International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1961

21st Century Skills and the Engineer: Graduate Students’ Perceptions of Teamwork at METI, University of Port Harcourt

Gordon Monday Bubou, Emmanuel Emeka Ejim-Eze, Festa Ndutimi Okgriwe

Abstract— This paper reports on postgraduate engineering students’ perceptions of teamwork in Nigeria. Using a mix methodology (both quantitative and qualitative techniques), findings, like previous studies, were indicative of the fact that postgraduate students too can acquire certain generic skills [informational skills, problem solving skills, collaborative (people) skills] required of the modern day scientist and engineer to function effectively both in the work place and outside the work environment. This is besides deriving academic benefits (better comprehension and improved performance) and social benefits from teamwork. Participants expressed their desire to participate in

future teamwork. As society and employers continuous to place premium on 21st century skills, it is advocated that educators should devise

pedagogical tools to facilitate the development of teaming skills. Further research is suggested to cover a cross-section of faculties and multiple universities.

Index Terms— Teamwork, collaborative learning, perceptive surveys, 21st Century skills, generic skills, engineering graduates, METI, University of Port Harcourt

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

—————————— • ——————————

Tliar challenges and demands increasingly higher skills;

rent emerging world order that has become pro-soft-skills.

IJSER

he new global economy in the 21st Century have its pecu-
critical in the profile of the engineer and scientist in this cur-
such that candidate for high-end careers in engineering,
design, technology, architecture, etc. are required to possess
21st century skills sets – literacy, numeracy, informational skills, problem solving skills, collaborative (people) skills, en- trepreneurial skills, etc. to deal with the challenges. Essential- ly, teamwork and innovation abilities are critical in the profile of the new engineer [1]. Thus, generic skills are increasingly be emphasized by stakeholders [2]. However, some employers in Malaysia agreed that the technical graduates have good tech- nical skills, but not a motivation, interpersonal, critical think- ing, problem solving and entrepreneurship skills [3]. This sce- nario has become a global phenomenon with the situation be- ing worse in sub-Saharan Africa. This seriously affects the employability of graduates, especially of technical disciplines in Nigeria. Accordingly, Duch in [4] concluded that, university lecturers generally agree that they need to assist students in developing their critical- thinking skills, problem-solving abili- ties, and teamwork values [5]. According to [5], a research by Keyes and Burns in 2008 concluded that group assignments improved undergraduate student learning while developing essential teamwork, communication, and leadership skills.
Interestingly too, teamwork and collaborative abilities are

————————————————

• G.M. Bubou is a Principal Researcher Officer/HoD Technology Management Education Training, NACETEM South-South Office. PhD student of Tech- nology Management, Institute of Engineering, Technology & Innovation Management (METI) University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. PH-

2347033811861. E-mail: gbubou@gmail.com

• E.E. Ejim-Eze is Research Officer/HoD Science Policy and Development Studies, NACETEM South-South. PhD student of Technology Management at METI. PH-2347033024371. E-mail: ezeigwe1949@gmail.com

• F.N. Okrigwe is Research Office with NACETEM South South and a Mas- ters student of ICT Management at METI. PH-2348036671871. E-mail: fes- ta_okrigwe@yahoo.com

Interestingly too, teamwork and collaborative abilities are
critical in the profile of the engineer and scientist in this current emerging world order that has become pro-soft-skills. More, teamwork skill is also important for the university students because the skill can prepare themselves better for the highly competitive and collaborative working environment [4]. Unfortunately, it is noteworthy that, in general, students are often not prepared for teamwork (Vidal- Carreras et al., 2013) [6]. It then means, they must, as a necessity, develop effective teamwork skills prior to entering the workforce [7]. This is more so, when such individuals are moving up the ladder in careers towards becoming managers. Cooperative student-centred teaching/learning strategies offer viable opportunities to develop such important skills. Consequently, one way to developing the aforementioned skills at Institute of Engineering, Technology and Innovation Management (METI), University of Port Harcourt is to have students work in teams. An ice-breaker and a daylong teambuilding activity mark the commencement of every new session at METI. These postgraduate programmes at METI are designed in such a manner that compulsorily; students participate in group activities including group assignments in some cases for each of the courses taught in the programme. This method is in line with [5] thinking, who maintain that group assignments provide the opportunity for cooperative learning (CL) which is different from individual, competition- based learning; rather, group assignments require students to learn together in a team environment.

