Professional communication skills for engineering professionals

Professional communication skills for engineering professionals Aletta Nylen Arnold Pears Dept. of Tnformation Technology Uppsala University Uppsala...
Author: Anis Gibson
6 downloads 0 Views 298KB Size
Professional communication skills for engineering professionals Aletta Nylen

Arnold Pears

Dept. of Tnformation Technology Uppsala University Uppsala, Sweden [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract-

Oral and written communication proficiency is

an important professional skill for engineering graduates. However, developing these skills is often poorly integrated into the

engineering

curriculum.

We

present

a

three

year

integrated approach to developing professional competence in oral and written communication, which has been implemented in

the

IT

engineering

program

at

a

Swedish

research

university. In the paper we describe the educational approach, the nature of assessment items and measures taken to ensure progressive

skills

development

in

order

to

ensure

that

graduates emerge with fuHy fledged communications skills. The goal of the paper is to describe a successful model for professional skills development, and to encourage a continuing dialogue on how to best equip students with communication skills for professional practice.

(Abstract)

Keywords-engineering education; communication skills; professional competencies; (key words) I.

INTRODUCTION

Professional engineers use communication for many different purposes, e.g., pitching ideas, describing solutions, reporting results, discussing work with collaborators, customers, etc. Graduating students need to acquire the necessary communication skills and become familiar with a broad selection of styles during their education. The American Computing and Accreditation Commission (ABET) acknowledges this, e.g., in their general criteria for accrediting engineering technology programs [1] where "an

ability to apply written, oral, and graphical communication in both technical and non-technical environments; and an ability to identifY and use appropriate technical literature;" is listed as a required student outcome. Many teachers regard teaching the main course subject their only task and do neither teach nor comment on how weil students communicate within the subject. TT faculty are hesitant to grade communication skills due to a perceived lack of language expertise or because they find the task tedious [2]. At Uppsala University, a Swedish research university, a student survey shows that isolated efforts, often in the form of writing assignments or oral presentations, have been made to improve the situation, but more often than not, students do not get the feedback they need to be able to develop their communication skills.

978-1-4673-5261-1/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

In this paper we present an approach to developing professional communication skills in engineering students. When this work was started, we focused primarily on written communication. The work has then gradually expanded towards including oral communication, but some of the work presented here has a focus on writing. Oral and written communication skills have a lot in common. For example, explaining a concept requires being able to adjust the amount of context that need to be presented in order for a specific audience to be able to understand, no matter whether it is done orally or in writing. Hence development in written communication will also be beneficial for oral communication and vice versa. The differences between the two forms of communication are, however, significant enough to motivate that they both need to be practiced in the education. In the literature, there are two main approaches to teaching professional communication skills - those where communication is taught in dedicated courses [3] [4] and those based on writing across the curriculum (WAC) [5], where teaching is done in several courses throughout the education. Furthermore, communication can be taught in general language courses or in core subject courses, within the discipline, where it can serve both to enhance learning and to practice professional activities [6]. The approach presented here is an across the curriculum, within the discipline approach to developing both oral and written communication skills. The approach has been implemented in the first three years of the TT engineering program at Uppsala University. Our approach has been developed to address problems that were discovered through a student survey in 2012. We describe the ideas behind our approach, what has been done to achieve progressive development, how we work with assessment, and challenges that we have addressed in our design. The ideas presented constitute a framework that can be used to develop other competencies such as group working skills and information literacy and they are also valid for other branches of engineering education. 11.

BACKGROUND

The LT engineering program at Uppsala University, in likeness with other engineering programs, aim at educating students to become competent professionals. This means that the students do not only have to learn their core subject, they

also have to develop a number of competencies that are essential to professionals. We refer to OECD [7] for a definition of a competency:

"A competency is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing on and mobilising psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context." In this work, we focus on communication ability for TT engineers, which OECD describes by

"the ability to communicate effectively is a competency that may draw on an individual 's knowledge of language, practical IT skills and attitudes towards those with whom he or she is communicating". To graduate from engineering programs at Uppsala University, the students must

