Study on Creative Learning Strategies of Gender Grouping in Collaborative Learning of Graduation Project

Abstract

This study is an exploratory study to explore the best creative learning strategies in graduation project after comparing learning choices between different groups through “collaborative guidance” and “mentor guidance”. The main study methods are multi-factor experimental design, among which, the main variables are gender grouping, and the dependent variables are “mentor guidance” and “collaborative guidance”. The collaborative guidance means that four main orientations of “base investigation”, “design transformation”, “design expression” and “paper writing” in the graduation project process are explained by four graduation project mentors in the way of network lectures in the mid-semester. The participants were fourth-graders in the Department of Environmental Design at a university. In order to understand and clarify whether gender grouping can enhance learning creativity through collaborative guidance in graduation project, the study divided it into experimental group and control group to compare and analyze data. The “experimental group” is composed of the students who completed the graduation project of the whole semester through the collaborative guidance of computer-supported collaborative learning between gender groupings. The “control group” is composed of the students learning under the traditional graduation project teaching style. In addition to identifying whether gender groupings in graduation project can enhance learning creativity through computer-supported collaborative learning “collaborative guidance”, the strategies of teaching method in future graduation project are also discussed in this study.

1 Introduction

With In the era of information society, technology has become a tool for complementary learning, expanding the possibility of exploring innovative learning patterns (Kirschner 2002). Learning through the Internet is no longer just a one-way learning of the computer or the Internet for individuals, but rather a learning activity that can interact with members of the community. Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is the new learning paradigm and area of learning (Koschmann 1996; Stahl et al. 2006) in this information age. With the support of CSCL learning platform, students can engage in the cooperative learning activities such as group discussion, practice and topic without restriction of time and space, so that students can combine knowledge closely. Even people of different ages, times and places can study cooperatively. This kind of learning activity is in accordance with the relationship level of “learning with computer” (Jonassen 2000) in the relationship between computer and learning, and it is also the relationship level of today’s social use of computer, not learning computer knowledge, but enhancing the learners’ social interaction and promoting learning through the support of information technology, and gradually forming a sense of consensus in the interaction process.

In the computer-supported collaborative learning process, each of two or more students has a certain level of thinking, feeling and behavior. How to work together to solve the same problem. Group members may have different views and understandings on the same issue, so by constantly discussing and debating, a group cognition (Stahl 2006) is finally established, which is the construction of knowledge. In the era of information network, a lot of different learning patterns are created using the combination of science and technology and education, and it also makes the original education mode have more possibilities. But this situation causes the educators to begin to think, we should assist the students to cultivate the more mature knowledge viewpoint and to achieve the efficient study, rather than the traditional teaching at the knowledge receiving mode which makes the students’ thought is rigid and restricted by authority. In view of this, the author holds that cooperative learners can learn more diversely through computer-supported collaborative learning, and enhance their learning effectiveness in this way. In the study of traditional graduation project, teacher-apprentice learning model is not helpful for students’ creative learning and thinking. Therefore, the author also thinks that two or more graduation project mentors cam lead the students to carry out the graduation project with the creative teaching method of reciprocal teaching, thus the students’ learning effectiveness and creativity can be strengthened by the combination of their own ideas or teaching methods and the new ideas and ideas of other mentors. This study focuses on the study of creative learning strategies, and tries to improve students’ creativity with the combination of collaborative teaching method and computer-supported collaborative learning.

This study is an exploratory study to explore the best creative learning strategies in graduation project after comparing learning choices between different groups through “collaborative guidance” and “mentor guidance”. Specifically, this study will attempt to answer the following questions: (1) What are the differences of learning choices between gender grouping students in the design process under “mentor guidance” and “collaborative guidance”? (2) What are the differences of learning choices between “experimental group” and “control group” students in the design process under “mentor guidance” and “col-laborative guidance”? (3) Are there differences in learning choices between boys and girls in different gender learning groups?

2 Literature Review

The main literature discussed in this study includes three aspects: “creative teaching”, “computer-supported collaborative learning” and “cooperative learning”, which are as follows:

2.1 Creative Teaching

Mayer (1999), in reviewing the study findings and future directions of creativity over the past 50 years, took the definition of creativity by scholars in the Handbook of Creativity (compiled by Sternberg (1999)) as an example, and argued that each scholar may use a different language to describe creativity, but most of the definitions of creativity are “originality” and “usefulness.” Zhan Zhiyu (2002), from the perspective of knowledge evolution, believed that creation is the process of variation and selection, and that variation is the source of originality. The selection is to make the most useful variation remain through selection pressure, so “selection” is also the source of “usefulness”. If we look at creative teaching in terms of “novelty” and “value”, it means that teacher’s teaching must be novel and valuable.

