Saving face: Managing rapport in a Problem-Based Learning group

Abstract

This qualitative study investigated the complex social aspects of communication required for students to participate effectively in Problem-Based Learning and explored how these dynamics are managed. The longitudinal study of a group of first-year undergraduates examined interactions using Rapport Management as a framework to analyse communication with regard to the concepts of face, sociality rights and interactional goals. Problem-Based Learning requires students to engage in potentially face-threatening interactions as they discuss subjects of which they have little prior knowledge, placing them in situations that require negotiation using face-saving strategies in order to meet objectives to share their learning with others. The study described within this article focuses on the key role of the Problem-Based Learning chair and shows how failure by the chair to manage rapport effectively can influence the quality of group learning. The findings suggest that educators need to understand the complex interactional demands students have to face in undertaking Problem-Based Learning and support students to overcome these difficulties considering the three bases of rapport management.

Keywords

communication face facilitation Problem-Based Learning rapport management social constructivism

Problem-Based Learning

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is well described in the literature (Barrows, 1986; Moust, 2005; Savin-Baden, 2003; Schmidt, 1983). Its main characteristics are that it is a small group approach (typically 6–12 students), where learning is constructed through students’ interactions in response to the presentation of a problem or ‘trigger’. It is student-centred in that discussions are directed by the students: one of whom is nominated as ‘chair’ and another is nominated as ‘scribe’ (Wood, 2004). The discussion is facilitated by a tutor who guides students in their PBL roles rather than providing subject-specific knowledge. The PBL tutorial is generally structured according to an agreed problem-solving strategy, such as the Maastricht 7-jump model (Schmidt, 1983) used in the study reported here. Although at a curriculum level models of PBL can vary, ranging from a single module of PBL to a fully integrated PBL programme (Savin-Baden, 2003), one of the defining features of PBL is that the problem is vague and presented at the beginning of the event in order to drive the subsequent learning (Ross, 1997). The intention is that students come to the problem with little pre-existing knowledge, that is, they are unable to discuss the issues related to the problem in an informed way without undertaking further study.

Opinions about the value of the group in terms of its impact on learning have changed. Early PBL researchers believed it existed solely for the elaboration of knowledge to enhance individual learning (Eva, 2002; Norman, 2001). Eva stated that working together is simply a means to an end that may be effective in some situations, and Norman suggested that the element of group work was an incidental feature of PBL. Miflin’s (2004) narrative review concluded that PBL groups should only be used during the early stages of a student’s journey until they become more self-sufficient because she suggested that learning is essentially an individualistic activity. More recently, however, proponents of sociocultural learning have argued for a deeper understanding of PBL which places the group at the centre of the PBL process – the place where learning is constructed. Harland (2003) used Vygotskian analogies to describe how the boundaries and edges of new knowledge shared in the PBL group become the group’s Zone of Proximal Development, going on to suggest that learning is so bound up in the social context that different groups studying the same problem will arrive at different learning issues.

Van den Bossche (2006) explored the integration of social and cognitive theories and also argues that the social context influences group learning. He suggests that a group’s mental schema, a joint understanding of cognitive goals, is heavily influenced by the dynamic nature of a developing social system or the ‘emergent states’, which are the social ‘product’ of the group. He also explains that the success of a group can only be ensured where there is psychological safety in which individuals know that their ideas will not be rejected by others. This has been replicated in the context of compulsory education. Barnes and Todd (1977) identified a spectrum of social interactions with two extremes in the learning groups of school children. At one end, there were personal clashes and disputes. This was clearly unproductive for collaboration. However, at the other end, the groups were so concerned with harmony that they avoided differences of opinion. Mistakes were left unchallenged, and the group put the social harmony of the group before their need to develop cognitive strategies. Nelson and Aboud (1985) and Azmitia and Montgomery (1993) showed that groups of learners who were friends rather than acquaintances found it easier to expose their views and to challenge each other. They suggested that this was because the friends knew the conflict was not likely to be detrimental to their friendship. It is thus important to get the social relationship between the group participants right if the tricky process of conflict is to be managed effectively.

