Abstract. The Collaborative problem solving (CPS) competency is one of the
necessary competency for all labors in the 21st century. Researches on CPS
competency have been focused on developing definitions, conceptual frameworks
and ways to assess CPS competency of students in high school. CPS competency of
technical students have drawn a very little attention of researchers. Based on CPS
competency literature review, the CPS competency level of technical students were
found out by questionnaire, interview and observation tools. In a pilot stage, survey
was conducted by the participant of 97 technical students. The first exploratory factor
and reliability of individual items analyses (Cronbach's Alpha index) were applied to
select valuable items of each factor in questionnaire. In the main survey stage, 705
reliable responses were selected from more than 1000 responses of university
students at three universities in Vietnam. The exploratory factor and reliability of
individual items analyses were processed in the second time. Descriptive and
ANOVA analyses were also applied. The results showed that CPS competency of the
survey students was in the 2nd quarter of high level. Furthermore, there were
meaningful differences on CPS competency among 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year of
students; universities that students have learnt; GPA of students’ level, but it was not
significant difference between male and female.
12 trang |
Chia sẻ: thanhle95 | Lượt xem: 161 | Lượt tải: 0
Bạn đang xem nội dung tài liệu Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
78
HNUE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE DOI: 10.18173/2354-1075.2018-0171
Educational Sciences, 2018, Volume 63, Issue 9, pp. 78-89
This paper is available online at
STUDY ON THE COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING
OF TECHNICAL STUDENTS IN VIETNAM
Dang Thi Dieu Hien1, Duong Thi Kim Oanh1 and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien2
1 Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education
2 Ha Noi National University of Education
Abstract. The Collaborative problem solving (CPS) competency is one of the
necessary competency for all labors in the 21st century. Researches on CPS
competency have been focused on developing definitions, conceptual frameworks
and ways to assess CPS competency of students in high school. CPS competency of
technical students have drawn a very little attention of researchers. Based on CPS
competency literature review, the CPS competency level of technical students were
found out by questionnaire, interview and observation tools. In a pilot stage, survey
was conducted by the participant of 97 technical students. The first exploratory factor
and reliability of individual items analyses (Cronbach's Alpha index) were applied to
select valuable items of each factor in questionnaire. In the main survey stage, 705
reliable responses were selected from more than 1000 responses of university
students at three universities in Vietnam. The exploratory factor and reliability of
individual items analyses were processed in the second time. Descriptive and
ANOVA analyses were also applied. The results showed that CPS competency of the
survey students was in the 2nd quarter of high level. Furthermore, there were
meaningful differences on CPS competency among 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year of
students; universities that students have learnt; GPA of students’ level, but it was not
significant difference between male and female.
Keywords: Collaborative problem solving competency, collaborative problem
solving, competencies.
1. Introduction
In the 21st century, engineers are required not only professional but also general
competencies such as: collaboration, communication, problem solving, planning and
organizing and so on. Collaboration and problem-solving are two competencies that have
been mentioned separately in outcomes of technical training curriculum of many
universities. However, they are very closely related to each other. The purpose of
collaboration is to solve problem and the effective way to solve problem is people work
Received January 6, 2018. Revised August 2, 2018. Accepted September 7, 2018.
Contact Dang Thi Dieu Hien, e-mail address: hiendtd@hcmute.edu.vn
Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam
79
together in group. CPS competency, is created by the 2 sperate competencies
Collaboration and Problem solving.
The CPS competency was the first mentioned in the study of Knowledge, skill and
attitude requirements in group work in Human Resource Management field by Stevens
and Campion (1994). In the recent years, the CPS competency have been interested in
researchers and organizations. Patrick Griffin, Esther Care (2015) focused on a conceptual
framework of CPS in the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATC21S) -
Methods and Approach research. Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) had selected CPS competency to be the official competency to
assess 15-year-old in 2015 because of the importance of this competency in school. María
Elena Oliveri, René Lawless, Hillary Molloy (2017) studied on A Literature Review on
Collaborative Problem Solving for College and Workforce Readiness. O’Neil, H. F.,
Chuang, S., & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2004), focused on Issues in the Computer-Based
Assessment of CPS. However, in Vietnam, researches on CPS competency of technical
students have not been interested. This paper will present the results of research on the
CPS literature review, CPS competency’s self-assessment status of technical students
from 3 universities in the South of Vietnam and discriminations analyses of some factors
and CPS competency. In addition, some recommendations for further research will be
suggested.
2. Content
2.1. Literature review of collaborative problem solving competency
The literature review will mention on CPS competency definitions, processes and
frameworks of CPS competency.
