Factors Influencing Quality of Team Discussion: Discourse Analysis in an Undergraduate Team-Based Learning Biology Course

Abstract

Group activities as part of active-learning pedagogies are thought to be effective in promoting student learning in part because of the quality of discussion they engender in student teams. Not much is known, however, about which instructional factors are most important in achieving productive conversation or how these factors may differ among different collaborative pedagogies. We explored what provokes meaningful group discussions in a university physiology course taught using team-based learning (TBL). We were most interested in discussions that evoke explanations that go beyond statements of basic facts and into disciplinary reasoning. Using transcribed conversations of four randomly selected teams three times throughout the semester, we analyzed three distinct discursive phenomena—conceptual explanations, re-evaluations, and co-construction—that occurred in productive conversations. In this paper, we provide examples from student discussions showing the role of each of these elements in moving students toward conceptual understanding. These phenomena were more likely to occur in response to higher-order questions in Bloom’s taxonomy. Preclass preparation and student accountability as part of TBL may be important factors in this finding. We share implications for practice based on our results.

A Pandemic Crash Course: Learning to Teach Equitably in Synchronous Online Classes

“…We accomplish this goal by providing a brief reflection on the learning experiences of faculty in these fields, connecting their learning process to their changes in teaching practices. active area of research in biology education (Perez et al, 2010;Smith et al, 2011;Leupen et al, 2020). Classroom discourse is important for two primary reasons.…”

Enhancing postgraduate students’ technical skills: perceptions of modified team-based learning in a six-week multi-subject Bootcamp-style CS course

“…In a typical TBL environment, teams sit around the tables with screens that make the content visible regardless of where they sit. Finally, this negative experience in team discussions could be because we (instructors) did not promote students questioning one another and student accountability (Leupen et al, 2020).…”

Reconsidering the Share of a Think–Pair–Share: Emerging Limitations, Alternatives, and Opportunities for Research

“…Asking for volunteers to share their ideas with the class will likely not affect the motivation of most students. However, studies suggest that randomly choosing students to share their thoughts with the class may motivate students to participate in the think and pair and enhance the quality of the pair discussion (Dallimore et al, 2013;Broeckelman-Post et al, 2016;Knight et al, 2016;Leupen et al, 2020). Some students have reported that random call motivates them to prepare for the share, because if they do not perform well, they may be judged by other students (Downing et al, 2020).…”