View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Computer Science and Engineering: Utilizing Action Research and Lesson Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Computer Science and Engineering: Utilizing Action Research and Lesson Study
Language: English
Authors: Burrows, Andrea C. (ORCID 0000-0001-5925-3596), Borowczak, Mike (ORCID 0000-0001-9409-8245)
Source: Educational Action Research. 2019 27(4):631-646.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2019
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 1339853
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Computer Science Education, Engineering Education, Action Research, Conflict Resolution, Communication Skills, Teamwork, Cooperation, Thinking Skills, Teaching Methods
DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2019.1566082
ISSN: 0965-0792
Abstract: This article explores one group's use of action research (AR) and lesson study in three US university-level computer science courses affecting 85 undergraduate computer science and engineering students. It offers an overview of three areas including AR, lesson study, and engineering soft skills. The research group identified a problem: undergraduate engineering student soft skill understanding. The group collaborated to enhance participant engagement with this problem by utilizing one lesson focused on soft skills over three research lesson iterations in three distinct university semesters (2017-2018). Field notes were the main data collection method. Observational field notes were recorded in the three research lesson iterations, and themes from the notes were identified. The group valued peer interactions, and the research lesson adaptations as well as pedagogical changes were based on evidence. Four themes were identified, and participant comments were considered as the lessons became more focused . The research group argues that AR and lesson study are separate and distinct ventures based on this yearlong experience, which is counter to some other literature presented. Implications are large for all stakeholders interested in AR, lesson study, soft skill utilization, conflict management, and participant learning impact. Possibilities for enhanced participant engagement exists with honed lesson pedagogy.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1225900
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGs6lYCrK2wStSeOomekKujAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOct15cK5kdyMhx75QIBEICBm8rM2RPQhiGX2GAyHOJNLg51X7uEiiZNnj30e--e_gDXfcN9aWOZi6LijBBaX0oN5KBoIH3298xCHXY_4KAwGsXusvh7zoJddol07mpegigrFltfrT3P78zuezg0a2x6UsCM9Ezcx43Zg20MOqbyaQJ0om9wtrOQOxb6g-tpYUr1X34BGYSL3tGd1HoBSUlIKkMYmws83-QszyGf
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0138250867;gp001oct.19;2019Aug27.02:12;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0138250867-1">Computer science and engineering: utilizing action research and lesson study </title> <p>This article explores one group's use of action research (AR) and lesson study in three US university-level computer science courses affecting 85 undergraduate computer science and engineering students. It offers an overview of three areas including AR, lesson study, and engineering soft skills. The research group identified a problem: undergraduate engineering student soft skill understanding. The group collaborated to enhance participant engagement with this problem by utilizing one lesson focused on soft skills over three research lesson iterations in three distinct university semesters (2017-2018). Field notes were the main data collection method. Observational field notes were recorded in the three research lesson iterations, and themes from the notes were identified. The group valued peer interactions, and the research lesson adaptations as well as pedagogical changes were based on evidence. Four themes were identified, and participant comments were considered as the lessons became more focused. The research group argues that AR and lesson study are separate and distinct ventures based on this yearlong experience, which is counter to some other literature presented. Implications are large for all stakeholders interested in AR, lesson study, soft skill utilization, conflict management, and participant learning impact. Possibilities for enhanced participant engagement exists with honed lesson pedagogy.</p> <p>Keywords: Action research; lesson study; computer science; conflict management; engineering education; soft skills</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In the summer of 2016, three US engineering professors, one education professor, and one graduate student met to discuss writing a grant proposal. From that grant proposal, which was to be a large-scale implementation of faculty collaboration across campus in order for all faculty involved to teach more effectively, a spin-off project emerged. The faculty involved affectionately called it the 'Conflict project' became the 'Conflict group' and the first full year cycle of the project came to a close in February 2018, but it is still ongoing. The Conflict project was focused on instructional delivery in a team setting, conflict management, and negotiations instruction for undergraduate computer science and engineering students, called participants in this article. In the particular university setting utilized, the department of Computer Science was housed in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS).</p> <p>Two faculty members in particular (one in CEAS and one in the College of Education [CoE]) decided to take action and try a new approach to teaching more effective team communication skills in computer science courses. These two faculty members envisioned participant engagement in team interactions and problem-solving approaches, especially in light of how most campus engineering classes were taught and topics such as conflict management were approached – or not approached at all. The two faculty members spent some time picking a course, examining methodologies, and then possible teaching strategies for the upcoming Conflict project lesson. The CoE professor gravitated towards action research (AR) and how the methodology spoke to community engagement, democratic principles, and social justice (Brydon-Miller [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref1">9</reflink>]). Similar to engineering, AR often starts with a problem, provides perspectives to consider, and then attempts to offer possible solutions. The two faculty (CEAS & CoE) members began with the question, 'What is a current engineering classroom problem?' Together they decided that the teaching of the 'soft skills' in engineering, as defined by the standards body, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), was a worthwhile place to start. Thus, the group identified the problem as soft skill understanding for university computer science and engineering students. These soft skills include the ability to function on a multi-disciplinary team and the ability to communicate effectively. The research question became, 'How do we design a soft skills engineering lesson that encourages undergraduate computer science and engineering students to talk to each other and use the conflict management negotiation skills presented?'