3 Interaction in PBL group


Our motivation to research interaction in PBL (problem-based learning) groups origins from the experiences of applying PBL on an introductory programming course for several years (Nuutila, Törmä and Malmi 2000). We have experiences both from "normal" tutored PBL and tutorless PBL (that is the tutor is present only during the first two group meetings and after that students meet alone). We observed that students in tutored PBL groups were motivated and gained good learning results. However, in tutorless PBL groups there was greater variance how they worked. Some tutorless PBL groups worked efficiently (that is, the group reached their weekly learning goals, atmosphere was pro-study and group members gained good studying results) and others inefficiently (that is, the group neglected weekly learning goals or made only little effort to reach them, distribution of the work was uneven, many group members dropped out or their studying results were not good).

We wanted to identify efficiently and inefficiently working tutorless PBL groups and describe their characters.  Motivation for this study was to gain knowledge about which issues impact on how PBL group works so that we could help more groups to develop an efficient way of working and thus improve their learning outcomes.

We approached this subject through analyzing groups’ interaction during the group meetings and catering for students’ opinions about how they experienced the group meetings. We used several methods to collect the data: Modified Flanders Interaction Analysis System and Bales Interaction Process Analysis  (Flanders 1965; Bales 1951; Kinnunen and Malmi 2004) were used to describe and compare the interaction between the groups. Additionally, we gathered students learning results to see if there was correlation between interaction in a group and learning outcomes. Interviews and inquiries were used to gain information about students’ experiences of how they felt their group worked.


How it was studied

To describe and analyze how group works we decided to approach the subject through interaction. We needed a method that would allow us to document the interaction in a group so that the data from different groups could be compared with each other. For that purpose we used an observation method with which we were able to put groups into order according to different interaction qualities. However, to get an idea what certain type of interaction means in practice we used other research methods, which are described in following paragraphs.

Observation

To be able to describe the interaction (by interaction we refer only to conversation excluding, for example, facial expressions and body language), we used modified (Kinnunen and Malmi 2004) Bales Interaction Process Analysis (Bales 1951) and Flanders Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) (Flanders 1965). The basic idea of this method is that the interaction is coded into categories and the resulting sequence of numbers is transformed into a matrix. Coding and presenting conversation in a group this way enabled us to describe interaction in different ways. We were, for example, able to see what kinds of addresses were the most common in a group or what kind of addresses followed one another (interaction paths). Frequencies of addresses and interaction paths were expressed as indexes. After collecting and coding the data we had one matrix describing the interaction in numerical form per each observation session.

Since this observation method has been used to research other context than what we used it for we had to do some modifications to the method (Kinnunen and Malmi 2004). The modifications were done to the categories (some categories were added and some categories were slightly modificated) and indexes (some new indexes were created).

Here are the categories we used:

1.    Talks about something else than topic of the meeting
2.    Releases tension
3.    Encourages or agrees
4.    Chairman’s address
5.    Gives his/hers own explanation about content
6.    Lectures: A student teaches others/ reads from the book
7.    Asks question
8.    Responds to question
9.    Strongly disagrees, expresses negative feeling
10.    Getting organized
11.    Change (different person continues same type of address than the previous speaker)
12.    Silence
13.    Confusion
14.    Tutor lectures
15.    Tutor responds to question
16.    Tutor comments generally


The idea is that each address during the group meeting is categorised into one category only. Conversation was categorized as in following example:
Person
 address
 category
S1 Should we start already?  
4
S2 Okay 3
S1 Our learning task was to find out what is a class and an object, what is the difference. 4
S1 Have you studied those?
7
S3 I understood it so that classes are like moulds that describes what kind of objects there can be. 5
S2 But, what is an object? 7
S4
 This book says [reads from the book] that objects are created from classes. The class describes the kind of object. The object ...
 6
S2
 By the way, how much did you pay for that book? I should buy it too but I'm little sohrt of money right now.
 1


This way we get sequenqe of numbers (4, 3, 4, 7, 5, 7, 6, 1) that are paired and transformed into a matrix. The first number in the pair indicates the row and the second number indicates the column in the matrix, and a marker is added to the position in the matrix. The next pair is created so that its first number is the last number of the former pair and the second number is the third number in the sequence, and so forth. Finally, the total number of marks in the matrix are summed up and scaled to 1000 marks to be able to compare meetings of different lengths.

An example of a matrix and index areas

To find out which groups worked efficiently and which inefficiently, we looked more closely some aspects of interaction. One obvious point of efficient interaction in any group that aims at studying and learning is that the conversation is factual (Postmes, Tannis and Wit 2001). This means also that conversation does not lapse into irrelevant topics, at least not for longer time. Previous researches have also shown that positive encouragement that group members give to each other’s fosters groups’interaction. On the other hand, rude addresses reduce contributions (Wheelan and Williams 2003; Chiu and Khoo 2003).

On the grounds of this work we observed more closely the most essential parts of interaction concerning efficiency, which were described as following indexes: CCR (Content CRoss: how factual the conversation was), ITC (Irrelevant Talk Circle: the tendency to get stuck on talking on irrelevant subjects), IT (Irrelevant Talk: how much students talk about irrelevant issues compared to relevant issues, in general) and PE (Positive Encouragement). Above-mentioned indexes were created so that all marks in a certain area were calculated togetherand their sum was compared with all marks in the whole matrix.

