research presented in this thesis is looking at the individuals within the groups and their respective approaches and actions within a problem-based learning group. Another study that focused on group processes within problem-based learning is Tipping et al. (1995) in which they investigated

98

tutorials using post tutorial questionnaires and videotaped observations. The study revealed that both students and tutors were unaware of what would constitute effective group dynamics for a group nor was there a means to encourage the students to engage in self reflective behaviour that could help them analyse their behaviour with the purpose of improving group dynamics. The Tipping et al. study also pointed to a discrepancy in the self reported behaviours of both students and tutors alike and that the students showed no evidence of reflecting on any aspect of the groups’ behaviour nor did they have the awareness to correct behaviour that was not conducive to group performance.

Glenn et al (1999). also carried out studies on group processes after videotaping students working in problem-based learning groups for five years. In one paper (Glenn et al. 1999) they examined the behaviour of students as they describe and formulate a theory that accounts for the evidence provided in the question. They hoped by evaluating this data that they would be able to illustrate some of the interactional sequences through which members of a group move as they evaluate, modify, and accept or reject theories. The study identified at least two organising frameworks or sequential contexts: group problem solving or decision making and teacher student interaction. In another article by the same researchers (Koschmann et al. 2000), they examined the interaction leading up to the generation of a learning issue. In particular, they examined the process of students’ recognising and negotiating a learning issue. Although similar in aspects of execution and theme to this research project, the research described above examines the group processes leading to theories and learning issues, while the aim of my study is to examine the actions of individuals within the group and their approaches to learning within the context of problem-based learning environment.

Berkel & Schmidt (2000) attempted to model process characteristics of problem-based learning related to outcomes. They used a process method based around a model of input, process and output variables in which, for example, input variables to the problem-based learning process include the likes of prior knowledge, quality of problems used and effectiveness of tutor. Learning process variables included group functioning effectiveness, amount of time students spend on self directed learning and output variables included the

99

resulting achievement and interest in the topic studied. In the study, students used a rating scale consisting of 42 Likert-type items covering the various dimensions (variables) previously mentioned and time spent on learning was assessed by asking the students to estimate the number of hours spent on learning issues per week and achievement being assessed by a 200 question true-false test administered at the end of each unit. Using a simple Chi-square and degrees of freedom analysis, a level of significance was measured as correlations between variables. Berkel and Schmidt (2000 p.231) found that “attendance is a important determinant of learning in problem-based settings…not only does attendance adequately predict academic achievement; it is itself predicted by the quality of tutorial group functioning”. Their data went on to suggest that the better the groups functioned, the better attendance was and the higher the scores achieved on the final examination. Berkel and Schmidt also found that “the more the group attended, the less time needed to be spent on self directed study” (Berkel and Schmidt 200o p.231). Another finding from the study was that poor quality of problem usually led to a higher attendance at tutorials and that prior knowledge negatively influenced on students attendance.

Van den Hurk et al. (1999) developed a five point Likert scale, 23 question questionnaire which investigated the impact of individual study on tutorial group discussion. They found that “preparing the literature for the next tutorial meeting does affect the breadth of the reporting phase” (Ven den Hurk et al. p.197) but not significantly and that when students prepared the literature with the aim of explaining it to someone else “the breadth of the discussion will also be stimulated”. Dolman’s et al. (2001 p.886), also in discussing the effect of peer or self assessment or tutor assessment, discusses the effects this type of assessment can have on group behaviour “In our opinion, this solution also does not contribute towards diminishing the negative experiences, because some students might feel coerced to demonstrate behaviour in the tutorial group which can be characterised as artificial, to impress the tutor, rather than behaviour that can be characterised as being intrinsically motivated.”

Dolman’s study also indicates another group behaviour effect called ‘ritual behaviour of students’ that occurs in tutorial groups and which can discourage learning (Dolmans et al.

100

1999). Ritual behaviour is a description of a break down in the normal processing of a problem by a problem-based learning group which can occur for several reasons. The question is if this is an underdevelopment of learning issues at the start of the problem or prior knowledge incorrectly associated with concepts or students not doing work in- between classes. Dolmans et al. (2001) argues that teachers will revert to teacher centred solutions to try and solve the above problems hence moving away from the student-centred approach of problem-based learning and taking away students possession of knowledge and in turn the teachers blame the breakdown of learning on the approach. These problems may occur due to poor implementation of the problem-based learning approach, with tutors not stimulating discussion or the problems themselves not linking well with student’s prior knowledge.

In Dolmans et al. (2001 p.886) paper, she identifies some of the positive cognitive and motivational effects that problem-based learning has on students who are taught using this approach. “From a cognitive perspective, PBL students are assumed to be more able to learn information, because of activation of prior knowledge and elaboration of newly required knowledge.” Also from the cognitive perspective “PBL also induces cognitive conflict within students, leading to conceptual change or a restructuring of their knowledge base” and she points to a number of studies that have claimed such conceptual change (Norman & Schmidt 1992; Regehr & Norman 1996). In relation to the positive motivational effects, Dolmans points to the fact that students engaging in discussion on the subject matter will influence their intrinsic interest in said subject matter. She also points to the team spirit element of problem-based learning, with the group members caring about the group as they wish to see it succeed and points to some research on the effects of problem-based learning on intrinsic interest and enjoyment (Norman & Schmidt 1992 and Albanese & Mitchell 1993). From my own experience I believe that there is truth to the claim of the development of a team spirit or camaraderie between students of the same group and its positive effects.

101