1.2 Purpose of the study

Zou et al [4] Maintains that, although group assignments are currently the most widespread technique to develop teamwork skills in graduates, little research has been done to investigate,

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1962

from students’ perspective, the benefits and difficulties of group formation, process monitoring, team performance, and assess- ment for group assignments. Equally, while there have been few empirical studies that explore postgraduate students’ expe- rience and perceptions of one phenomenon or the other, it ap- pears that little or no studies have been undertaken to investi- gate the postgraduate students’ perception of teamwork in Ni- gerian universities. Similarly, most studies on CL are focused on English for Academic Purposes [8], [9], [10], [5], [11]. Conse- quently, of this study aims to address this gap in the literature by determining postgraduate students’ perceptions teamwork; how CL affects performance outcomes at the postgraduate level and how knowledge was affected by participation in group as- signments. Additionally, we describe our current research fo- cusing on exploring possibilities to scaffold teamwork in post- graduate level science and engineering programmes in Nigerian universities.

1.3 Research Questions

the course, the discipline, and their own learning [13]. The authors concluded that results from such surveys can also help in identifying elements in courses that best support stu- dent learning.
For instance, [12], [14], [6] studied students perceptions of
teamwork in universities; [15 ], [16] was …toward developing generic skills at university, work placement and employment, [8], [7], [17] was on students’ perception of collaborative learn- ing; [18 ] on group projects and team problems; [19] studied student’s perceptions of the quality of online courses and the technologies employed; [9] studied students’ perceptions of learning vocabulary in a computer-supported collaborative environment; and [20] explored the perceptions of student in an online accounting class. Others are: the works of [21] cen- tred on students’ perceptions of online or face-to-face learning and social media…, and that of [22] was on students’ percep- tions on technological supports for problem-based learning. The list is endless.

st

There is a growing interest in studying students’ perceptions on

2.2 21

Century (Generic) Skills Sets

teamwork. However, as earlier stated, there are few, if any, studies that have investigated attitudes about postgraduate stu- dents’ perceptions of teamwork in a Nigerian university. We decided to revisit some the issues raised by [12], [7]. Thus, the
specific issues we set out to answer included:
According to Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the Organisa-
tion of Economic Cooperation and Development Countries (OECD) “the way we live and work has changed profoundly – and so has the set of skills we need to participate fully in and
benefit from our hyper-connected societies and increasingly

IJSER

1) What constitutes postgraduate (science and engineer- ing) students’ perceptions (understanding, attitude, experience) of teamwork as a part of their professional roles?
2) Do postgraduate students perceive teamwork as posi- tive learning experiences?
3) How to improve team formation procedures?
4) What can lecturers do to better manage student team- work?

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review draws on research insights provided from perception studies from varied backgrounds and levels of educations. The literature on postgraduate engineering stu- dents’ perceptions on teamwork represents a very small por- tion of all the research (as much as gleaned by the researchers) on perceptive or attitudinal studies on teamwork.

2.1 Perception Surveys

Students’ perception of various concepts and phenomena – courses, methods/techniques, pedagogical contents, teach- ing/learning modes, etc. has been studied by various re- searchers over the years. According to Lewis and Seymour [13], perceptive (attitudinal) surveys may take many forms and address a range of issues, they typically consist of a series of statements that students are asked to express their agree- ment or disagreement using a scale. Vidal-Carreras et al [6] identified 14 perceptions and classified them as representing either a positive perception, or a negative perception of team- work for the students. This type surveys provide valuable in- formation on student perceptions of and emotions regarding their classroom experience – includes general attitudes toward
knowledge-based economies” [23]. Likewise, in citing the
works of others, the [24] intimated that initiatives on the teach- ing and assessment of 21st century skills originated from the widely-held belief shared by several interested professional groupings like: teachers, educational researchers, policy mak- ers, politicians, employers who reasoned that the current cen- tury will demand a very different set of certain generic skills sets and competencies from people in order for them to func- tion effectively at work, as citizens and in their leisure time. These generic skills – range of qualities and capacities are in- creasingly viewed as important in higher education are distin- guished from the discipline-specific knowledge and related technical skills that traditionally are associated with higher education [25]. This is so, as employers want their graduate recruits to be competent technically in their chosen field as well as been well equipped with complementary life skills such as problem solving, reflective and critical thinking, inter- personal and teaming (collaborative) skills, effective commu- nication, character, integrity and high level of personal ethics, self-esteem, self-discipline, organizing skills and abilities to translate ideas to action [26]. Others are – intellectual curiosity; capacities to identify, access and manage knowledge and in- formation; personal attributes such as imagination, creativity and intellectual rigour; and values such as ethical practice, persistence, integrity and tolerance [25]; literacy, numeracy and problem solving in technology-rich environments (2013); and leadership and decision making [27].

