Dealing with conflicts on knowledge in tutorial groups

Dealing with conflicts on knowledge in tutorial groups

Matti Aarnio • Sari Lindblom-Ylanne • Juha Nieminen •

Eeva Pyorala

Received: 28 October 2011 / Accepted: 6 March 2012 / Published online: 28 March 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract The aim of our study was to gain understanding of different types of conflicts

on knowledge in the discussions of problem-based learning tutorial groups, and how such

conflicts are dealt with. We examined first-year medical and dental students’ (N = 33)

conflicts on knowledge in four videotaped reporting phase tutorials. A coding scheme was

created for analysing verbatim transcripts of 43 conflict episodes in order to find out

whether the conflict episodes were about factual or conceptual knowledge and how the

students elaborated the knowledge. Conflict episodes were relatively rare (taking up 7.6 %

of the time) in the videotaped groups. Conflict episodes were more frequently about factual

knowledge (58 %) than conceptual knowledge (42 %), but conflicts on conceptual

knowledge lasted longer and were more often elaborated. Elaboration was, however, more

frequently done individually than collaboratively. Conflict episodes were generally fairly

short (mean duration 28 s). This was due to a lack of thorough argumentation and

collaborative elaboration of conflicting ideas. The results suggest that students’ skills to

bring out differences in each other’s conceptual thinking, the depth of argumentation and

the use of questions that elicit elaboration need to be improved. Tutors’ skills to facilitate

the collaborative resolving of conflicts on knowledge call for further study.

Keywords Conflicts on knowledge � Collaborative learning � Problem-based learning �Tutorial discussions � Verbal interactions

Introduction

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a widely used small-group learning method where

complex problems mirroring real-life situations are used as a stimulus for learning.

M. Aarnio (&) � J. Nieminen � E. PyoralaResearch and Development Unit for Medical Education, University of Helsinki, PO Box 63,Haartmaninkatu 8, 00014 Helsinki, Finlande-mail: [email protected]

S. Lindblom-Ylanne � J. NieminenCentre for Research and Development of Higher Education, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

123

Adv in Health Sci Educ (2013) 18:215–230DOI 10.1007/s10459-012-9366-z

Students learn as they collaboratively construct knowledge to solve and explain the

problems (Norman and Schmidt 1992; Hmelo-Silver and Barrows 2008). Solutions and

explanations are conceptual artifacts that can be seen as the end product of a learning

process in PBL (Bereiter and Scardamalia 2003). During the learning process, students’

interaction has a central role as they explore problems from different perspectives in

tutorial groups (Boud and Feletti 1997; Dolmans et al. 2005). An important benefit of

group interaction is that it can bring out students’ conflicting understandings of the

knowledge they are working on (De Grave et al. 1996; Visschers-Pleijers et al. 2006).

Resolving conflicts on knowledge constructively has the potential of promoting high

quality learning in PBL.

Dealing with conflicts on knowledge between students requires that students elaborate

conflicting ideas in the discussions (Van Boxtel et al. 2000; Visschers-Pleijers et al. 2006).

Elaboration of conflicting ideas can be understood as explaining and justifying ideas,

relating concepts to each other and negotiating the meanings of concepts (Schmidt 1993;

Baker et al. 1999; Van Boxtel et al. 2000). The present study focuses on how students

resolve conflicts on knowledge in tutorial groups.

Dealing with conflicts on knowledge in a group has been shown to enhance learning,

because it can motivate students to seek more information and to integrate and elaborate

knowledge in new ways (Brown and Palinscar 1989; De Grave et al. 1996; Buchs et al.

2004; Dolmans and Schmidt 2006). This is important for correcting misconceptions about

the topic and for the restructuring of knowledge as part of conceptual change (Dreyfus

et al. 1990; Norman and Schmidt 1992). Dealing with conflicts on knowledge in a group

has also been found to enhance critical thinking (Johnson et al. 2007) and lead to higher

quality solutions to complex problems (Qin et al. 1995; Johnson and Johnson 2009).

Even though conflicts on knowledge can be beneficial for learning, they can also be

challenging for the group for many reasons. Students’ conversations are often driven

towards consensus without challenging each others’ contributions (Visschers-Pleijers et al.

2006; Hmelo-Silver and Barrows 2008) or without engaging in critical discussion in order

to examine differences in opinions more accurately (Yew and Schmidt 2009). As a con-

sequence, conflicts on knowledge have been found to occur relatively rarely between

students in PBL-tutorial sessions (Visschers-Pleijers et al. 2006; Yew and Schmidt 2009),

and in other learning situations as well (Johnson and Johnson 2009).

Getting students to deal with conflicts on knowledge in a group can be challenging,

because students are often unaware of other students’ alternative perspectives to the

information at hand (Tversky and Kahneman 1981; Johnson and Johnson 2009).

