ERIC EJ858823: Inclusion and Problem-Based Learning: Roles of Students in a Mixed-Ability Group

2009·0.35 MB·English

by  ERIC

RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

Micki M. Caskey, Ph.D., Editor
Portland State University
Portland, Oregon
2009 • Volume 32 • Number 9 ISSN 1940-4476
Inclusion and Problem-Based Learning:
Roles of Students in a Mixed-Ability Group
Brian R. Belland
Utah State University
Logan, UT
Krista D. Glazewski
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM
Peggy A. Ertmer
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Abstract
The literature on the use of problem-based learning coding to analyze interview and video data of all
in K–12 settings has traditionally focused on gifted 10 class sessions. Results indicated that each group
and average students. However, mainstreaming is member filled a unique role—group manager, task
placing increasing numbers of students with special guidance provider, and task performer—and helped
needs in general education classrooms. This case each other overcome individual difficulties. Results
study examined how members of a small group in a suggest that mainstreamed groups have the potential
mainstreamed seventh grade science class interacted to effectively engage in PBL, and that PBL may
with and supported each other as they engaged in increase the motivation and social confidence of
a problem-based learning (PBL) unit. The group students with special needs. We suggest types of
included one mainstreamed and two average scaffolds that could support mainstreamed students
students. We used conversation analysis and during PBL units.
© 2009 National Middle School Association 1
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

Introduction students solve real-world problems may help shift
their goals from grade-related goals to task goals,
In a landmark report, the Carnegie Council on which could increase student motivation (Anderman
Adolescent Development (CCAD) (1989) noted & Maehr). Also, in PBL students are co-constructors
that major changes needed to be made to both the of knowledge; when middle school students are
curriculum and culture of middle schools to ensure positioned as co-constructors of knowledge they
success of young adolescents as they progressed have been found to have higher motivation (Meece,
throughout life and work in the 21st century. Due to 2003). This is particularly important in middle school
middle school students’ lack of critical reasoning science, because students who are not turned on
skills, the Council suggested an increased use of to science by seventh grade will likely not pursue
inquiry-based methods in middle schools (CCAD). science later in school (National Science Teachers
Association [NSTA], 2003). As PBL is an inquiry-
Problem-based learning (PBL) is an inquiry-based
based, multidisciplinary approach that allows students
instructional approach in which students work in
to make decisions, it fits NSTA's goals for science
small groups to solve an ill-structured problem,
instruction in the middle school context.
defined as a problem with no clear solution or
solution path (Jonassen, 2003). PBL was formalized Research on PBL in middle and high school settings
in medical education and is now used in other has been primarily limited to gifted (e.g., Gallagher et
university and K–12 settings (Barrows & Tamblyn, al., 1992; Torp & Sage, 1998) and average populations
1980; Chin & Chia, 2005; Gallagher, Stepien, & (e.g., Chin & Chia, 2005; Saye & Brush, 2002). In
Rosenthal, 1992; Reiter, Rasmann-Nuhlicek, Biernat, these contexts, PBL has positively affected students’
& Lawrence, 1994; Torp & Sage, 1998). In PBL, problem-solving skills (Gallagher et al.; Kolodner
students (a) collaboratively determine what they know et al., 2003), self-directed learning skills (Hmelo-
and need to know, (b) individually research content Silver, 2004; Sungur & Tekkaya, 2006), and content
and/or conduct scientific tests, (c) communicate the knowledge (Dods, 1997). Some researchers have
research results among themselves, (d) collectively investigated how gifted and/or average middle and
determine a solution to their problem, and (e) present high school students interact during PBL, and have
their solutions to classmates and/or community suggested methods by which teachers can promote
representatives (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). student success. These methods include addressing
misconceptions, promoting reflection, and providing
PBL and Middle School
conceptual and metacognitive support to students
PBL may be an effective way to structure middle
as they are working (Lepper, Drake, & O’Donnell-
school curricula because it exhibits all three
Johnson, 1997; Saye & Brush, 2002; Simons &
characteristics of effective middle school curricula:
Ertmer, 2006).
“challenging, integrative, and exploratory” (National
Middle School Association, 1995, p. 20). PBL is A few researchers have explored the use of PBL
challenging in that it involves solving ill-structured among middle school students with special needs
problems but is also integrative because it incorporates in self-contained classrooms (Belland, Ertmer, &
cross-disciplinary content (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). Simons, 2006; Bottge, 2001), suggesting that these
For example, a PBL unit regarding river pollution students received affective and academic benefits
involves disciplinary knowledge related to chemistry, from PBL (Belland et al.; Bottge) and effectively
biology, social studies, economics, and business. In solved the presented problem (Bottge). In this paper,
a PBL unit, knowledge is not used in isolation but students with special needs refers to students who are
must be integrated as part of a whole solution, which eligible for special education services due to learning,
is especially important in a middle school context emotional, or other cognitive disabilities (Individuals
(Toepfer, 1992; Vars, 1998). In addition, because with Disabilities Education Act, 2004).