More recent PBL research also explores the influence of social factors on PBL groups, tackling this mainly from an emic perspective, that is, collecting data about student experience (Bearn and Chadwick, 2011; Chappell, 2006; De Boer and Otting, 2011). These studies report that PBL is associated with discomfort and that students experience ‘distress and uncertainty’, describing PBL as ‘emotionally experienced’ (Keville et al., 2013). Chappell (2006) even likened PBL to the grieving process, reviewing geography student journal entries about their PBL experience against a grieving model. Keville et al. (2013) analysed the reflective reports of a group of medical psychology students experiencing PBL for the first time. They claimed that students avoided difficult conversations and conflict acknowledging that their feelings were dependent on their interactions with other students. However, De Boer and Otting (2011) believed that the distress and uncertainty experienced by their students were owing to a lack of familiarity with process rather than the emotional impact of the social interaction. This concern has also been expressed by others (Hmelo-Silver, 2004, Tan, 2004). Therefore, while most are in agreement that PBL can be uncomfortable for new students, it is not clear from this body of work exactly what it is that is the cause of students’ discomfort, and there are few studies which have incorporated an etic perspective, that is, an objective observation to analyse exactly what happens at that crucial moment of potential conflict.

An analytical framework which explores the emotional impact of communicative interactions is therefore required if we are to understand how students experience PBL. The concept of ‘face’ is a particularly good fit for this task (Goffman, 1967). ‘Face’ as a sociological concept is related to notions such as esteem, regard, worth and dignity and is what is claimed or protected by a person in a communicative act. Goffman’s work suggests that face relates to what is ‘approved’ or held in regard and is related to social attributes so that what is approved is not only determined by self but also influenced by cultural norms. Face is therefore both a social and a dynamic concept in that it is constructed in interaction and is associated with a judgement made by others. However, what is worthy of approval in terms of face is dependent on many contextual factors including the perspective of each individual and the influence of wider culturally related beliefs. Importantly, for this work, face can be ‘threatened’ when a speaker makes a move which puts themselves or the hearer at risk of ‘face loss’. Such moves are called Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs). As identified by Keville et al. (2013), students report that they find the experience of working with their peers embarrassing, scary and difficult. Furthermore, through speaking, there is the risk that what is said may offend someone else and that one or more participants will not speak unless they have ‘the right answer’ as they are mindful of how others will judge them. If we are to better understand how learners communicate as part of a group in PBL, understanding how students manage ‘FTAs’ is clearly important. There is a need to look at student-to-student interaction, and therefore, it is necessary to select a theory of communication through whose lens this can be viewed. Rapport Management (RM; Spencer-Oatey, 2002) is such a lens.

RM theory

RM (Spencer-Oatey, 2002) is a theory of communication which posits that in order to achieve some interactional goal, interactants (i.e. specific speaker(s) and hearer(s) in any conversational occurrence) apply tacit communication strategies to manage their relationship, giving particular attention to maintaining (or not) their own, or others’, ‘face’ (Goffman, 1967). However, RM also considers the influence of contextual factors, including sociality rights and obligations, and interactional goals. In a PBL tutorial context, these are clearly different to those experienced in normal conversation.

‘Sociality rights’ are concerned with our perceived entitlements and obligations in relationships with others. Such rights concern two aspects: one, equity in relationships, which is related to a mutual understanding that there should be a balance between ‘autonomy’ versus ‘imposition’ or the degree to which demands on another’s resources are tolerated, and, two, association, which clarifies the level of ‘involvement’ versus ‘detachment’ managed in a relationship. In normal conversations, these rights are often unwritten and are heavily influenced by the power and/or social distances that exist between hearer and speaker. In an institutionally bound context, formal customs and practices often legitimised through rules and regulations further influence communication strategies. So, for instance, the way one requests a favour from one’s friend or family member may be quite different from the way a request is made to a superior or senior colleague in a work context or to another student. In addition to face and sociality rights is the notion of an ‘interactional goal’ (Spencer-Oatey, 2008), that is, the purpose of the communication. By incorporating interactional goals in RM, there is an acknowledgement of the importance of task achievement in maintaining relations since failure to achieve an objective or a mismatch between each interactant’s intended goal can cause a breakdown in communication.

Thus, face, sociality rights and interactional goal form the three main bases of communication, and it is posited that people in communicative interactions are constantly evaluating their moves according to the influence of these three concepts. This becomes particularly apparent when observing how people manage what might be deemed as FTAs. In ‘normal’ communication, there is always the potential to threaten the face of the hearer (or speaker). Brown and Levinson (1978) call these interactions FTAs. FTAs are said to impose a threat to the hearer’s sense of face, and speakers use strategies to limit or mitigate this through linguistic politeness. Such strategies might include apologies, rhetorical questions and self-deprecating moves. The potential for FTAs may be so acutely felt that the only choice is of avoidance altogether in which case the potential speaker and/or hearer simply does not make that move.

