Board 365: Reaching Consensus: Using Group Concept Mapping in a Multi-Site STEM Hub Research Team

Anthony Weiss; Darran Cairns; Tiffani Riggers-Piehl; Jacob Marszalek; Michelle Maher

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Tagged Topic: NSF Grantees Poster Session
Page Count: 13
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--43022
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/43022
Download Count: 105

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Anthony Weiss University of Missouri, Kansas City

visit author page

Anthony Weiss is a Ph.D. candidate in Mechanical Engineering with a co-discipline in Education, Leadership, Policy, and Foundations at UMKC. Prior to this he received his BS in Mechanical Engineering Technology from Pittsburg State University in 2016 where he also was a student-athlete participating in Cross Country and Track and Field. He went on to get his BS in Mechanical Engineering in 2019 from UMKC and then completed his Masters in Mechanical Engineering in 2020. He also worked for an engineering design firm in Kansas City for 6 years as a data scientist and design engineer and is a licensed P.E. in the state of Missouri.

visit author page

biography

Darran Cairns West Virginia University

visit author page

Darran is an Adjunct Associate Professor in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at West Virginia University.

visit author page

author page

Tiffani Riggers-Piehl University of Missouri, Kansas City

biography

Jacob Marszalek University of Missouri, Kansas City

visit author page

Education: Dr. Marszalek received his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology, Statistics and Measurement at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2006.

Teaching: Dr. Marszalek teaches undergraduate quantitative statistics and graduate courses in S

visit author page

biography

Michelle Maher University of Missouri, Kansas City

visit author page

Dr. Michelle Maher explores student research, teaching, and disciplinary writing skill development and higher education access and equity issues.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

In this abstract, we describe our use of Group Concept Mapping (GCM) to reach consensus for data collection in a multi-site S-STEM Hub research team. Our team represents nine current NSF S-STEM projects united to catalyze co-equitable partnerships between two-year colleges and four-year institutions that empower low-income STEM transfer students. Upon being funded by NSF DUE (Division of Undergraduate Education) in spring 2022, our team recognized that co-equitable institutional partnerships (or lack thereof) could be identified through the collection and analysis of relevant documentation. Subsequent discussions in summer 2022 revealed the seemingly endless range of national, state, regional, and institutional documents that could prove relevant to our effort. To reach consensus systematically and equitably about document selection across our multiple sites, we employed GCM.

GCM has been used across engineering contexts, including biological engineering (Bergeron et al., 2019), engineering entrepreneurship (Bodnar, 2018), and sociotechnical thinking (Foley, 2021). It comprises six steps: (1) Preparation, (2) Generation, (3) Structuring, (4) Analysis, (5) Interpretation, and (6) Usage (https://groupwisdom.com/groupconceptmapping). Specifically:

• In Step 1, Preparation, the group project focus is defined. In our case, our defined focus was identification of documents deemed relevant. We defined ‘relevant’ as documents indicating presence/absence of a co-equitable partnership between institutions serving STEM transfer students. • In Step 2, Generation, the focus is reframed as prompts to spur brainstorming. To brainstorm all possible relevant documents, team members individually used the GCM software groupwisdomTM (https://groupwisdom.com/). In all, forty-five relevant documents were identified (e.g., transfer course equivalency lists, general education requirements, and regional accrediting agency requirements). • In Step 3, Structure, team members individually categorized the 45 documents in ways that made sense to them. As part of this step, they also rated each document by its perceived importance in responding to the project’s central research questions. • In Step 4, Analysis, groupwisdomTM will aggregate participant ratings into a concept map using multidimensional scaling. Ideas (i.e., documents) closer together on the map would be those grouped together more frequently in the sorting. Hierarchical cluster analysis will be used to identify clusters of ideas, or “themes.” Finally, in this step, ratings will be averaged for each idea and theme. • In Step 5, Interpretation, the resulting concept maps will be interpreted by our team. • In Step 6, Usage, our team shall (in theory) soon have a systematically and equitably created a list of documents upon which we will agree will best inform our project’s goals.

We acknowledge the use of GCM to reach consensus has not been without challenges. While most project team members are familiar with concept-mapping as a pedagogical approach, many do not have first-hand experience using it for consensus-building. To encourage participation, we recently offered the chance to win a $25.00 Amazon gift card to those who complete the concept-mapping activity (about 20 team members were invited to participate in the concept-mapping activity; invitations were issued based on team members’ interest in being involved in document identification and analyses).

