In general, the class based their solutions on material from the readings on cooperative learning, and also asserted their own theories about group learning based their personal experiences in college courses. They tended to say, for example, that groups work best when: they are structured by clear directions from the instructor, students have roles in the groups, there is individual accountability to protect against freeloading, and when the instructor monitors and guides the groups. Their strategies clearly focused on the how to manage the group process and activity.   

At the end of the semester, I asked students to reread the Group Learning problem and their responses to the problem. As a final assignment in the course, I asked them to reconsider what they would do or advise the instructor to do in order to use group learning to promote students' understanding of the subject. This shifted the focus from how to make groups work (i.e., a class management problem) to how to use groups to promote depth of understanding (i.e., a student learning problem). They submitted their responses as part of the final portfolio assignment in the course.

This assignment is a way to test how well students can incorporate ideas about "learning for understanding" into teaching situations. This is another case in which students are asked to think about how students learn and how a teaching strategy can facilitate that learning.

The assignment was

Suppose you are a colleague of Elaine Brooks. She comes to you to discuss her dilemma and to seek advice about what she might do. What would you advise Elaine to do in order to modify the way she uses groups in order to promote student understanding of the course material.

I evaluated two aspects of students' answers. First, I wanted to determine whether students would interpret the situation as a learning problem (i.e., how to use a group format to deepen students' understanding of the subject), as opposed to a management problem (i.e., how to get students in groups to work cooperatively or effectively to accomplish a task). Second, I wanted to determine how well students could use concepts from the course to explain how group learning can promote understanding.

Thirty out of 31 students in the class completed the assignment. Of these, 18 students interpreted the problem as how to use the group format to promote understanding. The remaining 12 students focused on how to conduct group work efficiently (e.g., follow cooperative learning procedures such as assigning students to roles), and made no explicit reference to understanding or how these procedures would promote understanding.

Of the 18 students who focused on student understanding, 14 proposed some kind of strategy or combination of strategies that could be used with groups to promote understanding of the subject. Some of these included such things as eliciting prior knowledge and preconceptions of the subject, creating conflict in order to start debates, using reciprocal teaching strategies, using problem-based learning strategies, adopting more authentic problems for groups to work on, and adopting a strategy to prompt students' self-assessment of their understanding. Another approach taken by 7 students was to incorporate ideas from a course text, Teaching for understanding. In these cases, students suggested how one might employ the techniques from that approach in a group setting. Four of the students' answers were seriously underdeveloped. Although they focused on understanding, they did not propose any specific strategies to accomplish this.

In summary, about 60% of the class interpreted the situation as a teaching for understanding problem and most of these students proposed reasonable ways to structure group learning to promote understanding of the subject matter. About 40% of the class framed the problem as a group management task, and proposed ways to make groups work efficiently or cooperatively. In general these were reasonable answers.

These results raise two issues. The first is what one can infer from what students did not say. The fact that a segment of the class did not mention understanding in their answers could be interpreted in several ways. Perhaps, these students just misinterpreted the question and answered the same question they had at the beginning of the semester. Perhaps the students could not answer the "understanding" question and resorted to the management response. Alternatively, perhaps they believe that if groups work efficiently, then students will understand the subject matter better (i.e., when done well cooperative learning produces better understanding). Still another possibility is that students believe more broadly that understanding is a natural consequence of learning and that students will understand the subject better as long as the teacher does a good job of teaching, regardless of the specific method.

These findings also raise a teaching issue about problem-based learning. The question is, what should the teacher do when students get it wrong? At what point and in what ways should the instructor intervene in order to get students on track? And, when the instructor does intervene, at what point does the approach cease to be problem-based learning and become something else?

In this instance, my purpose was to determine if students would interpret the problem in a certain way. I asked an open-ended question but did not provide additional details about what sources to consult, how to think about the problem and what a "good" answer should contain. Moreover, since it was the end of the semester I did not give feedback on their responses. But, the results raise questions about how much scaffolding should take place in the problem-based learning classroom. Should the instructor try to guide students away from blind alleys? In a traditional classroom setting my answer to the question would be a definite, yes—the instructor should intervene to clarify misunderstandings, etc. However, PBL is designed to allow student more leeway in inquiry, and even presumes that they will go astray in the process. Moreover, PBL is not just a strategy to teach students a set of concepts—it is a way to influence how they think about and experience the subject. One of the primary outcomes of PBL may be enhanced interest in and persistence in learning as well as greater self regulation of learning by the student. Instructors may reduce these effects by intervening too often in the problem solving process. I can imagine PBL turning into a kind of elaborate game for students in which they are led to certain ideas and conclusions by the teacher rather than really participating fully in a problem solving process. I need to develop scaffolding that promotes understanding but does not detract from the other benefits of PBL.