541

GROUP PERFORMANCE MODEL FOR AN ACTIVITY LED LEARNING

APPROACH

Robert Bird

Coventry University, United Kingdom

email: Robert.bird@coventry.ac.uk

Dr. Rahat Iqbal

Coventry University

Email: r.iqbal@coventry.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

In order to enhance students’ employability and future prospects it is necessary to

develop their problem solving competences through an Activity-Led Learning (ALL)

approach. There exist several models and theories on problem based learning as a tool.

However there has been less research on group interpersonal processes and interaction, which

can have significant impact on the successful realization of the approach. In this paper, we

propose a Group Performance Model in order to deploy ALL successfully in a master-level

module, Network Planning and Management. The model facilitates individual inter-action and

group formation in a structured process. A key advantage of this model is that it allows

students to focus on the activity/task, rather than be distracted by issues such as inter-personal

conflicts, by developing their understanding of group processes.

INTRODUCTION

Traditional methods of learning focus upon didactic methods of content delivery i.e.

lectures and assessment by means of assignments and or examinations to test knowledge.

542

Passive learning processes are rarely student-centred and are unlikely to equip students with

transferrable skills, when they move from academic environments to work based employment.

One of the key issues is a recognition that “Learning how to learn [skills] is of key

importance.” (French et al, 1999) In this respect introducing students to reflective learning

and embracing it, was a critical element. An understanding of how highlighting and enhancing

their level of self-awareness of their learning styles was similarly important. In assessing the

effectiveness of teaching methods and focussing upon a student centred methodology, ALL

offers a number of opportunities, in particular its “ambition to improve the learner experience

[was] underpinned by a learning and teaching vision to build a community of learners,

through employer and profession focussed activity led education” (Wilson-Medhurst 2008).

In seeking to create this environment, there was a need for detailed preparatory work and

structure. Debates concerning the nature of Problem Based Learning have focussed upon

different interpretations of how it is facilitated. The student activities and learning may be

tightly controlled or may be open-ended; the student’s role may range from being an

autonomous learner to being more directed as a member of a project team; the tutor’s role can

be that of a task setter and guide ranging through to a facilitator; and the learning activity can

range from being very prescriptive (finding a specific solution to a given problem) to students

working towards achieving their own individual goals (Savin-Baden et al 2004). There would

appear to be less debate and concern however, relative to the process of how problems are

addressed by students and the group dynamics that either assist or prevent effective group

problem solving. There was an allied issue concerning how students approached a new style

of learning, alien to them and how that related to their own reflective practices. It was

determined that closer focus upon group development supported by tutor feedback and

coaching was required. This was in order to enable students to recognise their individual

learning styles as well as their self-awareness in a group context; issues such as conflict

management and the achievement of group goals were integral to a learning experience that

sought to acquaint students with “real world” problem solving strategies.

Methodology

The research methodology employed stemmed from student feedback and observations

concerning their reflections upon their experiences in an activity led learning environment. A

process of problem identification sought to detail any issues that had adversely impacted upon

the ALL processes. It was clear that there were frustrations experienced by students that

543

related to interpersonal issues as group members, rather than the tasks they were set. As entry

level Masters students, they were unused to this particular university environment, to each

other and to this style of learning. Additionally there was a high proportion of students for

whom English was a second language. There was a need to deal with fundamental issues of

group selection and formation, in order to address this problem. Additionally, students needed

preparation for ALL as it was clear that it presented difficulties for them. (Uden & Beaumont

2006) This process was crucial to their realisation that they were developing essential skills

pertinent to their eventual future employment. In essence, there was a need to understand the

relevance of ALL in their approach to the solution of a “real world” problem by using

appropriate skills. In seeking to develop a Module with “real world” relevance and

application, we wanted it to be a stimulating and satisfying experience, not merely the

completion of an academic exercise. In seeking to apply some rigour with respect to how the

methodology employed could be audited, it followed an Action Research and 'teacher as

researcher' model. Action Research defined by Cohen and Manion (1994) quoted in Bell

(2000) is "essentially an on the spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete problem

located in an immediate situation… As an essentially practical, problem-solving nature of

Figure 1 Methodology graphically represented

544

action research make this approach attractive to practitioner-researchers who have identified a

problem during the course of their work and see merit in investigating it." Figure 1 seeks to

graphically represent the stages, undertaken in this process, with the cyclical process at each

and every stage, subject to assessment and evaluation of this Model. This virtuous circle of

improvement seeks to identify “what works” in order to build upon it and to address the

perceived weaknesses or areas of development. The use of the concept detailed by Biggs

(2005) “Constructive Alignment”, was a framework relative to which the methodology would

be continually tested:” 'Constructive alignment' starts with the notion that the learner

constructs his or her own learning through relevant learning activities. The teacher's job is to

create a learning environment that supports the learning activities appropriate to achieving the

desired learning outcomes. The key is that all components in the teaching system - the

curriculum and its intended outcomes, the teaching methods used, the assessment tasks - are

aligned to each other. All are tuned to learning activities addressed in the desired learning

outcomes. The learner finds it difficult to escape without learning.”