2.3 Teams and Teamwork

In the words of [28], traditional model of the Victorian class- room still predominates, particularly at second level in Ire- land. Similarly, the reality on ground in Nigeria is that the traditional model of the Victorian classroom predominates all strata of the country’s educational system. Conneely et al [28]

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1963

maintain that teamwork as a structure for learning is essential- ly alien to the predominantly didactic and individualised for- mal 2nd level classroom in their case study situation. The au- thors of this paper will add that the Nigerian experience at both secondary and post-secondary levels is not any better. On a similar note, engineering education too has traditionally been focused mainly on the formation of professionals who are able to “solve already established problems” Davila in [1]. Similarly, traditional lecture is said to encourage individual study but does not promote important competences demand- ed by society to graduates Senocak in [27]. It was therefore suggested that, teamwork can be used in university settings to help train students in a large number of skills (generic skills) [6].
Conversely, universities expected to supply industries with
graduates not only capable and competent in doing the job as individuals but also who have the required skills to work ef- fectively in a team environment [4]. Therefore, in higher edu- cation much effort has been made to find new ways to support individual student learning, but also to find ways for effective collaboration [29]. Conneely et al [28], thus call for a new model of classroom practice and a paradigm shift in teaching and learning is required to allow creativity, peer-peer learn- ing, thematic learning and problem solving, i.e. the skills
commonly deemed necessary for the knowledge-based society
tionships across organisational boundaries. The authors went on to describe four different types of teams – work teams, par- allel teams, project teams, and management teams. However, since our focus is on classroom setting, the most appropriate team to be considered in this case will be the project team since it is time-limited as is the case with the school settings. Reason is that, outside the walls of the university, most organ- isations operate via project-oriented teams rather than indi- viduals working in a traditional chain of responsibility [15].
Teamwork in the classroom is also known as collaborative
learning or sometimes called cooperative learning (CL). West- brook [17] broadly defines CL as a pedagogy in which people come together in groups and learn from each other through cooperation. In teamwork environment, each student takes responsibility for the learning of other students in their group as well as their own and they help each other to be successful Gokhale in [19]. ]. It is claimed that during the CL process so- cial interdependence and interaction take place Salomon and Globerson in [10]. Likewise, interpersonal skills, positive atti- tudes towards group work, and social relationships are also developed [10]. Its positive effects – such as enhancing motiva- tion and critical thinking skills as well as improving academic performance and long-term retention necessitated its wide application in education since 1980s [8], Dillenbourg et al [10].
Widrick (1997) [12] on Team composition is often critical to