For students acting out their roles in PBL, there may be many occasions in which FTAs could be experienced, and management of these requires more advanced communicative skills than those upon which individuals usually rely on in everyday conversations. The study therefore aims to use the RM framework and the individual bases of face, sociality rights and interactional goal to understand how students engage in PBL and what the drivers and barriers are which determine how they manage an FTA. The research questions which drive this study are therefore what face-threatening communicative interactions do students encounter in the PBL tutorial?; how do students manage these FTAs?; and what is the impact of these communication management strategies on learning?

In summary, the literature on PBL groups appears to reflect a general acceptance that group dynamics and quality of learning are interrelated. This is of concern as a number of studies have shown that PBL can be an emotional and uncomfortable social experience. Similar to observations made about school children, it is believed these aspects of social interaction might prevent students engaging in disagreement and conflict. However, just exactly what makes students feel uncomfortable is still unclear. Identifying the cause might help in understanding not only the points at which social interaction is most challenging but how these interactions are managed and the consequential impact on learning. There is a need to explore these challenges in order to uncover how students behave at these critical points in the learning process.

Method

Data collection and data analysis methods

The study took place between October 2007 and May 2008. It involved interviews and observation of one newly formed first-year (Level 4 Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2008) PBL group studying an undergraduate diagnostic radiography course. The group comprised 11 students from a diverse mix of educational, ethnic and social backgrounds. Their ages ranged from 18 to 57 years, and there were six females and five males (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Comparison of demographics between whole cohort registered on the BSc (Hons) Diagnostic Radiography programme (2007) and the study group.

	Full cohort	Study group
Number of students	54	11
Age range (years)	18–57	18–57
Gender	M = 17, F = 37	M = 5, F = 6
Educational backgrounds	A wide range of educational backgrounds	A wide range of educational backgrounds (see text for details)
Ethnic background	White British (37), White Irish (1), Black African (4), Asian/Asian British Indian (3), Asian/Asian British Pakistani (3), Asian/Asian British Bangladeshi (2), Chinese (2), White and Asian (1), unknown (1)	Pakistani (1), Mauritian (1), Korean (1), Chinese (1) White British (7)

Table 2.

Highest level of qualification of students in study group.

Qualification	Number of students (subject)
A levels	1 (psychology, English, biology)
	1 (biology, chemistry, physical education)
BTEC National Diploma	1 (pharmacy)
	1 (health studies)
Higher National Diploma	1 (chemistry)
First degree	1 (software engineering)
	1 (health studies and IT)
	1 (natural gas engineering – undertaken in the United States)
Higher degree	1 (systems engineering)
Access to higher education	1 (subject not specified)
	1 (life science)

BTEC: Business Education Council and Technician Education Council; IT: information technology.

Interviews

Students were interviewed twice as a group using a Focus Group Interview (FGI) in November 2007 and May 2008. Students also had Individual Interviews once or twice. Individual Interviews were held in the first week of PBL and in the week following the first FGI. As well as being driven by theoretical sampling, the interview schedule was dictated by practical issues of student availability. Nine out of the 11 students were interviewed twice during the period of the study, 1 student was interviewed once and 1 student was not interviewed at all individually, although she was present for the first group interview.

The purpose of the first interviews was to determine each student’s expectations of PBL and to ensure there was a common understanding of the concept. The second interviews aimed to explore the students’ perspectives of PBL having experienced this for one semester, whether their experiences matched their expectations and what emerging roles they appeared to be developing in the group.

The first FGI aimed to determine how the students constructed themselves as a learning group. This was reflected back to individuals in their second interviews to identify and explore self-perception and group perception of each individual’s role in the group. The second FGI was to determine whether the students’ opinions of the group and the PBL process had changed over time.

In keeping with a Grounded Theory approach, interview schedules were based on reflecting previous responses back to the students for discussion (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Audio recordings were used to capture interview data, and these were transcribed verbatim. The interviews were loosely structured to elicit narratives about student experiences of PBL. The interview data were explored using a thematic analysis to identify the aspects of PBL that students found difficult and highlight when FTAs were likely to occur.

Observational data

This comprised video footage of ten 3-hour weekly PBL tutorials (total 30 hours). A discourse analysis of FTAs was undertaken, that is, those interactional activities identified from the interview data as face-threatening. The RM framework was then used to explore how students managed interactions during these FTAs and whether concerns about managing face interfered with the achievement of the learning goal. NVivo 8 (QSR International) qualitative analysis software was used to manage the data. Interviews and data analysis were conducted by one researcher – the lead author; 10% of transcript data were also reviewed by a second researcher to test the reliability of the coding scheme.