From the perspective of novelty, the teaching methods, contents, strategies and orientations used by teachers must be novel. If we explore the meaning of the so-called “teaching is novel” from a relative point of view, it may be easier to understand:

• (1) For tradition, novelty must be something that has not been adopted by tradition or that tradition doesn’t have, that is, it must not follow the teaching methods, contents, behaviors and so on used in the past.

• (2) Compared with invariance, novelty represents changeability and pluralism, which is not only single, but also that teacher’s teaching is pluralistic, changeful and not invariable.

• (3) Novelty also represents the behavior or activity of teaching is original, created by the teachers and others have not used it.

2.2 Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is a growing branch of learning. Many critics will see it as a boring and anti-social act, a safe haven for computer players, and a mechanical, inhuman form of training. (Stahl et al. 2006). In fact, CSCL is based on the exactly opposite vision, which advocates the development of new software and applications to facilitate “co-learning” and to provide creative activities for mental exploration, as well as social interaction. CSCL was developed in the 1990s in response to software that forced students to learn in isolation. The amazing potential of the Internet to link people together in innovative ways has inspired CSCL research; with the development of CSCL, the emergence of more and more unexpected obstacles in the design, dissemination, and effective use of innovative educational software, people need to change the concept of learning, including significant changes in schools, teaching, and student.

CSCL emphasizes collaboration between students, who are not only isolated from those online textbooks, but learning happens mainly through interaction between students. Students learn in the process of expressing problems, exploring together, teaching each other, and looking at how others learn. The main way of learning E-learning is to carry out such collaborative learning. It is not easy to stimulate and maintain high student interaction. It requires ingenious planning, as well as coordination and implementation between curriculum, pedagogy and science and technology. In addition, CSCL is concerned about face-to-face collaboration. Computer-supported learning is more than just an online medium of communication. Computer support, for example, may involve computer simulation of a scientific model, or a shared interactive representation, in which collaboration focuses on the construction and exploration of simulations or representations. In addition, a group of students may use a computer to browse information on the Internet, and discuss, argue, assemble, and display the results of their collaborative learning.

2.3 Cooperative Learning

The cooperative learning is a learning method by which students work together to achieve their learning goals (Lefrancois 1997), that is to say, the cooperative learning is a structured and systematic learning strategy in which teachers assign students to groups and encourage them to help each other based on their abilities, gender, ethnicity, etc. so as to improve the learning effect of individuals and achieve the goals of the group (Lin Peixuan 1992; Chen Shuji 1995). According to such a statement, it can be seen that cooperative learning is a kind of teaching concept which is different from the traditional goal of competition and ranking. This teaching method means that students work together to achieve common goals. It is not like competition, but rather a learning process. Therefore, cooperative learning is a kind of teaching design which combines pedagogy, social psychology, group dynamics and so on. It mainly makes use of the division of labor among the group members and the mutual support to carry on learning activities, and uses the group-based evaluation and the social psychological atmosphere of the inter-group competition to improve the learning effect (Liu Xiuman 1998).

And when it comes to the above-mentioned literature, many studies show that there are still some unclarified parts. Therefore, the aim of this study is to improve students’ learning effectiveness and creativity with gender grouping by combining collaborative teaching method and computer-supported collaborative learning based on graduation project.

3 Study Methods

3.1 Study Process

The study process is divided into four stages: The first stage is related literature discussion; the second stage is the questionnaire design, and the scale dimensions and each question item are established through the relevant study analysis and expert interview; the third stage is the study object selecting and test, and in this stage, the students are taken as the study sample for the questionnaire test; the fourth stage is the study result and the discussion, and it carries on the analysis of the valid questionnaires for the study hypothesis verification later, and in the end, the conclusion and suggestion are put forward.

3.2 Study Questions and Hypotheses

This study is an exploratory study to explore the best creative learning strategies in graduation project after comparing learning choices between different groups through “collaborative guidance” and “mentor guidance”. Specifically, this study will attempt to answer the following questions:

• (1) What are the differences of learning choices between gender grouping students in the design process under “mentor guidance” and “collaborative guidance”?

• (2) What are the differences of learning choices between “experimental group” and “control group” students in the design process under “mentor guidance” and “collaborative guidance”?