IJSER

of the 21st century, to flourish in second level schools (also at
tertiary level). They amplified the arguments of previous re- searchers by concluded that at the heart of any such revised model lies collaboration and teamwork. This position is equal- ly supported by Yip [22], when he argued that the shift in the teaching and learning process be more student-centred than teacher-centred.
Again, because one‘s ability is finite and restricted, people always need to work with others to accomplish tasks and pro- jects many organizations use team as an autonomous working unit, and it is a must for members to cooperate with each other to get the work done [30]. Consequently, teamwork has be- come more and more important and essential in the society [30]. It is critical skill required of every individual to function well in this twenty-first Century. It has thus, long been em- phasised and recognised as one method that can establish a comfortable and low-threat learning environment in the class- room [9]. Above all, it fosters the development of competences rather than the acquisition of isolated knowledge [27]. Anoth- er is that, teams outperform individuals acting alone, especial- ly when performance requires multiple skills, judgments and experiences [30].
Several definitions or descriptions of teams have been ad- vanced in the literature. For instance, Zenun et al [31] de- scribed the concept of team as a small number of people with complementary skills who are equally committed to a com- mon purpose, goals, and working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. In looking the corpo- rate organisational settings, [32] referred to team as a collec- tion of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems, and who manage their rela-
team performance. However, individual faculty use very dif-
ferent methods for establishing student teams (i.e., students choose their own team, student sitting close together, purpose- ful teaming, etc.). These methods vary in terms of the hetero- geneity of the teams. There has been much discussion on the effects of group heterogeneity on group outcomes.
On other hand, unfortunately, students do not always come away from these experiences with positive attitudes about teamwork and how teamwork relates to effective per- formance [14], neither do students always perceive collabora- tive work as positive or successful [7]. Bowen in [30] also cor- roborated that some studies suggest contrary opinions. In- deed, there are observed drawbacks [6]. For example, partici- pation in student project teams is said to create more frustra- tion and dislike of teamwork than appreciation for the diversi- ty of perspectives and improved learning and performance that it makes possible [30], [6]. This according to them was a result of inevitability of some team members making mistakes and may deny such mistakes and bring about confusion. An- other anticipated setback is that, some members may not de- cide to participate fully in the assigned tasks, but will benefit from rewards all the same. Zou et al [4] listed some of the drawbacks of teamwork thus: different expectation resulting in dissatisfaction of some students; low quality work done by some members; and ‘free riders, slackers, members not pulling their weight’; and possible classes and confrontation among group members. Other team problems are: unequal contribu- tions and skills and conflicts in personalities and decision- making [18]. Lastly, how to evaluate individual team members is one of the biggest challenges facing student teams Widrick (1997) [12]. Nevertheless, several other studies have reported that, regardless of the subject matter, students working in small groups tend to learn more of what is taught and retain it

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1964

longer than when the same content is presented in other in- structional formats [9]. Yau and Cheng [30] agree that previ-

3 METHODOLOGY

A mix-methodology was adopted which included extensive desk review of secondary literature consisting of materials gathered from journals, magazines and etc.; a questionnaire; and in-depth interview protocol (IIP). It is conventional to employ either one of two approaches, namely quantitative or qualitative to understand a research problem (Lourens, 2010) [33]. However, researchers can decide to triangulate the quan- titative findings by qualitative means. Thus, this study used a descriptive research design with quantitative approach and
combined it with a qualitative technique based on the IIP. This
TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FROM SURVEY RESULTS

ICT Management 3

3.2 Limitations of the Study

Participants were obtained from one university setting and the small sample size (N=19) small number of participants limits the generalizability of this study. Another limitations was that, the METI Programme is a special collaboration be- tween the University of Pretoria and the University of Port Harcourt and therefore runs like an hybrid engineering and technology management programme and not the like the regular science and engineering programmes of the University
of Port Harcourt.
was to provide a greater level of confidence of the research results. In the future, focus group discussion may be included.

3.1 The Instrument

The instruments used in this study included a survey ques- tionnaire and an in-depth interview protocol. The first section of the survey questionnaire included demographic infor- mation, programmes of study enrolled for, highest academic qualification, gender, etc. See Table 1. The second part was consisted of 20 questions (See Table 2) with all questions re- quiring on a five point Likert scale, where 1 represented “Strongly Agree” and 5 represented “Strongly Disagree”. Such was to indicate students’ levels of agreement about statements on how they perceive each of the individual issues raised in the questions, so as to determine their overall team- work experiences. It included statements such as teamwork helped understanding/comprehension; fostered exchange of knowledge, information and experience; made problem- solving easier; stimulated critical thinking; and etc. Like pre- vious studies, the inconsistent ranking of positive to negative perceptions on the survey was done intentionally to test the consistency of individual student responses. The validity and reliability of the instrument was based on its widespread use by several researchers [8] and others over the years.
The second instrument, the IIP was designed to elicit more
information from responded, structured interview questions – similar to that used by [8] – were used in informal situations to interview ten students, though included all three programs, but was randomly distributed. See Appendix A.
Data obtained from the questionnaire was analysed using percentages and data from interviews are presented qualita- tively. Results are presented in tables, charts and histogram

4 RESULTS

This studies aim is to identify the graduate students’ percep- tions of teamwork. 19 questionnaires were returned out 30 that were given out, accounting for a high recursive rate of
63.3%. All respondents answered all the questions in the ques- tionnaire. There was only one female student in the class who also returned her completed questionnaire.

