Strategic Facilitation of Problem-Based Discussion for Science Teachers’ Professional Development

Meilan Zhang, Mary Lundeberg, Tom J. McConnell, Matthew J. Koehler, Jan Eberhardt

4/16/2009

PBL TPC ProjectCopyright © 2009Michigan State UniversityBoard of Trustees

Teacher Professional ContinuumProject no. ESI - 0353406

Context of this study

A 5-year NSF funded professional development project, which uses PBL approach to developing K-12 science teachers.

Why using PBL as a teacher professional development model? Teaching problem is messy, ill-structured We view teachers as professional clinicians Problem solving skills are important for teachers Collaborative learning community benefits teacher

learning

The PD model

Summer Week 1: Immersion in content Week 2: Focus on practice

Analyze teaching problems using PBL Identify a problem from practice for teacher research

School year Conduct research on the problems they selected in

summer Meet in small groups monthly to share and discuss

their research

Vital role of facilitation in PBL

A problem, however well designed, does not teach itself. A new group does not automatically form a learning

community.

“If teaching with PBL were as simple as presenting the learners with a ‘problem’ and students could be relied upon to work consistently at a high level of cognitive self-monitoring and self-regulation, then many teachers would be taking early retirement.” (Savery, 2006 p. 15)

Challenges in facilitation

Unpredictability of group discussion (e.g., Morine-Dershimer, 1996; Saunders et. al., 1992)

Teaching as telling

Passive and totally uninvolved

Conflicting goals of facilitation (e.g., Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Levin, 1999)

Making transition from regular instructors to PBL facilitators (e.g., Hak & Maguire, 2000; Schmidt et al., 1993)

Community building

Fostering learning

Planned agenda

Group autonomy

Research in facilitation strategies

Lack of empirical studies on PBL facilitation Studies by Hmelo-Silver & Barrows (2006; 2008)

Examined two 2.5-hour long PBL meetings with 5 medical students Identified 10 strategies used by an experienced facilitator

1) use of open-ended and metacognitive questioning, 2) pushing for explanation, 3) revoicing, 4) summarizing, 5) generate/evaluate hypothesis, 6) map between symptoms and hypotheses, 7) check consensus that whiteboard reflects discussion, 8) cleaning up the board, 9) creating learning issues, 10) encourage construction of visual representation (p.27-28)

Shedding light on “the Black Box”

Critique of existing studies Limited sample size Restriction in Medical school context

“It would be naïve to believe that the medical school model of PBL could be imported into other settings without considering how to adapt it to the local context, goals, and developmental level of learners” (Hmelo-Silver, 2004 p. 260).

Need for new research in facilitation The group and tutorial process remains to be a “black

box.” (Hak & Maguire, 2000 p.769)

Research Questions

How did facilitators and teachers use speaking turns in the PBL discussion?

What strategies did experienced facilitators employ in a PBL discussion in the context of PD for science teachers?

What goals did the facilitators attempt to achieve by using these strategies?

How did teachers evaluate the facilitation and the discussion?

MethodsParticipants:

6 facilitators worked in pairs: one main facilitator, one assistant facilitator All three lead facilitators had 20+ or 30+ years of teaching experience as

either science educators or science teacher educators Had extensive experience in leading small group discussion in their

classrooms Received training on how to lead PBL discussion Used design meetings to share experience in facilitation

35 teachers in four small groups Problems

Three problems: Circuits: how to move from vague ideas to scientific understanding of

circuits? Falling object: how to help students notice and resolve discrepant data? Weather map: how to structure the group task to stimulate more

collaboration among students?

Table 1: Facilitators, problems and teachers

Main facilitator

Assistant facilitator

Problem Day 1 Day 2

Jocelyn Ashley Falling Objects

Elementary Group 1 (10 teachers)

Elementary Group 2 (9 teacher)

Stephanie Hannah Circuits Elementary Group 2 (9 teacher)

Elementary Group 1 (10 teacher)

Presley Karen Weather Map

Secondary group 1 (8 teachers)

Secondary group 2 (8 teachers)

PBL process…

Group members encounter a new problem (called dilemma)

Analyze and discuss views of the problem Identify key facts as it relates to the problem Propose hypotheses Formulate learning issues investigate learning issues Discuss new knowledge Summarize learning

Data sources

Video recordings of six PBL group discussions, resulting in about 15 hours of videos

Charts generated during the group discussion

Evaluation questionnaire at the end of Focus on Practice week

Data analysis

Analysis of speaking turns for both facilitators and teachers

Development of coding scheme for analyzing facilitation strategies and goals Inter-rater reliability for coding: 91% agreement for 17% of data

Member checks with three lead facilitators about our interpretation of their goals

Triangulation with the project design document about the PD goals

Triangulation with teachers’ perspectives on effective facilitation strategies

Results: Analysis of speaking turns

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Circuits 1 Circuits 2 Weathermaps 1

Weathermaps 2

Falling Object1

Falling Object2

Main facilitator

Assistant facilitator

Teachers

Figure 1: Distribution of speaking turns among facilitators and teachers

Results: Analysis of facilitation goals

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

I. Promoting an activePBL discourse

II. Establishing learningcommunity

III. Maintaining groupprocess

IV. Modeling the studygroup practice

Figure 3: Frequencies of facilitating goals

Results: Analysis of strategy use

Figure 2: Frequencies of major facilitating strategies

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Que

stio

ning

Rev

oici

ng

Cla

rifyi

ng

Ela

bora

ting

Ref

ram

ing

Sum

mar

izin

g

Mak

ing

conn

ectio

nF

eedb

ack

toin

divi

dual

Joki

ng

Fee

dbac

k to

grou

pA

llevi

atin

gfr

ustr

atio

n

Met

adis

cour

se

Tas

kex

plan

atio

n

Cal

ling

out

Ass

igni

ng

Rol

e pl

ayin

g

Exp

lain

ing

proc

ess

Promoting PBL discourse Establishing learningcommunity

Maintaining groupprocess

Modelingpractice

Evaluation results

Discussion

Speaking turns: This study: 32% of speaking turns and 28%

of total words Saunders (1992) reported in case-based

discussion, she talked 33% of the time as a facilitator.

66% of time of teacher talk in typical classroom discourse (Cazden, 1986).

Discussion

Facilitation goals and strategies: Some strategies are similar to the findings of Hmelo-

Silver & Barrows (2006; 2008), such as questioning, revoicing and summarizing

Identified new strategies, such as making connections, alleviate frustration, role play

Modeling group process practice might be unique to the PD context

Few PBL studies have reported frequency data on facilitation strategies

Limitation and future research

Limitation of this study Short period Did not examine the effects of individual strategies Difficulty with measuring discussion-based learning

Future research direction How facilitation is interacted with other important PBL

variables, such as the problem, the group and the learning context?

How facilitators develop skills in a relatively longer period? What is the effect of individual strategies?