Activity LED learning development

There were a number of identified objectives structured to develop ALL in this context:

a) To investigate the gap between students’ needs and the learning materials presented

to them.

b) To develop a learning material that was relevant to the needs of students at this

level.

c) To explore the theories relating to “Common Ground” and “Group Development”

to identify their relevance to the teaching methodology adopted.

d) To develop a Group Performance Model that sought to identify the steps within

group development that might maximise group interaction.

e) To improve the employability of Masters students by the identification of

transferable skills and the acquisition of work related skills in the context of life-

long learning.

f) To identify issues relating to the amount of time spent on relevant tasks by students

to identify informative observations regarding any conclusions from this teaching

methodology.

g) To assess the student’s reaction and views on the teaching methodology.

545

It is beyond the scope of this paper to address all of these, so we will concentrate on

those relevant to the Group Performance Model. The first issue revolved around the group

selection process and composition of the groups. The majority of group members were

unknown to each other and the time constraints applied meant that the groups were directed

towards task completion i.e. addressing the problem that the Case Study posed. There was, as

a result a degree of confusion concerning individual roles and responsibilities, amongst a

number of students. It appeared that unless an individual assuming the role of Group Leader

was prescriptive in respect of task allocation and responsibilities, some groups inevitably

floundered. Whilst documentation and guidance was provided for students concerning ALL,

as a new style of learning, it was for many confusing. There were instances of lack of

participation of behalf of some individuals and a sense that some students benefitted from the

hard work of their colleagues, whilst offering minimal effort themselves. Kitchen (2010)

noted with respect to groups of engineering students: “We cannot expect that it is enough to

put eight random people into a group and tell them to solve a problem.” In many ways this

observation was central to my problem identification; there was a need for some planning and

time to produce synergy in group formation to enhance ALL. Secondly, there was a statement

that the Module would not teach the discipline of Network Planning and Management; there

was guidance with respect to recommended materials with no formal lectures or instruction.

This had been the subject of adverse comment from students who felt there was some

“traditional” lectures. This was latterly addressed with some specific inputs following student

feedback, but there was the belief that some guidance was required for student research to be

fruitful. Thirdly, there was the observation that in submission of materials by groups, that

some students habitually “cut and pasted” large amounts of material, rather than synthesising

information. There was a need to engage students in more than regurgitation of researched

works; the application of knowledge in a problem solving, decision-making process was

required. There was an allied issue concerning how within a group submission and activity,

individual contributions could be determined? Essentially, determining who did what within

the context of their joint efforts? The core problem identified was that there was a requirement

for a more managed process of group selection, formation and development. Structured

exposure to Activity Led Learning was required and development amongst students of an

understanding of what it was and what its potential benefits were. In particular the

requirement to focus students upon their course of study, rather than be distracted with group

issues, identified the need for greater tutor involvement and coaching.

546

Group performance model

The process model for this module was defined as a Group Performance Model. (see

Fig. 2 ante) In essence this approach defined a structured process whereby students were

guided through steps that defined their metamorphosis into a cohesive, functional and

productive group. This was formulated having regard to the theories of “Common Ground”

and “Group Development” which are detailed at length ante. This model focussed on the

elements of ALL that were potentially problematic and might hamper its effectiveness. The

initial stage of the process was for the students to come together as a cohort. The students

were given a self-assessment document where they were asked to assess and rate their own

knowledge of computer networking disciplines, to grade themselves and to detail any relevant

experience they had. This was a relatively initially simplistic means of assembling groups but

was subject to change if necessary. The intention of a number of the questions was to

establish what elements might constitute “Common Ground” for the students. These

questionnaires were then given a weighted score and groups of 4 to 5 students selected on the

basis of shared skills and abilities. The self-assessment process could of course produce

disparate results i.e. if students either under estimated or over estimated their skills/relevant

knowledge. Where any group was particularly unbalanced, individuals would be transferred to

Figure 2 Group Performance Model

547

address any imbalance. The groups were formed with a developmental model of increasing

“common ground” between students. Students were engaged in a process of “interviewing”

each other with a questionnaire that built upon their first self-assessment. The inclusion of

questions of a more personal nature (although it only focussed upon non invasive material)

was designed to act as an “ice Breaker” in order to break down barriers and enable some

effective communication. They were then to introduce their colleague(s) to their other group

members; this process was designed to bring the individual students together in a group

format in order that they would be able to gain knowledge of each other. The first Group task

was to select a Group Leader for the first task; there was no prescription as to who was

selected or volunteered, save that each group was required to have a leader.

Developing “Common Ground”

There is a good deal concerning ALL that requires interaction between students; the use

of group meetings to examine a Case Study problem requiring their physical presence. A key

element to the writers’ belief in this teaching methodology relates to an appreciation of

“Common Ground” theory in the facilitation of group processes. We briefly discussed below

how it was used and the purpose of its use. In espousing Common Ground, H H Clark

asserted, “individuals engaged in conversation must share knowledge in order to be

understood and have a meaningful conversation.” (Clark 1996) In this respect, facilitating

“Common Ground: ” between individuals who are collaboratively working upon a joint

problem, remote from each other might be seen to be posing an insurmountable obstacle. In

this respect a model for establishing “Common Ground” was proposed that focused upon

initial team building with the object of moulding individuals into committed team members. It

was further determined that in order for effective and continuing collaboration; the need to

establish and build “Common Ground” was a structured process.