Furthermore, in a tutorial group, students may use the same terms, but have different

conceptual understanding of them. If students ignore such underlying differences, they

cannot bring up the issues that would need to be contrasted and elaborated for deeper

understanding of the topic. Moreover, if students realise the differences in their conceptual

understandings inadequately, they may pay attention only to the most obvious differences

in the ideas they present. These may be factual details such as figures (10 mg or 15 mg) or

terms (T cell or B cell). Differences in factual knowledge are easier to notice, because they

are simpler and more concrete than differences in conceptual knowledge (see Anderson

et al. 2001). Therefore, a conflict about factual knowledge could be expected to require less

elaboration than a conflict about conceptual knowledge. Dealing with conflicting details is

also less likely to promote conceptual change because it is more closely related to

remembering facts than understanding and applying knowledge (see Anderson et al. 2001).

More research is needed on what kinds of knowledge students bring up in their discussions

and to what extent different types of knowledge evoke elaboration in tutorial sessions.

216 M. Aarnio et al.

123

When students become aware of conflicting knowledge, they may bring it up or leave it

at that. In the latter case, students may be avoiding conflict with their peers. This is often

intentional, because according to Clarke et al. (2007) students are usually polite to each

other and want to avoid confrontations in the group. However, if students do not deal with

conflicting ideas in a group, there is usually only one prevailing perspective to the topic,

which can be that of a dominant person or a result of joint, but hasty conclusions. Such

unanimity is characteristic of groupthink (Janis 1972), in which analysing, evaluating and

critically testing individual perspectives are avoided to minimise possible conflicts.

When students do bring up conflicting knowledge in a group, it should be elaborated

collaboratively in order to promote learning (Johnson and Johnson 1989; Darnon et al.

2002). However, collaborative elaboration of conflicting knowledge is not a self-evident

outcome of a conflict in a group (Dolmans et al. 2001). Elaboration is lacking when

statements or counter arguments by another student are accepted immediately without

challenging each other’s ideas (Van Boxtel et al. 2000). Collaborative elaboration does not

take place if conflicting knowledge is elaborated only by the student who brought up the

issue (Van Boxtel et al. 2000).

Conflicting ideas can also lead to competition between students in a group. Competition is

usually manifested by a debate where students advocate their own ideas and reject others’

ideas (Butera and Mugny 2001; Johnson and Johnson 2009). Such a competitive goal may, in

fact, be encouraged by the university context where the performances of individual students

are often compared with each other (Darnon et al. 2009). Competition may, however, weaken

relationships between students (Darnon et al. 2007) and decrease their commitment to learn

together (Johnson et al. 2007). Furthermore, if students perceive conflicts as competitive and

unproductive they are likely to avoid conflicts (Visschers-Pleijers et al. 2005a). As regards the

challenges of elaborating conflicting ideas in a group, more research is needed on how

students deal with interpersonal conflicts in tutorial groups.

Overcoming such challenges requires that students share their own conceptions,

knowledge and thoughts openly with each other and bring up relevant discrepancies in

each other’s conceptual thinking. Students should explore and consider conflicting per-

spectives open-mindedly and integrate them into new ideas and deeper understanding of

the topic (Johnson and Johnson 2009). Moreover, they need to be able to disagree with

each other without feeling threatened or competing with each other (Johnson and Johnson

1989; Butera and Mugny 2001). Students’ active and equal participation in group dis-

cussions have been found to be connected to high-quality learning outcomes (Lindblom-

Ylanne et al. 2003; see also Woolley et al. 2010). Therefore, students’ collaboration should

also be active and equal when they handle conflicting ideas in tutorial groups. Before the

reporting session, students should have studied well enough to be able to recognise relevant

conflicting knowledge concerning the problem and to participate in the discussion.

Although a considerable body of research exists on collaboration in PBL, studies on

how students deal with conflicts on knowledge in PBL-tutorial groups have been sparse.

Indeed, previous studies have called for focusing on interactions, such as the use of critical

questions and counter arguments in handling conflicting knowledge (see Visschers-Pleijers

et al. 2006; Yew and Schmidt 2009). Promoting such high quality interactions might help

students handle conflicts on knowledge and ideas more effectively.

In the present study, we examined how medical and dental students dealt with conflicts

on knowledge in the reporting phase of tutorial group sessions. Students’ verbal interac-

tions in conflict situations were analysed using videotaped tutorial sessions. The aim was to

gain understanding of different types of conflicts on knowledge and how they are dealt

with in tutorial groups.

Dealing with conflicts on knowledge 217

123

Method

Data collection

The data were collected from Finnish first-year medical and dental students (N = 33)

in 2006. The data consist of videotaped student interaction in four reporting phase

tutorial sessions. Out of 16 groups of the first-year class, there were nine groups where

every student consented to participate in the study. Out of these nine groups, four were

randomly selected for video recording. Videotaped groups included 23 medical (women

15, men 8) and 10 dental students (women 8, men 2). Each videotaped tutorial session

lasted 1 h. The videos were recorded with a single camera and a table microphone. All

the students and tutors who participated in the study gave their written informed

consent.