PBL involves group work, it may allow students to
explore and further develop their areas of strength by According to the National Center for Education
completing tasks that more closely suit their talents Statistics (2005), half of all students with special
(Torp & Sage, 1998; Wood, 1992). needs in America spent at least 80% of every school
day in mainstreamed classrooms (general education
PBL may also help to counter motivation problems, classes serving students with special needs alongside
which may be behind many issues of middle school their average peers). Though some authors debate the
performance (Anderman & Maehr, 1994). Having merits of inclusion (Lipsky, 2005; Peetsma, Veergeer,
© 2009 National Middle School Association 2
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

Roeleveld, & Karsten, 2001; Rea, McLaughlin, & benefit from PBL in the same way, but this cannot be
Walther-Thomas, 2002), it is likely that inclusion known without further investigation.
will continue into the near future (Putnam, Spiegel,
PBL and Mainstreamed Students
& Bruininks, 1995). Thus, it seems appropriate to
To succeed in inquiry and PBL activities, students
explore the use of PBL in a mainstreamed classroom
must be able to do two key things: plan and carry
in order to develop a stronger understanding of how
out inquiry tasks, and work collaboratively in small
mainstreamed students respond to PBL.
groups (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Krajcik et al., 1998;
Why Might PBL Benefit Mainstreamed Students? Stepien & Pike, 1997; Torp & Sage, 1998). Few
PBL incorporates cooperative learning. Thousand researchers discuss the ability of special education
and Villa (1999) argued, “Cooperative learning is students to plan inquiry activities. However, in one
the most important instructional strategy supporting study of average students and students with special
inclusive education” (pp. 96–97). The use of needs with an IQ of at least 80 (i.e., most students
cooperative learning in the inclusion classroom can with learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral
positively influence motivation (Johnson & Johnson, disabilities), researchers (Mastropieri, Scruggs,
2002; Vaughn, Hughes, Moody, & Elbaum, 2001), Boon, & Carter, 2001) investigated why some liquids
social skills (Putnam, 1998b), peer acceptance float and some sink when placed in water. Students
(Piercy, Wilton, & Townsend, 2002; Slavin, 1983), with special needs performed as well as the average
and achievement (King-Sears, 1997; Slavin) among students, suggesting that they may be able to carry
students with special needs. Mallory and New out the inquiry tasks central to PBL effectively.
(1994) theorized that cooperative learning raises
An important part of success in PBL is effective
the motivation and self-confidence of students
small group interaction, defined as group work in
with special needs by enabling them to feel that
which (a) all group members contribute to solving
they belong. Additionally, a cooperative learning
the problem, and (b) time spent off-task by individual
program raised the reading and writing achievement
group members is minimal (Johnson & Johnson,
of mainstreamed students and their average group
1996). Mainstreamed students have been shown to
mates significantly more than a lecture and discussion
work effectively in small groups (Beaumont, 1999;
approach (Stevens & Slavin, 1995).
Gillies, 2003; Okolo & Ferett, 1996; Pomplun,
PBL increases students’ problem-solving skills. 1997). Pomplun asked small groups that included
Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer, and Hughes (2002) mainstreamed students and those that included
as well as Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, and only average students to perform a science inquiry
Martin (2000) argued that students with special assessment. When mainstreamed groups included
needs must develop their problem-solving skills in students with physical impairments or learning
order to succeed in life. Given that PBL can increase disabilities, group members interacted with each
the problem-solving skills of university, gifted, other the same as members of average groups
and average students (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1976; (Pomplun). When mainstreamed students were
Gallagher et al., 1992; Hmelo, 1998; Pedersen & Liu, required to help group mates and accept responsibility
2002–2003; Stepien & Pike, 1997), mainstreamed for the completion of the group task, they engaged in
students may benefit from PBL in similar ways. more productive interactions and asked more open-
Additional research is needed to test this idea. ended questions related to the topic than students
who were not required to do so (Gillies). In Okolo and
PBL increases students’ self-directed learning
Ferett’s study, mainstreamed students participated in
skills. Students with special needs also need the
group work similarly to their average peers, except
opportunity to develop self-directed learning
that they conveyed new information to group mates
(SDL) skills in order to succeed academically and
less often.