</p> <p>From this problem of participant soft skill understanding and the research question investigating ways to address that problem, the two faculty members (CEAS & CoE) as well as one graduate student involved in science education classes as graduate assistant began a dialogue with other faculty in both CEAS and CoE. The dialogue empowered the two faculty (CEAS & CoE) and graduate student that participant soft skills understanding was indeed a problem that they could tackle. Hence, they initiated changes to address the problem by examining and altering one lesson, in one course, in one CEAS computer science classroom over three semesters. The lesson specifically targeted the soft skills of team work, conflict management, negotiations, and communication. The final Conflict group, consisting of the original two faculty members (CEAS & CoE), the graduate student, and another CEAS faculty member, collected data on the lesson's impact. The data provided insight into warranted CEAS changes including the beginning steps, such as the incorporation of the soft skills lesson and approach described in this article. For the reader, an overview of AR, lesson study, and engineering soft skills are included in this article along with the description of the AR study implemented, findings, and conclusions.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-3">AR overview</hd> <p>Once the soft skill problem was identified and agreed upon by the Conflict group, the two faculty member engaged in a discussion on AR. There was one burning question: By implementing the conflict management lesson, was the group engaging in AR? To answer this question, the faculty members turned towards definitions and uses of AR.</p> <p>AR is defined as a 'democratic and participative orientation to knowledge creation. It brings together action and reflection, theory and practice, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern. [It] is a pragmatic co-creation of knowing <emph>with</emph>, not on <emph>about</emph>, people' (Bradbury [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>], 1). Previously, in 2003, researchers wrote that AR 'has a complex history because it is not a single academic discipline but an approach to research that has emerged over time from a broad range of fields' (Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, and Maguire [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref3">10</reflink>], 11), and later another group wrote that there is 'a common vision at least as regards the overall goal of [AR] as a force for creating positive social, political, and environmental change and to build strong international relationships that bridge these geographic disciplinary divides' (Coghlan and Brydon-Miller [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref4">15</reflink>], 226). Thus, the visions of these researchers align as such that AR is an approach involving stakeholders to solve a problem.</p> <p>The Conflict group noted that stakeholders were being brought together (e.g., administrators, faculty) to discuss the soft skills problem, and the group planned on inviting participants involved in the classes to join in the discussion as well. The group valued democratic participation in the process of creating the Conflict lesson, and then reflecting on its successes and challenges. The idea of social justice was addressed, but with concern on how well social justice concepts were applied as the lesson was perfected. Questions arose, such as, 'Who can take engineering courses?', 'Were classes of 40 participants too small of an audience to enact change in the college or department?', and 'Was the lesson generalizable and transferable to other disciplines?' The group, as a whole, shied away from embracing social justice at this juncture in process.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-4">Lesson study overview</hd> <p>After hours of discussions, and seeming agreement on using AR as the approach for the new soft skill lesson, the CoE faculty member introduced the idea of lesson study (AFT, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]). The Conflict group agreed that in AR there is a pure emphasis on the research itself and can be conducted individually or with a team. Additionally, the group agreed that the idea of lesson study focuses on a team-oriented instructional design and implementation that includes a collective accountability for the process and products of that instructional design as well as dissemination (Dudley [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref6">16</reflink>]). Lesson study is 'a Japanese form of professional development that centers on collaborative study of live classroom lessons' as well as 'observation of live classroom lessons by a group of teachers who collect data on teaching and learning and collaboratively analyze it' (Lewis, Perry, and Murata [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>], 3). The observed lessons are called 'research lessons,' and the lesson study approach has been utilized in higher education settings in the past (Cerbin and Kopp [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]; Fernandez [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref9">17</reflink>]). The lesson study cycle includes four main pieces (Lewis, Perry, and Murata [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>], 4):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Study Curriculum & Formulate Goals – Consider participant learning, long-term goals, and curriculum topics</item> <p></p> <item> Plan – Include goals, anticipated participant thinking, data collection, and rationale</item> <p></p> <item> Conduct research – One member conducts a research lesson, while others collect data</item> <p></p> <item> Reflect – Observers share/use data, present next steps, and carry forward questions</item> </ulist> <p>It is important to note that lesson study answers how the participants learn instead of what they learn, and observers gather rich evidence on how the participants respond to the lesson that was developed by the group (Cerbin and Kopp [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]). Challenges for lesson study can include finding time and interest for it, overcoming fear for public teaching, finding and creating common curricular ground and lesson planning, and overcoming group member knowledge limitation (Fernandez [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]). Calling for research in the area of lesson study, Fernandez ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]) explains that the U.S. 'has not capitalized on our efforts that we can better understand what it means and what is required of teachers to adopt the stance of reflective practitioners. Missing these important lessons... is something we should avoid at all costs' (p. 404). Additionally, everyone in a lesson study group has something to contribute (and this is consistent with AR values), and the lesson study process should not be rushed (AFT, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Conflict group agreed that there was a focus with goal setting, planning of a soft skills lesson, other faculty were involved and providing feedback, collecting and analyzing the conflict management lesson data, revising the lesson, and re-teaching the lesson (on at least three iterations). There were at least three members of the Conflict group that were willing to teach and share. Finally, there was a long-range year plan with three focused timeframes surrounding February 2017, November 2017, and February 2018.