Context

The study was carried out in a Finnish Faculty of Medicine where the first two years are

PBL-based. The study took place during a Cell Biology and Basic Tissues module, which

is the third module in the first-year autumn semester. The module includes eight learning

cases concerning the functioning and structures of cells and basic tissues. Each case is

handled according to the seven-step method of PBL, where the process is divided into

opening and reporting sessions and independent study between them (Schmidt 1983). At

the beginning of their studies, the students had been introduced to PBL with two 2-h

interactive lectures. Before the videotaping, the students had studied two previous modules

with PBL. They had also taken a 2-h Teamwork Skills module aiming at improving

students’ verbal communication in a group. The module included short lectures and

interactive exercises focusing on active listening, identification of key points, asking

questions and handling conflicts about knowledge (see Aarnio et al. 2010).

In the videotaped sessions the students dealt with the module’s sixth PBL-case called

‘a middle-aged man’s cough’. The objective of the case was to understand how the

destruction of T helper cells disables the immune system. The learning goal was to

recognise different types of lymphocytes and their functions; and to understand how the

immune system works as a whole and how its components interact. The former goal refers

to the recognition of knowledge, thus emphasising factual knowledge, whereas the latter

goal is about understanding an entity and how its components interact, thus representing

conceptual knowledge. Students were adviced to read certain chapters of course books,

but they were also encouraged to use other sources of information. In the videotaped

discussions some students mentioned having also read other books or searched informa-

tion on the internet. At the end of the module, the students were assessed individually with

a written exam. They were not graded on the basis of their participation in the tutorial

sessions.

Analysis

The unit of analysis in the study was a conflict episode, defined as a series of inter-

actions where students deal with conflicts on knowledge (cf. Yew and Schmidt 2009).

Every conflict episode focusing on knowledge related to the case was included in the

data. In fact, this was the only type of conflict episode in the data, because students did


123

not have disagreements about irrelevant issues. The utterance level of analysis was used

to identify the episodes and examine them in more detail. A conflict episode begins

from a situation where student utters an idea that is contradicted with a counter

argument, non-confirmation or a critical question by another student (Van Boxtel et al.

2000). A conflict episode ends when students agree on the issue and/or change the

topic, or when the tutor intervenes by explaining the issue or confirming what is

claimed. Conflict episodes were located from the videotapes by annotating them with

the ELAN Linguistic Annotator (Version 3.7.2.). The episodes were transcribed ver-

batim for more detailed analyses. The transcripts also included overlaps, pauses and

laughter to produce a credible representation of verbal interaction in the tutorials for

our analyses (Silverman 2009).

The episode annotations and transcripts were done by one of the researchers (MA). The

trustworthiness of this qualitative interaction data analysis was reached through debriefing

sessions with another author (EP) (Guba 1981; Lincoln 1995; Shenton 2004). In these

sessions, the video material was analysed together with the transcripts. The categories were

reviewed using both transcripts and video material, and discussed until differences in

interpretations were resolved between the authors (MA and EP).

The coding scheme for analysing conflict episodes was based on the coding schemes

for analysing students’ verbal interactions on an episodic level by Van Boxtel et al.

(2000) and Yew and Schmidt (2009). Van Boxtel et al. (2000) categorised verbal

interactions into question, conflict and reasoning episodes. The category for conflict

episode defined whether the conflicts were elaborated invidually or collaboratively; or if

they were resolved without elaboration by students immediately accepting statements or

counter arguments (Van Boxtel et al. 2000). Yew and Schmidt (2009) adapted the

episodic coding scheme for indicating constructive, self-directed and collaborative

learning episodes. The latter included categories for ‘elaborated’ and ‘not elaborated’

conflict episodes. Our coding scheme was built on the ‘conflict episode’ defined by Van

Boxtel et al. (2000) and Yew and Schmidt (2009). We developed the coding scheme

further by adding a category for types of knowledge students handle in the conflict

(Anderson et al. 2001) and a category for competitive conflict according to Johnson and

Johnson (2009).

The coding scheme for different types of conflict episodes in tutorial groups is described

in Fig. 1. It comprises three phases defining the distinctive features of each conflict epi-

sode. Parallel phases are mutually exclusive. In the first phase the type of knowledge

students handle in a conflict is categorised as factual or conceptual knowledge. Factual

knowledge means ‘‘the basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a dis-

cipline or solve problems in it’’ whereas conceptual knowledge refers to ‘‘the interrela-

tionships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function

together’’ (Anderson et al. 2001, p. 29).

The second and third phases of the coding scheme categorise how conflicts on

knowledge are dealt with. A conflict episode is not elaborated, if students either accept

counter arguments immediately (Conforming), or adhere to their original conclusions

without explaining them, and reject others’ ideas without showing interest in them

(Competitive) (Johnson and Johnson 2009). A conflict is elaborated when one student

(Individual) explains and justifies his/her ideas or two or more students contribute to

resolving the conflict through argumentation about the solution (Collaborative). Elabora-

tion of conflicting ideas can also be competitive if students give a rationale for their ideas

only in order to prove that they are right.