personally (Wehmeyer et al., 2000). SDL skills refer
to students’ abilities to initiate appropriate actions To manage the process of group work, members
to gain knowledge or skill (Gibbons, 2002). PBL has of PBL groups often assume specific roles such
been shown to increase the SDL skills of advanced as scribe, discussion leader, or task organizer
students (Blumberg & Michael, 1992; Evensen, (Duek, 2000; Hmelo & Ferrari, 1997; Lindblom-
Salisbury-Glennon, & Glenn, 2001; Lohman & Ylänne, Pihlajamäki, & Kotkas, 2003) and/or divide
Finkelstein, 2000). Mainstreamed students may not research tasks among group members (Dahlgren
& Öberg, 2001; Kuech, 2004). However, research
© 2009 National Middle School Association 3
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

results regarding how successful university and researchers attempt to explain why the participants
secondary students are in PBL group interaction are act the way they do. We were interested in
inconsistent. In a PBL unit in a European law school, determining systematic patterns underlying small
all group members participated equally in discussions group interactions in a mainstreamed group, and
about the central problem (Lindblom-Ylänne et al.). theorizing why such patterns were present.
In one study in a medical school context, the majority
Setting and Participants
of group interactions were related to the problem
School. This study took place at Taft Middle School
(Visschers-Pleijers, Dolmans, de Leng, Wolfhagen, &
(TMS), which has 36 teachers and approximately 600
van der Vleuten, 2006). In another, members of PBL
students (Note: all names have been changed). TMS
small groups did not always stay on task and interact
is located in a small, low-SES, rural community in
effectively during PBL group work, especially when
the Midwest: 45% of the student body received free or
they became confused or lost track of their group’s
reduced-price lunches, compared to state and national
discussion (de Grave, Boshuizen, & Schmidt, 1996).
averages for small town schools of 36% and 28.6–
Similarly, average members of PBL small groups in
32.2%, respectively, for the years 1994–2004 (Cruse
secondary contexts do not always interact effectively
& Powers, 2006). TMS benefited from a federal
(Kyza & Edelson, 2005; Simons & Ertmer, 2006),
grant that funded a one-to-one laptop initiative and
especially at the beginning of units (Goodnaugh &
provided PBL support from professors and graduate
Cashion, 2006).
students from a large, Midwestern university.
Purpose of this Study
Class. Twenty seventh-grade science students
Effective group interaction is fundamental to student
participated in the unit. Most students were average
success in PBL. As such, it is important to understand
though two were mainstreamed learners eligible
how members of mainstreamed groups interact to
for special education services. The teacher, Mrs.
determine (a) the potential for the use of PBL in a
Smith, holds a Master’s degree, and has two years
mainstreamed classroom, and (b) the types of support
previous experience facilitating PBL units, 15 years
mainstreamed and average students may need during
experience facilitating inquiry units, and 16 years
PBL. We designed this exploratory case study to
experience as a middle school science teacher. Most
examine how members of a mainstreamed group
students had already participated in PBL units in
managed the processes involved in PBL. Specific
Mrs. Smith’s class and in other classes during the year
research questions included:
of the study as well as the previous year. Both Mrs.
1. What difficulties did members of a mainstreamed Smith and Mr. Thomas, a teaching assistant from the
small group face during a PBL unit? local university, provided support to students (e.g.,
answering questions during the unit).
2. What roles did each member of a mainstreamed
small group fill during a PBL unit? Unit. Data were gathered during a two-week PBL
unit entitled “Genes, Dreams, and Reality: The
3. What methods did the group members use to
Human Genome Project,” which followed a teacher-
support each other’s efforts?
led instructional unit on genetics and its role in
human development. Mrs. Smith asked each team
Method
of three to four students to assume the perspective
of a different stakeholder group such as doctors or
Design
religious leaders. The central problem asked students
We chose a case study design (Merriam, 1998) to
to assume a position on the human genome project
address our research questions because we wanted
(HGP) based on their stakeholder perspective, outline
to present an in-depth description of how the
a plan for promoting their positions, and argue their
members of one mainstreamed small group worked
positions during a debate at the end of the unit. Mr.
together during a PBL unit. We approached our
Thomas served as “judge” during the final debate,
interpretation of the group members’ actions from
in which he awarded the winning group $3,000,000
an ethnomethodological framework (Garfinkel,
to further their position/cause. In preparation for the
1967). A primary goal of an ethnomethodological
debate, students developed a promotional brochure
approach is to uncover systematic patterns in human
outlining their positions.