</p> <p>The Conflict group pondered, was this lesson study or AR or both? The group had found some evidence that they were a part of each other. Dudley stated that 'lesson Study (LS) is a highly specified form of classroom action research focusing on the development of teacher practice knowledge' (Dudley [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>], 1), and Austin ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>]) argued that lesson study is 'a form of action research that originated in Japan' (p. 81). At the time, the group did not have an answer to the question if AR and lesson study were the same or different, and could not defend a position. Thus, the gap in the literature was evident as there is a lack of clearness about AR and lesson study concepts, approaches, functions, and intersections. However, the Conflict group did acknowledge that the two approaches – AR and lesson study – complimented each other, and the Conflict group began planning the first teaching of the soft skills lesson looking to answer both the impact of the lesson and the pedagogy utilized as related to the research question.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-5">Brief background to engineering 'soft skills'</hd> <p>One sub-purpose of this study was to elucidate the participants' knowledge base regarding soft skills. Hence, the CEAS and CoE faculty members collected data on how well the lesson's materials impacted the participants. This was a secondary purpose to utilizing AR and lesson study as a means of improving classroom material design as well as pedagogy. Soft skills such as teamwork, communication, and conflict management are vitally important to engineering success and engineering students need these nontechnical skills (Canelas, Hill, and Novicki [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>]; Hening and Koonce [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref18">21</reflink>]; Hossain and Cumming [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]; Itani and Srour [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref20">23</reflink>]; King and Skakoon 2010 [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>]; Losko and Cekada [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref22">26</reflink>]; Waychal and Capretz [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref23">32</reflink>]; White, Breslow, and Hastings [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>]). Williams ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]) outlines the development of ABET's Engineering Criteria 2000 and focuses on technical communication which is essential for engineering students' success. Burrows and Harkness ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref26">11</reflink>]) show the importance of conflict management and a means to achieve it (Rothman [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>]), while other researchers have investigated the gap between university engineering classes and the attention to soft skills and found that engineering students lack the nontechnical skills in specific areas such as communication (Agrawal and Harrington-Hurd [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>]; Itani and Srour [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Conflict group explored methods employed by other entities in relation to soft skills. Some universities implemented required courses, or parts of courses, for engineering students as part of their degree (Alnajjar and Manzione [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]; Zheng, Zhang, and Li [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref31">35</reflink>]). Other universities encouraged engineering student co-curricular involvement to enhance soft skills and show data to back up the claim (Fisher, Bagiati, and Sarma [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>]), as well as implementation of leadership and service (Shelby et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]), and cooperative learning in outside courses and design processes, such as a chemistry course or competition, to do the same (Abdulwahed et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>]; Canelas, Hill, and Novicki [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]). Researchers also explored the challenges to providing courses with soft skills, even in online courses, and pointed to engineering students' perception, maturity, and context of application (Barakat, Plouff, and Sebastian [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]). Additionally, there are examples of nonintrusive methods to assess soft skills in group settings (Borowczak [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>]). However, no researchers claim that soft skills are not important, and some experts believe that soft skills are twice as important as content knowledge alone (Goleman [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]). Mahasneh and Thabet ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref39">27</reflink>]) state that 'it is difficult to teach or measure soft skills, [but] they are proving increasingly valuable' (p. 6). Finally, there is a large body of research that showcases females in engineering valuing the engineering social skills and implications, and an emphasis on soft skills could encourage more female engineering student applications (Cech [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]; Hatmaker [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]; Miller, Eagly, and Linn [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]; Voyer and Voyer [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>]). Thus, soft skills are important in many arenas. With changes being made to university engineering programs, and the understanding of soft skill significance, the Conflict group wanted to explore improving engineering undergraduate soft skills by using AR and lesson study, and to determine if AR and lesson study were one in the same or separate entities. Accordingly, the soft skills lesson and research study described next were important and timely.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-6">Methodology and methods</hd> <p>The 85 participants in the large western university where this study took place have a 23% non-white population and a female population of 16% across all engineering disciplines. In the United States, it is considered a land grant university where the primary mission of the university is to serve the people of the state. All of the participants were undergraduates in the on-campus university computer science or engineering programs. The CEAS and CoE faculty members and the graduate student in the Conflict group were from the same university and adapted one soft skill engineering lesson, three times, once a semester for three semesters.</p> <p>There were two females (CoE faculty and graduate student) and two males (CEAS faculty members) in the final working group. The group was evenly divided by colleges – CEAS and CoE. The group met monthly for several hours to discuss, plan for, and analyze the Conflict research lessons starting in January 2017. There were three timeframes of intensity, lasting 6 to 8 weeks each, as the lesson was taught 3 times: first in February 2017 (Spring 2017), then in November 2017 (Fall 2017), and finally in February 2018 (Spring 2018). This equated to 1 lesson each consecutive semester with 4 weeks leading up to the lesson and then 2 weeks after the lesson as intense discussion periods.