123

Results

Conflict episodes in the videotaped tutorial groups

In the videotaped tutorials, there were altogether 43 annotated conflict episodes. In total,

the conflict episodes took up 18 min 17 s (7.6 %) out of 4 of hours. The distribution of the

amount and type of conflict episodes is shown in Table 1. Within all the groups, there were

more conflict episodes about factual knowledge 25/43 (58 %) than conceptual knowledge

18/43 (42 %). However, the duration of conflict episodes about conceptual knowledge was

longer (total 9:44 (53 %), M 0:32) than of conflicts on factual knowledge (total 8:32

(47 %), M 0:21). Conflicts on conceptual knowledge were elaborated more often 16/18

(89 %) than conflicts on factual knowledge 11/25 (44 %). Elaboration of conflicting

conceptual knowledge also lasted longer (total 8:09 (66 %), M 0:34) than elaboration of

factual knowledge (total 4:34 (34 %), M 0:25). Elaboration, however, was more frequently

done individually 14/27 (52 %) than collaboratively 12/27 (44 %), but individual elabo-

ration lasted less (total 5:10 (39 %), M 0:22) than collaborative elaboration (total 8:06

(61 %), M 0:40). The majority of the not elaborated conflict episodes, were conforming

14/16 (88 %). Only two out of 16 not elaborated conflict episodes were competitive. Out of

the total 43 conflict episodes, 13 (30 %) were terminated by the tutors intervening in the

discussion.

Fig. 1 Coding scheme for conflict episodes (based on Van Boxtel et al. 2000; Yew and Schmidt 2009) witha category for types of knowledge (Anderson et al. 2001) and competitive conflict (Johnson and Johnson2009)


123

Tab

le1

Th

en

um

ber

of

dif

fere

nt

types

of

con

flic

tep

iso

des

and

thei

rd

ura

tio

ns

inth

etu

tori

alse

ssio

ns

Ty

pe

of

kn

ow

led

ge

Ho

wco

nfl

ict

ish

and

led

Gro

up

1(n

=9

)G

rou

p2

(n=

9)

Gro

up

3(n

=9

)G

rou

p4

(n=

6)

All

gro

ups

FM

To

tal

FM

To

tal

FM

To

tal

FM

To

tal

FM

To

tal

Fac

tual

No

tel

abora

ted

,co

nfo

rmin

g2

(12

%)

0:1

00

:20

(4%

)4 (6

7%

)0

:11

0:4

4(5

8%

)3 (2

5%

)0

:15

0:4

5(1

3%

)4 (5

0%

)0

:17

1:0

8(5

1%

)1

3(3

0%

)0

:13

2:5

8(1

6.2

%)

Co

nce

ptu

alE

labo

rate

d,

coll

abo

rati

ve

5(2

9%

)0

:43

3:3

6(4

0%

)4

(33

%)

0:4

12

:45

(48

%)

9(2

1%

)0

:42

6:2

1(3

4.8

%)

Fac

tual

Ela

bo

rate

d,

ind

ivid

ual

4(2

4%

)0

:23

1:3

4(1

8%

)2

(17

%)

0:2

30

:45

(13

%)

2(2

5%

)0

:15

0:3

1(2

3%

)8

(19

%)

0:2

02

:50

(15

.5%

)

Co

nce

ptu

alE

labo

rate

d,

ind

ivid

ual

1(6

%)

0:1

80

:18

(3%

)2

(33

%)

0:1

60

:32

(42

%)

2 (17

%)

0:3

51

:09

(20

%)

1 (12

.5%

)0

:20

0:2

0(1

5%

)6 (1

4%

)0

:22

2:1

9(1

2.7

%)

Fac

tual

Ela

bo

rate

d,

coll

abo

rati

ve

2(1

2%

)0

:44

1:2

8(1

6%

)1 (8

%)

0:1

70

:17

(5%

)3 (7

%)

0:3

11

:45

(9.5

%)

Fac

tual

No

tel

abora

ted

,co

mp

etit

ive

1(6

%)

0:5

90

:59

(11

%)

1 (2%

)0

:59

0:5

9(5

.5%

)

Co

nce

ptu

alN

ot

elab

ora

ted

,co

mp

etit

ive

1(6

%)

0:2

70

:27

(5%

)1 (2

%)

0:2

70

:27

(2.5

%)

Co

nce

ptu

alN

ot

elab

ora

ted

,co

nfo

rmin

g1 (1

2.5

%)

0:1

40

:14

(10

%)

1 (2%

)0

:14

0:1

4(1

.3%

)

Co

nce

ptu

alE

labo

rate

d,

com

pet

itiv

e1

(6%

)0

:22

0:2

2(4

%)

1 (2%

)0

:22

0:2

2(2

.0%

)

To

tals

17

0:3

19

:05

60

:14

1:1

61

20

:26

5:4

18

0:1

72

:13

43

0:2

81

8:1

7

F=

nu

mb

ero

fco

nfl

ict

epis

od

es,

M=

mea

nd

ura

tio

no

fco

nfl

ict

epis

od

es(m

in:s

ec),

To

tal

=to

tal

du

rati

on

of

con

flic

tep

isod

es(m

in:s

ec)


123

Examples of conflict episodes

The following examples are typical conflict episodes in the groups. Examples are translated

from Finnish to English. The most common conflict episode was about factual knowledge,

it was handled without elaboration and the student whose ideas were contradicted accepted

the counter argument immediately. These conflicts were usually about correcting factual

details such as terms as in Example 1.