In the final ASEE poster, we will identify the documents we, as a multi-site team, selected based on GCM. By June of 2023, we will also have had a chance to put this section to the test. We will have field experiences, in the form of several two- and four-year institution case study site visits, to assess of how effective GCM was in helping us identify the relevant documents that shone a light on the degree to which co-equitable partnerships were being realized. We also anticipate that we may miss relevant documents, and we will use this hindsight to assess what we perhaps could have done differently in our use of GCM to reach consensus in our multi-site S-STEM Hub research team.

Citation
Format

Weiss, A., & Cairns, D., & Riggers-Piehl, T., & Marszalek, J., & Maher, M. (2023, June), Board 365: Reaching Consensus: Using Group Concept Mapping in a Multi-Site STEM Hub Research Team Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--43022

TY - CPAPER
AB - In this abstract, we describe our use of Group Concept Mapping (GCM) to reach consensus for data collection in a multi-site S-STEM Hub research team. Our team represents nine current NSF S-STEM projects united to catalyze co-equitable partnerships between two-year colleges and four-year institutions that empower low-income STEM transfer students. Upon being funded by NSF DUE (Division of Undergraduate Education) in spring 2022, our team recognized that co-equitable institutional partnerships (or lack thereof) could be identified through the collection and analysis of relevant documentation. Subsequent discussions in summer 2022 revealed the seemingly endless range of national, state, regional, and institutional documents that could prove relevant to our effort. To reach consensus systematically and equitably about document selection across our multiple sites, we employed GCM.

GCM has been used across engineering contexts, including biological engineering (Bergeron et al., 2019), engineering entrepreneurship (Bodnar, 2018), and sociotechnical thinking (Foley, 2021). It comprises six steps: (1) Preparation, (2) Generation, (3) Structuring, (4) Analysis, (5) Interpretation, and (6) Usage (https://groupwisdom.com/groupconceptmapping). Specifically:

• In Step 1, Preparation, the group project focus is defined. In our case, our defined focus was identification of documents deemed relevant. We defined ‘relevant’ as documents indicating presence/absence of a co-equitable partnership between institutions serving STEM transfer students.
• In Step 2, Generation, the focus is reframed as prompts to spur brainstorming. To brainstorm all possible relevant documents, team members individually used the GCM software groupwisdomTM (https://groupwisdom.com/). In all, forty-five relevant documents were identified (e.g., transfer course equivalency lists, general education requirements, and regional accrediting agency requirements).
• In Step 3, Structure, team members individually categorized the 45 documents in ways that made sense to them. As part of this step, they also rated each document by its perceived importance in responding to the project’s central research questions.
• In Step 4, Analysis, groupwisdomTM will aggregate participant ratings into a concept map using multidimensional scaling. Ideas (i.e., documents) closer together on the map would be those grouped together more frequently in the sorting. Hierarchical cluster analysis will be used to identify clusters of ideas, or “themes.” Finally, in this step, ratings will be averaged for each idea and theme.
• In Step 5, Interpretation, the resulting concept maps will be interpreted by our team.
• In Step 6, Usage, our team shall (in theory) soon have a systematically and equitably created a list of documents upon which we will agree will best inform our project’s goals.

We acknowledge the use of GCM to reach consensus has not been without challenges. While most project team members are familiar with concept-mapping as a pedagogical approach, many do not have first-hand experience using it for consensus-building. To encourage participation, we recently offered the chance to win a $25.00 Amazon gift card to those who complete the concept-mapping activity (about 20 team members were invited to participate in the concept-mapping activity; invitations were issued based on team members’ interest in being involved in document identification and analyses).

In the final ASEE poster, we will identify the documents we, as a multi-site team, selected based on GCM. By June of 2023, we will also have had a chance to put this section to the test. We will have field experiences, in the form of several two- and four-year institution case study site visits, to assess of how effective GCM was in helping us identify the relevant documents that shone a light on the degree to which co-equitable partnerships were being realized. We also anticipate that we may miss relevant documents, and we will use this hindsight to assess what we perhaps could have done differently in our use of GCM to reach consensus in our multi-site S-STEM Hub research team.
AU - Anthony Weiss
AU - Darran Cairns
AU - Tiffani Riggers-Piehl
AU - Jacob Marszalek
AU - Michelle Maher
CY - Baltimore , Maryland
DA - 2023/06/25
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Board 365: Reaching Consensus: Using Group Concept Mapping in a Multi-Site STEM Hub Research Team
UR - https://peer.asee.org/43022
DO - 10.18260/1-2--43022
ER -