</p> <p>The research question was, 'How do we design a soft skills engineering lesson that encourages undergraduate computer science and engineering students to talk to each other and use the conflict management negotiation skills presented?' in order to assess how the participants were learning and the effectiveness of the lesson's pedagogy. How the participants were learning answered to the lesson study approach, while the effectiveness of the pedagogy answered to AR approach.</p> <p>The group of four took extensive observational field notes on participant reactions and interactions when the soft skills and conflict management research lessons were taught. The field notes were the main data sample utilized for this article. To supplement this information and add context, although not directly reported upon, the group collected participant data from two in-class surveys during each of the three lesson implementations. One survey revolved around content knowledge gains and the other focused on soft skill perceptions. Finally, the group also collected soft skill perceptions from a sample of the entire engineering student body and faculty using a college-wide (CEAS) survey which included the same questions as the research lessons' survey (given twice – annually in February 2017 and 2018). The group realized that the survey data were supplemental in aiding understanding of participant interactions and knowledge and might provide insight to improve the soft skill lesson pedagogy. However, while the soft skill perceptions survey results informed the Conflict team throughout the process, they are not reported in this article as the results are not the focus of the study.</p> <p>The soft skills and conflict management research lesson was first taught in February 2017 (or Spring 2017); the CoE faculty member led the participants in the general discussion of ABET, partnerships, conflict model (Burrows and Harkness [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]; Rothman [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>]), and communication as part of the importance of 'soft skills.' The participants followed the lesson format which included an introduction to ABET including soft skills, partnership importance, conflict levels, and approaches for conflicts. The participants then engaged in a team activity, which was only mildly competitive in nature, and allowed for groups to make decisions that would impact the team's score. The directions for the activity are shown in Table 1 along with the image used in the activity. Extensive notes were taken during the lesson by the other members of the Conflict team (a CEAS faculty member and graduate student). The participants' pre/post content and soft skill perception survey data was collected at the end of the class.</p> <p>Table 1. Directions for team competition game/activity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Set-Up</td><td>Play</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Select a team of 4 or 5 people. Pick a group leader from the 4 or 5 people.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>1. Participants take turns blowing into the straw and use the air flow to push the paper balls around the target. Members must pick an order and follow that order.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>The group leader appoints an associate to be the spokesperson of the group.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>2. Each team member has up to 5 chances, and one puff each time, to blow the paper balls around the target into the highest scoring position. Play can stop early if all members agree.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The group leader tapes a target to the table, while the associate hands out straws to the team members.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>3. The group leader begins and ends the game. The associate offers suggestions on how to move the paper balls into optimal scoring range.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>The team members make 20 paper balls from one sheet of paper.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>4. timer is set for 10 min once all teams are ready to play.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Place the paper balls on the outside of the target. Discuss strategy to achieve the highest score noting that only the associate can provide instructions to the members during the game.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>5. The goal is to get the highest score possible based on the target.</p></list-item></list> Target pick here:</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>All team members pick a place to stand and must stay in one place until the game is over.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>6. An adjacent team must verify the score of each team.</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The soft skills and conflict management research lesson was taught a second time (November, Fall 2017) by the same CoE faculty member. The Conflict group made adaptations before this lesson and gave special attention in the lesson in regard to specific ABET, soft skills and communication, partnerships, conflict model, and means to negotiate conflict (separating each one explicitly in class).</p> <p>Again, extensive notes were taken during the lesson by the other members of the Conflict team (a CEAS faculty member and graduate student). The participants' pre/post content and soft skill perception survey data were collected at the end of the class.</p> <p>The CEAS faculty member taught the soft skills and conflict management research lesson during its third iteration (February, Spring 2018) using the lessons learned from the first two teachings. Special attention was afforded to not only explicit separate topics, but also to providing real-world engineering examples with each one. The separate topics included ABET with examples, soft skills and communication with examples, partnerships with examples, conflict model with examples, and means to negotiate conflict with examples (separating each topic explicitly in class). Extensive notes were taken during the lesson by the CoE faculty member and graduate student and again the participants' pre/post content and soft skill perception survey data were collected at the end of the class. The class as a whole was also asked to provide feedback on their insights on the lesson during the session.</p> <p>Before, during, and after the three soft skills and conflict management research lessons were taught, the Conflict group took notes, discussed, and surmised the successes and challenges and future directions for the participants and lesson. The first author ensured that aspects of lesson study for the group included identifying a lesson focus, planning of the class, public lesson teaching, focused observations related to the group's goals, evidence-based meeting debriefs, revisions based on the reflections, and teaching of the revision lessons. The lesson planning included identifying content, ways to engage the participants, the main questions to ask the participants, anticipated answers, and ways to arrange participant work, and an ending review to synthesize the information. The Conflict group was reminded and then concentrated on how the participants were reacting and learning soft skill material during class. As a group, reflection from the participants, other faculty, and graduate student was valued during the meetings.