| 1. |
- Bobrink, Erik, 1939-
(författare)
-
Peer student group interaction within the process-product paradigm
- 1996
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The main purpose of this dissertation was to relate a study within the framework of Peer Student Group Research to the basic Process-Product Paradigm for Research on Teaching. Information about previous research within this field was given in the chapter on background. A total of 287 peer students at the Department of Education, Umeå University and at the teacher training colleges at Umeå and Luleå participated in this study. Thirty-one students worked individually and constituted a control group. The remaining 256 students were divided into 64 groups. Each group consisted of four students and was videoed during the problem-solving phase (60 minutes). The task dealt with a discipline case in the Swedish compulsory school. This case was discussed on the basis of four different psychological theories. A 2(Content, Group vs. Individual Content) X 2(Cohesiveness, High vs. Low Cohesiveness) X 2(Credit, Group vs. Individual Credit) design was used. A mediating model, i.e. Contribution(Analytical vs. Structural Contribution) X Persistence(Task Persistent vs. Task Non-Persistent Contribution) was used to observe the processes. Two of the videoed groups were analysed naturalistically. The results were measured psychometrically by means of an ANOVA. The ANOVA analysed main effects and interactions between the factors for the four process variables and for the product variable. The results of this study revealed the importance of studying Educational Productivity, i.e. both the process and the product. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that interactions could be discovered with psychometric methods but not with naturalistic methods. On the other hand, the naturalistic method revealed more sensitively how the group members worked and how they attempted to solve their task. The traditional assumption of group work vs. individual work was falsified. Individuals did better than groups on this type of problem. The results were discussed in both psychometric and naturalistic terms.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