• (3) Are there differences in learning choices between boys and girls in different gender learning groups?

Three hypotheses were put forward according to the study questions: The first hypothesis was that the 2 M (two male) group of the single gender had better collaborative guidance preference than the 2F (two female) group of the single gender. This is because boys have better digital knowledge than girls, which can be responded in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) correspondingly. The second hypothesis was that 2F (2 female students) in the gender equilibrium group preferred mentor guidance. Because many studies show that the majority of female students are less accustomed to computer collaborative learning, this may also lead to the impact of female students learning style. The third hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in learning choice between gender unequilibrium group 1M1F (1 male and 1 female) group and the gender equilibrium group.

3.3 Selection and Testing of Study Objects

Participants are fourth-graders in the Department of Environmental Design at a university who studied Sketch up and 3D max computer software in the second and third grades. The study objects are the fourth grade graduation project group students, altogether 197 students and they are guided by 18 graduation project mentors altogether. The grouping situation is that: three study objects in one group, a total of 15 objects in 5 groups, and two study objects in one group, a total of 156 objects in 78 groups. One object in one group, a total of 26 objects in 26 groups. The main objects of this study are (2 M, 2F, 1M1F) groups, and the valid sample is 156 objects, after the total number of 41 persons in three-person group and one-person group are deducted. The study is divided into two groups, namely, experimental group and control group. The “experimental group” is composed of the students who completed the graduation project of the whole semester through the collaborative guidance of computer-supported collaborative learning between gender groupings. While the “control group” is composed of the students learning under the traditional graduation project teaching style.

3.4 Study Tools

The study is conducted by questionnaire through network and mobile phone. The questionnaire is divided into four dimensions according to the process of graduation project. The order of the questionnaire design is base investigation, design transformation, design expression and paper writing. The explanation is given as follows: 1. Base investigation: It refers to the “base investigation and case analysis” of the students in the initial stage of graduation project, whether the guidance of tutors themselves or collaborative teaching has any substantial help for students in creative design ideas. 2. Design transformation: Design transformation refers to the effect of this part’s process of graduation project on gender grouping learning by means of collaborative teaching. 3. Design expression: Design expression means the expression of the whole vision in the graduation project, whether the mentor guidance or collaborative teaching can influence the student’s study. 4. Paper writing: The influence of collaborative teaching method on students’ learning performance in design report writing skills. Questionnaire is divided into two dimensions: mentor guidance and collaborative guidance. There are 4 dimensions, all of which there are 16 items.

3.5 Experimental Design

This course of “graduation project topic” is the last required course of a series of core design courses in our department from the lower grades. After four years of space design education, the course mainly enables the students of Department of Environmental Design to integrate all their professional knowledge, thinking logic, humanistic viewpoint, aesthetic ability and creative ideas, and finally put forward their own views on space design. The department is mainly divided into two main design directions of “interior design” and “landscape design”. In the process of graduation project, it is necessary to put forward a complete topic direction, observation and analysis, design strategy and different development design plan and design report according to the prescribed time schedule. Finally, it presents the design proposal of professional education level in the “defense of graduation project”. It includes oral communication, graphic and model results, which can only be passed after the full-time teacher’s joint review.

The main study method is multi-factor experimental design, giving priority to 3×2 experimental design. Three of the explanatory variables are gender grouping, and the target variables are “mentor guidance” and “collaborative guidance”. The collaborative guidance means that four main orientations of “base investigation”, “design transformation”, “design expression” and “paper writing” in the graduation project process are explained by four graduation project mentors (each mentor is responsible for one of the orientations) in the way of network lectures and the method of computer-supported collaborative learning in the last semester. The graduation project starts from the base investigation and ends at the last semester, the time spent by each group on it is about 4–5 months. The time of the questionnaire is one week before the end of last semester. The investigation tool is conducted on a computer or mobile phone in the form of a network. The questionnaire is designed with Likert-type 5-point scale, one point represents for “very disagreed”, two points for “disagreed”, three points for “uncertainty”, four points for “agreed”, and five points for “very agreed”. Different grades of scores are given according to the propensity of the statement. The questionnaire is divided into four dimensions: “base investigation”, “design transformation”, “design expression” and “paper writing”. There were 156 students in five classes with Cronbach’s α coefficient of 898 for all the 16 items, which showed that this scale had good reliability.