"demonstrate ability in both national and international contexts, to, orally and in writing, in dialogue with different groups, clearly present and discuss their conclusions and the l knowledge and arguments thatform the basis for these." [8] This requires students to be skilled at communication within their subject, and to be able to adjust their communication to different situations and different audiences that they may encounter professionally. Study programs at Uppsala University, typically consist of a collection of courses, most of which are in the program's core subject. In the lT engineering program, isolated efforts of including professional skills development have been done, but there has been no previous attempt to structure this development across the education. In 2012, we explored the students' view on the current writing training situation in the lT engineering program at Uppsala University by conducting a survey. Although the survey focuses on writing, the results have been used as a basis for developing both oral and written communication education. In the survey, we asked the students •





if they have had writing training previously during their education, if they think that writing training is relevant to their education, and how good writers they perceive themselves to be.

Free text answers and comments have been analyzed with the aim of finding a variation in how students experience the use of written communication in TT and in how useful they perceive the writing training they have had to be for their skills development. Students from one course in year 2 and two parallel courses in year 3 were asked to participate. Out of the total

1

Translation from Swedish.

65 students that were asked, 27 participated which gives an answer ratio of 42%. Slightly less than half of the students answered the survey. We cannot be sure of how representative this group is for the total student body. However, opinions expressed by a large number of students (>80%) in this sampIe would be strongly represented even if all other students were of a different opinion. Tt is also clear, both from statistics and from free text answers, that both students who are interested in and/or strong in writing and students who are not are represented.

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Unsure

Yes

No

Figure 1: Previous writing training.

A. Writing training As shown in Figure 1, the survey showed that 60% of the participating students say that they have had previous writing training in their education, 20% that they have not had writing training and 20% are not sure. Students that reported having had writing training in their education were asked to explain in what courses and how that had affected their writing skills. Half of those students (8 out of 16) reported having writing training in 1-2 courses, 2 wrote that writing training occurred only in project courses, and 6 reported that they had writing training in many courses. Of the 9 students who commented on how these courses has contributed to development of their writing skills, 5 reported that they could not see any development. 3 of these students also mentioned that they had not gotten any feedback on their writing. 2 students mentioned that they had learned the general framework for writing reports, and another 2 students claimed that they had learned to write reports by the practice they got from these courses. We conclude that writing practice is useful and that we need to make sure that the students get more of it. We also see that not all students can learn from practice alone, and for that reason, feedback is very important. This result agrees with what is written about the need for feedback in [9]. In our survey, one student expressed that

"Many of the courses within the IT program has given opportunity to practice writing, but never given specijic feedback on the writing. It didn 't develop much, but rather gave the opportunity to keep my previous standard up. ,,2

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

15% 10% 5% 0% Don't know

5

4

3

2

1

Figure 3: Self-assessed writing skills.

Figure 2: Relevance of writing training.

B.

Relevance

On the question how relevant writing training is to their education (see Figure 2), 70% thinks that it is a 5 on a scale 1-5. Another 19% thinks it is a 4, 4% thinks it is a 3 and 7% do not know. Apparently, students think that writing is important for an lT engineer but this raises the question of why students think that it is relevant and how they expect to be using writing in their profession. In 11 free text comments to this question, we find that •





5 students think that is it generally important to be able to express one self correctly but that it has no particular importance for their profession 5 students think that it is important to be able to present ones work by writing reports 2 students think that writing is important for making their work (products and solutions) and research available to others

lt is also mentioned that writing will be used for work applications, communicating with coworkers and that good writing makes it easier to get through with opinions. Our conclusion is that students have a general feeling that writing is important but their image of how it will be used in their future profession is not clear. In order to get through to students with the communication education that is provided, we need to provide examples of different kinds of professional communication. C.

Assessment ofwriting skills

The students were asked to assess their own writing skills on a scale 1-5, where 5 is "good enough for writing a thesis", 3 is "good enough for my current level of studies" and 1 is "I definitely need more training". 4% of the students chose not to rate themselves. 7% rated themselves 2, 85% rated 2

Translation from Swedish.

themselves 3 or 4 and only one student was rated 5. The results are presented in Figure 3. These figures suggest that 92% of these students need future writing training and at least 7% would have been better of with more writing training earlier in the program according to their own estimate. However, if we look at the 13 free text comments on this question, all but 3 students either express that they need more writing training or that they are unsure about the level of writing that is required. The other 3 students express that their general writing skills are good, but that they are unsure about their academic writing skills or about writing within their discipline. We expect the students to leam good general writing skills in high school and to develop academic and discipline specific writing skills at the university. Our interpretation is therefore that the students lack of understanding of what writing in their subject is, leads them to rate their own writing higher than an lT teacher would and that improved communication education throughout the program is needed. lll.