interactions through a close analysis of the actions
and conversations of participants. Once systematic
On the first day of the unit, Mrs. Smith explained unit
patterns are uncovered, ethnomethodological
goals and facilitated a whole-class discussion about
© 2009 National Middle School Association 4
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

several major issues of the HGP (e.g., “Would you during the first interview, an additional interview
want yourself or a loved one to be tested for a gene was conducted with him alone. In each interview,
… that increases your risk for a disease, but does a 19-minute video that contained scenes from the
not tell you if you will definitely have it?”). During class sessions was used to prompt participants’
this discussion, students responded from their own recollections of how they approached the problem,
perspectives. On subsequent days, students worked when they were confused during the unit, and how
in small groups and assumed the perspectives of they addressed identified confusions.
their assigned stakeholder groups—they pursued
Post-survey. Each student in the class completed a
learning issues to understand how members of their
survey at the end of the unit. The survey included
stakeholder groups perceived the HGP and what
two open-ended items: “What did you like the best
they could do with the grant to further their goals in
about this unit” and “What would help the teacher
relation to the HGP. At the end of each day, students
to improve the unit?” It also included 15 Likert-type
responded in journals to open-ended questions
items that were not used in the analysis of this paper.
regarding that day’s work and plans for future days.
The Likert items investigated perceptions of the
Near the end of the unit, students began creating
unit (e.g., “I would enjoy working on another unit
their brochures, other promotional materials such as
like this again”), the investigation process (e.g., “I
posters, and arguments to use in the debate to defend
usually found the information I needed”), and the
their decisions. On the last day of the unit, students
open-endedness of the unit (e.g., “There are many
debated and the grant winner was decided.
approaches we could have taken during the debate”).
Sample. We used purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002)
Data Analysis
because we were interested in learning how a group
We used two analysis strategies: coding and
that included a mainstreamed student engaged in PBL
conversation analysis. To assess the overall
group work. Only two of the eight groups included a
interactions throughout the unit, we coded video and
student with special needs. We chose one group based
interview transcripts in a two-step process using
on the teacher’s perception that its members would
coding schemes based on the literature review. First,
not struggle with behavioral problems. The group we
the first author reviewed all transcripts, modifying
chose included three students—Jill, Michelle, and
the coding schemes as necessary to account for the
Sean. Jill and Michelle were average students, while
patterns that developed from the data. Second, we
Sean had been diagnosed with learning disabilities and
applied these coding schemes to the entire set of
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); he
transcripts. The coding schemes for the video and
performed at the third-grade reading and mathematics
interview transcripts contained 63 and 52 codes,
levels. The teacher paired Jill and Michelle with Sean
respectively, and were used to code passages in terms
because she predicted that they would be patient
of categories such as stage of the unit (e.g., problem
with and helpful to him. Video evidence appeared
definition), decision-making processes (e.g., majority
to confirm this prediction. The group was assigned
rules, negotiation), and who assigned tasks to whom.
the role of lawyers of mothers who do not know the
Passages could be coded twice and coded segments
identity of their children’s fathers.
could overlap.
Data Collection
For each code, we (a) selected characteristic
Videotaped class sessions. We videotaped each class
segments of the transcripts to which the code was
session during the two-week PBL unit. During whole-
applied, (b) found the corresponding video clip, and
class discussions, the entire class was videotaped and
(c) performed conversation analysis on the video.
Mrs. Smith wore a microphone. During small-group
Conversation analysis involves analyzing, at a micro
work, the camera and a microphone were focused
level, interactions between two or more people, and
on the selected group of students. The first author
is performed on either video and a corresponding
transcribed verbatim all whole-class dialogue and all
transcript, or a transcript that contains detailed
intelligible portions of the group’s dialogue (most of
information about pauses, voice inflection, and facial
the dialogue).
expressions (Have, 1999). In our study, we reviewed
Interviews. Two prompted, retrospective interviews, video of selected interactions and the corresponding
of approximately 30 minutes each, were conducted segment of the transcript, and noted the context, what
with the students. The first interview was with other things were occurring, and what gestures or facial
all three; however, because Sean said very little expressions were manifest among the participants.
© 2009 National Middle School Association 5
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

The two analysis methods complemented one another
Level of Thinking Group Member
as conversation analysis focuses on a microanalysis of
interactions, while coding focuses on larger groupings
Macro Michelle
of interactions. We developed assertions based on
the themes generated from our analyses (Erickson,
1986; Stake, 1995). Then, we checked the accuracy of
assertions against interview, video, and survey data
Micro Jill
using the constant comparative method (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967).
