Main category 2.0: coaching environment
In order to open up, think freely and share their thoughts with both fellow students and the coach it is important that students perceive the environment as safe (Carless
2013; Van Diggelen et al.
2013). Furthermore, if students perceive the environment as stimulating they will likely be more actively engaged, try to experiment more and it makes it easier for them to learn from failures (Sawyer
2017).
Students work in project teams. In these projects, students are supposed to collaborate and strive for realizing as a team more than the sum of the contribution of all the individual members. The dialogue between the members of the group and peer feedback exchanges are important in this respect (Evans
2013). Dialogue and peer feedback can improve students’ reflection and lead to students interacting with different conceptualizations (Liu and Carless
2006; Nicol et al.
2014). However, the observations, reflections in on the wikipage and written reflections of students analyzed during the qualitative study demonstrated that, for various reasons, it can be difficult to create a dialogue, and ask for and provide honest and constructive feedback to fellow student members of the teams. At large scale universities, students often do not know each other before the start of the project which makes that relationships need to be established during the DBL project.
Main category 3.0: coaching dialogue
One of the main barriers to effective coaching is low coaching literacy of students (Carless and Boud
2018). Students need to learn to take up to make sense of the idea, message and intentions of coaching interventions and information revealed by it and to actually use it. First, students need to learn to recognize the value of coaching and understand their active role in its processes. It is important to address students’ conceptions which may, for example, often involve feedback as telling or being informed by an expert ignoring their responsibility and active role in it (Carless and Boud
2018; McLean et al.
2015). Secondly, students need to develop the capability to make decisions about the quality of work of oneself and others (Carless and Boud
2018; Tai et al.
2018). This requires offering extensive opportunities for self-evaluation and involving others for comparing views. In time, it helps students to become more accurate in judging the quality of their own work (Boud et al.
2013). Thirdly, students need to learn to manage their affective responses. Students may, for example, tend to respond defensively to coaching when it is (perceived as) critical (Carless and Boud
2018; Robinson et al.
2013). In these situations, it may provoke negative feelings, emotions, and attitudes and may pose threats to the students’ identity. How students actually give meaning and affectively respond to it is strongly influenced by their relationship with the coach and their fellow-team members (Esterhazy and Damsa
2017). In a trusting environment, students are more likely to develop the confidence and faith to reveal what they do not fully understand (Carless
2013). Fourthly, coaching literacy requires students to act upon coaching interventions (Carless and Boud
2018; Sutton
2012). To do so, students need to engage actively in making sense of information and use it to inform their later work (Boud and Molloy
2013). Too often, this step is ignored in coaching and for various reasons, it is not checked whether the feedback is actually used. So, students need to learn to see themselves as agents of their own change and develop identities as pro-active learners (Boud and Molloy
2013).
Students participating in our case study often were enrolled in different majors. Consequently, they come with their own but different frames of reference to the meetings. The students have another competency profile, speak another disciplinary language and likely have different thoughts and beliefs about the design process and outcomes. The observations in the qualitative study demonstrated that coaches can help to facilitate and start the dialogue by emphasizing it in their coaching, by actively intervening to realize the conditions for this kind of coaching and by facilitating a dialogue between the students in the meetings (Bakker et al.
2015). This will help to develop a shared understanding.
A successful group is thinking together as a group and its members identify with the dialogue between group members and not so much with themselves or the group (Mercer et al.
2013). In such a group, there is an opportunity for dialogue characterized by openness and a multiplicity of voices. It is the mutual exploration and meaning-making that is deemed important and not the ownership of ideas (Mercer et al.
2013). These dialogues reflect and build on the students’ PI. A useful strategy in this respect might be the formulation of group goals. It helps students to think and discuss with their team-members, makes them committed and helps them to identify themselves with the others.
The idea is that dialogue is crucial for successful learning in DBL (Merry et al.
2013). A successful dialogue, however, asks for an intentional arrangement of the coaching situation and context. Effective interaction and dialogue only take place within a context of mutual understanding (Boud and Molloy
2013). In such a context, students are able to imagine, understand and relate to the frame of reference of the coach and the coach to theirs. It is also necessary that both the students and the teachers interact in the context of a shared frame of reference (Schön
1983). Either, these conditions are established before the conversation or realized during the conversation.
A dialogue actually consists of a continuous feedback loop (Carless
2019). This loop provides teachers the opportunity to check whether the intervention has the intended effect or not (Van Diggelen et al.
2013). A coach is, for example, able to check whether or not a hint is taken, a question directs the attention of the student in an intended way, generates the proper knowledge, results in active engagement of the student or fosters thinking. Actually, this kind of interventions fulfills the role of formative assessment wherein evidence is collected to determine to what extent the intended effects are realized and why so (Black and Wiliam
2009; Van den Pol et al.
2010). If not, the information can be used to re-intervene. A continuous loop is also of use to students. Such a loop provides students with the opportunity to respond to the coaching intervention, to ask for clarification, to comment on it, discuss it, elaborate on it, nuance it or takes the conversation in a different direction if a student feels the need for different input.
The qualitative study learned us that most coaches intuitively use different coaching interventions. A coach can, for example, provide feedback, ask questions, model behavior, use articulation interventions, provide instruction, provide tips or tricks, provocative interventions or apply improvisation interventions (Collins et al.
1989). These interventions range from more supportive (e.g. instruction and modeling behavior) to more challenging (why questions or provocative interventions) (Adams et al.
2016; Thomas
2000; Van Diggelen et al.
2013). It is important that the coach has a broad skill-set of interventions, is able to make deliberate use of it and varies with them.
Coaching can be seen as a communication process where coaches interact and have a dialogue with their students (Bakker et al.
2015). The observations in the qualitative study demonstrated that conversation techniques are inherent in coaching though coaches may not be aware of them as being conversation techniques. It also became apparent that many of these skills are intuitively applied, e.g., summarizing, active listening, asking open and closed questions, parroting, and so on. In our qualitative study, we learned that coaches could benefit from learning the ins and outs of this kind of techniques. Possessing these skills can really add and contribute to the quality of the dialogue. Asking a series of closed questions can, for example, help students to open up. Providing a summary can help to provide structure to the dialogue. Moreover, active listening can demonstrate the genuine interest of the coach, make the students feel safe, open up, contribute to motivation and stimulate students to continue thinking or speaking. Parroting, for example, can also help to provide structure, to interrupt or to make someone take, or to provide turns. These are just a few examples of all options conversation skills provide. Considering the importance of conversation skills we were surprised that this kind of skills is hardly addressed in the consulted literature. Especially, because these techniques can be easily trained in, for example, role plays or simulation settings.