Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 182 (2015) 375 – 380
4th WORLD CONFERENCE ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCHES, WCETR2014
Collaboration learning as a tool supporting value co-creation. Evaluating students learning through concept maps Tsourela Maria ab*, Paschaloudis Dimitrisa, Fragidis Garifallosa, Giouvanakis Athanasiosa, Manos Roumeliotisb a
Technological Educational Institute of Central Macedonia, Terma Magnesia str, Serres, 62124, Greece b University of Macedonia, 156 Egnatia Street, GR-546 36 Thessaloniki, Greece
Abstract Considering the advantages offered to learning procedure by concept mapping, it is of great use to combine them with those of collaborative learning. Collaborative concept mapping, as a pedagogical activity, has become a topic of interest for many researchers in the field of education. In order to enhance learning as a process by building knowledge structures of increasing complexity, developing collaborative concept maps could be a good strategy. Instructors through the use of concept mapping can see the level at which a concept is understood. Concept maps provide the opportunity, both for students and instructors, to see the current knowledge at the beginning of a course and then the knowledge created after some progression. They can promote and assess conceptual change in a higher education setting and therefore become an innovative tool in the evaluation of students’ learning. The present study was implemented during the "Principles of Marketing" course of the Technological Educational Institute of Central Macedonia, Greece. At the beginning of the semester, students were divided into groups of 5, they were given marketing as the central word and they were asked to create their concept maps . At the end of the semester, the concept map activity was repeated. The pre and post concept maps were analyzed using documented concept mapping scoring, revealing major differences. The use of concept maps motivated students to create their own marketing reality and then share it with their classmates. The attachments to every concept and their connections, created in class, were of great value © 2015The TheAuthors. Authors. Published Elsevier © 2015 Published by by Elsevier Ltd.Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center. Keywords: value co-creation, education, collaborative learning, concept maps
* Tsourela Maria. Tel.: +30-23210-49223; fax: +30-23210-49156. E-mail address:
[email protected]
1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.796
376
Tsourela Maria et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 182 (2015) 375 – 380
1. Introduction Collaborative learning is considered purposeful and influential for people, when trying to solve a problem or create something as a group. In education, collaborative learning involves joint intellectual effort by groups of students who are mutually searching for meanings, understanding, or solutions (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). There are various collaboration tools, using technology means, that can help and provide the needed infrastructure to support the basic and side activities of the learning activity. Deal (2009) summarizes them as: x facilitate real-time and asynchronous text, voice, and video communication x assist in basic project management activities, like task management, calendaring, workflow planning and routing, and time tracking x support co-creation by enabling groups to modify output in real-time or asynchronously x facilitate consensus building through group discussions and polling (Cavalier, 2008 & 2007) x simplify and streamline resource management in terms of basic file sharing, in addition to more advanced features like search, tagging, version tracking, privilege management, and so on x enable local and remote presentation, and allow for archiving of completed projects. In collaborative learning settings, students and teachers are co-learners; individual independence and group interdependence both play important roles (Johnson & Johnson, 1975). It is thought that whereas individuals provide much to knowledge creation, it is very difficult to create the appropriate knowledge to solve complex problems all alone. On the contrary, working in groups, creates the appropriate conditions for complex problems to be solved, through knowledge co-creation. This idea reflects both social constructivist approaches to understanding learning (Driscoll, 1994) and the philosophy underpinning collaborative learning as described by Johnson and Johnson (1975). Motivation students to think critically transforms them to co-researchers, and educators to co-learners, in a community of inquiry (Robertson & Bond, 2004). The nature of these types of projects and approaches means they are able to reflect authentic experiences that embed qualitative, quantitative and affective learning outcomes in a seamless way (Stein et al., 2004). University brand is value co-creation stemming from the true experience of stakeholders as professors and students (Nguyen et al., 2012). Both of them undergo and co-create their university's brand and are part of its whole quality. Through them the university communicate its brand to others. Collaborative learning tools linked to value co-creation include concept Mapping, wikis, virtual whiteboards, real-time collaborative, editing and ideation tools. Using them students have the opportunity to work in groups by editing or building a case. Combining the advantages of the learning strategy of concept mapping (CM) learning strategy with those of collaborative learning, collaborative concept mapping (CCM) has become a topic of interest for an increasing number of researchers in the field of education (Basque & Lavoie, 2006; Gao, et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2005; Nesbit & Adesope, 2006). The idea that CM software are “cognitive tools” (Kommers et al., 1992; Lajoie & Derry, 1993) or “mindtools” (Jonassen, 2000) in the same way as databases, microworlds or visualization tools was proposed by Jonassen in 1992. They facilitate external representations of information and enhance cognitive functioning (Kommers et al., 1992; Olson, 1985). The concept maps can produce a visual of how a student conceptualizes a specific field now and then how this can change after a class curriculum. Having students create their concept maps provides educators with a clear framework of what do they think/know/expect of the forthcoming course. "To serve as the framework for subsumption of new material. Concept maps are a simple tool for assessing where the learners are" (Novak & Gowin, 1984). In the current study the use of concept maps to help in defining the field of marketing will be investigated. Concept maps both members of knowledge creation - student and educator- to follow the progress of knowledge creation. What exists in the beginning a course and is created after some progression. Initial concept maps take a new concept and then show how students construct their framework from past knowledge and experiences (Blackwell & Williams, 2006). Concept maps "can both promote and assess conceptual change in a higher education setting" (Kinchin et al., 2005), and therefore become an innovative tool in the evaluation of students’ learning.