Results
Task Sean

We organize the results by assertions, or
generalizations developed from the data (Erickson, Figure 1. Students’ level of thinking about the problem
1986; Stake, 1995). Our three major assertions are
as follows: that each group member (1) primarily
the questions they needed to address, and how to go
concerned him/herself with one level of thinking
about answering the questions (macro-strategy and
about solving the problem, (2) filled a specific role
micro-strategies).
during the unit, and (3) served to counterbalance
each other’s shortcomings to solve the problem. For
Throughout the interview, as she was shown video
each assertion, we provide evidence from interviews,
clips in which she appeared confused, Jill tended to
group video, and the survey, and our interpretations
pinpoint the source of her confusion as the overall
of the data.
task rather than the procedures for getting things
done. When asked why Michelle seemed to be the
Assertion 1:
manager when the group was drawing up its plan of
Each Group Member Primarily Concerned
action on Day 4 of the unit, Jill noted, “Well, I was
Him/Herself with One Level of Thinking
really confused, ’cause I didn’t exactly know what
about Solving the Problem
we were going for and what we were trying to find
One way to consider the strategy that the group out. So she looked like she knows what she’s talking
used to analyze and solve the problem is that of the about.” However, on the same day, Jill was able to
macro-strategy (overall strategy to solve the problem) perform tasks such as formatting the information to
and micro-strategies (ways to complete certain tasks, be placed in the brochure.
such as identifying benefits and drawbacks). In this
Jill’s level of thinking about the problem.
section, we discuss each group member’s perceived
Throughout the unit, Jill seemed to focus almost
difficulties, and then present what he/she appeared
exclusively on micro-strategies and on making sure
to focus on during the unit. Each group member
she understood specific content she encountered. Jill
appeared to have specific problems in understanding
did not seem concerned with the macro-strategy;
micro-strategies and/or macro-strategy. These
she noted in the post-survey that the unit could be
difficulties are illustrated in Figure 1, where we
improved if the teachers gave “a little bit more of a
characterize the focus of each group member during
push of what to do.”
the unit. Of note is that neither Jill nor Michelle’s
difficulties appeared to result directly from working
Jill often appeared to be unable to determine what
with Sean.
new tasks needed to be performed to help them
toward their solution. When prompted by Mrs. Smith
Jill
or Michelle to accomplish a task that was part of the
Jill’s difficulties. In response to video clips in which
overall problem solution process, Jill tended to lay out
students appeared to be confused during the initial
a concrete strategy to complete the task. For example,
days of the unit, Jill noted that the sources for her
on Day 5, Sean had completed his assigned task and
confusion were diverse. In this period, she, like
was waiting for something else to do. Jill was trying
the rest of her group members, was confused about
to finish the brochure. Mr. Thomas noticed that Sean
how to get started and what she was supposed to do.
was unoccupied, and came to discuss possible tasks
She was confused about the overall task, how their
Sean could perform to help his group. Mr. Thomas
stakeholder role (lawyers of single mothers) impacted
© 2009 National Middle School Association 6
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

suggested that the group create a poster to use in and it were accessible to everyone, then the question
the debate: of how long it would take to get the technology would
be irrelevant, and Michelle likely would not have
Mr. Thomas: A re you going to show any posters…?
identified the topic as a learning issue. Jill’s dismissal
(To Jill) Have you talked about that as
of Michelle’s proposed learning issue and failure
a group?
to propose an alternative may indicate that she had
Jill: Well, uh, no, not really, ’cause we were tryin’
difficulties grasping the macro-strategy.
to finish this.
Mr. Thomas: O kay, okay, well you might want to (pause), Sometimes Jill did not seem to understand the macro-
you’re pretty close to finishing here. strategy, but nonetheless argued over fine points of
the strategy with Michelle, as in this example:
As illustrated in this passage, Jill explained to Mr.
Thomas that she had not thought about creating a
Michelle: Okay, are we wanting to go for drawbacks or
poster because she was focused on finishing the benefits?
brochure. She presumably knew that Sean did not
Jill: You have to do both.
have anything to do because he was sitting next to
her. However, no one had mentioned creating a poster Michelle: Y eah, but which one do we want to focus on?
before Mr. Thomas. When class resumed the next Jill: Like during the uh, which one, the brochure?
day, Jill worked with Sean to create a poster. You have to do both in the brochure.
Michelle: I know, but you have to do both in the debate
Jill often expressed confusion about the macro-
too. But which one do you want to like focus
strategy and sought help from Mrs. Smith and
on?
Michelle. On many occasions when she appeared
Jill: W ell, what drawbacks is there that we
to be confused about a question about the macro-
(inaudible)?
strategy, Jill simply repeated the same question, as in
Michelle: I couldn’t think of any, except that it just, it
the following example:
would cost money, maybe. So I’m guessing
Michelle: A nyways, let’s move on. Okay, what do we benefits.
need to know? Jill: Well, like I was thinking that we could, like,
Jill: ( Smiles) Okay, what do we need to know? why we need the money is because, like–
Michelle: We need to know like… Michelle: Is this for benefits?