The learning materials required each team member to have assigned roles, in a Case

Study context that required a skillset or was one that had to be acquired, over and above their

involvement in the process as “students.” Therefore initial student engagement was through

facilitated exercises, where a group of students become a homogenous entity: a “Project Team

or Board,” was established. This enabled the group to engage in joint problem solving that

was identified as a core process in order to address the task or Case Study. Studies have

focussed, on “how the media [in this case web Technology] through which communication is

548

conducted affect the ability of cooperating agents to accomplish a shared task.” (Kutti et al,

2003) The need to achieve more meaningful initial exchanges between students was identified

as a requirement. “Common Ground” was partly addressed through the use of a common

taxonomy and terminology. The student cohort was predominantly constituted from students

for whom English was their 2nd language and the necessity to establish clear lines of

communication was prioritised. This was initially facilitated through “ice breaking” exercises

where individuals were required to complete self-assessment questionnaires in order to

determine their level of knowledge and computer networking experience. Students were then

assigned to groups on a basis of assessment of a skill and experience blend, and directed to

undertake a joint interviewing and introduction exercise, where the group was able to become

acquainted in a non threatening environment.

There was some time spent in explaining the mechanics of ALL as a discipline and an

explanation of “group dynamics” in so much as they related to the module of study the

students were to embark upon. The face-to-face establishment of “Common Ground” would

Figure 3 after Tuckman (1965) Group Development http://bpdassociates.com 2011

549

then be consolidated by the use of team meetings that were to be held at times convenient to

group members to reinforce its cohesive effect. This relied to an extent upon Tuckman’s

theory of group development and was explained in the context of the transferable work skills

the module intended to facilitate. The process of Forming – Storming – Norming –

Performing is a model of group development, first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965,

who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to

grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to

deliver results. This was emphasised as a methodology to assess their own performance as

individuals and to identify with respect to the process of group development. Essential to the

understanding of group processes was an emphasis on the importance of maintaining a diary

or journal in which students would record their experiences in a group context and relate it to

their reflections upon their learning. This process is designed to:

x recognise their personal learning styles,

x reflect on how they address issues such as conflict, achieving consenus and in the

context of “Common Ground,” maximising the effectiveness of their communication,

and

x identify how their individual personality traits contribute or otherwise, to collaborative

work.

Integral to this is the belief that life-long learning can be achieved where self-awareness

and assessment is embraced as a means of enhancing personal performance. This introduction

to concepts that underpin Personal Performance Assessment criteria, as it relates to future

student employment, seeks once again to acquaint students with their future work

environments.

Tuckman and the group performance model (GPM)

In seeking to put the Group Performance Model in the context of Tuckman, the latter

needs to be explained albeit briefly in this context. Fig. 3 details the stages within the

processes of Form – Storm – Norm – Perform, detailing what happens in groups when they

seek to jointly address tasks. This model has been enhanced with another element

“Transform” and is explained ante. Tuckman and others sought to classify the stages in group

development that bring about changes in the manner in which the group addresses a task.

550

Fundamentally, individual needs and perceptions are accommodated to a greater or lesser

extent; the essential element, is that for a group to progress, it needs to move through the

defined processes in order for them to become more cohesive as a group and achieve their

potential.

In “Forming” the team is formed and is given a task. Initially group members behave

like individuals; there are generally good feelings and relationships exist between them.

They will not know each other well enough for trust to be established and they will

concern themselves with elements of the task that they feel most comfortable with. The

“Storming” stage is where the group tackles the task suggesting different approaches and

unless the team leader directs the process, there can be division and conflict if consensus

cannot be achieved. It is a scenario where the interpersonal relationships between the group

become tested and unless resolved may lead to long-term sense of grievance. If the group

does not confront areas of disagreement, ultimately it may be the group cannot develop any

further. If at this stage, group members feel slighted or believe that their opinion is not valued,

they may become no more than passive members contributing little and diminishing the

potential of the group.

The next stage is “Norming” but is dependent upon negotiating the “Storming” stage; it

should be a period of more cohesive working relationships with group rules detailed or

reinforced and the group identity firmly established. A key element is that all the group

members’ contributions are valued and as a result, their joint efforts contribute to their joint

group efforts. As the group members confidence in each other increases any reliance on a

Group Leader may diminish; it is also a stage where the group views itself as the “finished

article” and complacency may set in reducing the group’s efficiency. In “Performing”

essentially the group processes are such that the group is at its most cohesive and productive.

It is a stage that arguably not all groups achieve because high levels of motivation,

responsibility and respect for their colleagues performing teams, will evidence the elements

that characterise high. It is a “healthy” environment where self-criticism, intense debate and

processes characterised by enjoyment and humour demonstrate the group’s evolution into a

cohesive and effective working entity. In respect of “Common Ground,” this is the stage

where its establishment is most evidenced and would indicate the highest levels of inter-

communication and it being addressed at precisely the right level. Tuckman’s original

continuum of group development was later augmented by a further stage known alternatively

551

as “Adjourning” or “Transforming.” The latter has been employed in this context and relates

to the completion of the task and the break up of the group. The transforming element relates

to the positive recognition of the skills and experiences gained within the successful

addressing of a group task. Successful and effective Groups foster the achievement of like

scenarios in future group or team environments.