4.1 Survey Results

The results in Table 3 (see Appendix B) show the combined responses in figures and percentages. The “Agree” and “Strongly agree” responses are combined and presented here as “Agree” responses. Likewise, the “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree” responses are combined and presented as “Disa- gree” responses.
From the results obtained as shown in Table 2 and Table 3, it can be seen that all respondents agree that teamwork helped understanding (100%); fostered exchange of knowledge, in- formation and experience (100%), fostered team spirit (100%); and should be encouraged and continued (100%).
Closely following the above is that, 18 out of the 19 re-
spondents agree that they got fresh insights, teamwork was focused on collective efforts rather than individual effort, and it improved performance as well as making new friends.
Respondents, (89.47%) also agree that teamwork stimulated critical thinking, enhanced communication skills, and that they actively participated in the teaching/learning process. Others were, 84.21% of participants agree that teamwork made problem solving easier, also enabled learners to help weaker team members. Whereas, 15 respondents agreed it was fun working in teams, 13 of them agreed they received useful

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1965

feedback and that they were greatly responsible to themselves and the team.
Only a smaller percentage of respondents (63.16%) agree that maximum of number of team members should four.
It was interesting to find that 73.68% (almost three-quarter)
of respondents agree that it was not a waste of time. And
52.63% (about half) of the respondents that agree it not diffi- cult getting members to participate in tasks.
Taking the example of Browns [8] study, and for purposes of clarity of analysis, the items in the questionnaire (as shown in Table 4) were further categorized as: a) academic benefits, b) social benefits, c) generic skills, and d) negative aspects of teamwork. Items 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 13 represent academic
TABLE 4
PERCENTAGE COMBINED STUDENTS’ RESPONSES BY CATEGORIES

Category Agree Disagree Unsure

Academic Benefits 90.23 0 9.97

Social Benefits 78.95 0.03 21.02

Generic Skills 87.72 0.01 12.27

Negative Aspects 13.19 63.16 23.65


benefits; items 5, 14, and 15 as social benefits; items 3, 4, 8, 9,

11, and 16 as generic skills; and items 17 and 18 represent neg- ative aspects of teamwork. Items 19 and 20 were not included. Students’ responses by categories are displayed in percentages in Fig. 1.

Fig 2. Percentage Combined Disagree Responses by Categories


From Fig. 3 below, it can be seen that over 90% of respondents agree that teamwork improves academic performance as they are sure to derive academic benefits from it. Close to 88% per- cent of respondents agree that teamwork enables students ac- quire generic skills. Also, nearly 80% of students agree that so- cial benefits too can be derived from participating in teamwor. Lastly, a little more than half of the students (63.16%) disagree regarding the negative aspects of teamwork.

ER

Fig1. Percentage Combined Agree Responses by Categories

Fig. 1 above shows that a large percentage of students agree that they stand derive academic benefits from teamwork, ac- quire generic skills draw out social benefits in the process.
Meanwhile, Fig. 2 below shows that the highest number of students disagreeing the the responses was on the negative aspects of teamwork. It means that the three other categories were approved by the respondents.

Fig3. Agree, Disagree and Unsure Responses by Categories in Per- centage

4.2 Interview Results and Discussions

The number of persons interacting in collaborative learning could matter. Most of the respondents interviewed participated in group that is made of 4 persons and the members were as- signed to the group by the lecturer. There were also observed benefits to teamwork. Respondents affirmed that teamwork facilitates sharing of knowledge as each member could see the topic of discussion from a different perspective depending on his/her educational background and training. They also agreed that working in a team gives members sense of responsibility and team building.
There were divergent views as to how roles were assigned in group engaged in teamwork. Some respondents stated that team members agreed and assigned roles to members while one respondent stated that members of his own group volunteered to play specific roles. Another respondent stated that leadership

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1966

emerges in group when that person who fill he/she has the ca- pabilities opts to take up and roles were likewise assigned to group members based on perceived abilities individual team members.
The assignment of a task to members of the group could
yield results or affect the overall performance. Most of the re- spondents believed that team building facilitated proper analy- sis of the tasks or issues being discussed but complained that deadlines were not met some times. Some members do not complete tasks assigned to them on time, and some contribu- tions from the team members were considered not good enough.
The role of the academic staff could be to write the guidelines
for participating in group or team work. This is was the view of one of the respondents but another respondent felt that there should be assessment of the individuals before assigning them to groups to ensure that the team members complement each other. Some participants suggested that lectures provide more opportunities for teams to work in class as this will increase the chances of success.
It was obvious that teamwork could have its problems and respondents stated that they ensured that each members partic- ipated by making his/her own contributions. One respondent stated that problems were better handled when members of the
group were willing to help out members with discordant views.
classrooms and increased teaming skills for their students. This supports earlier works [14], [15], [20], [25].