Collaborative Problem Solving Competency Definitions
The ATC21S defined Collaborative problem solving “as a joint activity where dyads
or small groups execute a number of steps to transform a current state into a desired goal
state” (Patrick Griffin, Esther Care (2015)). OECD stated CPS competency for PISA 2015
were “the capacity of an individual to effectively engage in a process whereby two or
more agents attempt to solve a problem by sharing the understanding and effort required
to come to a solution and pooling their knowledge, skills and efforts to reach that
solution.” (OECD (2017))
Collaborative Problem Solving Processes
Different studies on CPS competency suggested various processes of CPS. OECD
based on the assessment of individual problem-solving with these cognitive processes
developed four main steps. These steps were understanding the problem situation;
selected, organized and integrated with prior knowledge; planning, which consists of
clarifying the goal of the problem, setting any sub-goals, and developing a plan to reach
the goal state and monitoring steps in the plan to reach the goal state and reflecting on
possible solutions and critical assumptions.
Patrick Griffin, Esther Care followed PISA sequential process on problem solving
and other researches on collaboration, plan and some relevant fields, they built 5
processes: problem identification, problem representation, planning, executing,
Dang Thi Dieu Hien, Duong Thi Kim Oanh and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien
80
monitoring. However, the authors mentioned that these processes are not a uniform
process but a complex, coordinated activity between two or more individuals.
Bransford and Stein (1984) developed popular IDEAL problem-solving model. The
model described problem solving as a uniform process of identifying potential problems,
defining and representing the problem, exploring possible strategies, acting on those
strategies, and looking back and evaluating the effects of those activities.
Frameworks of Collaborative Problem Solving Competency
Researches divided CPS competency into different components. For instance,
ATC21S based on the literature in several research fields, developed a CPS framework
consisting of two very broad skill classes: social skills and cognitive skills. Social skills
have three components: participation, perspective taking, and social regulation. Cognitive
skills include two domains: task regulation, learning and knowledge building.
In addition, OECD also based on some review other CPS frameworks, identified
three major CPS competencies: establishing and maintaining shared understanding; taking
appropriate action to solve the problem; establishing and maintaining group organization.
In each component had four sub-components: exploring and understanding; representing
and formulating; planning and executing; and monitoring and reflecting.
María Elena Oliveri et al (2017) proposed 4 main components (Teamwork,
Communication, Leadership and Problem solving) and 17 sub-components of CSP
competency. Teamwork was divided in to five sub-components: team cohesion, team
empowerment, team learning, self-management, adaptability/Flexibility, open-
mindedness. Communication included active listening and exchanging information.
Leadership had 5 sub-components: organizing activities and resources, performance
monitoring, reorganizing when faced with obstacles, resolving conflicts. Problem solving
consisted of 5 sub-components: Identifying problems, brainstorming, planning,
interpreting and analyzing and evaluation and implementing.
2.2. Develop colaborative problem solving competency process and framework
Develop CPS competency process
From the above literature review, we found that CPS process should follow steps of
problem-solving and combined with consensus among group members. In addition, for
the newly formed group, students should get to know each other and set up roles of each
member in group. Derived from the above analyses, we suggest the CPS process should
be followed by four main processes and one preparation process:
Preparation: students familiarize themselves with each other, set up contact and
assign roles (leader, secretary, time management, etc.)
Consensus in identifying and defining the problem: students discuss to analyze
problem and consensus in defining problem.
Consensus in exploring possible solution: members in group selected, organized
and integrated with prior knowledge to propose solutions and consensus in choosing an
optimal solution.
Consensus in planning: clarifying the goal of the problem, setting any sub-goals,
and developing a plan to reach the goal state, defining time and resources, and monitoring
Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam
81
steps in the plan to reach the goal state and reflecting on possible solutions and critical
assumptions.
Consensus in implementing, monitoring and adjusting the plan: group members
implement the plan, monitor the work progress of individuals and make appropriate
adjustments.
Develop CPS competency framework
Based on a combination of the above mention frameworks and proposed CPS
process, the suggested CSP framework for assessing technical students’ CPS competency
included two main components, seven sub-components and 12 indicators. The outline of
suggested CPS framework and explanation are showed in Table 1.
Table 1. The suggested framework of CPS competency
Main
components
Sub-
components Indicators Indicators’ Explanation
1.