Lessons learned

Tutor student relationships

There were various means utilised during to assess student experience and development

during the module. In respect of the deployment of the GPM it should be recognised that

groups and individuals within groups develop at a varying pace; the “storming” stage essential

to group development may be experienced very early in the process or may be delayed. The

level of inter-personal engagement and personal contribution from students will have highs

and lows and this inevitably affects group performance. For the tutor the need to achieve

effective communication with students is essential in order to be aware of the current stage of

group development and any tensions that arise. Weekly tutorial sessions with groups was

facilitated, as was monitoring of “on line” discussion groups and videos of group meetings

recorded by students. The support offered to Group Leaders was crucial in respect of coaching

concerning group issues and where necessary, individual group members whop were

perceived as failing to effectively contribute. There was however an emphasis placed upon the

students addressing these issues themselves wherever possible.

Student support

Students were provided with “on line” key texts, journals and associated materials via

the University Virtual Learning Environment on a “Moodle” site and via “Twitter” feeds.

This provision enabled the focussing of student effort upon applying this material and

knowledge upon solving their set tasks and problems. This meant that students were able to

dedicate time to problem solving, rather than the search for relevant knowledge and

information.

Tutor workload

552

This approach places a focus upon the Tutor(s) in creating an environment where

students have easy and regular access to them. This can be facilitated “on line” or remotely,

but as the essence of the GPM identifies the need to establish “Common Ground” that process

must be achieved in respect of the tutor- students to their mutual satiisfaction. This is a change

or development in more traditional Lecturer type roles, but is essential in facilitating effective

group development. It is not something that all individuals are necessarily equipped to do

skills wise. Similarly, because of the level of engagement required it can be physically and

mentally quite taxing.

Student – Tutor Feedback

There is a real need for a process of concurrent feedback on processes, materials and the

student experience. In seeking to create reflective practitioners and group members, students

must have the ability to freely discuss and comment on processes. Tutor feedback must

similarly be timely and developmental in order that students can act upon it.

Creating the right environment

The energy and “buzz” generated in an ALL environment is fundamentally different to

traditional learning environments. This is especially true where the GPM facilitates effective

group development and student engagement.

REFERENCES

Bell, J. (2000) Doing your Research Project Open University Press, 8-9

Biggs, J. (2005) Aligning Teaching for constructing learning

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id477_aligni

ng_teaching_for_constructing_learning.pdf. (accessed 16th June 2011)

553

Bird, R., Iqbal, R., Romero, M., James, A., (2011): "Collaborative Design of Computer

Network Using Activity-Led Learning Approach", Proceedings of the 15th International

Conference on CSCW in Design, IEEE Press, 146-153

Clark, H. and Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in Communication. Cambridge University Press

Clark, H. H., 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University Press

French, D Hale, C Johnson, C and Farr, G 1999 Internet Based Learning Kogan Page p4

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.71.2936&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(accessed 8th December 2010)

http://bpdassociates.com/HOW_WE_WORK.html graphic adapted accessed 12th December

2010

Iqbal, R., Shah, N., (2010): "Activity-Led Learning Approach for Network Planning and

Management", Proceedings of the Enquiry, Autonomy and Graduateness: Achieving an

outstanding student learning experience Conference, 65-72.

Kitchen, D. (2010) An Introduction to Organisational Behaviour for Managers and Engineers

Elsevier, 3

K. Kutti, E.H Kirsten, G Fitzpatrick, P Dourish and K Schmidt (eds) Proceedings of the

Eighth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 14-18th

September 2003 Helsinki, Finland Reconsidering Common Ground: Examining Clark’s

Contribution Theory

Savin-Baden, M. & Howell Major, C. (2004). Foundations of Problem-Based Learning.

Maidenhead: SRHE/OUP.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,

384-399

554

Uden, L & Beaumont, C (2006) Technology and Problem Based Learning, Information

Science Publishing pages xii

Wilson-Medhurst, S. (2008, July). Towards Sustainable Activity Led Learning Innovations in

Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Paper presented at the 2008 Engineering Education

(EE2008) Conference, ‘Innovation, Good Practice and Research in Engineering

Education’, Loughborough University.

555

MASTERING PROJECTS AND PROCESSES IN THE AALBORG PBL

MODEL

Claus Monrad Spliid

Aalborg University, Denmark

clauss@plan.aau.dk

ABSTRACT

The Aalborg PBL Model encourages experiential learning through group-projects.

Supported by a course on PBL and project-management the groups develop process-

competencies in order to achieve the required outcomes. The paper investigates factors

significant for achieving an efficient process and an effective project as well as the logic

behind groups’ getting a grip of their project. It is recommended that in order to secure the

quality of the required learning the facilitation should pay close attention to 1) the reflective

practice of the groups; 2) the logic behind the groups’ handling of their project; and 3) the

decision-making processes of the groups in order to secure the quality of the required

learning.