</p> <p>As stated earlier, the CEAS and CoE faculty members collected participant content and soft skill perception survey feedback (three times) and the whole engineering student body soft skill perception survey feedback (two times) to use as a comparison to the class notes observational data. Again, the data collected were used as context of participant learning and lesson impact and to offer insight to the group on means of improving teaching or engaging participants, not specifically to delve into participants' knowledge gain.</p> <p>The soft skills and conflict management research lessons involved these basic steps: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>) Welcome and pretest, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>) ABET overview and soft skills, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>) Reading from articles on partnership importance and think/pair/share activity, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>) Partnership components, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>) Game/activity (see Table 1), (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>) Conflict types and management techniques, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>) Posttest and Questions. The group took copious notes on participant interest, questions, and interactions during the sections of the lesson. The group engaged in discussions about moving towards make CEAS and CoE courses 'safe spaces' by utilizing soft skills as a means of understanding, whereby dialogue could change classroom interactions or workplace functions.</p> <p>The notes were analyzed by the Conflict group members looking for themes. The notes were passed around during meetings, and at first the notes were read and the Conflict group looked for comments that could be grouped together. Eventually, different colored markers were used to make dots beside a comment or observation that fit into a certain theme or category. The group changed the number of themes as more observational notes were analyzed. Inter-rater reliability was not used, however, the group agreed on the color of the dots before each meeting ended when the lesson notes were discussed. Additionally, the surveys to the participants in the research lessons and the whole body of CEAS students and faculty were analyzed with basic statistics to validate that learning was occurring as expected when a subject is taught and to glean insight into problematic areas.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-7">Findings</hd> <p>Overall, the soft skills and conflict management research lesson was taught three times and there were 18 in-class undergraduate computer science and engineering student participants for the first teaching (February 2017), 38 in-class participants for the second teaching (November 2017), and 29 in-class participants for the third teaching (February 2018). Thus, a total of 85 participants engaged in the Conflict group's soft skill and conflict management research lesson. The group picked to focus on soft skills including conflict management. The soft skills and conflict management research lesson was planned with the intent that participants would know what ABET and soft skills were, could identify partnership pieces and place goals on a spectrum of expectations, and navigate conflict types and means of navigating conflict. The lesson was taught three times and observed based on the goal of looking for participant discussion and use of soft skills, particularly the conflict management skills. Notes from all group members were used as evidence in the discussions, and the research lesson was changed according to the evidence and those discussions. Thus, the second and third teachings were iterations of the first research lesson.</p> <p>When the notes of the Conflict group members (i.e., four separate notebooks of observations) were analyzed for themes there were several areas of concentrated notes regarding the engagement of the participants. Remember that the group investigated the design of a soft skills engineering lesson that encourages participants to talk to each other and use the conflict management negotiation skills presented. The findings show four areas of resonance across the group members as well as areas for lesson improvement to engage the participants.</p> <p>The four themes identified in the three research lessons' notes include: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>) Participant interest in the Conflict materials, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>) Participant discussion about the Conflict materials, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>) Participant topic expansion or misdirection, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>) Participant confusion or complacency during the lesson. Examples of each of these areas are provided in the following section.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-8">Participant interest in material</hd> <p>Statements regarding undergraduate computer science and engineering participant interest and activity were identified in the groups' notes most frequently. The following are common statements over the three research lessons from the CEAS, CoE, and graduate student notes. After marking the comments, mostly recordings of participant expressions, with a certain color to identify themes, the Conflict group engaged in discussion about the comments to ensure agreement with the group.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> [Graduate Student notes] 'Everyone is looking forward and seem to be paying attention.'</item> <p></p> <item> [CEAS Faculty notes] 'Unexpected. Instructor comment on partnerships and "making or breaking an engineering career" got the participants on the edge of their seats. They actually leaned forward. They definitely want to know more about this!'</item> <p></p> <item> [Graduate Student notes] '...chuckles of recognition heard about identity conflicts. Chuckles heard specially with example of classroom project demanding teamwork but rife with conflicts and uncomfortable ways of thinking/dealing with it.'</item> <p></p> <item> [CoE Faculty notes] 'Participant shared a positive example with the class – "I'm married, my wife and I have the same expectations – she cooks and I clean and do the dishes" and he confirmed these expectations aligned. The class chuckled.'</item> <p></p> <item> [Graduate Student notes] 'Participant (female) said that she would be "sad" in response to someone questioning her identity as a programmer... "If someone is questioning who you are? What you're capable of? I wouldn't like it."'</item> <p></p> <item> [CoE Faculty notes] 'Participant says, "Hurry up so we can get some points!"'</item> </ulist> <p>The group noted that some of the quotes from the participants could go into one or more categories. For example, 'hurry up so we can get some points' fits into both the interest category and the discussion about material category (next section). When this occurred the group decided where it fit based on the context of the statement and what was happening at the time in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-9">Participant discussion about material</hd> <p>Statements about what to do during the conflict resolution game/activity or during the partnership expectations think/pair/share activity were recorded at the second highest frequency. The following are common statements over the three soft skills and conflict management research lessons, and most were participant comments recorded by the observers.