Sean: W hich one are we doing (referring to Jill: What are you talking about?
benefits or drawbacks), uh? Michelle: Well first we need–
Jill: D o we care? Jill: I’m talking about for the, I’m talking about
Michelle: H ow much, how much, how long it would for the trial.
take to get this stuff [better technology for Michelle: Well, the–
paternity testing]?
Jill: Never mind.
Jill: Well we don’t know because we don’t have
Michelle: O kay, for the brochure, what we’re gonna use
the technology yet. (Pause) (To Mr. Thomas)
the brochure for is to prepare for the debate,
Okay, so we’re kind of confused on what we
to plan out our debate. So, for the brochure,
need to know. ‘Cause we’re like, we’re trying
do you want to focus on benefits?
to use the three million dollars to help find
dads. Jill: W e’re focusing on both (puts hand down on
table in assertive manner).
It is interesting here that Jill told Mr. Thomas that
her group was confused about what they needed Michelle: N o, we gotta focus on one, but (puts hand
to know, whereas Michelle seemed sure that they down on table in assertive manner).
needed to know how long it would take to develop Jill: There’s one for each of them.
better technology for paternity testing. However, in
Michelle: I know, but we got to do both, but focus on
the conversation, Jill dismissed the learning issue
one.
by saying, “we don’t know because we don’t have
Jill: (Smiling) Who cares, why don’t we just do
the technology yet.” Jill’s dismissal of the learning
both?
issue did not seem to follow logically from Michelle’s
Jill noted during the interview that she was confused
comment. If better technology for paternity testing
during the preceding passage, but she argued with
already existed, group members knew what it was,
© 2009 National Middle School Association 7
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

Michelle as if she were certain that she was right. on the [Human Genome Project] as a whole before
Michelle did not try to say that they had to cover researching.”
benefits or drawbacks, but Jill acted as if that was
Michelle did not appear to spend time looking for
Michelle’s intent. Finally, she tried to win the
detailed information. Mrs. Smith encouraged all
argument with the last comment, which did not
students to write in their notebooks what information
logically flow from the previous comment, in which
they were having trouble finding. Each day after
Michelle said that they have to cover benefits and
school, Mrs. Smith read the notebooks and wrote
drawbacks. When prompted with this exchange in the
down additional resources. In response to one
interview, Jill noted being confused about what they
question, Mrs. Smith provided the group four links,
were supposed to do, but then later she understood
but Michelle did not want to look through all of the
that Michelle was right:
links:
Jill: She said we were either for or against it, and
suddenly I said we were going to do both, Michelle: Mrs. Smith?
and she said we had to pick one, and I don’t
Mrs. Smith: Yes?
know, I didn’t get it, but then I got it.
Michelle: Out of all these … I just don’t feel like going
Interviewer: O kay, what did you end up realizing later?
to all of ’em.
Jill: Um, well, for the trial we did it, we said both
Mrs. Smith: ( Laughs) That’s why I narrowed it down to
benefits and drawbacks, but we were for
four.
it, so we wanted to put more benefits. And
then in the brochure, we did the benefits and Michelle: Well, I know but still that’s a lot.
drawbacks too. Mrs. Smith: Which one’s the best one?
Michelle Michelle: Yeah, for like the benefits?
Michelle’s difficulties. When shown clips from the
Mrs. Smith: For the benefits of?
initial days of the unit, Michelle also indicated that
Michelle: Yeah.
she was confused about many things, including the
overall task, and sub-tasks: “We didn’t know what Mrs. Smith: That one right here. This one is, and
to do, we just knew the basics about … the human unfortunately it’s also the …
genome project, but we didn’t know … where we Michelle: The longest.
stood.” When prompted with episodes from later
Mrs. Smith: Longest. I knew you were going to say that.
days of the unit, Michelle noted being confused about
Unfortunately yes, but once you get there …
micro-strategies: “We were just confused about what all you have to do is click back and forth.
all we had to do. I think we knew what we had to do;
When considering this passage, it is important to
we just didn’t know who was going to do it.”
remember that Mrs. Smith provided Michelle with
In this interview clip Michelle seemed to portray four links; as such, all Michelle had to do was type in
that the whole group was confused about how to the URLs and read the material. However, Michelle
get specified tasks done. However, in the video clip raised her hand, waited two minutes for Mrs. Smith
that was shown, Jill had explained to Sean how to to come, and then asked what web page she should
describe benefits and drawbacks for the brochure, read. Mrs. Smith anticipated that Michelle would ask
so it appears that at least Jill was not confused about if it were the longest and so started to state that it was,
who was going to do what and how it was going to be but then tried to reassure Michelle that it would not be
done. Thus, the “we” in the interview comment may that hard or time-consuming to go through it.
have been more appropriately stated as “I.”