INTRODUCTION

The Aalborg PBL Model which Aalborg University (AAU) is practicing does not

prescribe the use of specific or tight scaffolding for the student projects. Rather than focusing

on scaffolding AAU focuses on research methodology as the general underlying structure for

the projects. The methods for structuring the project as well as the process are therefore

important learning outcomes of the first year at The Faculties of Engineering & Science

(FE&S). Together with other process-competencies this learning is supported through a

course and through the facilitation.

The course on PBL (incl. project-management – PM) is offered to all first-semester

engineering students and provides general support for students’ project-work and

556

collaborative learning when planning and conducting a scientific problem-based project – as

described in (Mosgaard and Spliid 2011). A facilitator is assigned to each project-group (first

semester one facilitator, second semester two) who through regular meetings and additional

communication (mails, text-messages, phone-calls) is available for consultancy regarding all

project-related issues. As (Kolmos and Kofoed 2004) proposes reflection and experimentation

as the method of developing the needed process-competencies the PBL-course supports this.

Yet with a new study-structure project-facilitation has been eliminated from first semester and

the coordinated effort to develop process-competencies is hampered.

Experience from teachers and facilitators consistently indicate that students have

problems in acquiring the required learning outcomes regarding process-competencies during

the first year. Feedback from the facilitators confirms that reports are lacking coherence and

consistency as well as a reflective and critical perspective – the reports have structure, yet

students lack overview and insight regarding the underlying logic. Process-competencies

seldom reach the desired level of reflection although most groups appear to complete their

projects through pragmatic, common-sense solutions.

Findings from surveying groups’ perception of PBL and PM competencies confirm this

(Mosgaard and Spliid 2011). A large majority of students do not acknowledge the importance

of PM and about half of them feel ill equipped for performing PM with little change over the

semester – as many groups also find PM more difficult than expected. The survey also shows

that groups spend more of their project time on writing and structuring their reports than on

anything else and a large majority of the groups identified this as an important activity. At the

same time a majority feel ill equipped to write and structure the reports. One of the main aims

of the PBL-course is to secure that the groups reflect upon their process and project-work

several times during the semester – reflection on-action (Kolb 1984) – in order to secure that

they learn from their own and other groups’ experiences. Groups find evaluation and

reflection important but spend little time and feel ill equipped for the performance (Mosgaard

and Spliid 2011).

The scope of this paper is to explore further into the groups’ difficulties acquiring the

process competencies – specifically regarding the groups’ structuring of process and report as

this seemingly constitutes the principal pivot and thus an essential competence. The aim is to

gain a deeper understanding of the groups’ own perceptions of mastering their project. The

initial research-question was:

557

Which factors do the groups identify as significant for an efficient process and an effective

project?

Answering this should provide evidence of groups’ own perception of significant

factors – providing a useful foundation for later research into the learning and use of these

factors. Therefore the groups’ first-semester process-analysis reports (delivered at the end of

the project-term) were regarded as a valid and reliable source of data. Furthermore, it was

decided to select one program among the 20+ first year programs (as explained below in

Methods) namely Global Business Engineering (GBE) with seven first-semester groups.

A thorough reading of the process-analysis reports (6-11 pages per group) generated

themes which led to Table 1 showing that the groups as a whole report a broad range of

factors significant for an “efficient process and effective project” (neither relative importance

nor quality of the reported activities and PM-tools have been assessed). It should be noted

however, that the groups use the term “project management” with different connotations –

namely “steering”, “handling” and “getting a grip”. Verification by two experienced

facilitators at AAU confirms that the themes in Table 1 constitute a valid and representative

description of first-semester groups’ recount of their ways of dealing with the realities of the

Aalborg PBL Model.

Goals Activities PM Tools Personal issues Structure Planning

Revisions Time-schedule

Planner Top-Tail

Problem Statement Research Design

Discipline Motivation

Engagement Attention

Efficiency Decisions Task division

Focus

Agenda Moderator

Collaboration agreement

Trust Confidence Awareness

Learning Discussions Writing

Feedback (incl. facilitation)

Problem Learning outcomes

Peer learning Log

Ambitions Preparation

Sharing

Familiarity Communication Social activities

Evaluation

Collaboration agreement Tests on styles of learning &

working

Openness Trust

Confidence Attention

Table 1. Overview of factors the seven GBE-groups report in their first-semester process-

analysis to be significant for an efficient and effective project.

558

Regarding process-competencies it is concluded that groups as a whole possess

declarative knowledge (“know-what”), yet the process-analysis cannot give a full account of

the procedural (“know-how”), conditional (“know-when-and-why”) and functional

knowledge. The presence of this, though, can be verified by the level of reflection and

experimentation as explained by (Kolmos and Kofoed 2004). As regards reflection the first-

semester process-analysis reports demonstrates common-sense and few comparative

reflections but no vertical reflections conceptualizing the experiences. The level of

experimentation is lower as move-testing – intentional experimentation as opposed to more

explorative experimentation – appears to require more confident and more creative students

and/or higher awareness of consequences and possibilities, which again suggests need for

more experiential learning.