Example 1: conflict on factual knowledge, not elaborated, conforming (Group 1)

M: Then this TCR and CD3, no CD4, then recognise it together.

L: CD3. (Counter argument)A: Three. (Counter argument)S: Three. (Counter argument)M: Oh yes, CD3, yes that

In Example 1, Student M talks about antigen recognition and mistakenly corrects the

uttered ‘CD3’ to ‘CD4’. This mistake about factual knowledge is corrected by the other

students. Student M realises the mistake and agrees with the correction immediately. While

correcting a factual detail is important, it does not require elaboration. Elaborating on how

the antigen recognition process takes place might help students to also remember the

correct details.

A relatively large portion of conflict episodes were terminated by tutor interventions. In

these episodes the explanations or confirmations by the tutor interrupted students from

dealing with the issue.

Example 2: conflict on factual knowledge, elaborated, individual (Group 4)

U: So memory cells are only special in that they are similar to those effector cells, but they remain in the organism.

P: But aren’t the memory cells B cells? (Critical question)U: Aren’t there [both kinds?] (Critical question) S: [There are] [also T cells, yes, where they react.] (Counter argument)Tutor: [Yes, yes, there are also T cells] [(1.5)]=

P: [Are there also T cells?]

Tutor:= that are memory cells.

In example 2, Student U presents her assumption about memory cells. Student P asks a

critical question that includes a specific fact about memory cells. Student U disagrees with

Student P by asking a critical question. Student S supports Student U’s idea by beginning

to explain the issue, but the elaboration is cut short by the tutor simultaneously giving the

right answer. Along with the tutor’s explanation, Student P confirms the issue in the form

of a question. The intervention by the tutor prevents the students from further elaborating

on the issue. Restraining from intervening in the discussion until truly needed would give

the students more space to resolve conflicts self-directedly.


123

Even when the tutors did not intervene in the discussion, the elaborated conflicts on

factual knowledge were usually elaborated only individually.

Example 3: conflict on factual knowledge, elaborated, individual (Group 3)

E: Weren’t there more of those follicles? Is it like that?

A: I think there were [more T cells]. (Counter argument)

P: [No, there were] more T cells and in the regular cortex there were more

of those germinal centres of B cells. (Counter argument)E: Okay, it’s written there. ((Points to Student P’s book))

In Example 3 students have been discussing the structure of lymph node. Student E

continues this discussion assuming that there are more follicles in the deep cortex. Student

A disagrees with Student E about this factual detail without justifying or explaining her

statement. Student P also disagrees with Student E, but elaborates the issue by adding an

explanation to her statement. After this individually elaborated statement, Student E agrees

with Student P and Student A. Settling for this explanation puts an end to elaboration. By

asking each other to explain the conceptual aspects of the topic, such as the roles of T and

B cells in lymph node, the students could have dealt with the issue more thoroughly and

collaboratively.

Individual elaboration was more common in conflicts on factual knowledge, but it was

also common in conflict episodes about conceptual knowledge.

Example 4: conflict on conceptual knowledge, elaborated, individual (Group 2)

K: The activation process takes place between the paracortex and those follicles where

the B cells are. From there begins the specialisation of T cells, cytokine secretion,

and on the other hand B cell polarisation and plasma cell development and the

formation of soluble antibodies and memory cells.

A: Or was it so that B cells migrate to the medulla and then they specifically produce the

antibodies? (Critical question)K: Well, yeah, it was probably like that.

A: Like, I mean to the sinuses and then the memory cells get from there back to blood

circulation.

K: Yes.

In Example 4, Student K explains about the interrelationships between the elements of the

immune system. Student A questions the accuracy of this explanation with a critical

question that includes a suggestion to correct it. Student K hesitates in conforming with the

claim. After Student A has explained the issue further, Student K agrees with Student A.

Asking for further evidence instead of agreeing hesitantly in uncertain situations would be

important for deepening the elaboration.

In the following example, students elaborate conflicting conceptual knowledge collab-

oratively. During elaboration they also create new ideas and understanding about the issue.

Example 5: conflict on conceptual knowledge, elaborated, collaborative (Group 3)

O: I guess it’s pretty difficult to test, like, let’s see after twenty years if you get infected

with this disease.


123

A: Yes ha ha.

L: But you can always test the antibodies, if they still exist when you are eighty.

(Counter argument)K: Yes.

A: Yes.

D: But if there are only few of them, wouldn’t it be difficult to find them? (Criticalquestion)

L: Um, maybe you need to give a drop or something of that disease and then make an

allergy test to find out if you have antibodies against the disease. (Counterargument)

D: Ah yes, yes.