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The four research questions that the study aimed to address were resolved as analysis data for the most part confirmed findings from the literature on teamwork and CL. It was estab- lished that student who participated in teamwork, in addition to acquiring the most sort for 21st century skills – communica- tion skills, problem solving, analysis and teamwork skills, leaderships skills, they equally derived academic benefits – incresesed performance, and social benefits as well. We con- clude with the wordsof [6] that since the work of lecturers is to form as much as possible, best attitudes and aptitudes in stu- dents, like [14] advocated, educators should devise pedagogi- cal tools to facilitate or may support the development of this competence of teamwork.
All respondents agreed that they were better off learning in a group than doing it alone. They were able to see differently when each member shared his own view. More so they believed that they will be much willing to engage in future collaborative learning. Some respondents noted that they felt that they will increase their contributions and level of participation in the group learning exercises. One stated that he was willing to vol- unteer without waiting to be nominated to perform a task. He agreed that he now has more confidence to participate in group work than before.

4 DISCUSSIONS

Returning to the main research questions that was aimed tat identifying postgraduate students attitudes and experiences toward teams, improvding team formation procedures and findings ways of better managing teamworks in the schools; the results indicated that students who participated in the study reportedly agree to three clusters of perception variables
– academic benefits, generic skills and social benefits. Partici- pants therefore expressed to readiness to participate in future group works. However, participants disagreed with the nega- tive aspects of the study.
There was a close similarity between the results obtained from the survey and that of the IIP. Interviewees corroborated most of the items scored in the scored. They also made some useful suggestions as to how lecturers should facilitate team formation and provide guiding principles of team engage- ments.
To a large extent, findings from this study are not in any- way different from previous students. Like other studies, this finding provides an excellent starting point for instructors who want to encourage positive group experiences in their

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1967

7 APPENDICES

Appendix A. Table 2

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO 20 SURVEY QUESTIONS USING 5 POINT LIKERT SCALE
S/N Survey Question

% Strongly Agree
% Agree
% Unsure
% Disagree
% Strongly Disagree
1 Help understanding/comprehension 26.3 73.7 0 0 0
2 Fostered Exchange of Knowledge, Information and Experience 42.1 57.9 0 0 0
3 Made problem-solving easier 26.3 57.9 15.8 0 0
4 Stimulated critical thinking 31.6 57.9 10.5 0 0
5 More relaxed Atmosphere 26.3 36.8 31.6 5.3 0
6 Received useful/helpful feedback 21.1 47.4 26.3 5.3 0
7 Gave me fresh insight 26.3 68.4 5.3 0 0
8 Focused on collective efforts rather than individual effort 31.6 63.2 0 5.3 0
9 Gave me greater Responsibility for myself and the group 15.8 52.6 31.6 0 0
10 Enabled learners to help weaker learners in the group 36.8 47.4 15.8 0 0
11 Enhanced communication skills 36.8 52.6 31.6 0 0
12 Improved performance 21.1 73.7 5.3
13 Helped learners actively participate in the teaching/learning pro- cess
31.6 57.9 10.5 0 0
14 It is fun 31.6 47.4 15.8 5.3 0
15 Made new friends 57.9 36.8 5.3 0 0
16 Fostered team spirit 57.9 42.1 0 0 0
17 Waste of time explaining things to others 0 10.5 21.1 31.6 36.8
18 Difficulty getting members to actively participate in tasks 0 26.3 21.1 31.6 21.1
19 Pair/group work should be encourage/continued 78.9 21.1 0 0 0
20 Maximum group size should be four 31.6 31.6 31.6 0 5.3

Appendix B. Table 3

TABLE 3

COMBINED STUDENTS RESPONSES

Q.