4 Results and Discussion

In order to understand and clarify whether gender grouping can enhance learning creativity through collaborative guidance in graduation project, the study divided it into experimental group and control group to compare and analyze data. Questionnaire design is divided into four dimensions: “base investigation”, “design transformation”, “design expression” and “paper writing”. The independent sample t-test is used to examine and analyze the learning choices among the gender grouping in the design of the experiment. The mean analysis and multi-factor variance analysis are used to examine the differences between the hypotheses.

4.1 The Study Hypothesis in Independent Sample T-Test Data Analysis

The independent sample t-test in this study is used to investigate the hypothesis problem in two directions: the difference of learning choice between genders, and the contrast analysis between groups. In the independent t-sample, there was no significant difference in all items of four dimensions between gender and grouping in the learning choices between “mentor guidance” and “collaborative guidance”. The results overturned all the study hypotheses. And this also seems to mean that boys and girls have uncertainty about the learning of “collaborative teaching”, and therefore are more accustomed to the traditional graduation project teaching style. In the experimental group and the control group, the results of t-test analysis are as follows (Table 1). The results showed that there are significant differences between the two groups in four dimensions of mentor guidance (for example, Q2) and [t (154) = −2.72, p = .02, d = 0.28]. This shows that students in the experimental group are slightly influenced by “onsite learning” in the collaborative learning process because they joined in the collaborative guidance. As a result, the score of the dimension of mentor guidance is relatively lower in the questionnaire survey. The students in the control group were more trusting of their mentors because they were not under collaborative guidance. Therefore, it is common to show high marks in mentor guidance. From the survey data, we can know that collaborative learning can be properly added to the process of graduation project learning, but how to master the teaching style needs to be studied further.

Table 1. Data analysis results of independent sample t test between experimental group and control group

4.2 The Study Hypothesis in Statistical Analysis of Single-Factor Variance

• (1) In the statistical analysis of single-factor variance, two hypothetical problems are mainly discussed, one is the learning choice difference between gender groupings, and the other is the statistical analysis results of the experimental group and the control group. The results of data analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the design process of gender grouping “mentor guidance” and “collaborative guidance”. This is not consistent with the first hypothesis that the single gender (2 M) group is superior to the single gender (2F) group in collaborative guidance. The second hypothesis is that students in the gender equilibrium (2F) group are more likely to be directed by their own mentors, and the results are inconsistent. Compared with the third hypothesis, there is no significant difference in learning choice between gender unequilibrium (1M1F) group and gender equilibrium group.

• (2) In the single-factor variance analysis between experimental group and the control group, there are 7 different items in the dimension of mentor guidance. The results are as follows (Table 2). Take the mentor question Q2 “communicate with group members frequently” of “base investigation” as an example, [F (1,154) = 5.160, p = .024] has a significant difference. This shows that the students also discuss closely after school besides the discussion and communication with the mentors, shown in the part of base investigation. For two items about the internalized application of knowledge in the part of the design transformation, the analysis statistics are [F (1,154) = 4.616, p = .033], [F (1,154) = 5.012, p = .027], respectively. This shows that the part of design transformation is usually complicated and difficult in the process of students’ graduation project operation, which requires careful guidance from the tutor and intensive discussion. Therefore, the students showed a desire to design knowledge, and both the experimental group and the control group showed positive attitude towards collaborative guidance.

  Table 2. Results of single-factor variance analysis of the experimental group and the control group in the dimension of “mentor guidance”

• (3) In the design expression part of the mentor guidance, the analysis statistics of two items of case teaching are [F (1,154) = 5.280, p = .023] and [F (1,154) = 5.543, p = .023], respectively. This showed that both boys and girls in the gender grouping wanted to demonstrate with cases in the part of design presentation; the experimental group showed better learning effectiveness than collaborative guidance in the onsite guidance by mentor. The students in the control group hold reservations for the teaching effect of collaborative learning (CSCL). In the part of the paper guidance, the analysis statistics are [F (1,154) = 12.656, p = .000], [F (1,154) = 6.400, p = .012]. Because paper writing usually encounters problems that arise outside of writing, it takes more time for mentors to guide. Therefore, both the experimental group and the control group hope that the mentor can guide on the spot, and students hold wait-and-see attitude towards the computer-supported collaborative learning teaching style.