Concluding this preliminary analysis the data confirms that first-semester groups in the

Aalborg PBL Model experience problems acquiring process-competencies at the required

level, and the data also confirm that groups’ striving towards efficiency and effectiveness

aims for a more coherent and consistent approach to handling the complexity of the Aalborg

PBL Model. The students are apparently adequately prepared for a longer second-semester

project-term and a more complex project-problem. Consequently, the research to uncover by

which means the groups master their second-semester projects will be guided by the following

research question:

“What is the logic behind groups’ getting a grip of their project?”

Following a short presentation of the concepts and theories underpinning the learning of

process-competencies in the Aalborg PBL Model, the method of empirical data collection is

explained, and findings are presented and discussed.

Development of process-competencies by reflection and experimentation

The literature points out a dilemma for the learning of process-competencies: learning

by doing takes several iterations unless students apply an approach involving conscious and

deliberate reflection and experimentation as concluded in (Kolmos and Kofoed 2004).

Moreover, drawing on (Biggs 2003), evidence and experience points out that students at AAU

initially have either declarative or procedural knowledge but no or limited conditional or

functional knowledge. Students initially fail to acknowledge the extent of complexity of the

Aalborg PBL Model. Developing functional knowledge (equivalent to operational process-

559

competencies) involves a strong component of feedback from peers and/or facilitators.

Besides, this development involves, as stated, conscious and deliberate reflection and

experimentation – efforts which for many groups collide with their perception of efficiency,

instead common-sense solutions are sought or majority rule dictates the decisions.

Students are cornered: they are trying to escape the “difficult learning” termed

accommodative and/or transformative learning as opposed to the relatively “easier”

assimilative and cumulative learning – see Table 2. The work by (Illeris 2007) describes how

accommodative and transformative learning poses difficulties and threats to the students.

Reconstructing understandings and insights is not an instructional issue – it is the result of

conscious and deliberate reflection and experimentation by students supported by feedback

from peers and facilitator. The inevitable resulting resistance is related to perceptions of

identity, ambiguity and inconsistency.

Cumulative Assimilative Accommodative Transformative

Establishing new schema Adding to existing

schema

Reconstructing existing

schema

Reconstructing several

schema simultaneously

Table 2. Four forms of learning, based on (Illeris 2007).

Empirical analysis

The goal of the following paragraphs is to present some of the findings from the

additional data-collection among student-groups. The hypotheses to be tested were:

1. When groups are able to explain “what, how, when and why” the chosen methods and

tools are applied – then they master their project;

2. When groups are able to relate their research design to other research designs and explain

consequences of the divergence – then they master their project;

Method

The somewhat ambiguous findings in the initial surveys among first-semester groups

(Mosgaard and Spliid 2011) indicated a need for further research, and for this the author

selected one study-program, namely Global Business Engineering (GBE). The reasons for this

were

¾ the author’s previous experience with the program as teacher and facilitator;

560

¾ the complexity of second-semester project (open-ended; explorative; real business case);

¾ a sufficient number of project-groups (6 in second semester);

¾ the GBE first-year coordinator reported a general impression that the groups overall were

not mastering their first-semester projects;

¾ observations by the author during GBE-groups’ PBL-seminar and PBL-consultations in

second half of first semester revealed that: 1) groups experiencing problems refrained

from or were reluctant to apply PBL- and PM-tools; 2) reflection was predominantly

common-sense; and 3) project- and report-structure posed a general and serious concern

among groups.

The data-material was obtained through

1. Reading first-semester process-analysis reports (seven groups; 6-11 pages per report);

2. Observation of a full-day midway status-seminar with all 6 groups;

3. Observations of 1 group and reflection on facilitation of this group – 8 meetings and some

mail-communication (reflections shared between the two facilitators);

4. Semi-structured interviews with 5 groups (excl. facilitated group) lasting 70-80 minutes;

Results

In the following paragraph the main results of the analysis will be presented.

Observation of midway status-seminar

The groups responded to a suggested formula for their project-presentation wherein

facilitators asked for the groups’ reasoning behind their choices of initiating problem-

statement, theoretical framework, approach for problem-analysis, research-question, methods

for data-collection and –analysis, and project-planning and –handling. Also groups were urged

to present their doubts and difficulties concerning the project as well as the process. Yet, the

groups primarily presented the contents and activities of the project so far (“the what’s” and

some “how’s”) while the reasoning behind (“the why’s”) were given little attention. The other

groups and the facilitators acted as opponents questioning the choices made and gave

suggestions. The doubts and difficulties presented mainly dealt with practicalities (i.e. “how

to” improve data-collection and –analysis; “how to” perform the simulations and tests).

Despite similarity between projects, groups applied visually different research-designs,

and generally groups reacted resistant when being criticized on their approaches and choices. It

561

appeared that each group seemed content with their own understandings and rejected most

suggestions from other groups and from facilitators – as if each group believed in their way

being the truth. Obviously the perceived methodological logic should not be contested. When

summing-up the status-seminar the parallels between a general research-design and a general

process-flow were presented by the author but caused no reaction from groups. It was later

(app. 2 weeks) confirmed during the interviews, that groups agreed to the contents of the

summing-up but preferred to stick to the course they had already outlined.