In Example 5 Students talk about vaccinations and antibodies. Student O presents a

hypothesis about testing the effect of vaccines. Student L expresses a counter argument that

complements the previous idea with a new hypothesis. Student D asks a critical question

that indicates a gap in the hypothesis by Student L. Student L replies with a counter

argument presenting a new idea, which Student D agrees with. In this example, the students

point out gaps in each others’ ideas, but they do not reject these ideas or adhere to their

own original ideas. Statements are critical, but reflective and they include logical exten-

sions that integrate ideas leading to new perspectives. Although the elaboration is col-

laborative and fairly critical, asking each other to further explain how the antibodies

function could have made the argumentation more thorough.

Even though competition was rare between students, the following example illustrates

how conflict about conceptual knowledge can also be competitive.

Example 6: conflict on conceptual knowledge, elaborated, competitive (Group 1)

K: Normally that CD8 would kill that macrophage, but now it just introduces it.

A: Oh, yes.

J: But, you see, there can be such a long response before it then [(0.7)]= (Counter argument)

K: [Yes, yes, but]

J: = see, if they begin to specialise [and everything]

K: [Yeah, yeah] but um, but then, even if it responded and

they would specialise, they would come in masses and then they would kill the macrophages

[too] = (Counter argument)

J: [Um]

K: = but it would sound funny or unnecessary or something.

In Example 6 Student K explains about the functioning of CD8 and macrophages. Student

A agrees with the explanation. Student J utters a counter argument that brings out a new

aspect about the issue. Student K tries to break in, but Student J continues with his counter

argument. Eventually Student K replies with a counter argument that supports his original

idea. In the end, Student J says ‘um’, which can indicate either agreement or that he is

considering the issue. In this conflict episode, students justify their own statements, but

they also adhere to their own ideas. They are not expanding the discussion into trying to

understand each other’s ideas by asking questions or integrating these ideas in a mean-

ingful way by comparing each other’s ideas. During this intensive episode, competition

shows in the way a counter argument is followed by another counter argument and in the


123

way students cut each other off. In the videotape students also speak with faster tempo and

their voices become louder as they cut each other off. These can be interpreted as indi-

cators of emotional arousal evoked by the competition.

To summarise, the conflict episodes in tutorial sessions were generally short. The

average duration of all the conflict episodes was only 28 s. The tutors ended a portion of

conflict episodes, but even when they did not intervene in the discussion, the episodes were

fairly short. Counter arguments were usually accepted either immediately or with little

argumentation. If a conflict was elaborated, it usually included only a few statements, even

when students conveyed uncertainty about their original statement. In addition, during

elaborated conflicts the students rarely asked each other to explain the ideas they presented

or to clarify the reasoning processes behind these ideas.

Discussion

In the present study we examined the episodes of reporting phase tutorial discussions

where first-year medical and dental students dealt with conflicts on knowledge. The aim

was to find out what kinds of conflicts on knowledge there were in the tutorial groups and

how such conflicts were resolved.

The results showed that conflict episodes were relatively scarce in the four groups

studied. The conflict episodes (n = 43) covered altogether only 18 min 17 s (7.6 %) out of

a total of 4 h. This result is in line with earlier findings, showing that relatively little time is

spent on handling conflicting knowledge in PBL-tutorials (Visschers-Pleijers et al. 2006;

Yew and Schmidt 2009). Such results have been explained by students having a need to

reach fast consensus about core information (Visschers-Pleijers et al. 2006), which could

be due to the time constraints inherent in PBL (Yew and Schmidt 2009). To our knowl-

edge, no earlier studies have reported the mean duration of conflict episodes. In the present

study the mean duration proved to be only 28 s, further emphasising that students do

indeed terminate the handling of conflicting knowledge very fast. The rarity and shortness

of conflict episodes may be further explained by the uncertainty and tension that con-

flicting ideas evoke in a group (Johnson and Johnson 1979). If students focus only on

finding the correct solutions and maintaining a consensus in a group, they are unlikely to

bring up issues that can elicit uncertainty (Visschers-Pleijers et al. 2005b). Students may

then either completely avoid conflicts or, when conflicts arise, make quick conclusions and

accept scant arguments just to get rid of such negative feelings. This is problematic, as

learning to cope with uncertainty is an essential goal in PBL (Koh et al. 2008). Moreover,

the ability to avoid hasty conclusions in uncertain situations is vital for future physicians

and dentists in clinical practice (Epstein et al. 2008).

The fact that students studied mostly the same study materials may explain the small

number of conflict episodes in the groups. However, students usually have divergent

interpretations of scientific concepts even when they have studied the same material

(Roschelle 1992). Therefore, negotiating, confirming and repairing these individual

interpretations in a group would be important in terms of refining students’ understandings

of the topic (Roschelle 1992). In tutorial discussions, students need to be attentive to such

differences in each others’ thinking.

In the present study, the tutors terminated altogether 13 (30 %) conflict episodes by

cutting in the discussion. As self-directed processing of knowledge is essential in PBL

(Norman and Schmidt 1992), untimely interventions by the tutor are detrimental to

learning in tutorial groups. Hasty tutor interventions may have also influenced the number


123

of conflict episodes in the videotaped groups by preventing possible conflicts. However,

this was not examined in the present study. In the light of the present findings, tutors’ skills

of facilitating collaborative elaboration of conflicting ideas with timely interventions

deserve close attention.

