The results of the study comparing Group A, which focused on the interviewing method, and Group B, which focused on the writing method, provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of these two approaches in enhancing coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring among participants.
Coherence, which refers to the degree to which students see meaning in the work/method and the extent to which individual goals are pursued, was found to be higher in Group A. Participants in Group A reported a sense of the method and identified areas where they needed to improve. On the other hand, Group B participants saw more sense in the interview method than in the written process. Both groups did not find the different professional and disciplinary backgrounds relevant.
Cognitive participation, which involves generating commitment, was achieved differently in each group. Group A participants found it beneficial to ask follow-up questions until all questions were clarified, while Group B participants found guiding questions helpful in understanding the topic and reflecting on their communication. Group A mentioned barriers related to uncertainty about the correctness of the method and the expertise of the expert, while Group B did not mention any barriers.
In terms of collective action, which focuses on how group work was implemented, Group A found using formal address helpful in creating professional distance and facilitating a change of perspective. They also mentioned that the bottleneck could be solved by asking questions at any time. Group B participants found the feedback process easier than the writing process and emphasized the importance of trust and a good relationship in the group.
Reflexive monitoring, which evaluates the new practice, revealed that Group A had a positive cost-benefit ratio with little effort and high knowledge gain. Group B also reported a good cost-benefit ratio but mentioned a lot of effort for little benefit due to the decoding method not being internalized. Both groups recognized the importance of a combination of exercises and creating a common ground for effective communication. Group A successfully changed roles when the topic changed, while Group B felt they could have solved their bottleneck with more time.
In conclusion, the study highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the interviewing and writing methods in enhancing coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring among participants. The findings provide valuable insights for educators and practitioners looking to improve communication and knowledge transfer in multiprofessional settings.