Facilitation of one group

The group produced a time-schedule and a thorough research-design – of which the latter

was abandoned despite consistent doubts and discussions over which alternative approach to

follow. The relatively few meetings with the two facilitators were mainly initiated by the

facilitators. The meetings predominantly addressed research-design and data-handling and

little effort was directed towards feedback on written material. The problem statement changed

several times resulting in recurrent and explicitly formulated doubts and de-motivation. The

realization of inadequate data-collection and inadequate theoretical basis hampered the

decision making in the group. Nevertheless, the group completed the project with a satisfactory

result testifying to the perseverance and resilience established early and intensified through the

semester.

Interviews with five groups

All interviews were opened with the question: “How do you get a grip of the project?”

and the author took notes of the answers on the blackboard in the group-room in order to

obtain transparency and validity. Later these notes were transferred to paper.

The interviews sought to provide evidence of the groups’ “handling” efforts within the

frame of the factors outlined in Table 1. Afterwards it appeared that the answers given fell in

three distinct categories: steering, resources and disturbances. Findings will be presented

accordingly.

Steering

The immediate answer to the opening question concerned “time-scheduling” (3 groups),

“anchors” (1 group) and “discussion” as knowledge-sharing (1 group). The statements

following to deepen these answers encircled a conglomerate of comprehension, planning-

measures and research-design. Three groups had elaborated on their first-semester report-

562

structure, while one group had established the research design after consulting with project-

reports from previous years. The last group had established their research design on basis of

the narrated project-description in the project-catalogue. No groups could give valid

explanations of consequences if research designs were changed or reformulated. All groups

reported that consultations with the contextual facilitator late in first semester turned out to be

surprisingly helpful for the groups as the facilitator provided assistance with the research-

design and report-structure. In second semester this contextual facilitator continued helping

explain the meaning of methodology – as one student phrased it: “she explains what [the

technical facilitator] says”.

Steering thus appears to imply activities of decreasing uncertainty and decoding

complexity – while simultaneously practicing and increasing process-competencies. The

increased level of knowledge resulting from this is encompassed in this student statement: “we

have a grip of the project when we know why”.

Resources

This theme primarily involves group-members’ agency (here defined as the capacity and will

to make choices and to impose those choices on the world), the time available, and the

facilitation – such that

¾ agency on group level is a consensus based state securing progression in accordance with

the factors outlined in Table 1;

¾ time available dictates prioritizing and sequencing of goals and activities independent of

research-design and report-structure ;

¾ facilitation as a resource varies in perception between “providing” and “governing” –

meaning that the agency and the expertise of the facilitator are components that can be

negotiated if this will not violate the facilitator’s principles.

Disturbances

The factors disturbing (obstructing) the groups’ “getting-a-grip” appears influenced by

¾ time available for project-work (one particular course is very demanding);

¾ facilitation (availability; style);

¾ decisiveness (inadequate subject knowledge; inadequate experience with this project

complexity; fear of making incorrect decisions);

¾ social factors (non-productive socializing activities e.g. talk, games);

563

¾ lack of transparency of and agreement on project methods and goals;

¾ differing behavior concerning group-work (differing ambitions and seriousness).

Discussion

The status-seminar reveals that an approved (or not rejected) research-design is a tool

and agent for an “efficient process and an effective project”. When the recipe (“how to”) is

established with a clear structure and explicit procedures then the groups have a grip of their

project (due to the many “grips” or “anchors” on their scaffolding). Follow-ups and tight

coordination may be part of the agreed activities. This logic may be added as yet another

factor essential for the groups as a visible sign of ownership implicitly supporting the groups’

decisions and reasoning.

The facilitated group completed the project with a satisfactory result testifying to the

perseverance and resilience established early and intensified through the semester. The

decision-making was quite obviously influenced by the emotions within the group – following

prolonged, two-sided discussions the group just wanted to get on with the urgent project-work

and made choices to ease their frustration rather than basing their choices on well-argued

cognitive and professional standards. The logic extracted from this set of data points towards

reflection and experimentation as tool and agent for achieving “an efficient process and

effective project”. As unintentional the reflection and experimentation may have been – and

from a facilitator perspective it was not “an efficient process and effective project” – the

group certainly have achieved a more inquiring and critical approach to research

methodology.

Despite the fact that the generic illustrations of research design and the associated

project-management were made available to groups from the onset of second semester, the

interviewed groups had no recollection of seeing these before and the designs had played no

role for the groups’ establishing of own project-structure or research design. Apparently no

facilitators had directed the groups’ attention to this material. Nevertheless, the groups were

able to compare with their own processes and reason about the deviations. Explaining their

reasons for ignoring reflection and planning during the process one group concluded that they

“didn’t think about it nor prioritized it”. The logic emerging from this incident testifies that

there should be a guided way into the research-process and the methodology (e.g. exemplified

564

through a case or performed as role play) as simplified hand-outs without facilitative guidance

and follow-up has no value for the group

Apparently the reflections applied by the groups are focused on the question “where do

we go from here?” – a Schönian-type reflection-in-action (Schön 1983) approach with less

intensity and impact in the groups’ version, though. As the PBL-course has promoted a

Kolbian-type reflection-on-action (Kolb 1984) intended to increase the quality of learning

itself and of the learning-process groups have received no input with measures for reflection

as decision-support. An everyday sense-making or way-finding that is familiar to the students

– the art of muddling through while achieving some degree of success without much effort –

would constitute a systematic and beneficial approach with lasting effects on achieving “an

efficient process and an effective project”.