By sorting the groups into order by these indexes, we were able to identify efficiently and inefficiently working groups. Sorting was done by setting the groups into order by one index at the time. For example, the group that had the lowest IT (irrelevant talk) index got the serial number one (the less there is irrelevant talk during a group meeting the better) and the group that had the second lowest index got the serial number two and so forth. This way each group got a serial number at each index. Finally, all serial numbers from different indexes related to one group were summed up. This process was done with every group. The group that got the lowest sum was regarded as the most efficiently working group.

Here are nine tutorless PBL groups in oder by their indexes that describe efficiency. The groups that have lowest sums are regarded as efficiently working groups and the groups that have the highest sums are regarded as inefficiently working groups.
group
 CCR
 PE
 IT
 ITC
 sum
L1-02-R4
 1
 1
 2
 4
 8
L1-01-R5
 4
 2
 3
 2
 11
L1-01-R1
 3
 8
 1
 1
 13
L1-01-R3
 2
 7
 4
 3
 16
Y1-02-R5
 5
 3
 5
 5
 18
Y1-02-R3
 6
 4
 6
 6
 22
L1-02-R2
 9
 5
 7
 7
 28
L1-02-R1
 7
 6
 9
 9
 31
Y1-02-R1
 8
 9
 8
 8
 33

We used also other indexes to describe the interaction during the group meetings: e.g. CH (change as tendency of other student to continue from the same subject/with same type of addresses than the previous speaker) and N (Negative statement).


Interview and Inquiry

PBL groups were interviewed at the last group meeting session. Questions concerned how the group had worked.

Students were asked to fill in two inquires: one right after the last group meeting session and the other after the whole course had come to an end. Questions concerned student’s opinions on the atmosphere in their group and the distribution of the work among group members.

Answers from interviews and inquiries were analysed at the group level. That is, all the answers from the same group were read at the same time. This way we got the idea how consistent students in one group felt, for example, about how the group had worked. Following answers are from tutorless PBL groups interviews and questionnaires. Classification to efficiently and inefficiently working groups was done based on observation. Data that we got  with interviews and inquiries verified results we got with observation method. In addition, with interviews and inquiries we got insight information what it really means to be in efficiently/inefficiently working group.

Following issues in a table are based on interviews and questionaires from tutorless PBL groups. However, answers from tutored groups were wery similar to efficiently working groups' answers.
Efficiently working group Inefficiently working group
  • Members participated the group meetings and made themselves responsible of studying.
  • Preparation (that is, working during self directed learning) varied so that all members did not prepare each time as well as the others.
  • All members of the group participated to the conversation.
  • Atmosphere in the group was open and relaxed. Members felt that it was easy to ask ”silly” questions, too, without being picked on.
  • Group members felt that their interaction and the way they worked together developed during the course so that interaction became more efficient towards the end of the course.
  • Students felt that group motivated them to study harder.
  • When discussing about new concepts and subject matters it was frustrating that nobody in a group knew for sure how the facts are.
  • Many members of the group did not participate to the group meetings or dropped out of the course, which reduced others’ motivation and made the atmosphere worse.
  • In a group, there were students who had a presumption that they can act as free riders and let the others do the work. Only one or two members of the group prepared to the group meeting.
  • Atmosphere varied from open to distant and tired. In some groups it was hard to express own ideas.
  • Students had difficulties to come to an understanding on how to work.
  • Some members had very strong opinions, which they failed to make comprehensive to the other members of the group.
  • The meaning of some aspects of PBL 7 step method was unclear to some students.
  • When discussing about new concepts and subject matters it was frustrating that nobody in a group knew for sure how the facts are.


Course results

Additionally, we gathered information about PBL students’ course grades and how many of them dropped the course.
Finally, we put all the data together. The division between efficient and inefficient groups, which was done based on the observation method, was verified by inquiries, interviews and students’ course grades, and course passing per cents. Students in efficiently working groups got better course grades (p= .005) than students in inefficiently working groups. There was also clear trend in course passing per cents in efficiently working groups favour.

More importantly, by using several methods we got insight into what happened in the groups, how the students experienced it, and how it affected the learning results.

Summary of results concerning interaction


Tutorless PBL group
  Tutored PBL
  • There was variance how  groups worked: some worked efficiently and others inefficiently
  • In all groups there was more or same amount of talking about irrelevant topics towards the end of the course
  • In efficiently working groups interaction got more efficient  towards to the end of the course (there was more factual conversation and positive encouragement)
  • In contrary, in inefficient groups there was less factual talk towards the end of the course
  • There was more negative statements in tutorless group than tutored groups
  • There was no great variance in interaction as whole
  • Talking about irrelevant topics became less towards to the end of the course
  • Positive encouragement increased towards to the end of the course
  • Tutor talked more towards the end of the course (this might be explained by the fact that issues in programming course get more difficult towards the end of the course and therefore it takes more time to explain some misunderstood issues)
  • There was less continuity in conversation in tutored group than tutorless group (that is students tendency to continue with same type of addresses than the previous speaker)


Top

To the main page