On another occasion Michelle seemed to feel
Michelle’s level of thinking about the problem. overwhelmed by the attention to detail that she had to
Michelle spent most of her time focusing on the pay to the brochure as they were putting it together.
macro-strategy, but had trouble translating the On Day 4, she had assembled several drawbacks
strategy into specific steps. She seemed to concentrate and benefits of the HGP, and then talked about them
primarily on the global strategy of how to make with Jill. After finishing describing the benefits and
the brochure and prepare for the debate, and not on drawbacks she and Sean found, Michelle asked:
conceptual understanding or the fine details of the
Michelle: Do you think that’s enough?
strategy. She noted in the post-survey that the unit
could be improved by giving “some more information Jill: W ell we have to be able to … fit it all in here.
Michelle: Well that could fit in that.
© 2009 National Middle School Association 8
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

Sean: W hat’s the etc. thingy for? Hey what’s the More details were needed on all brochure parts:
last square for? general overview, benefits, drawbacks, basic
Michelle: Gosh, Jill, do we have to figure it out? information about the HGP, and miscellaneous
information. However, Michelle delegated the
Sean: (to Michelle) Hey, hey, there’s drawbacks,
gathering of all additional details to Jill. When Jill
benefits, and what’s this last one for?
replied, she noted that she, not she and Sean, was
Jill: I don’t know exactly what you guys already
working on it. However, she subsequently worked
have.
with Sean to add details to the brochure, providing
Michelle: That’s why I’m asking you if that’s enough. evidence that she was not considering completing the
Jill: Well I don’t know because I don’t know what task alone.
all you have.
Sean
Michelle: I just told you.
Sean’s difficulties. Sean mentioned on several
It is important to note that Michelle had only told occasions in both interviews that he was confused
Jill orally what she had for benefits and drawbacks because he “didn’t know a whole lot.” When asked
but then she expected Jill to be able to tell her if she what he did not know, he was often not able to
had enough for the benefits and drawbacks section provide specific examples. In the interview, Sean had
of the brochure. When Jill said that she was not sure, just finished stating that he understood the problem
Michelle appeared confused because she had already on the first day of the unit, and then said he was still
given Jill the information orally. However, Michelle “a little confused.”
relayed them in narrative form and not in bulleted
form, as they would appear in the brochure. Interviewer: Do you know what you were still confused
about? Do you remember?
Sean attempted to join the conversation by asking
Sean: Not really.
what should be put in the space left in the pamphlet
Interviewer: Not really? Okay…
template. Nevertheless, his attempt to join the
conversation was not successful. This may have been Sean: All I know was I was a little confused.
because (a) Michelle appeared to be waiting for a On other occasions in the interviews, Sean indicated
clear, unambiguous answer to her original question that he had trouble understanding what was going on
(“Do you think that’s enough?”); and (b) Jill was during the unit, as indicated in the following passage:
straining to respond to Michelle’s question. Sean’s
interjection may have appeared to be irrelevant to Interviewer: Do you know what [you were confused]
their conversation, and for that reason, they did not about?
respond to his question. Sean: B asically … what everything was going on,
you know? Like, um…
When they finished a draft of their brochure, they
Interviewer: Okay, go ahead. Did it have to do with the
showed it to Mr. Thomas to see what they needed
project?
to add. The group previously divided the task of
Sean: I think it was the uh, trying to write
creating the brochure, and Michelle was responsible
everything down, and listen to it at the
for the outside of the brochure (general overview,
same time, listen to them talk, and write it
basic information about the HGP, and miscellaneous
down and stuff. But I don’t [think] I got it all
information) and the benefits, while Jill and Sean written down.
were responsible for the inside (which contained the
Sean’s level of thinking about the problem. For most
drawbacks, benefits, and websites and phone numbers
of the unit, Sean appeared to have trouble grasping
for more information). Mr. Thomas indicated
either macro- or micro-strategies. Part of his difficulty
that they needed to add more details to the entire
performing tasks assigned to him by his teammates
brochure, and then Michelle said:
seemed to result from not understanding the problem
Michelle: W e have to add a lot more like information, or steps to solve the problem. For example, it took
details, and then we’re done. (Pause) Yes Jill Sean a long time to understand the definition of
we’ve got a (inaudible) and a good job. Now drawbacks as they pertained to the HGP. He seemed
you have to add the details and then. to see them as something he should be able to simply
Mr. Thomas: Y ou need more details, the more details you look up in a book based on how Michelle initially
get the better. explained drawbacks: “why we wouldn’t want the
three million dollars.” After Michelle’s explanation,
Jill: I’m working on it.
