Nội dung

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 http://stdb.hnue.edu.vn 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 78 Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam 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, 79 Dang Thi Dieu Hien, Duong Thi Kim Oanh and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien 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, openmindedness. 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 80 Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam 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 SubIndicators Indicators’ Explanation components components 1. Collaborative  Assign group roles (leader, 1.1 Group 1.1 Group time management, secretary, organization organization and presenters…) and contact contact  Set up contact channel 1.2 Participation  Initiates and 1.2.1 Interaction interaction or activity and sharing  Sharing and knowledge information 1.2.2 Cooperation replying  Cooperate in friendly, sociable, positive attitude, not conflict 1.3.1 Resolving  Achieves resolution conflict differences difficult situation 1.3 Group management of 1.3.2 Understanding  Recognizing own and others’ individual and strengths and weaknesses team members 1.3.3 Responsibility initiative 2. Problem solving promotes  Assuming responsibility for ensuring parts of task are completed by the group 2.1 Identifying 2.1 Identifying and  Analyze problem and defining defining the  Define problem the problem problem objectives goals and  Analyze relevant information 2.2 Suggesting 2.2 Suggesting for suggesting solutions solutions solutions  Propose effectively solution 2.3 Planning 2.3 Making plan and Executing  List of main and sub tasks  Assign tasks for appropriate 81 Dang Thi Dieu Hien, Duong Thi Kim Oanh and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien people  Define time and others related factors  Follow rules of engagement 2.4 Monitoring and adjusting  Monitor results of 2.4.1. Monitor and actions and evaluating evaluation success in solving the problem 2.4.2. Adjustment  Providing feedback and adapting the team organization and roles 2.4.3. Evaluation  Evaluation collaborative and the results 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 82 Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam 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 Universities School year Gender GPA Total Detail Variables Frequency Percent (%) HCMUTE 257 36.5 IUH 202 28.7 CTU 246 34.9 Freshman 147 20.9 Sophomore 182 25.8 Junior 193 27.4 Senior 183 26.0 Male 597 84.7 Female 108 15.3 < 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 4.5 705 100 83 Dang Thi Dieu Hien, Duong Thi Kim Oanh and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien 2.4.2. Scale analyses Table 3. Reliability Statistics of scale 84 2. Problem solving (C.’s Alpha = .947; N of items: 34) CPS (C.’s Alpha = .960; N of Items: 63) 1. Collaborative (C.’s Alpha = .918; N of items: 29) Main CPS component s Subcomponents C.’s Alpha 1.1 Group organization and contact .608 1.2 Participation 1.3 Group management .858 .881 N of Items Indicators .608 3 1.2.1 Interaction and sharing 13 knowledge .813 7 1.2.2 Cooperation .776 6 1.3.1 Resolving conflict .830 5 1.3.2 Understandin 13 g individual and team members .784 4 .721 4 .818 5 .848 6 2.3 Making plan .882 9 2.4.1. Monitor and 14 evaluation .812 3 .842 6 2.1 Identifying and defining the problem .818 2.1 Identifying 5 and defining the problem 2.2 Suggesting solutions .848 2.2 6 Suggesting solutions 2.3 Planning and Executing .882 9 .874 N of Item s 1.1 Group 3 organization and contact 1.3.3 Responsibilit y initiative 2.4 Monitoring and adjusting C.’s Alpha 2.4.2. Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam 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. 85 Dang Thi Dieu Hien, Duong Thi Kim Oanh and Nguyen Vu Bich Hien Table 4. Status of technical students on CPS competency 1. Collaborative (Mean = 3.71, SD = 0.48) Main components Subcomponents Mean SD Indicators Mean 1.1 Group organization and 3.70 contact 1.1 Group 0.77 organization and 3.70 contact 1.2 Participation 1.2.1 Interaction and sharing 3.82 knowledge 0.51 1.2.2 3.92 Cooperation 3.87 1.3 Group 3.60 management SD .77 .56 .60 1.3.1 Resolving 3.52 conflict .67 1.3.2 Understanding 3.53 0.55 individual and team members .68 1.3.3 Responsibility initiative 2. Problem solving (Mean = 3.67, SD = 0.48) Collaborative Problem Solving (Mean = 3.69, SD = 0.45) CPS 3.75 .64 2.1 Identifying and defining the 3.86 problem 2.1 Identifying 0.57 and defining the 3.86 problem .57 2.2 Suggesting 3.71 solutions 0.59 2.2 Suggesting 3.71 solutions .59 2.3 Planning and 3.61 Executing 0.59 2.3 Making plan 2.4 Monitoring 3.62 and adjusting 0.51 3.61 .59 2.4.1. Monitor 3.57 and evaluation .70 2.4.2. Adjustment 3.87 .58 2.4.3. Evaluation 3.43 the results .59 2.4.4. Analyzes differences of factors with CPS competency The ANOVA analyses were processed to find out the differences each factor (gender, university, students’ school year, GPA) with CPS competency. Sig. value of the analyses between CPS competency with gender factor is .378 > 0.05; with university, school year and GPA factors respectively are .011, .014, .000 < 0.05. 86 Study on the collaborative problem solving of technical students in Vietnam Table 5. ANOVA analyses of factors: gender, school year, universities and GPA with CPS competency Sig. Factors CPS competency Gender Universities .378 School year .011 GPA .014 .000 Therefore, there is not significant difference between male and female on CPS competency but there are meaningful differences on CPS competency among freshman, sophomore, junior and senior students; three universities (HCMUTE, IUH, CTU); GPA of students’ level. The tendencies of significant differences are detail explained as the three following figures: 3.79 3.74 3.69 3.64 3.8 3.78 3.76 3.75 3.68 3.66 3.7 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.6 3.55 Mean CPS compentency HCMUTE IUH CTU Figure 1. The different tendency among Figure 2. The different tendency school years of students on CPS among three universities on CPS competency competency 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.76 3.55 3.64 3.7 3.84 3.78 3.39 < 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 >= 5.0 to < to < to to to 8.0 6.0 6.5 <7.0 <7.5 <8.0 CPS competency Figure 3. The different tendency among GPA of students on CPS competency The Figure 1 indicated that CPS competency of final year students reached the highest level in during student time. However, CPS competency of these students did not 87