Yet, reflection in-action sessions on questions like: “where are we? what are our goals

and why are they important? what are possible activities and how to choose?” constitutes a

sense-making or way-finding that is unfamiliar to the students. Likewise reflection on-action

on the other hand is a procedure receiving little attention (though frequently presented and

encouraged) as it is regarded a non-value adding activity until useful results repeatedly

convince groups. Clearly incremental evolution of process-competencies is non-transparent

for the groups unless adequately worded and acknowledged within the group, and preferably

also recognized by the facilitator through appropriate feedback. The specific task of focusing

on supporting reflection-in-action as well as reflection-on-action belongs primarily with

facilitators but must be initiated through the PBL-course. Even facilitators’ reflective

practices may rely more on common sense than comparative or vertical reflections.

The logic behind the “where-do-we-go-from-here” attitude has close resemblance with

the assimilative learning – that the process progresses mechanically step-by-step and

predominantly without loops. The logic clearly depends on the type of project (explorative,

explanatory, demonstrative, constructive, innovative or a mix). As second-semester groups

has limited experience with scientific projects this logic can lead to coincidental success or

failure – unless properly scrutinized through well founded scientific logic (guided by the

facilitator) the “where-do-we-go-from-here” attitude may take too many iterations to

complete the project within the time-frame. Common-sense approaches can turn into more

commonalities than required sense-making.

565

Accommodative learning concerns whole or partial restructuring of already established

mental schemes (Illeris 2007). Whether the establishing of these schemes is recent or more

distant has less significance. What appears significant for the groups is whether there is a

perceived consistency between first and second semester facilitation and a perceived

compliance among the group of facilitators. When facilitators openly discuss their differing

perceptions of problem statements and research methodology (as happened during the status

seminar) groups react defensive and reject possible learning – a situation usually hampering

agency either caused by increased uncertainty and frustration or caused by strengthened

ownership to the project and to the research-design. As a consequence of this the facilitators

should always explain the reasoning behind their perspective or suggestion – making it

evident that the logic of scientific projects differs according to the intended outcome.

Achieving the competencies that comply with personal issues, diminish uncertainty, and

lead to attaining the learning objectives (i.e. passing the exam with a good grade) bears

evidence in itself of mastering the will to succeed. The logic of the group emerges from the

negotiation between the aggregate wills within the project-process: there is a beginning and

there is an end – the in-between sense-making is a game that relies on cognitive as well as

affective approaches to ownership. The decision-making and the associated agency within the

group should be regarded as high priority – it is a process with significant impact on group

performance. An allegory expressed by a student exemplifies the challenge for the individual

student as well as for the group: “It’s like when you can dribble the ball with attentative eyes

on the surroundings rather than with eyes fixed on the ball – that’s what we’re practicing.”

Conclusion

Hypothesis 1:

9 When groups are able to explain “what, how, when and why” the chosen methods and

tools are applied – then they master their project.

Hypothesis confirmed – although groups differed in their readiness to clarify the full logic

behind their research design or report-structure, this type of understanding clearly supports the

mastering.

Hypothesis 2:

566

9 When groups are able to relate their research design to other research designs and explain

consequences of the divergence – then they master their project.

Hypothesis partly confirmed – groups can relate their research design to other research

designs, yet the interviewed groups hold insufficient experience to elaborate on consequences

of the divergence.

Answering the research question

“What is the logic behind groups’ getting a grip of their project?”

depends upon the perspective. From students’ perspective it is a matter of controlling the

significant factors sufficiently. Still in second semester the level of agency and the logic

applied differs considerably among students and between groups. It appears that the

transparency and sustainability of the logics uncovered relies on the facilitators’ competencies

as regards relating the groups’ choices to sound scientific practice and to the desired “efficient

process and effective project”.

REFERENCES

Biggs, J., 2003, Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does, 2nd ed.,

(The Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and Open University Press).

Illeris, K., 2007, How we learn: learning and non-learning in school and beyond, (Routledge,

London).

Kolb, D.A., 1984, Experiental Learning: Experiences as the Source of Learning and

Development (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall).

Kolmos, A. and L. Kofoed, 2004, Development of Process Competencies by Reflection and

Experimentation. In: Gil, V.M.S., I. Alarcão and H. Hooghoff (eds.) Challenges in

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (University of Aveiro, Portugal).

567

Mosgaard, M. and C. M. Spliid, 2011, Evaluating the impact of a PBL-course for first-year

engineering students learning through PBL-projects. Wireless VITAE 2011 2nd

International Conference, Chennai, India.

Schön, D.A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action, (USA:

Basic Books).