Extracts have been presented using one of the two methods. One, for illustrations of interactional data, standard conventions for linguistic analysis, described by Sacks et al. (1974), have been used so that the reader can appreciate the fine-grained detail present at this level of analysis. Such illustrations are presented in normal font. Two, for illustrations of content and themes only, that is, where interactional analysis is not the focus, word-for-word transcriptions are provided using verbatim subject content but no linguistic transcription conventions. Such illustrations are presented in italic font.

Ethical approval was granted from the University of Huddersfield Research Degrees Committee. Students and staff provided informed consent to be videoed and for the analysis of their discussions to be published. Students’ names have been changed and care has been taken to avoid the possibility of matching up real identities and pseudonyms.

Results

FTA communicative interactions encountered

Analysis of this group showed that there were FTAs associated with all of the PBL roles: chair, scribe and group member. These are included, with illustrative quotations, in Table 3. However, for reasons of brevity, discussion is confined to the role of chair.

Table 3.

Face-threatening interactions associated with each role in PBL according to the students in the study.

Interactional functions	Source	Illustration
1. Chair
Leading people	Ian Interview 1	‘but it’s hard to actually erm direct people and lead the group when you don’t really have that much knowledge’
Directing the process	Ian Interview 1	‘I mean last week we were was just looking round the table at each other and I didn’t know where to start to be honest’
Singling out people to contribute	Marian as chair in PBL 2 (in response to request by facilitator to identify a group member to make a contribution)	Marian: ‘do I have to choose (laughs) that’s AWFUL ((laughter))’
Summarising	Harry reflecting on his role as a chair – Interview 2	‘I’m not that good, I don’t really summarise anything or stuff’
2. Scribe
Spelling	Harry as scribe in PBL 5	‘spelling’s not my strong point ((laughs))’
Writing legibly	Joyce as scribe in PBL 6	‘I’ve got awful handwriting and can’t spell so (laughs)’
What to capture?	Joyce as scribe in PBL 6	Harry: ‘what’s BP stand for’?
		Several students: ‘blood pressure’
		Joyce: ‘shall I write that down’
3. Group member
Brain storming	Jay Interview 1	‘brainstorming is not as interesting as it could be because we’re almost like too afraid to say things because of what the other person might think’
Disclosing/sharing previous knowledge	Den Interview 1 (Den had previously studied radiography to Level 5)	‘I would rather leave the other students to answer even if I do know … I try to leave it so that I feel I am just as one of them’
Contributing to the feedback	Joyce Interview 2	‘you think, “oh it’s my turn, now I’ve got to say something … cos I haven’t said anything yet”’
Standing at the front	Pam focus group Interview 1	‘I think it’s just that fear of standing in front of the class … I’m quite happy to sit here and talk but I wouldn’t get up there ((points to front))’
Admitting ignorance	Marian PBL Session 1	‘it’s … you know sitting at home and thinking aw I can’t say anything I don’t want them to think I’m stupid … instead of just coming out with it and asking for help’
Explaining	Harry Interview 2	‘I think I’m a ok communicator but I can’t really explain ideas’
Using new discourses	Pam PBL Session 7	‘no, I can’t even pronounce the words they’re just horrible’

PBL: Problem-Based Learning.

Students said they did not enjoy taking the role of chair. This was frequently observed in the video data, for example, in this following sequence:

Ian: erm:

(0.2) you’re chair this week aren’t you, Ed

(1)

Ed:

am I ((laughter))

Laura:

did you see his face drop then (.) he was like ((pulls a face)) (PBL Session 3)

FTAs associated with Chair’s role and how these are managed

The specific FTAs reported by students as being associated with the chair’s role were singling out people to contribute, directing the process, leading people and summarising learning.

Singling people out

Chairs often avoided singling people out to contribute. When asked about this, Ian said,

I didn’t want to put them on the spot because they couldn’t have said anything to be honest. (Ian Interview 1)

However, when discussing this aspect of the chair’s role in the FGIs, students said they appreciated a chairing strategy which singles out other students as this encouraged input, although they admitted to avoiding the strategy themselves:

Marian:

but the other side of that then (0.5) is if they’re not too sure of what to say and you’ve said right tell us

Emma:

yeah you’re putting them on the spot aren’t you

Marian:

yeah and that could put someone in an awkward position as well so

Pam:

I’d feel a bit tight doin’ it myself ((laughter)) I’d be like oh no I don’t want to tell you to do that (FGI1)

Students therefore attended to avoid the FTA associated with singling people out preferring to protect other’s face. In avoiding such requests, however, they are contravening their role as chair which is to ensure everyone contributes. As a result, rapport is maintained, but learning may be threatened as not all voices are heard.