Out of the 43 conflict episodes that occurred in the tutorial sessions, more than half

(58 %) were about factual knowledge. These conflicts were usually disagreements about

details. In such conflicts, instead of striving for conceptual understanding, remembering

individual facts is emphasised. Conflicts on factual knowledge were usually not elaborated,

and when they were, typically only by one student. Since correct facts can easily be

checked from a book or the tutor, conflicting factual knowledge calls for less elaboration

than does conflicting conceptual knowledge. Elaboration of conflicting concepts, which

can be seen as essential for promoting conceptual understanding (Van Boxtel et al. 2000),

was less frequent (42 %) in the groups.

Even though conflicts on conceptual knowledge were less frequent in tutorial groups,

they lasted longer and were elaborated more often than conflicts on factual knowledge.

Conflicts on conceptual knowledge were also more often elaborated collaboratively.

Nevertheless, a fairly large portion (38 %) of the conflicts on conceptual knowledge, were

elaborated only individually. Furthermore, many conflict episodes that met the criteria for

collaborative elaboration, lacked thorough argumentation. Counter arguments were

accepted almost immediately and only two or three students took part in the argumentation.

As superficial discussion inhibits learning in PBL-tutorials (Hendry et al. 2003; Dolmans

and Schmidt 2006) the present findings raise a question about whether students possess

sufficient skills to deal with conflicts on knowledge collaboratively. In order to improve

collaboration, more students should participate in the elaboration of conflicting ideas.

Students should also be able to expand and deepen the elaboration by comparing their

conflicting ideas and by relating them to each other.

We also examined how students used questions to stimulate collaborative elaboration

and argumentation. Asking questions that would deepen elaboration could help students to

understand each others’ thinking and the topic at hand (Peterson 1997; Hmelo-Silver and

Barrows 2008). In addition, asking critical questions to challenge each others’ contribu-

tions could stimulate thorough argumentation (Visschers-Pleijers et al. 2005a). Asking

such questions would require that students identify key points in the discussion and for-

mulate questions to clarify them (Aarnio et al. 2010). Such key points might be terms or

concepts that are used unclearly or inconsistently. Although these elements of conversation

had been introduced to the students and practiced in the Teamwork Skills module before

the tutorial sessions (see Aarnio et al. 2010), they still seemed to call for improvement.

Competition between students in tutorial groups was rare. However, as challenging each

others’ contributions competitively can be perceived to be threatening and may weaken

relationships among students (Johnson and Johnson 2009), even scant competition may

negatively affect collaboration. Students and tutors should, therefore, be alert to compet-

itive orientations in group discussions.

The results of the present study also raise a question about how students perceive being

critical in discussions. In PBL, students are expected to discuss the topic at hand critically

and collaboratively (Hmelo-Silver 2004; Savery and Duffy 1996). However, at university

students are exposed to academic discourse, which is usually adversative in nature (Tannen

2002). Furthermore, a university context emphasising individual performance can also

promote competitive orientation to conflict situations (Darnon et al. 2009). It may therefore

be unclear for the students how to be both collaborative and critical in tutorial groups.

Their solution to such uncertainty may be to avoid conflicts or to end conflict situations


123

straight away (Johnson and Johnson 2009). How these dynamics play out in PBL-groups

should be further investigated.

There are several limitations to the present study. First, conflict episodes were

examined only based on students’ observed interaction. Therefore, we do not know how

students perceived the conflict episodes and conflicting ideas during the discussions. To

investigate student perceptions would call for interviewing the students, perhaps with a

stimulated recall method. Second, in addition to predefined study materials, students also

used other sources of information, but we do not know what these were. To some extent,

the variety in study materials may explain the amount of conflicting knowledge in a

group. However, a detailed analysis of the conflict episodes, even if they were mostly

based on differences in interpretations of the same material, can be justified on the

grounds that conflict episodes are specifically challenging for students (Visschers-Pleijers

et al. 2006; Yew and Schmidt 2009). Finally, video recording may have affected how

students engaged in dealing with conflicts in their discussions. On the other hand, tutorial

sessions had been recorded once before the analysed sessions, so the students were

probably accustomed to the presence of the video camera. An aspect that calls for further

examination in future studies is how tutor’s participation affects the way students deal

with conflicting ideas in tutorial groups.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study provides a thorough descriptive analysis of different types

of conflicts on knowledge in tutorial sessions, and how students deal with these conflicts.

The results are in line with earlier findings that dealing with conflicts on knowledge needs

to be promoted in PBL-tutorial sessions. The study adds to the literature by exploring

whether the conflicts are about factual or conceptual knowledge and how students elab-

orate the knowledge in their discussions. In addition, the study highlights the elements of

conversation that need to be improved in order to gain more from potentially fruitful

conflicts on knowledge. The findings of the present study suggest that students’ skills to

bring out differences in each other’s conceptual thinking and to elaborate on these dif-

ferences collaboratively should be improved. The depth of argumentation and the use of

questions that elicit elaboration are particularly in need of improvement. Tutors’ skills to

facilitate the collaborative resolving of conflicts, while refraining from solving the issues

themselves, also call for enhancement.

