Turn-taking in tutorial group discussion, under varying conditions of preparation and leadership

Abstract

Abslrac|. The effects of variations in preparation and leadership on turn-taking behaviour in problem solving groups were investigated in a field-experimental setting. A factorial, randomized, longitudinal design was employed, with controls imposed over many of the identifiable extraneous effects. Four groups (n = 15) discussed problematic case study material under conditions of varying preparation ( prepared vs. unprepared) and leadership (emergent vs. assigned leadership), for eight consecutive weekly sessions of one hour's duration. The principal hypotheses were tested by 2 x 2 analysis of variance, and a cautious approach was adopted to the interpretation of statistically significant results, in that preparation or leadership effects were only taken as being of any theoretical or practical significance if they reached significance in at least three of the eight discussion sessions. Both preparation and leadership, as well as the interaction of these variables, influenced turn-taking behaviour. Interactive behaviour also showed a degree of stability across sessions, with the greatest stability occurring in the behaviour of members of prepared groups. The obtained leadership effects were explained in terms of interaction expectation theory, and behaviour modelling.The principal hypothesis of the study was that variations in discussion group preparation and leadership influence group member interaction -in particular, turn-taking behaviour.The effects of preparation on interaction in tutorial groups have not received any systematic study, although in educational settings many faculty have praised the virtues of preparatory class work (e.g. Henderson, 1969;Powell, 1974). Maier's (1970) study of adult problem solving groups in the laboratory found that the opportunity for preparation made a difference to group discussion. He found that if a problem was posed to group members who met later to solve it together, the group process was much less effective than if the members had no previous time to talk about the problem. This effect appeared to be due to the tendency of group members who were familiar with the problem to try to convert one another to their own solutions. In the unprepared groups, on the other hand, members were more likely to be stimulated by each other's solutions, resulting in greater participation and a better quality solution. Although that study is an isolated case, it suggests that problem solving requires an open mind, and that effective group earning in such situations depends upon an absence of prior commitment by group members. This finding at first seems to contradict the popular idea that prior reading and researching of material to be considered in a later meeting would improve