Tsourela Maria et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 182 (2015) 375 – 380
377
Comparing the concept maps created at beginning of the semester to those at the end can be of great use for both parties of knowledge creation. 2. Collaborative concept mapping CCM can be viewed as a tool-mediated intersubjective meaning-making activity (Suthers, 2006). While most of the times, management classes that include case studies and real scenarios it could be of great use to it would also be logical to extend the group of co-learners to include the clients themselves. CM was developed by Novak (Novak, 1990; Novak & Gowin, 1984), whose work was based on Ausubel’s (1968) theory of “meaningful learning”. After its documentation it was a hallmark for much of CM research implemented the education industry. Two types of "primitives" - nodes and links - constitute the knowledge representation language. They must be combined to make a graphic representation of knowledge in a given or asked area, that is afterwards streamlined in a hierarchical network with pathways. Each node of the network represents a concept defined as “perceived regularities or patterns in events or objects, or records of events or objects” (Novak & Canas, 2006). Each concept is designated with one or a few words. Links among knowledge objects are represented with arrows, on which concept mappers add their own “linking words” (Novak, 1990). A "preposition" occurs when two concepts are couples with a link. Management- marketing classes are considered fields that include building knowledge structures of increasing complexity. Thus, through the creation of concept maps learning could be enhanced. Roth & Roychoudhury (1992, 1993) applied CCM in educational. They used a qualitative method and documented the sustained science conversations of students creating concept maps in groups. They found that procedure was similar to that of a scientific communities, that is, “co-construction interactions”, “adversarial interactions” and “formation of alliances”, as well as that conversations were becoming shorter and shorter. 3. Methodology research Students attending the "Principles of Marketing" course, in the spring semester of 2013-2014 academic year, of the Technological educational Institute of Central Macedonia, were the participants of the current research. The use of concepts maps was based on the methodology proposed by Kinchin, De-Leij and Hay (2005). Kinchin, De-Leij, & Hay (2005) have developed a teaching methodology for taking advantage of concept maps. They proposed a four-pronged approach to upgrade CM for students. First, the educator sets a student-centered environment in order students to feel free to provide their own knowledge on a field, thus marketing on our study. Then it is suggested that students must find ways t collaborate with each other and with the educator. This is imposed for grater realization of CM and idea exchange, in the current study around marketing. Collaboration may give birth to new ideas shared to co-students. The third factor is time. Students must be “given sufficient time for reflection and development” (Kinchin et al., 2005). One lesson must be CM theory and applications. The last factor to “avoid using specific terms that restrict conceptual development by hindering appropriate switching between opposing conceptual frameworks” (Kinchin et al., 2005). Offering students the opportunity to create makes it feasible for them to appoint the area under consideration just the way the feel it. At the beginning of the semester, a lecture was devoted to CM, its uses and application. Students were instructed in the tools and techniques of CM, while a demonstration took place. Students were then broken into groups of seven. Each group was provided with a center word of marketing. From that one word, students were asked to drew nodes and arcs to demonstrate how they see marketing. Seeing what students believe, think and know about marketing is very important because as a total it can provide educators with a quite clear orientation of were to focus. At the end of the course, the concept map activity was repeated because “Evaluation of sequences of concept maps will give an illustration of the developmental pathways employed by a student as progress is made from a naïve theory closer towards a shared understanding with the teacher” (Kinchin et al., 2000). The groups consisted of
378
Tsourela Maria et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 182 (2015) 375 – 380
the same students as the first round of CM. Once again they were provided with a central word of marketing and were asked to create a concept map. The two sets of concept maps were investigated using the scoring criteria for concept maps developed by Novak and Gowin (1984). According to their criteria, every node that links directly to the given central word is a proposition and must indicate a meaningful relationship between the concept and the node. For every valid proposition, 1 point was given. In the current study, no link was reported as invalid because "invalid links may have a value to the student by supporting more valid links (sometimes temporarily) and so contributing to the overall knowledge structure that he or she is using as a basis for further learning" (Kinchin et al., 2000). Five points were earned by every hierarchical link derived from proposition. Cross links were offered 10 points per significant and valid cross link.. 4. Results The differences between the two sets of concept maps were revealing. All of them scored very high, Table 1. By analyzing the concept maps it was highlighted that students made a shift from seeing marketing just as an action of selling to a integrated creation and communication procedure of goods and services. In the first set of concept the mostly used term were sale, advertising and public relations. In the second set the most frequent terms were needs and wants (included in all concepts maps), integrated communication and strategy. Hierarchy scoring proved that every proposition was evaluated and conceptualized in a wider view and more intrinsically. Table 1. Two sets of concept maps Scores Beginning of semester ProposiHierarchy tion Map 1 5 45 Map 2 7 40 Map 3 5 30 Map 4 8 40 Map 5 13 25 Map 6 9 40 Map 7 14 10 Map 8 11 20 Map 9 8 0 Map 10 12 15 Map 11 6 40
Cross Links 50 47 35 48 10 0 34 8 45 35 5
Total 100 94 70 96 48 49 58 39 53 62 51
End of semester ProposiHierarchy tion 7 55 4 75 8 40 12 45 15 50 11 65 16 45 12 60 10 20 14 55 8 45
Cross Links 70 125 60 90 20 10 55 20 110 75 25
Total 132 204 108 147 85 86 116 92 140 144 78
5. Conclusion Considering that management marketing tools and techniques are moving towards value co-creation in the commercial context (Payne, et al., 2008; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004), as well as in the social context (Brugmann & Prahalad, 2007), it would be of great value to investigate value co-creation in marketing-management education. Educators that would like to use a tool diagnostically in order to follow and maybe measure the effectiveness of their lectures and educational procedures can use collaborative learning tools and particularly concept maps. Concept maps can offer educators a conceptual aid to conceptualize how value co-creation is eventuated in collaborative learning contexts. In the current study, concept maps helped in the orientation and conceptualization of the word marketing. On one hand, the educator, by decoding and processing the initial maps, was equipped with all the identifications needed to formulate and substantiate an excellent course curriculum. On the other hand, students were given the opportunity to create a subjective conceptualization of marketing and share it with their co-students.