Description of question

Agree

Disagree

1

Helped understanding/comprehension

19 (100%)

0 (0%)

2

Fostered exchange of knowledge, information and experience

19 (100%)

0(0%)

3

Made problem-solving easier

16(84.21%)

0(0%)

4

Stimulated critical thinking

17(89.47%)

0(0%)

5

More relaxed atmosphere

12(63.16%)

1(0.05%)

6

Received useful/helpful feedback

13(68.42%)

1(0.05%)

7

Got fresh insight

18(94.74%)

0(0%)

8

Focused on collective efforts rather than individual effort

18(94.74%)

1(0.05%)

9

Greater responsibility – for myself and the group

13(68.42%)

0(0%)

10

Enabled learners to help weaker learners in the group

16(84.21%)

0(0%)

11

Enhanced communication skills

17(89.47%)

0(0%)

12

Improved performance

18(94.74%)

0(0%)

13

Learners actively participated in the teaching/learning process

17(89.47%)

0(0%)

14

It was fun

15(78.95%)

1(0.05%)

15

Made new friends

18(94.74%)

0(0%)

16

Fostered team spirit

19 (100%)

0

17

Waste of time explaining things to others

1(0.05%)

14(73.68%)

18

Difficult getting members to actively participate in tasks

5(26.32%)

10(52.63%)

19

(pair/group work) should be encouraged/continued

19 (100%)

0

20

Maximum group size should be four

12(63.16%)

1(0.05%)

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1968

Appendix C. In-depth Interview Protocal

1. How many were you in a group when you were engaged in collaborative learning?
2. How was the group organised (e.g. by lecturer, self- select, etc)?
3. Considering your experiences of teamwork, what, if any,
were the academic benefits?
4. What, if any, were the social benefits?
5. How were ‘roles’ assigned or did group members have equal status?
6. What worked well and what didn’t?
7. What role do you think academic staff should play in preparing students for collaborative learning?
8. How did your group deal with problem or problem members, if any?
9. Do you feel that you learned more as part of a group than you would have, working on the same assignments /projects individually?
10. Is there anything you would change about your own
behaviour or approach in future collaborative learning situa- tions?

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

[10] C.C. Lin, H-J. Chan and H-S. Hsiao, “EFL Students’ Perceptions of Learning Vocabulary in a Computer-Supported Collaborative Environment,” The Turk- ish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 91-99, 2011.

[11] N. Arumugam, “Students and Teachers: Trouble Shared, Trouble Halved,”

International Journal for Educational Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 219-228, 2011.

[12] W.S. Widrick, “Teamwork in Colleges of Business Courses: Student Perceptions,”

http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research./mma/1997/PDF/34.pdf, 2013.

[13] E. Lewis and E. Seymour, “Class Assessment Tools: Attitude Surveys,” https://www.azwestern.edu/academic_services/instruction/center_teachin g_effect/resources/downloads/Student%20Attitudinal%20Survey.pdf, 2012.

[14] R.C. Pineda, B. Barger and L.D. Lerner, “Exploring Differences in Student

Perceptions of Teamwork: the Case of U.S. and Lithuanian students,” Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, vol. 1, pp. 50-58, 2009.

[15] G. Crebert, M. Bates, B. Bell, C-J. Patrick, and V. Cragnolini, “Developing Generic Skills at University, During Work Placement and in Employment: Graduates Perceptions,” Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 23, no. pp. 147-165, 2004.

[16] Y. Wu, “Students’ Perceptions toward Developing Generic Gkills at Universi- ty, Work Placement and Employment,” Masters Dissertation at the University of York, 2013.

[17] C. Westbrook, “Online Collaborative Learning in Health care Education,” European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2012/Westbrook.pdf, 2012.

[18] Y. Choi and H. Ro, “An Empirical Study of Hospitality Management Student

Attitudes toward Group Projects: Instructional Factors and Team Problems,”

IJSER

The authors wish to thank Prof Joe E. Amadi-Echendu for his
support and all students who took time out to complete the questionnaire.

REFERENCES

[1] J.T. Hernández and C. Ramírez. “Innovation and Teamwork Training in Undergraduate Engineering Education,” Proc 8th ALE International Workshop - the Fair and the Contest: Milestones of Innovation, June, 2008

[2] C. Armatas and L. Lam, “Diversity in Teams – Opportunities and Challeng- es,” Proc Australian International Education Conf. (AIEC) Engaging for the Future, October 12 – 15, 2010,

[3] R.B. Mustapha, “The Role of Vocational and Technical Education in the In- dustrialization of Malaysia as Perceived by Educators and Employ- ers,”Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University, 2002.