The exception to this communicative approach from a chair can be seen in Harry’s behaviour:

1 Harry define osteoporosis, Anne ((others laughing)),

2 (8) ((Anne head down flipping through her papers, smiling))

3 ((joking asides between Harry and Anne))

4 Marian you’re enjoying it aren’t you= ((to Harry))=

5 Harry =yeah (0.2) cos I I don’t have to say anything ((laughter))

(PBL Session 6)

At Line 1, Harry singles Anne out to provide feedback. Anne’s delay in speaking up and her body language show her face is threatened by being singled out in this way. However, she smiles and makes an inaudible but humorous comment to Harry at Line 3, suggesting she accepts the legitimacy of this imposition. Marian’s comment challenges his approach. However, Harry’s response at Line 5 suggests he is using his sociality rights as chair person to deflect the face threat to others. In doing this, he upholds his own face as a chair person who is carrying out role obligations and also protecting his face from potential threat. This might be perceived as a strategy which would threaten group rapport; however, when discussing the chair’s role in the focus group, the other students perceived Harry’s style to be effective:

Joyce:

Harry’s done the last couple of er chairs and he’s literally

Harry:

just gone for everyone

Joyce:

for each object he’s literally pointed at one of us to start (laughter)

Anne:

he’s scary

Harry:

they just sit there and say nothing

Joyce:

yeah it’s quite clever that

(FGI1)

Anne’s use of the word ‘scary’ supports the notion that being singled out constitutes an FTA. Nevertheless, the students appear to appreciate Harry’s move. This could be due to a number of reasons: (1) he is permitted in his role as chair to make such a move which supports the notion that sociality rights influence and legitimise face threat, (2) students appreciate the positive impact on group learning despite the threat to face and (3) Harry’s approach is one of associative-expressiveness in that he uses humour and laughter in carrying out his actions. This could enhance group rapport by reducing social distance.

Directing the process

Students highlighted that chairs were expected to direct the process but, despite having a written guide to help them through, expressed concern that they did not know how to do this:

I mean last week we were was just looking round the table at each other and I didn’t know where to start to be honest. (Ian Interview 1)

Students were acutely aware of the chair’s obligation to direct the process as there were very few instances of other students stepping in to help out if a chair was struggling. Instead, lengthy silences ensued. On one occasion, a student attempted to take over the lead but then corrected himself as shown in the next example from PBL 6. Here, Harry is the chair and Jay wants Harry to move on to the next stage before Harry believes the issues have been fully discussed:

1 Harry anything else

2 (2)

3 Jay that’s it

4 (7)

5 ((Jay looking at Harry as if to say move on, others looking down at their work))

6 Jay that’s it (0.2) carry on

7 Harry what about the diagrams (1) the text the radiographs ((smiles and shakes head)) are we on to the next one (0.1) ALREADY ((smiling broadly))

9 Jay () oh go on carry on you do you do the chair person (0.2) you decide

10 Harry so you understand (0.1) what’s that as well (pointing to the image on the screen)

(PBL Session 6)

Jay specifically instructs Harry to move on in direct unmitigated speech. Harry responds indirectly and with associative-expressiveness, which includes smiling, but stands his ground that there is more yet to discuss. At Line 9, Jay acknowledges that it is not his role to make the decision to move on. Therefore, the rule that the chair leads is acknowledged between the two, again showing the importance of sociality rights.

Leading people

Students highlighted that chairs were expected to lead others but expressed concern that they did not know how to do this:

but it’s hard to actually erm direct people and lead the group when you don’t really have that much knowledge. (Ian Interview 1)

In this function, actions might include stopping individuals dominating, bringing in quieter students, stopping students talking over others and preventing multiple conversations from occurring. To do this, the chair needs to exercise power legitimised by the temporary authority of the position.

On no occasions was this type of leading from the chair witnessed, although there were occasions of over-talking such that it was difficult to hear what point was being made. Making requests of this nature infringes the sociality rights of the other student to remain unimpeded and by showing them to be acting inappropriately, according to the group’s ground rules it would also lower their self-esteem.