© 2009 National Middle School Association 9
RMLE Online—Volume 32, No. 9

Sean began looking in a book for drawbacks, but he Sean: I can finally think of, oh, a couple of
quickly became discouraged and said to her, “There’s drawbacks. I don’t know. (To Michelle)
nothing in here. Hey, Michelle, there’s nothing in here Could one be, a drawback, don’t want
children growing up without a dad?
like saying about why we wouldn’t want … the three
million dollars.” Jill: W ell, we’re talking about drawbacks if
we do get—
Sean never seemed to understand fully the strategy
Michelle: T he drawbacks (inaudible).
behind his group’s solution to the problem. For
Jill: Well, no, I’m trying to think. A drawback
example, when Mr. Thomas asked what strategy his
would be … like what, if you do get the DNA
group was going to use in the debate, Sean replied,
test, and you find out who the dad is, it’s like
“Oh, we’re gonna get really, real big missiles and
the drawback was finding out the wrong …
stuff.” When Mrs. Smith asked what needed to go dad. But, and another drawback would be,
on the group’s debate poster, Sean replied, “Um, if you think the dad is one person, but it’s
important stuff,” and when asked to be more specific really somebody else you don’t want it to be.
he could not. Or like when you’re taking the DNA sample,
something could go wrong. Something like
When asked at various points during the unit why he that.
let Michelle and/or Jill take the lead, Sean replied it Sean: Uh (starts to write in his notebook).
was because he “didn’t know a whole lot,” and was
It is important to note that Jill offered an explanation
“just waiting to know a little bit more so [he] could
of drawbacks that was much more concrete than
understand it more.” But he mentioned that another
Michelle’s explanation–that drawbacks were “why we
factor was that he felt nervous talking in his group:
wouldn’t want the three million dollars.” Jill provided
“You see I get nervous around a whole bunch of
Sean with examples of drawbacks, which helped him
people, so the worst thing was … when I had to talk, I
to understand the nature of drawbacks. He still had
kept mispronouncing stuff, I was nervous.” He noted,
a few questions about drawbacks, which he asked
however, that he would like to participate in another
later during the period. By late on the Day 5, Sean
PBL unit: “I would like to do another one now that I
contributed his two drawbacks: “want a machine to
could probably get myself up there in front of people.”
work perfect so it’s never wrong. And when taking
This may imply that working in a group allowed Sean
DNA samples they could go wrong and the dad would
to increase his confidence speaking in front of others.
have to pay child support.”
Though he did not appear to understand the macro-
In addition, Jill may have felt a responsibility to
strategies or micro-strategies, Sean was able to focus
intervene when Michelle was not providing Sean
on and complete specific tasks, such as searching for
clear task guidance. For example, later during Day
stories about mothers who did not know the identity
4, Michelle asked Sean to help write up benefits for
of their children’s fathers, for which clear guidance
the brochure, but had trouble explaining exactly what
was provided.
she wanted him to do. Jill initially questioned why
they still needed to work on the benefits, but then left
Assertion 2: Each Group Member Filled Specific
the two to work. However, when she heard Michelle
Roles During the Unit
providing Sean unclear task guidance, she intervened:
Jill
Michelle: ( to Sean) Do you wanna help me with the
Jill appeared to fill two roles during the unit: task
benefits?
guidance provider and Sean’s tutor. Jill tried to ensure
Jill: Y ou said you already have ’em. Okay, you
that tasks assigned to Sean were explained clearly.
guys can do whatever you want to.
For example, on Day 3 of the unit, the group started
planning their brochure. Mrs. Smith explained that Michelle: (to Sean) Okay, you have to make sentences,
make it like a paragraph about, well not
brochures needed to include benefits and drawbacks
really a paragraph, about some (inaudible).
of the HGP from groups’ assigned stakeholder
perspectives (e.g., doctors, lawyers). Michelle had Jill: Just put it in bullets! You say benefits: blah
blah blah blah blah.
assigned Sean the task of finding drawbacks by
stating that he should find “why we wouldn’t want Michelle: (to Sean) I know, well, you need to number
the three million dollars.” On Day 4, Sean was your drawbacks, even though you only have
two, you need to put like drawbacks, do do
still confused about what to find, but Jill explained
do do do. Like make a square. Like, okay,
drawbacks to Sean in a more concrete way:
you know on the brochure. You know?
© 2009 National Middle School Association 10