[4] P.X.W. Zou, H. Darvish and J. Kim, “How do Students View Group Assign- ments in Real Estate and Property Development Studies?” Proc of the ‘12th PRRES Annual Conf., January 22 – 25, 2006.

[5] C. Schmer, P. Ward-Smith and J. Peterson, “Learning Outcomes Associated with Group Assignments,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 249-353, 2011.

[6] P.I. Vidal-Carreras, M. Valero-Herrero, M.R. Perello-Marin and J.A. Marin- Garcia, “Competence Teamwork: Perception and Development through Activities,” http://innodoct.webs.upv.es/coms/1336.pdf, 2013.

[7] L.G. Snyder and K.R. McNeil, “Enhancing Students' Perceptions of Collabora- tive Projects through the Use of Pre-Group Instruction Methods’, Research in Higher Education Journal, 1, 2008, http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/08067.pdf, 2013.

[8] F.A. Brown, “Collaborative Learning in the EAP Classroom: Students’ Percep- tions,” http://www.esp- world.info/Articles_17/PDF/Collaborative%20learning.pdf, 2008

[9] P. Fasawang, “The effects of Using Collaborative Learning to Enhance Stu- dents, English speaking achievement,” Journal of College Teaching & Learning,

vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 1-10, 2011.

Journal of College Teaching and Learning, vol. 9, no. 4 pp. 303-312, 2012.

[19] K.L. Wuensch, S. Aziz, E. Ozan, M. Kishore and M.H.N. Tabrizi, “Technology and Pedagogy: The Association between Students’ Perceptions of the Quality of Online Courses and the Technologies Employed,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 253-262, 2009.

[20] S. Teeter, S.R. Madsen, J. Hughes and B. Eagar, “The Perceptions and Experi- ences of Students in a Paperless Accounting Class,” The Journal of Effective Teaching, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 15-30, 2007.

[21] M.F. Fortune, M Spielman, and D.T. Pangelinan, “Students’ Perceptions of Online or Face-to-Face learning and Social Media in Hospitality, Recreation and Tourism,” MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2011.

[22] W. Yip, “Students’ Perceptions of the Technological Supports for Problem- Based Learning,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 303-

312, 2002.

[23] OECD “21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Pub- lishing, 2009.

[24] OECD, Skilled for Life? Key Findings from the Survey of Adult Skills. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2013.

[25] P. Hager, S. Holland and D. Beckett, “Enhancing the Learning and Employa-

bility of Graduates: the Role of Generic Skills,” B-HERT Position Paper No.9,

2002.

[26] A. Olu, “Graduate Employment and Employability Challenges in Nigeria,”

Proc British Council Global Higher Education Conf., March 12, 2011.

[27] J.R. Ruiz-Gallardo, I. López-Cirugeda and C. Moreno-Rubio, “Influence of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Self-perception on Leadership Skills: a Case Study in Science Education,” Higher Education Studies, vol. 2, no. 4 pp. 40-

48, 2012.

[28] C. Conneely, J. Lawlorand B. Tangney, “Technology, Teamwork and 21st Century Skills in the Irish Classroom,” Shaping our Future: How the lessons of the past can shape educational transformation, K. Marshall, Dublin: The Liffey Press,

2013.

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12, December-2013

ISSN 2229-5518 1969

[29] S. Järvelä, P. Näykki, J. Laru and T. Luokkanen, “Structuring and Regulating Collaborative Learning in Higher Education with Wireless Networks and Mobile Tools,” Educational Technology and Society, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 71-79, 2007.

[30] H.K. Yau and A.L.F. Cheng, “Perceptual Influence of Cooperative Goal to Problem Solving Approach,” Proc International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol II, IMECS 2013, March 13 – 15 , 2013,

[31] M.M.N. Zenun, G. Loureiro and C.S. Araujo, “The Effects of Teams’ Co- location on Project Performance,” Complex Systems Concurrent Engineering- Collaboration, Technology Innovation and Sustainability, G. Loureiro and R. Cur- ran, London: Springer, pp. 717-726, 2007.

[32] S.G. Cohen and D.E. Bailey, “What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness

Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite,” Journal of Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 239-290, 1997.

[33] A. Lourens, “The Development of a Technology-Strategy Framework to Improve the Competitiveness of Small- to Medium-Sized Furni- ture Manufacturers in South Africa,” PhD thesis submitted to the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Business School, 2010.

IJSER

IJSER © 2013 http://www.ijser.org