Acknowledgments The project was supported by grants from the Finnish Academy of Scienceand Letters, and the Ella and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation. Our thanks to all the participating studentsand faculty members, especially to Dr. Heikki Hervonen for collaboration, support and fruitfuldiscussions.

Appendix: Transcription symbols (adapted from ten Have 2007)

Overlaps

[ beginning of an overlap

] end of an overlap


123

Pauses

(0.4) pause longer than 0.2 s, indicated in tenths of seconds

= no gap between utterances

Other

ha ha laughter

(-) unclear word in the transcript

(—) longer unclear sequence in the transcript

(()) the transcriber’s comment or explanation

References

Aarnio, M., Nieminen, J., Pyorala, E., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (2010). Motivating medical students to learnteamwork skills. Medical Teacher, 32, e199–e204.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al.(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of edu-cational objectives. New York: Longman.

Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks.In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63).Oxford: Pergamon.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte,L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unrav-eling basic components and dimensions (pp. 55–68). Oxford: Pergamon.

Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.Brown, A. L., & Palinscar, A. M. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acqui-

sition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowledge, learning and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser(pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates.

Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theoryinto Practice, 43, 23–30.

Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (2001). Conflicts and social influences in hypothesis testing. In C. K. W. De Dreu& N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation(pp. 161–182). Oxford: Blackwell.

Clarke, B. A., Miers, M. E., Pollard, K. C., & Thomas, J. (2007). Complexities of learning together:Students’ experience of face-to-face interprofessional groups. Learning in Health and Social Care, 6,202–212.

Darnon, C., Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2002). Epistemic and relational conflicts in sharing identical vs.complementary information during cooperative learning. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61, 139–151.

Darnon, C., Doll, S., & Butera, F. (2007). Dealing with a disagreeing partner: Relational and epistemicconflict elaboration. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 227–242.

Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Achievement goal promotion atuniversity: Social desirability and social utility of mastery and performance goals. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 96, 119–134.

De Grave, W. S., Boshuizen, H., & Schmidt, H. (1996). Problem based learning: Cognitive and metacog-nitive processes during problem analysis. Instructional Science, 24, 321–341.

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., De Grave, W., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2005). Problem-based learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39,732–741.

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2006). What do we know about cognitive and motivational effectsof small group tutorials in problem-based learning? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11,321–336.


123

Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2001).Solving problems with group work in problem-based learning: Hold on to the philosophy. MedicalEducation, 35, 884–889.

Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the ‘‘cognitive conflict’’ strategy for conceptualchange: Some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74, 555–569.

Epstein, R. M., Siegel, D. J., & Silberman, J. (2008). Self-monitoring in clinical practice: A challenge formedical educators. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28, 5–13.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Com-munication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–91.

Hendry, G. D., Ryan, G., & Harris, J. (2003). Group problems in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher,25, 609–616.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psy-chology Review, 16, 235–266.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition andInstruction, 26, 48–94.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of

Educational Research, 49, 51–70.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN:

Interaction Book Company.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of conflict. Edu-

cational Researcher, 38, 37–51.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and

professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.Koh, G. C., Khoo, H. E., Wong, M. L., & Koh, D. (2008). The effects of problem-based learning during

medical school on physician competence: A systematic review. Canadian Medical AssociationJournal, 178, 34–41.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. QualitativeInquiry, 1, 275–289.

Lindblom-Ylanne, S., Pihlajamaki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2003). What makes a student group successful?Student-student and student-teacher interaction in a problem-based learning environment. LearningEnvironments Research, 6, 59–76.

Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review ofthe evidence. Academic Medicine, 67, 557–565.

Peterson, M. (1997). Skills to enhance problem-based learning. Medical Education Online, 2, 1–8.Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem

solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129–143.Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 2, 235–276.Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist

framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructionaldesign (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16.Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes. Medical Educa-

tion, 27, 422–432.Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for

Information, 22, 63–75.Silverman, D. (2009). Doing qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1651–1669.Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. 2nd ed. London: SageTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211,

453–458.Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration

of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311–330.Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Leng, B. A., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der

Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). Analysis of verbal interactions in tutorial groups: A process study. MedicalEducation, 40, 129–137.

Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M.(2005a). Student perspectives on learning-oriented interactions in the tutorial group. Advances inHealth Sciences Education, 10, 23–35.


123

Visschers-Pleijers, A. J. S. F., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M.(2005b). Development and validation of a questionnaire to identify learning-oriented group interac-tions in PBL. Medical Teacher, 27, 375–381.

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for acollective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–688.

Yew, E. H. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2009). Evidence for constructive, self-regulatory, and collaborativeprocesses in problem-based learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 251–273.


123

Documents

Dealing with conflicts on knowledge in tutorial groups