4.3 The Study Hypothesis in Statistical Analysis of Multi-factor Variance

In the statistical analysis of multi-factor variance, two hypothetical problems are mainly discussed, one is the learning choice difference between gender groupings, and the other is the statistical analysis results of the experimental group and the control group. It can be seen from (Table 3) that there is no significant difference in gender grouping between the experimental group and the control group under the “collaborative guidance” multi-factor variance analysis statistics. This shows that although students have a fresh feeling and stimulation about the collaborative learning method used for graduation project in the process of learning, both the experimental group and the control group hold a wait-and-see attitude. However, the satisfaction of the 2 M group in the gender grouping is obviously low in the design transformation and the paper writing in the collaborative guidance dimension, which showed that the female students are uncertain and are not adapt to the computer-supported collaborative teaching. In the design transformation and expression of collaborative guidance in 1M1F group, the paper writing also shows a situation that the degree of satisfaction is slightly lower than other items, which also shows that the female students are more accustomed to mentor’s onsite guidance of graduate project, and are full of doubts about the collaborative teaching and learning.

Table 3. Results of multi-factor variance analysis of gender grouping of the experimental group and the control group in the dimension of “collaborative guidance”

4.4 The Study Hypothesis in Statistical Analysis of Mean and Standard Deviation

In this study, three hypotheses are proposed based on the previous hypotheses: The first hypothesis was that the 2 M (two male) group of the single gender had better collaborative guidance preference than the 2F (two female) group of the single gender. The second hypothesis was that 2F (2 female students) in the gender equilibrium group preferred mentor guidance. The third hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in learning choice between gender unequilibrium group and the gender equilibrium group. From the data, it can be concluded that both male and female students have the same satisfaction degree in the mentor guidance, which shows that both the gender grouping and the students are fond of onsite guidance by mentor. They feel uncertain about collaborative guidance. In contrast to the collaborative guidance, the analysis of the data from (Table 4) shows that female students are less satisfied with the items 3 to 6 of collaborative guidance. Since these four questions are related to the dimension of design transformation and design expression, this may explain the understanding of knowledge-level transformation through internalization then coming the design products, especially that it needs the teaching by mentor personally. Not only that, it also needs to be explained through the design case. This also validates previous hypotheses, because many studies show that the majority of female students are less accustomed to computer collaborative learning, this may also lead to the impact of female students learning style.

Table 4. Analysis results of gender in mean and standard deviation

5 Conclusions and Suggestions

In the era of information society and the advent of innovative learning model, learning through the Internet is no longer just a one-way learning of the computer or the Internet for individuals, but rather a learning activity that can interact with members of the community. Therefore, the “collaborative learning” teaching style is bound to form a trend. In this study, according to the related literature, theoretical construction and analysis, the author explores the best creative learning strategy in graduation project after comparing the differences of learning choice between gender groupings through “collaborative guidance” and “mentor guidance”. The results of this study can be used as a reference for future teaching patterns in collaborative learning. The conclusions are as follows:

• (1) This study investigated whether the gender grouping of graduation project can improve students’ learning creativity through collaborative guidance by “mentor guidance” and “collaborative guidance” in the form of questionnaire survey. It found that male students were interested in this learning style, and female students were still used to traditional teaching. And this is quite consistent with a lot of research, because male students are more acceptable to network information products, while female students are the opposite. As a result, new strategies have emerged for gender grouping teaching styles, and in the group with more male students, we can consider implanting “collaborative learning” teaching patterns to promote their interest in learning. In the group with more female students, web-based learning can be used as an aid in teaching.

• (2) On the other hand, the author thinks in his own teaching experience that there are individual differences in students’ knowledge, quality and attitude in terms of enhancing students’ creativity, so it is very difficult to make strategies. Teaching itself is teaching according to individual student’s personality, quality and attitude, and the student’s self-study attitude will be related to the teacher’s teaching. In the network information age, how to use this tool to make the best learning effect of students while teachers, teaching materials and learners can achieve the best interaction should be the goal that teachers must strive for in the future.

As like the expected contribution of this study, one is to clarify whether gender grouping can enhance students’ learning creativity through collaborative guidance of collaborative learning in graduation project. This study attempts to explore the parts that have not been studied in computer-supported collaborative learning, focusing on gender-specific learning differences, and trying to explore ways to enhance learning creativity. The second is the study of teaching methods in graduation project. Currently, the topics of university graduation project give priority to the group cooperation design, and there are differences in learning styles in the gender. In the network information age, we need to think about how to use this tool to create the best learning environment, so that students can acquire the knowledge and then obtain creativity. The follow-up study can expand the investigation of students’ personality traits and make further research and discussion on the learning software and hardware of the Department of Environmental Design.