Summarising learning

Students acknowledged the importance of summarising at the end of each objective and that this is the chair’s role as can be seen from this interview with Harry:

Interviewer:

What did people say about you?

Harry:

I’m good at chairing. What?

Interviewer:

What do you think about that? Is that true?

Harry:

I don’t know. I don’t think it’s true.

Interviewer:

Why don’t you think it’s true?

Harry:

I’m not that good, I don’t really summarise anything or stuff. I got people talking that’s all.

(Harry Interview 2)

Harry identifies summarising as an important role for the chair, acknowledging that he did not do this. None of the other students summarised group learning when they were in the role of chair without being prompted by the facilitator either. Even when they were prompted, they often failed to provide a comprehensive summary of the discussion. This suggests that the task itself is challenging and cognitively difficult. Indeed, such a synthesis of information is deemed of the highest order in taxonomies of learning such as Bloom’s (Atherton, 2010). It is possible that such avoidance is to save the chair’s own face from negative judgement which would be a greater potential face threat than flouting their role obligation to summarise.

What is the impact of an FTA management on group learning?

The number of silences following a direct request for input is a crude but acknowledged indication of FTA avoidance (Nakane, 2006). For this group, the number of silences provides evidence of students avoiding the imposition of face threat (see Table 4). Furthermore, the number and duration of silences increase between Week 1 and Week 10, suggesting discomfort does not diminish over time.

Table 4.

Silences observed during Week 1 and Week 8.

PBL Session 1 (October 2008), silences of more than 1 second			PBL Session 10 (April 2009), silences of more than 1 second
Number	Sum of all silences	Minimum/maximum	Number	Sum of all silences	Minimum/maximum
92	8 minutes 45 seconds	2 seconds/30 seconds	114	11 minutes 56 seconds	2 seconds/50 seconds

The danger is that the interactional learning goal remains superficial and safe, despite the rich diversity that is prevalent in the group. Student comments would support this result:

it’s a quiet group and very respectful group it is very secure so that’s not really putting you under a lot of pressure in that respect (Joyce Interview 2)

and

I think everyone co-operates and everybody, just everybody chips in and reinforces what each other’s saying and people do, perhaps they don’t challenge people, but they just perhaps want a further explanation of something. (Ian Interview 2)

In summary, the results show that the role of chair is perceived to be the most dominant role in the PBL process. Students reported that the chair is responsible for singling people out to contribute, leading the discussion, directing the process and summarising learning. Students found all these roles face-threatening. Difficulties were associated with threatening the face of others (singling people out to contribute and leading them) and threatening face of self (where they were expected to exhibit procedural and cognitive knowledge and skills).

The student who is chair is faced with a difficult dichotomy. They have an obligation to engage in interactions which, by nature, are face-threatening. In carrying out their role obligations, they can risk own and others’ face. However, failure to carry out the role effectively means they threaten own face by flouting their role obligations and putting learning at risk. Chairs in this group tended to put the face of others before their own role obligations as chair. Thus, face issues dominated over sociality obligations. The outcome was superficial learning.

Discussion and conclusion

Exploring PBL using face as a concept has helped to explain when and why it can be emotionally challenging, as observed but not fully explicated in previous studies (Bearn and Chadwick, 2011; Chappell, 2006; Keville and Davenport, 2013). PBL can be seen as socially complex and littered with FTAs, the avoidance of which limits opportunities for learning. There were many instances of FTA avoidance, for instance, refusal to single people out for contribution (by most of the students in the role of chair) and failure to either correct or direct others. Silence was also employed by speakers to protect their own and others’ face, and this was evident in the many silences following a general request for contributions.

Superficial learning in PBL has been observed by others (Robinson, 2011; Visschers-Pleijers et al., 2006), explanations for which have included failure of process and erosion of the curriculum (Moust et al., 2005) and disruptive individuals (Hendry et al., 2003). However, the study reported here suggests superficial learning can also be brought about by the social complexities of managing own and others’ emotions and sensitivities. Others have touched on similar issues such as lack of confidence (Tarlinton et al., 2011) and students being poorly equipped in terms of communication skills (Blue et al., 1998; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Tan, 2004). However, by using the RM framework, it is possible to understand why confidence and communication are essential tools for students undertaking PBL. For instance, De Boer and Otting’s (2011) assertion that there is some anxiety related to procedural ignorance, while also observed in the study here, is only of relevance if the students are prepared to undertake the FTAs that the process demands. Providing students with the process is important, and helping them to tackle the FTAs associated with this, however, is essential.