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> [CEAS Faculty notes] '"Okay. So, go ahead. You need to start so that the rest of us can go in order you know."'</item> <p></p> <item> [CoE Faculty notes] '"I'm listening to you but I just don't get it. Don't [engineers] do these things already? I have a job. I communicate with others."'</item> <p></p> <item> [CoE Faculty notes] 'Small talk heard as clarification of game began between participants. One asks, "All right, where do you want to begin?" Then muffled answers that I can't hear.'</item> <p></p> <item> [Graduate Student notes] '"Ok, you know what I think?" heard from female in back row group. Then, "Did you get that? So what we're doing is trying to get at the target... we get 5 tries" heard from male participant in back row group.'</item> <p></p> <item> [Graduate Student notes] 'Discussing expectations with a neighbor: Male said, "My dog and I have expectations. I have an expectation that if he is off-leash, he won't run away, and he has the expectation that he won't run away if I let him off-leash and he gets a treat."'</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0138250867-10">Participant topic expansion or misdirection</hd> <p>Statements about from participants that were an expansion of the current material or slightly off topic were recorded at the third highest frequency. The following are common types of statements recorded over the three research lessons by the Conflict group.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> [Graduate Student notes] 'Participants found partners and began talking, but [noise] level was high and no individual stories were heard. One participant in front mentioned "I used for work for [industry company]" The other participant said, "Oh, making chips?"'</item> <p></p> <item> [CoE Faculty notes] 'Male heard talking about 'making robots' and 'that was a lot cooler, because we were working with high schoolers' and then the other participant answered, [but I] couldn't hear the response'</item> <p></p> <item> [CoE Faculty notes] 'Participant asks, "Ever play [? video game]?" Second participant, "Yeah. How far have you gotten?" and then their attention was redirected back to activity.'</item> <p></p> <item> [CEAS Faculty notes] 'Participant asks another participant, "What happens when a team is missing a person? What do you do? What does the team do to fill in that gap?"'</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0138250867-11">Participant confusion or complacency</hd> <p>Notes about participants saying that they were confused or following directions without apparent content interest were taken at the fourth highest frequency. Examples of comments from notes are included here.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> [CEAS Faculty notes] '[Participants are] quietly reading, some flipping [pages] back and forth, [it's] been a few minutes, [I'm] wondering when the conversations for think/pair/share begin between participants since they were told to discuss the information.'</item> <p></p> <item> [Graduate Student notes] 'Participant 1 (male) talked about how some of the accrediting board competencies didn't pertain to Engineering...'</item> <p></p> <item> [CoE Faculty notes] '[Participant says to another participant] "Engineers are smart. We know this stuff. Doesn't seem like we need a lesson on this."'</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0138250867-12">Undergraduate computer science and engineering participant comments on the lesson</hd> <p>Participant comments were an important aspect of understanding if the Conflict group had designed a soft skills engineering lesson that encouraged participants to talk to teach other and use the negotiation skills presented. Selected participants' comments about the lesson follow here.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 'Limiting resources in a company = bad times. The lesson was pretty fun, definitely memorable.'</item> <p></p> <item> 'I have to be flexible, things happen like conflicts and changes in life, and you have to be flexible in order to have success.'</item> <p></p> <item> 'Soft skills are important and [knowing] the application of them in the real world. Also how to resolve conflicts.'</item> <p></p> <item> 'Communication isn't enough, you need to ensure that what is being communicated has the same significance and is working toward the common goal in the same manner you have to mean the same thing because saying the same thing can still hide differing views.'</item> <p></p> <item> 'It was helpful in identifying real world situations through broken down steps.'</item> <p></p> <item> 'I should not only focus on learning content, but also learning how to work with others.'</item> <p></p> <item> [The activity] 'was very educational, it showed me how a team is supposed to work.'</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0138250867-13">Soft skill lesson adaptations</hd> <p>As the first soft skills and conflict management research lesson was taught as a baseline, and the following components were identified as the main components of the lesson: ABET, partnerships, conflict model (types and negotiation methods), and communication practice with a game/activity. The second research lesson utilized the Conflict group's observations that the participants seemed to miss connections between the lesson components in their answers to in-class questions. Hence, during the second iteration, ABET, soft skills and communication, partnerships, conflict model types, and means to negotiate conflict were explored individually and explicitly identified as a new, but connected, component of the soft skills lesson. Being explicit meant giving concrete examples to specific conflict categories (i.e., resource, objective, identity) and conflict resolution strategies (i.e., argumentation, resonance, innovation, and action). Additionally, the game/activity was slightly altered with more specific directions to engage in expectations talk regarding the game's outcome. Specifically, the Conflict group made the game more realistic by introducing common industry conflicts such as limited funding, resources, personnel, and peer evaluations. The implemented adaptations had an immediate impact on the participants' reaction to the Conflict activity and appreciation for the complexity and importance of soft skill development. The third research lesson again applied the Conflict group's observations that although the participants were able to better articulate the connections in the soft skill materials when asked, there were still gaps in their understanding of real-world connections with the material. Therefore, ABET with examples, soft skills and communication with examples, partnerships with examples, conflict model with examples, and means to negotiate conflict with examples were emphasized in the third teaching. Each topic was again both explicitly separated and also shown the fit into soft skills by utilizing examples from industry.