PROPOSED APPROACH

We will present the ideas and theory behind our approach before describing how it has been implemented at Uppsala University and explaining why this approach has been chosen.

A. Frequent practice. Students need reoccurring opportumtles to work on improving their communication skills. Students that are exposed to different writing assignments throughout their studies perceive improvement in writing skills [10]. Presentation skills are also improved by practice [11]. B.

Practicewithin the subject.

Skills achieved in dedicated courses are not necessarily transferred to other contexts [12]. This means that general language courses may not have the desired impact on the students' development in professional communication, which is in their core subject. In addition to being ways of communicating, writing, explaining and discussing are also

ways of learning [13] and help to form the professional identity [14]. If the practice is not performed within the discipline, these advantages will be lost. C.

Instructions, feedback and reflection.

Moore concludes that without proper instructions, guidance and feedback, the only effect of writing assignments is to reinforce bad writing [9]. He also argues that with proper guidance, students show significant improvements both in writing skills and in content knowledge. For oral presentations, [11] report getting good skill development when using a combination of practice, reflection and peer review. In [15], the authors report that letting students reflect on their own work, in addition to formal assessment, advances the development of professional competencies. D.

Progression.

We believe that it is not only important that students practice communication regularly and that they get feedback. In order for the students to continue progressing over time, it is important that the level of communication required in assignments increases as the students mature. The feedback should also meet students at their current level and promote further development. IV.

TEACHING METHODS

To ensure that LT engineering students at Uppsala University are subject to reoccurring communication practice, communication proficiency is a prioritized learning outcome for at least two core subject courses each of the first three years of studies. This also makes it clear, for the students, when communication is practiced and assessed and stresses that development of communication skills is an important part of the education. Factors like restricted time, limited access to information and the stressful situation makes assessing professional skills through traditional exams difficult [16]. In our approach, communication is therefore practiced and assessed in different kinds of assignments, where students can prepare for oral assessments and have time to work on written material. From the survey presented in Section TI, we learned that students agree that writing is important for TT professionals but when asked how it is used, they seem to lack an answer. This also means that the character of communication in TT, how it differs from general academic communication, is unclear. By providing students with a variety of different kinds of weil-chosen communication assignments, we hope to acquaint the students with professional style communication and highlight the communication skills that are specific to TT. In [2], Garvey presents a categorization of student writing with particular examples of assignments in each category. The communication assignments that our students encounter during the first three years are best described by Garvey's categories "Summarizing assignments", "Programs

as writing", "Reviews/critiques of the writing of others" and "More creative kinds of writing" although, in our case, the work is sometimes presented orally. "Team-based writing" also occurs. Examples of assignments that our students encounter are paper reviews (summarizing), project proposals (creative), lab and project reports (programs), literature discussions (summarizing, reviews) and project presentations (programs). Sometimes our students present and critique each other's work resulting in assignments that span three of the categories, summarizing, programs and reVIews. Another important component in making students familiar with communication in their discipline is to provide examples. We are collaborating with the university's writing center to form a database of examples of student and professional writing. Reading and presenting research papers is also an activity that contributes. In oral communication, students need to become skilied in presentation techniques, but it is equally important that they become skilIed in discussing their subject. In addition to being able to present ideas and solutions, they need to be able to relate to and ask and answer questions about material that is being presented and they need to be able to communicate efficiently about their work when cooperating with others in teams. Most approaches to oral communication education described in literature address presentation skills [4] [11]. We find that there is also a great need for practicing discussing the subject of studies. Students struggle with describing issues related to TT, concepts, solutions, etc. both orally and in writing. In discussions, this is even harder since a good description has to be provided without having as much time to think about how to explain what they want to say as when given a written assignment or preparing a presentation. This is obvious even when students are to describe and discuss what they have previously written about. The need for oral communication training that goes beyond presentation skills is supported by the work of Ruff and Carter [17], where professional communication goals were identified through focus groups and interviews with software engineers and managers. To practice and assess discussion skills, we work with oral assessment of both theoretical content and practical work. With the help of follow up questions, the teacher can create a situation where the student can no longer rely on previously prepared answers but has to create explanations and solutions on the fly. Course evaluations show that students experience that they need to have a thorough understanding of course material to pass this kind of oral assessment. Teachers experience that oral assessments make students aware of what it means to understand contents and thus seem to encourage deep learning. In addition, they find that need for communication practice is exposed and that student performance is drastically improved with practice. Teaching the main course content is the primary concern for many teachers and they do neither teach nor comment on how the students communicate in their work. Previous literature [2] [18] report that LT faculty hesitate to grade

