Student perceptions about the characteristics of an effective discussion during the reporting phase in problem-based learning.

To explore student perceptions of factors contributing to the effectiveness of discussions in the reporting phase of the problem-based learning (PBL) process, where students report and synthesise the results of self-study. Forty-eight Year 1 and 2 medical students participated in 6 focus group interviews about the characteristics of effective group discussions and possible improvements. The data were analysed qualitatively in several stages. The analysis yielded 4 main characteristics of effective discussions: asking for, giving and receiving explanations; integrating and applying knowledge; discussing differences with regard to learning content, and guiding and monitoring the content and the group process of the discussion. Integrating and applying knowledge included structuring, relating and summarising information and providing examples from practice. Discussing different opinions included discussing a variety of literature resources and disagreements. The main learning effects mentioned by the students were retention, understanding, integration and application of knowledge. Students have clear ideas about what promotes effective discussions during the reporting phase. Their PBL experience has provided them with some insights that are in line with theory and research on collaborative learning. Future research should examine differences between student and tutor perceptions of the quality of discussions. Introductions to PBL for students and tutors should include training in asking open but focused questions, supporting explanations with arguments and dealing with conflicts about learning content. Tutors should be trained in giving effective and personal feedback. Collaborative creation of external knowledge representations (i.e. concept maps) should be advocated, as should variety of literature resources.

Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: a process study.

INTRODUCTION: Collaborative learning, including problem-based learning (PBL), is a powerful learning method. Group interaction plays a crucial role in stimulating student learning. However, few studies on learning processes in medical education have examined group interactions. Most studies on collaboration within PBL used self-reported data rather than observational data. We investigated the following types of interactions in PBL tutorial groups: learning-oriented interactions (exploratory questioning, cumulative reasoning and handling conflicts about knowledge); procedural interactions, and irrelevant/off-task interactions. AIM: The central question concerned how much time is spent on the different types of interaction during group sessions and how the types of interaction are distributed over the meeting. METHOD: Four tutorial group sessions in Year 2 of the PBL undergraduate curriculum of Maastricht Medical School were videotaped and analysed. The sessions concerned the reporting phase of the PBL process. We analysed the interactions using a coding scheme distinguishing several verbal interaction types, such as questions, arguments and evaluations. RESULTS: Learning-orientated interactions accounted for 80% of the interactions, with cumulative reasoning, exploratory questioning and handling conflicts about knowledge accounting for about 63%, 10% and 7% of the interactions, respectively. Exploratory questioning often preceded cumulative reasoning. Both types occurred throughout the meeting. Handling conflicts mainly occurred after the first 20 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Task involvement in the tutorial groups was high. All types of learning-orientated interactions were observed. Relatively little time was spent on exploratory questions and handling conflicts about knowledge. Problem-based learning training should pay special attention to stimulating discussion about contradictory information.

Development and validation of a questionnaire to identify learning-oriented group interactions in PBL.

Collaborative learning attracts attention because of its potential as a powerful learning strategy. This also holds for PBL. However, group work in PBL sometimes encounters problems and the quality of interaction is not always at the desired level. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a questionnaire to assess the quality of learning-oriented group interactions in PBL in an uncomplicated way. The questionnaire, to be completed by students involved in PBL, contained items on three group-interaction dimensions: exploratory questions, cumulative reasoning and handling conflicts. It was validated by means of confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis, the latter to investigate the relation between the three-dimension model and the tutorial group's productivity. The factors underlying the questionnaire were confirmed by the data in a linear structural analysis of the data. The regression analysis showed that the 'exploratory questions' and 'cumulative reasoning' factors explained together 26% of the variance of the tutorial group's productivity. This study provided evidence for the validity of the questionnaire. The instrument contains tips for students and tutors to stimulate deep processing interactions in the tutorial group. Nevertheless, it seems useful to investigate the external validity of the questionnaire.

Student perspectives on learning-oriented interactions in the tutorial group.

INTRODUCTION: In group learning settings like problem-based learning (PBL), the quality of interaction is closely related to group success. However, research and practice have shown that the interaction in tutorial groups is not optimal. In the present study, a questionnaire was used to measure students' perceptions of occurrence and desirability of three interaction types, i.e. exploratory questioning, cumulative reasoning, and handling knowledge conflicts. The discrepancies between the perceptions of occurrence and desirability enabled us to illustrate how the questionnaire can be used to improve the group interaction process in the tutorial group. METHOD: The subjects consisted of all second-year medical students of Maastricht University (N=240, response rate 73%). The questionnaire consisted of a list of eleven statements representing the three interaction types (factors). Students were asked to rate each statement on a 5-point Likert scale for two types of perceptions, i.e. occurrence and desirability. RESULTS: The average scores on occurrence and desirability of the interaction types varied between 3.4 and 3.7 (scale 1-5) and between 3.6 and 4.3, respectively. For two interaction types, significant differences between occurrence and desirability were found. CONCLUSION: The scores for occurrence were reasonable, and the desirability scores were significantly higher than the occurrence scores for two of the three interaction types, i.e., exploratory questioning and cumulative reasoning. The results of the present study imply that in the students' opinion, the interaction process in the tutorial group can be improved. The questionnaire provides useful information to detect shortcomings in the tutorial group interaction.

Exploration of a method to analyze group interactions in problem-based learning.

Many educational institutions use instructional approaches such as problem-based learning (PBL), in which collaborative learning plays an important role. There is little research, however, that describes which factors are responsible for the success of collaboration. The purpose of this study was twofold, i.e. to explore cognitive interactions taking place between students in tutorial groups and to examine whether the coding system of is usable to analyze these interactions. The focus was on elaborations and co-constructions, which are indicators of individual and collaborative knowledge construction in a group. Videotapes of three PBL sessions were transcribed, in which tutorial groups of the Maastricht Medical School were discussing a problem. The results showed that cognitive interactions could be found in the tutorial groups and that it was possible to analyze them. Co-constructions seemed most easy to elicit from the transcripts.