</p> <p>One example of an industry connection came from a participant in the class that had worked in industry for approximately 15 years before coming back to the university. He said, 'I worked on semiconductors, ...I was asked if I could provide people a recipe for finding defects, their threshold [for defects] might be different [from mine], are you looking for results in two hours or days, and so forth.' This participant's real-world example led to a class discussion of soft skills including the importance of trust, goal setting, communication, motivation, expectations, cultural identity, and ways to negotiate if the team realizes that someone has a different mindset in one of those areas. The class debated if people approaching the past employee for a recipe were interested in information, consultation, involvement, collaboration, or empowerment. The communication game was one again slightly changed to include two iterations of the game during class time. The first iteration followed the second research lesson's directions to engage in expectation talk about the game's outcome. The second iteration changed the number of paper balls (to 10) and only allowed four puffs of air per person, but expected the same score. This encouraged detailed discussion about what each participant should do based on observational notes.</p> <p>In anecdotal conversations after the first research lesson, several participants told the Conflict group that the in-class soft skill lesson information would have been well received earlier in their engineering coursework, and that they did not see a reason for the information so late in the graduation requirements. Thus, the second and third offerings of the research lesson were offered to freshman and sophomore heavy classes, and explicit examples on the importance of the material were included. The observational notes did not appear to change based on this.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-14">Discussion and conclusions</hd> <p>There was a time when the Conflict group did not know the difference between AR and lesson study and if AR and lesson study were parts of the other. Based on this yearlong study, the group identified AR and lesson study as separate and distinct ventures, which is counter to Dudley ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref57">16</reflink>]) and Austin ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>]) who argue that lesson study is a form of AR. However, after a full year of dialogue and repeating the lesson, this Conflict group now contends that <emph>AR and lesson study are not the same or subsets of the other</emph>, although they share similar characteristics. The group found that AR is a methodology where a framework is set as a springboard to gain intellectual knowledge and move the field forward. AR begins the possibilities of other opportunities as well as problems to ponder and solve with others. The research field in AR is relatively large, as stakeholders, generally spread out geographically or intellectually, become a part of the process and final products or processes. Contrarily, lesson study has a structure for one type of activity: perfecting lessons. It is not a springboard for intellectual knowledge gain in other realms, and the field that moves forward is the lesson's effectiveness and possibly the content of the lesson. Although, the Conflict group agrees that perfecting a lesson (or group of lessons) could potentially impact a larger area of study, lesson study is more limited in scope. The Conflict group maintains that reflection and self-assessment can move forward in both AR and lesson study, and as stated earlier, there are many similarities. Yet, there is an enormous gap, where AR bridges a divide and pulls people together for relevant causes, while lesson study perfects a lesson for maximum impact, which often includes a larger group for discussion similarly to AR. Consequently, the Conflict group engaged in AR, with an embedded lesson study component. The group agreed that there was one problem addressed through one lesson in several different CEAS university courses. The group utilized stakeholders to formulate the problem, research question, and during discussions as well as plans to do the same in future iterative research lesson offerings.</p> <p>In this article, the Conflict group proposes theoretical underpinnings to AR and lesson study. The group believes that AR can incorporate lesson study, and that lesson study can incorporate tenets of AR. Yet, each approach offers different scopes and foci. Like other researchers mentioned (see literature review), the authors of this article found that engineering students at all levels do not know about ABET or the engineering soft skills that are required by the ABET standards and industry expectations. Conflict identification and management was almost absent in observational notes or on pretest findings, and when questioned, the study participants quickly admitted that they did not know how to handle problems in groups other than to 'try and compromise,' but it did not always work.</p> <p>Clearly, this study, which supports the soft skill literature, shows that recognition of the problem is not enough, as working together in an AR methodology and lesson study format has slowly enhanced participant engagement in soft skills over the course of 1 year. Consequently, administration, faculty, and graduate students must focus on an explicit problem (in this case soft skill implementation) – in and out of the classroom – and then assess the progress as set forth by the unit's goals. The authors of this article encourage engagement with soft skills regardless of participant age or occupation, and this includes conflict management scenarios – real and imagined. Moreover, engagement with AR and lesson study was enlightening to the Conflict group as we gained insight into participant engagement with the content. In this particular soft skills lesson, engineering projects were vital to learning the content, as participants could voice a problem, what was known, and possible ways to solve it. However, other types of projects could be as beneficial. Encouragingly, the Conflict group observers noted no difference in female and male participation in the in-class soft skill research lessons. Other content areas and groups could benefit from these same types of interactions both with the proposed content and methods to employ (i.e., AR and lesson study).</p> <p>Since the authors were searching for a more effective means of engaging participants after the first soft skills and conflict research lesson (where the class did not make a connection with future engineering positions or projects as a means to utilize the soft skills information), AR and lesson study led to valuable awareness. The authors are encouraged that undergraduate computer science and engineering students were interested and engaged in soft skill learning, and with explicit instruction and guidance, engineering students can understand and apply soft skills in their schooling and potentially in their future positions. Implications for other units, including or not including students, are vast and include immediate problem solving strategies for units interested in tackling a problem together.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-15">Future research lesson on soft skills</hd> <p>The Conflict group continues to meet and discuss ways to further engage engineering students in soft skill work. One challenge is that the observational notes do not showcase conflict management skills in the think/pair/share activity or the game/activity. The group is currently deciding on ways to enhance the next iteration of the lesson. Identifying conflict types and then applying the right approach is vital for these undergraduate students' futures, but as of yet, evidence of those skills are not seen during the class. Suggestions for future lessons include lengthening the lesson to 2 days in order to incorporate longer activities and recruiting past participants to teach part of the lesson.