The following recommendations are provided to help facilitators support students in tackling FTAs so that they can engage more easily. They are framed within the three bases: face, sociality rights and interactional goal. Students must be encouraged to feel comfortable with each other. This is because reducing the social distance between interactants reduces the intensity with which face threat is perceived (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). This is reflected in other studies (Azmitia and Montgomery, 1993; Nelson and Aboud, 1985) which showed learners who were friends found it easier to express their views and to challenge each other, confident in the knowledge that conflict for learning would not damage their friendship. However, the increased number of silences over time reported in this study suggests a proactive approach must be taken as leaving groups of learners to socialise may not happen in and of itself, especially where the group is diverse and therefore less likely to socialise outside the classroom (Robinson, 2011). The facilitator therefore needs to build in opportunities for socialisation and consider ways of creating a more relaxed atmosphere (Chauvet and Hofmeyer, 2007; Lycke, 2002).

The results show FTAs can be reduced if the person making the face-threatening manoeuvre has a legitimate right to do so. It is therefore important to make obligations and rights explicit and to re-visit these throughout the period of group development. While others have also made recommendations for the use of group ground rules in PBL (Azer, 2008), by linking them to the notion of sociality rights, it shows their importance for permitting face threat. In other words, not only the ‘do not’s’ of PBL but also the ‘do’s’. It should be noted, however, that while ground rules and clearly explicated roles are important on their own, they are insufficient to overcome FTA avoidance. For instance, in this group, although all students acknowledged the obligation of the chair to single others out for contribution, sociality rights were not sufficient to overcome the anxiety associated with threatening another’s face, and this resulted in FTA avoidance. The other two RM bases must also be considered. Students must agree to prioritise the interactional goal in order to engage in the risk of face-threatening manoeuvres. Achieving the interactional goal requires students to balance the social and cognitive demands of each utterance. Students in this group preferred to maintain harmony and therefore appeared to put greater emphasis on social goals at the expense of learning. It is therefore important that students are made aware of the underlying philosophy of constructivist learning approaches, and not just the mechanics or the stages of PBL, as echoed by others, such as Moust et al. (2005).

In terms of limitations, this study was conducted by a lone researcher, and as such, there is the possibility of potential bias. Four students took an interruption during the period of the study: Laura, Den, Pam and Jay. It is probable that the presence and absence of these students would have influenced the developing group ethos. The study does not include an analysis of the facilitator’s perspectives. This study was originally conducted to explore how group diversity might influence communication in PBL. It therefore presents the most complex context for students since cultural social and educational diversity can make predicting communication difficult.

The role of PBL chair has the potential to cause face threat, and further research needs to be undertaken to understand how different groups, both diverse and homogeneous, tackle such FTAs and whether different FTAs emerge. There is also the need to explore the experiences of the facilitator. While others have looked at this, using the RM framework may provide a more nuanced understanding of the specific aspect of PBL that could be emotionally difficult.

There are challenges for the chair of a tutorial group, and while not reported in detail here, the study showed there were similar difficulties for students fulfilling other PBL roles. Failure to recognise these factors and the need to support students in negotiating these complexities may limit the value and significance of learning. For educators utilising PBL, the bases of RM can be used as a model for preparing students to take on the specialised roles and to enhance their learning as individuals and members of a social and professional group.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

Leslie Robinson, a Senior Lecturer in Diagnostic Radiography at the University of Salford, is a postgraduate programme leader and researcher. Her research interests include the student experience and digital health technologies. Address: School of Health Sciences, University of Salford, Allerton Building, Frederick Road, Salford, Greater Manchester M6 6PU, UK. [email: l.robinson@salford.ac.uk]

Ann Harris is a Principal Lecturer in Education, University of Huddersfield. She works with undergraduate and postgraduate students, and her research interests include communications, and cultural and critical pedagogy. Address: School of Education and Professional Development, University of Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK. HD1 3DH [email: r.l.burton@hud.ac.uk]

Rob Burton is a Principal Lecturer in Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield. He has worked in Nurse Education for over 20 years. His research interests include learning styles of students. Address: School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK. HD1 3DH [email: a.harris@hud.ac.uk]

References

Atherton

(2010) Learning and Teaching; Bloom’s Taxonomy. Available at: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm (accessed 10 August 2010).

Azer

(2008) Navigating Problem Based Learning. Marrickville, NSW, Australia: Churchill Livingstone.