Beginners, first course Students should be able to 1. identiJY different types of text in the fJeld and describe their structure. 2. write a text that reproduces information from other sources. 1 3. write a text that is suitable for the intended reader. 1 4. write a text that has a clear theme and is appealing to the intended reader. 5. write text that is Iinguistically correct for spelling, paragraphing, punctuation, etc. 6. use references and citations correctly. 7. discuss what information is necessary and what information is sufficient for a text. First and second year Students should be able to I. provide constructive feedback on the work of others with the help of checklists. 2. write summaries of simple scientific articles. 3. describe and evaluate their own work in writing, e.g., lab report. The report should have a good structure. 4. apply principles of necessary and sufficient information in your own texts. Second and third year Students should be able to 1. give constructive feedback on the work of others. 2. describe and evaluate larger projects in writing. A special focus is on selection of appropriate levels of abstraction in different parts of the text. 3. use fJgures and diagrams in a proper manner. 4. produce "well-prepared" text in Swedish. 5. write original text in English.

Figure 4: Progression goals for writing.

writing since they do not have language expertise and since they consider evaluating writing to be a tedious task. We collaborate with the university's writing center to offer support for teachers when it comes to making instructions for writing assignments and material on how to write. The writing center also supports the students by giving instruction lectures and writing aid, e.g., in the form of comments on student work before the final submission. Providing feedback, especially to written work, is a time consuming task for teaching staff. We sometimes let senior students help with grading to reduce the teacher's workload and thus the teacher's task shifts from grading large numbers of assignments to supervising a group of students and making sure that their grading is at an appropriate level for the course. Peer reviewing, students giving feedback to each other, is also sometimes regarded as being a time saving alternative which has the additional advantage that students learn from reviewing as weIl as from doing the assignment. Investigations in [19] support our impression that students need training and education, both in giving and responding to feedback. Since peer reviewing is used frequently, students get to practice giving feedback. For written assignments, students must sometimes respond to feedback by improving their work. For oral presentation, [11] report student development when using a combination of practice, reflection and peer review. When it comes to writing, our investigations support the results of [19], that students do not find feedback from peers as trustworthy and beneficial as feedback from teachers. In our approach, we use peer review both for oral and written work but for written work, we make sure that students also get feedback from teachers or teaching assistants. We also make it part of the assignment for

students to reflect on their own performance. We share the experiences presented in [15], that students lack experience in reflecting on their work. Since reflection does not only advance development of skills, but is also an important tool for achieving lifelong learning if incorporated in professional practice, we make reflection a mandatory part of selected assignments spread throughout the education. To encourage progressive development, we have defined learning outcomes for written communication, presented in Figure 4. The learning outcomes are linked to different course levels. The learning outcomes are designed for students that are native in Swedish, not in English. At Uppsala University, there are four course levels during the first three years of study. At each level, students should fulfill the outcomes from previous levels as weil as the ones from their current level. The fourth level, which does not occur in Figure 4, is the level of Bachelor thesis work and does not contain any new learning outcomes. A more detailed description and an analysis of the learning outcomes in relation to competencies that are needed to fulfill them is presented in [20]. At the first level, for beginner students, the focus is on high school level writing skills and general academic writing skills such as proper academic style language and correct use of references. At later levels, other aspects, e.g., being able to explain and describe solutions at appropriate levels of abstraction, are added. A typical example from TT is that to explain an algorithm or a program, you need to provide a high level description, a figure or a natural language description. Just presenting excerpts from code is not sufficient at the second and third levels. The learning outcomes serve as a structure, both for teachers and for students, for achieving progression in the

level of assignments, the quality of student work and the grading criteria for assignments. Because of the many similarities between written and oral communication, it is easy to adjust the learning outcomes to suit both kinds of communication. To help students appreciate their own development, assignment solutions, feedback and reflections can be used to compile a student portfolio. V.