C
ol
la
bo
ra
tiv
e
1.1 Group
organization
and contact
1.1 Group
organization and
contact
Assign group roles (leader,
time management, secretary,
presenters)
Set up contact channel
1.2
Participation
1.2.1 Interaction
and sharing
knowledge
Initiates and promotes
interaction or activity
Sharing and replying
information
1.2.2 Cooperation Cooperate in friendly, sociable, positive attitude, not conflict
1.3 Group
management
1.3.1 Resolving
conflict
Achieves resolution of
differences difficult situation
1.3.2
Understanding
individual and
team members
Recognizing own and others’
strengths and weaknesses
1.3.3
Responsibility
initiative
Assuming responsibility for
ensuring parts of task are
completed by the group
2.
P
ro
bl
em
so
lv
in
g
2.1 Identifying
and defining
the problem
2.1 Identifying and
defining the
problem
Analyze problem
Define problem goals and
objectives
2.2 Suggesting
solutions
2.2 Suggesting
solutions
Analyze relevant information
for suggesting solutions
Propose effectively solution
2.3 Planning
and Executing 2.3 Making plan
List of main and sub tasks
Assign tasks for appropriate
Dang Thi Dieu Hien, Duong Thi Kim Oanh and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien
82
people
Define time and others related
factors
Follow rules of engagement
2.4 Monitoring
and adjusting
2.4.1. Monitor and
evaluation
Monitor results of
actions and evaluating
success in solving the
problem
2.4.2. Adjustment
Providing feedback and
adapting the team organization and
roles
2.4.3. Evaluation
the results
Evaluation collaborative and
problem solving results
2.3. Organize research
The process of the research can be divided into 3 main phases: design questionnaire
and conduct a pilot survey, conduct main survey and analyze data.
Phase 1: Design questionnaire and conduct a pilot survey
There are 5 main steps in this phase: design items of each factor, select measurement
scale, pilot survey, the 1st Factor analysis (EFA), the 1st Reliability of individual items
analysis (Cronbach's Alpha index).
Designing items in the questionnaire was based on characteristics of indicators’
explanation in the Table 1. Totally, there were 76 items belong to 12 indicators and 4 items
related to personal information: university, year of students, gender, grade point average (GPA).
Measurement scale:
o Variables were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from very low level
to very high level. Ranging from 1 to 5: (1) very low, (2) Low, (3) Average, (4) High, (5)
Very high.
o School year of students: Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior.
o Gender: Male and Female.
o GPA were divided in 7 levels: Level 1: from 0.00 to under 5; Level 2: from 5 to
under 6; Level 3: form 6 to under 6.5; Level 4: from 6.5 to under 7.0; Level 5: from 7 to
7.5, Level 6: from 7.5 to under 8.0, Level 7: from 8.0 to 10.
Pilot survey were conducted in 97 technical students from Ho Chi Minh city
University of Technology and Education (HCMUTE).
The 1st Factor analysis to confirm designed items belong to suitable factors or not.
The 1st Reliability of individual items analyses were implemented to eliminate
inappropriate variables.
All 70 qualified items after factor analysis and reliability of individual items analyses
were set up in the questionnaire.
Phase 2: Conduct main survey
Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam
83
There are 70 meaningful items and 4 items of demographic in the questionnaire were
distributed for more than 1000 students from 3 universities (HCMUTE, Industrial
University of Ho Chi Minh City (IUH) and Can Tho University (CTU)). However, only
705 reliable responses were selected for data analyses.
Beside using questionnaire, we also utilizing group interview and classroom
observation to revere and deeply explain information that students’ response in the
questionnaire.
Phase 3: Analyze Data
SPSS statistical software was used to analyze the 705 valuable responses. The 2nd
factor analysis and reliability of individual items were again processed. Finally, 63 items
belong to 12 sub-components of CPS were selected for data analyses. Compute variable
in each indicators/ sub- and main component, frequency, mean, ANOVA analyses were
used through appropriate statistical package.
2.4. Results and discussion
2.4.1. Sample analyses
705 responses were selected in data analyses, detailed distribution of the sample was
showed in Table 2.
Table 2. Sample analyses
Variables Detail Variables Frequency Percent (%)
Universities
HCMUTE 257 36.5
IUH 202 28.7
CTU 246 34.9
School year
Freshman 147 20.9
Sophomore 182 25.8
Junior 193 27.4
Senior 183 26.0
Gender
Male 597 84.7
Female 108 15.3
GPA
< 5.0 15 2.1
5.0 to < 6.0 89 12.6
6.0 to < 6.5 151 21.4
6.5 to <7.0 192 27.2
7.0 to <7.5 151 21.4
7.5 to <8.0 75 10.6
>= 8.0 32 4.5
Total 705 100
Dang Thi Dieu Hien, Duong Thi Kim Oanh and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien
84
2.4.2. Scale analyses
Table 3. Reliability Statistics of scale
CPS
Main
component
s
Sub-
components
C.’s
Alpha
N of
Items Indicators
C.’s
Alpha
N of
Item
s
C
PS
(C
.’s
A
lp
ha
=
.9
60
; N
o
f I
te
m
s:
6
3)
1.