Azmitia

Montgomery

(1993) Friendship, transactive dialogues, and the development of scientific reasoning. Social Development 2(3): 202–21.

Barnes

Todd

(1977) Communication and Learning in Small Groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Barrows

(1986) A taxonomy of problem-based learning-methods. Medical Education 20(6): 481–6.

Bearn

Chadwick

(2011) Problem-based learning in postgraduate dental education: A qualitative evaluation of students’ experience of an orthodontic problem-based postgraduate programme. European Journal of Dental Education 14(1): 26–34.

Blue

Stratton

Donnelly

. (1998) Students’ communication apprehension and its effects on PBL performance. Medical Teacher 20(3): 217–21.

Brown

Levinson

(1978) Universals in language se: Politeness phenomena. In: Goody

(ed.) Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–310.

Chappell

(2006) Using the ‘grieving’ process and learning journals to evaluate students’ responses to problem-based learning in an undergraduate geography curriculum. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 30(1): 15–31.

10.

Chauvet

Hofmeyer

(2007) Humor as a facilitative style in problem-based learning environments for nursing students. Nurse Education Today 27(4): 286–92.

11.

De Boer

Otting

(2011) Student’s voice in problem-based learning: Personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education 23(2): 30–40.

12.

Eva

(2002) Teamwork during education: The whole is not always greater than the sum of its parts. Medical Education 36(4): 314–6.

13.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

14.

Goffman

(1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon.

15.

Harland

(2003) Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and problem-based learning: Linking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in Higher Education 8(2): 263–72.

16.

Hendry

Ryan

Harris

(2003) Group problems in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher 25(6): 609–16.

17.

Hmelo-Silver

(2004) Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review 16(3): 235–66.

18.

Keville

Davenport

Rebecca

. (2013) A river runs through it: Enhancing learning via emotional connectedness. Can problem-based learning facilitate this? Reflective Practice 14(3): 348–59.

19.

Lycke

(2002) Inside PBL groups: Observation, confirmations and challenges. Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice 15(3): 326–34.

20.

Miflin

(2004) Small groups and PBL: Are we singing from the same hymn sheet? Medical Teacher 26(5): 444–50.

21.

Moust

JHC

van Berkel

HJM

Schmidt

(2005) Signs of erosion: Reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University. Higher Education 50(4): 665–83.

22.

Nakane

(2006) Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journal of Pragmatics 38(11): 1811–35.

23.

Nelson

Aboud

(1985) The resolution of social conflict between friends. Child Development 56(4): 1009–17.

24.

Norman

(2001) Holding on to the philosophy and keeping the faith. Medical Education 35(9): 820–1.

25.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2008) Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications. Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication?PubID=2718#.VNeVri4Xuzk (accessed 10 January 2009).

26.

Robinson

(2011) The influence of cultural diversity on student learning interactions: A qualitative study of rapport management in an undergraduate Problem Based Learning group. Doctorate of Education Thesis, University of Huddersfield Thesis Repository. Available at: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/14071/

27.

Ross

(1997) Towards a framework for problem-based curricula. In: Boud

Feletti

(eds) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. London: Kogan Page, pp. 28–35.

28.

Sacks

Schegloff

Jefferson

(1974) A simplistic systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.

29.

Savin-Baden

(2003) Disciplinary differences or modes of curriculum practice? Who promised to deliver what in problem-based learning? Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31(5): 338–43.

30.

Schmidt

(1983) Problem-based learning – Rationale and description. Medical Education 17(1): 11–6.

31.

Spencer-Oatey

(2002) Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics 34(5): 529–45.

32.

Spencer-Oatey

(2008) Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In: Spencer-Oatey

(ed.) Culturally Speaking; Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, 2nd edn. London: Continuum, pp. 11–47.

33.

Tan

(2004) Students’ experiences in problem-based learning: Three blind mice episode or educational innovation? Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41(2): 169–84.

34.

Tarlinton

Yon

Klisch

. (2011) Confidence as a barrier to the use of problem-based learning in veterinary undergraduate students. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 38(3): 305–10.

35.

Van den Bossche

(2006) Minds in Teams: The Influence of Social and Cognitive Factors on Team Learning. Maastricht: Datawyse. Available at: http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=6493 (accessed 12 January 2014).

36.

Visschers-Pleijers

Dolmans

de Leng

. (2006) Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: A process study. Medical Education 40(2): 129–13.

37.

Wood

(2004) Problem-based learning. Acta Biochimica Polonica 51(2): XXI–V.