IMPLEMENTATTON

The communication training starts at the beginners level, in the very first course in the TT program and is continued in five more courses spread over the first three years. By the end of the third year, the students show that they fulfill all communication goals discussed above in an independent project corresponding to a bachelor thesis. In the first course, the writing education focuses on the difference between academic texts and general texts with a special emphasis on the style used in different types of LT related texts. For example, the students learn the structure of academic reports and they start to practice explaining LT concepts in a precise and unambiguous manner. Since the students do not yet have deep subject knowledge, typical assignments consist of presenting LT concepts and discussing them in relation to society and everyday life. The texts are directed towards audiences that are at the same level as the students themselves, audiences that do not have deep understanding of TT. An important goal at this level is that the students learn to use text sources in a proper manner. To practice oral communication, the students are required to do most of the course work in groups. In addition to being an arena for practicing discussion skills, the groups can serve as a motivator for students to perform better and learn more and thus the group can have a positive influence on students' study habits [21]. The rest of the first year is dedicated to practicing describing and evaluating the students' own work. The students present their own solutions to programming assignments, both orally and in writing. They evaluate their solutions and draw conclusions e.g., about performance of algorithms. They start working on presentation skills by presenting small projects to the c1ass. An important task for students during this period is to provide feedback on the work of other students. By doing this, the students get to see both good and bad examples and how they affect the general quality of texts and presentations. At this level, peer reviewing is guided by checklists that help students focus on relevant properties of texts and presentations rather than getting stuck in commenting on details, such as spelling errors. In the second and third years, this work continues but as student projects get larger, the demand for descriptions at different levels of abstraction increases. Although the students have used illustrations earlier, the emphasis on proper selection and use of illustrations is increased. At this level, we also require that students relate their work to other work in the field properly.

Peer reviewing is still used, but with less aid from checklists as we expect students at this level to have a general knowledge of what to look for. Group work and oral examination is also used, but as the students' subject knowledge increases, so does the required level of correctness in descriptions and of how students can draw conc1usions from course contents. In the later years, students are required to present their work to different audiences ranging from novice students to professionals depending on the purpose of the different assignments. An example from the third year is a writing assignment where students are required to explain database concepts and give illustrative examples directed towards audiences not knowing anything about databases. Another example, from a concurrent programming course in the second year, is a project proposal where the students have to seil an idea while giving enough technical background to convince a professional that their idea is realistic and should be accepted. VI.

DISCUSSION

We have described a model for professional skills development and how it has been implemented to develop communication skills in LT engineering students at Uppsala University. Through a student survey, we have found that the isolated efforts that have previously been implemented in the program, students have encountered communication practice, but that feedback and progression have been sparse. lt is also c1ear that students have a vague and incomplete picture of how communication will be used in their future profession. We argue that an across the curriculum approach is needed to ensure that students encounter a broad variety of professional communication activities and thus develops a knowledge of what communication in their discipline is and how it is used. Such an approach also makes it possible to progress the level of communication activities the students are to engage in and how they are graded. Our approach has been successful in that it has engaged faculty in participating in developing students' communication skills to a much larger extent than previously. The model have not been used to a full extent long enough to present definitive results on how student performance is improved, but the preliminary impression is that students are adopting study habits more directed towards deep learning and that students' oral communication skills are developing. Groups are natural training grounds for communication. Hence, an interesting future extension of this work is to inc1ude group and project working skills. A weil functioning group can have a positive impact on learning that would be interesting to take advantage of in professional skills development. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Thanks to Sofia Cassel for collaboration in development of the writing skill education. Thanks also to Kar! Marklund for fruitful discussions concerning oral assessment.