C
ol
la
bo
ra
tiv
e
(C
.’s
A
lp
ha
=
.9
18
; N
o
f i
te
m
s:
2
9)
1.1 Group
organization
and contact
.608 3
1.1 Group
organization
and contact
.608 3
1.2
Participation .858 13
1.2.1
Interaction
and sharing
knowledge
.813 7
1.2.2
Cooperation .776 6
1.3 Group
management .881 13
1.3.1
Resolving
conflict
.830 5
1.3.2
Understandin
g individual
and team
members
.784 4
1.3.3
Responsibilit
y initiative
.721 4
2.
P
ro
bl
em
so
lv
in
g
(C
.’s
A
lp
ha
=
.9
47
; N
of
it
em
s:
3
4)
2.1
Identifying
and defining
the problem
.818 5
2.1
Identifying
and defining
the problem
.818 5
2.2
Suggesting
solutions
.848 6
2.2
Suggesting
solutions
.848 6
2.3 Planning
and
Executing
.882 9 2.3 Making plan .882 9
2.4
Monitoring
and adjusting
.874 14
2.4.1.
Monitor and
evaluation
.812 3
2.4.2. .842 6
Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam
85
Adjustment
2.4.3.
Evaluation
the results
.745 5
After reject seven items, all Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.6 and corrected item - total
correlation > 0.3, so all 63 items of 12 indicators were suitable to use in Factor Analysis.
The 63 items were divided into 12 factors in the 2nd factor analysis. The items in each
indicator will be compute into a new variable that represents for a indicator.
2.4.3. Descriptive Analyses
Table 4 showed that mean of the CPS competency, collaborative and problem solving
parts are 3.69, 3.71, 3.67, and standard deviation of these components are 0.45, 0.48 and 0.48
respectively. Mean of sub-components: group organization and contact, interaction and
sharing knowledge, cooperation, resolving conflict, understanding individual and team
members, responsibility initiative, identifying and defining the problem, suggesting solutions,
making plan, monitor and evaluation, adjustment, evaluation the results are 3.7, 3.82, 3.92,
3.52, 3.53, 3.75, 3.86, 3.71, 3.61, 3.57, 3.87, 3.43, and standard deviation (SD) for these
independent variables are 0.77, 0.56, 0.6, 0.67, 0.68, 0.64, 0.57, 0.59, 0.59, 0.7, 0.58, 0.59
respectively.
These figures indicated that all main and sub components of 705 technical students from
3 universities are in the high level of the Likert average scale (Note: for Likert average scale:
Mean = 1 to 1.8 is in very low level; Mean = 1.81 to 2.6 is in low level; Mean = 2.61 to 3.4 is
in average level; Mean = 3.41 to 4.2 is high level; Mean = 4.21 to 5 is very high level; Mean =
3.41 to 3.6 is in the 1st quarter of high level; Mean = 3.61 to 3.8 is in the 2nd quarter of high
level; Mean = 3.81 to 4.0 is in the 3rd quarter of high level; Mean = 4.01 to 4.2 is in the 4th
quarter of high level). However, CPS competency and most of these CPS’s components levels
are in the 1st and 2nd, and few of them are in the 3rd quarter of the high level. It revealed that
CPS competency of students are not so high, so it need to be improved.
These numbers also revealed that technical students tend to collaborate a little bit better
than solve problem because mean of Collaboration part (3.71) is higher than Solving
problem part (3.67). In the collaboration part, students seem to cooperate, take responsibility,
share, and interact each other better than organize group, resolve conflict and understand
each other. In the problem solving part, these figures showed that students could identify,
define problems and adjust when had comments better than suggest solutions, make a plan,
monitor and evaluate results. Indeed, beside the survey, the results of group interviews and
classroom observations also indicated that although students could do very well in normal
collaborative problem solving, but it was difficult for them to solve some conflict situations.
They needed teachers’ help or could not find solution to solve these problems. Furthermore,
the results of interviews and observations also revealed that students usually define
problems correctly but not good at suggesting solutions and making plan to do and the
results of many groups were not so well.
Dang Thi Dieu Hien, Duong Thi Kim Oanh and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien
86
Table 4. Status of technical students on CPS competency
CPS Main co