Tsourela Maria et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 182 (2015) 375 – 380
379
Acknowledgements This research is implemented in the project "ACCESS: Models and Methods for Value Co-Creation in Service Ecosystems" through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" and is co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund) and Greek national funds.
References Ausubel, David Paul, et al.(1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Basque, J., & Lavoie, M.-C.,(2006). Collaborative Concept Mapping in Education: Major Research Trends. In A. J. Canas & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology, In :Proceedings of 2006 Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, 1, pp. 79-86. Blackwell, C.(2006). Williams, Jennifer. How to utilize concept maps in evaluating students’ conceptualization of leadership. 2006. Brugmann, Jeb(2007). Prahalad, Coimbatore K., Cocreating business's new social compact, Harvard Business Review, 2007, 85 (2), pp. 80. Driscoll, M.,(1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Erbaum. GAO, Hong, Shen, E., Losh, S., & Turner, J., A(2007). Review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what is next?, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18 (4), pp. 479-492. Gray, B., Stein, S., Osborne, P., & Aitken, R.,(2013). Collaborative learning in a strategy education context, Practice and Evidence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 8(1). Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R., (1975).Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall, 1975. Jonassen, D. H., (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2 Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000. Jonassen, D. H.,(1992). Semantic networking as cognitive tools, In P. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive Tools for Learning, F81, pp. 19-21. Kim, B., Yang, C.-c., & I-Chun, T.,(2005). Review of computer-mediated collaborative concept mapping: Implication for future research, In : Proceedings of 10th international conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2005). Kinchin, I.M., De-Leij, F.A.A.M., & Hay, D.B.,(2005). The evolution of a collaborative concept mapping activity for undergraduate microbiology students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 2005, pp. 1-14. Kinchin, I.M., Hay, D.B., & Adams, A.,(2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 41(1), pp. 43-57. Kommers, P. A. M., Jonassen, D. H., & Mayes, J. T. (Eds.).(2000). Cognitive tools for learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Lajoie, S.P., & Derry, S.J., (1993).Computers as cognitive tools. Marriott, R. D. C. V., & Torres, P. L., (Eds.) (2007).Handbook of research on collaborative learning using concept mapping. IGI Global. Nesbit, J. C., and Adesope, O. O. (2007). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A metaanalysis, Review of Educational Research ,76(3), pp. 413–448. Nguyen, T. D., Shirahada, K., & Kosaka, M., A.,(2012). Consideration on university branding based on SDL (Service Dominant Logic): The lens of stakeholders' value co-creation. In: Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), 9th International Conference , ). IEEE ,2012, pp. 779-784. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B.,(1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Novak, J. D., and A. J. Canas,.(2006). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool, Information Visualization, 5, pp. 175–184. Novak, J. D.,(1990). Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , ). 27(10), pp. 937–949. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P.,(2008). Managing the co-creation of value, Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36(1), pp.8396. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V.,(2004). CoǦcreation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), pp. 5-14. Robertson, J., & Bond, C., (2004). The research/teaching relation: A view from the ‘edge’, Higher Education, 45, pp. 1-27. Roth, W., and Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), pp. 503–554.
380
Tsourela Maria et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 182 (2015) 375 – 380
Roth, W.-M., and A. Roychoudhury,(1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as conscription device and tool for social thinking in high school science, Science Education, 76(5), pp. 531–557. Smith BL, MacGregor JT,(1992). What is collaborative learning? In: Goodsell AS, Maher MR, Tinto V (Eds.), Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at Pennsylvania State University. Stein, S. J., Isaacs, G., & Andrews, T., (2004). Incorporating authentic learning experiences within a university course, Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), pp. 239-258. Suthers, D.,(2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, pp. 315–337. .