REF ERENCES [I]

ABET Computing Accreditation Commission. Criteria tor Accrediting Engineering Technology Programs, 2013 2014. [Online]. http://www.abet. orglDisplayTemplateslDocsHandbook.aspx?id=3150

[2]

Alan Garvey, "Writing in an upper-Ievel CS course," in Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE '10), New York, 2010, pp. 209-213.

[3]

Jean H French, "Evaluating a communication-intensive core course in the CS curriculum," Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 197-209, December 2012.

[4]

Gary McDonald and Merry McDonald, "Developing oral communication skills of computer science undergraduates," SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 25, no. I, pp. 279-282, March 1993.

[5]

The WAC Clearing House. Basic principles of WAC. http://wac.colostate.edu/intro/pop3a.cfm

[6]

Katrina Falkner and Nickolas J. G Falkner, "Integrating communication skills into the computer science curriculum," in Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12), New York, 2012, pp. 379-384.

[7]

OECD. (2005) The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies -­ [Online]. Executive Summary. http://www. deseco. admin.ch/bfs/deseco/en/index/02. parsys. 43469. dow nloadList.2296.DownloadFile.tmp/2005.dskcexecutivesummary.en.pdf

[8]

Uppsala University, Faculty of Science and Technology. (2012) Utbildningsplan för civilingenjörsprogrammen, 300 högskolepoäng, 2012/2013. Uppsala universitet, [Online]. http://www.teknat.uu. se/digitaIAssets/125/125040_utbildningsplan­ civing-20120828.pdf

[9]

R Moore, "Does Writing About Science Improve Learning About Science?," Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 212-217, 1993.

[Online].

[10] J I Hawthorne, "Student Perceptions of the Value of WAC," Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, vol. 3, no. I, 1998. [11] Jessen T Havill and Lewis D Ludwig, "Technically speaking: fostering the communication skills of computer science and mathematics students.," SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 185-189, March 2007. [12] R Hooper and S Butler, "Student Transfer of General Education English Skills to a Social Work Diversity Course: Is lt Happening?," Journal of the Idaho Academy of Science, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 1-10, 2008. [13] J Emig, "Writing as a Mode of Learning," in The Writing Teacher's Source Book, 2nd ed. , G Tate and E P. J Corbett, Eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 85-93. [14] J H Carpenter and M Krest, "lt's about the science: Students writing and thinking about data in a scientific writing course," Language and Learning across the Disciplines, vol. 5, no. 2, 2001. [15] Asa Cajander, Mats Daniels, and Brian R von Konsky, "Development of professional competencies in engineering education," in Proceedings of the 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE '11), Washington, 2011. [16] David Lopez, Josep-Llorenc Cruz, Fermin Sanchez, and Augustin Fernandez, "A take-horne exam to assess professional skills," in Proceedings of the 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FlE '11), Washington, 2011. [17] S. Ruff and M. Carter, "Communication learning outcomes from software engineering professionals: A basis for teaching communication in the engineering curriculum," in Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE '09. 39th IEEE, 2009, pp. 1-6. [18] D G Kay, "Computer scientists can teach writing: an upper division course for computer science majors," SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 117-120, March 1998.

[19] Monica E Cardella, Heidi A Diefes-Dux, Matthew Verleger, Amanda Fry, and Mark T Carnes, "Work in progress -- Using multiple methods to investigate the role of feedback in open-ended activities," in Proceedings of the 20I1 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE '11), Washington, 2011. [20] Aletta Nylen and Christina Dörge, "Using Competencies to Structure Scientitlc Writing Education," in HDT 2012 - Informatik für eine nachhaltige Zukunft: 5. Fachtagung Hochschuldidaktik der Informatik ; 06.-07. November 2012, Universität Hamburg, vol. 5, Postdam, 2013, pp. 33-44, http://opus.kobv. de/ubp/volltexteI2013/6289/. [21] Aletta Nylen and Karl Marklund, "Novice students' perception of learning in small groups," in Enhancement Themes conference: Enhancement and Innovation in Higher Education, Glasgow, 2013, pp. 114-122.

Suggest Documents