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-16">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>There are several limitations in this study. First, this was the Conflict group's first attempt at AR together or lesson study, and as such the group made mistakes. For example, sometimes notes on research lessons were on the teaching in the classroom instead of the participants' engagement. Another example, is that when the group talked about improving the soft skills lesson and using the data at hand, it was almost as if the members had to switch roles and go from a 'participant learning' to a 'teacher improving' mode. The transition between the two was not easy, and quite often AR and lesson study lines were blurred in discussions. Second, since the pre/post content and soft skill perception survey questions occurred immediately prior to and immediately following the soft skills and conflict research lesson class, long term soft skill retention has not yet been assessed for those completing the lesson activities. Third, the authors were biased with the knowledge that engineering students often do not know about ABET soft skills and thus could have influenced the findings without intent regardless of the AR or lesson study approach utilized. Finally, looking towards future studies, context around AR and lesson study integrations could broaden the applications of works such as this. Insight into the Conflict group's process is beneficial for the AR and lesson study communities and future discussions on the overlap or separation of the two approaches could assist project groups as they move to incorporate AR or lesson study strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-17">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank graduate student Trina Kilty as well as the undergraduate computer science and engineering students that have and still continue to work with us.</p> <hd id="AN0138250867-18">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0138250867-19"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref34" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abstract for special issue: Lesson Study, Learning Study, and Action Research Guest editors: B. Hanfstingl, F. Rauch, and S. Zehetmeier</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0138250867-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abdulwahed, M., S. Ahmad, M.O. Hasna, S. Ghani, and M. Benammar. 2014, December. " Contribution of Shell Eco-Marathon Engineering Design Experience to Soft Skills Development: A Qualitative Analysis in the Asian Context." In Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), Dubai, 2014 International Conference, 424 – 431. IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref5" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> AFT (American Federation of Teachers). 2017. Questions and Answers. Accessed https://<ulink href="http://www.aft.org/education/well-prepared-and-supported-school-staff/questions-and-answers">www.aft.org/education/well-prepared-and-supported-school-staff/questions-and-answers</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref28" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Agrawal, A.K., and S. Harrington-Hurd. 2016. " Preparing Next Generation Graduates for a Global Engineering Workforce: Insights from Tomorrow's Engineers." Journal of Engineering Education Transformations 29 (4): 5 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref30" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Alnajjar, H., and L. Manzione. 2016, April. " Engineering Practice-A Junior Level Course to Develop the "SOFT SKILLS" in Engineering." In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Abu Dhabi, 2016 IEEE, 757 – 760. IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Austin, L. 2017. " Leading the Introduction and Development of Lesson and Learning Study in an English Secondary Academy." International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies 6 (1): 80 – 96. doi: 10.1108/IJLLS-10-2016-0036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref36" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barakat, N., C. Plouff, and J. R. Sebastian. 2014, April. " A Model for On-Line Education of ABET-required Professional Aspects of Engineering." In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Istanbul, 2014 IEEE, 507 – 514. IEEE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref37" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Borowczak, M. 2015. " Communication in STEM Education: A Non-Intrusive Method for Assessment & K20 Educator Feedback." Problems of Education in the 21st Century 65 : 18 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bradbury, H. 2015. The SAGE Handbook of Action Research Third Edition. Los Angeles, CA : SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref1" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brydon-Miller, M. 2008. " Ethics and Action Research: Deepening Our Commitment to Principles of Social Justice and Redefining Systems of Democratic Practice." In The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 199 – 210. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brydon-Miller, M., D. Greenwood, and P. Maguire. 2003. " Why Action Research? " Action Research 1 (1): 9 – 28. doi: 10.1177/14767503030011002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burrows, A.C., and S.S. Harkness. 2016. " Experiencing Action Evaluation's Cyclic Process: Partnering Conflict, Reflection, and Action." Educational Action Research 24 (4): 460 – 478. doi: 10.1080/09650792.2015.1108211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Canelas, D.A., J.L. Hill, and A. Novicki. 2017. " Cooperative Learning in Organic Chemistry Increases Student Assessment of Learning Gains in Key Transferable Skills." Chemistry Education Research and Practice 18 (3): 441 – 456. doi: 10.1039/C7RP00014F.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cech, E. 2015. " Engineers and Engineeresses? Self-Conceptions and the Development of Gendered Professional Identities." Sociological Perspectives 58 (1): 56 – 77. doi: 10.1177/0731121414556543.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cerbin, W., and B. Kopp. 2006. " Lesson Study as a Model for Building Pedagogical Knowledge and Improving Teaching." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 18 (3): 250 – 257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coghlan, D., and M. Brydon-Miller. 2014. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dudley, P. 2013. " Lesson Study: A Handbook." Accessed <ulink href="http://lessonstudy.co.uk/2015/11/download-a-free-copy-of-the-lesson-study-handbook/">http://lessonstudy.co.uk/2015/11/download-a-free-copy-of-the-lesson-study-handbook/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernandez, C. 2002. " Learning from Japanese Approaches to Professional Development: The Case of Lesson Study." Journal of Teacher Education 53 (5): 393 – 405. doi: 10.1177/002248702237394.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, D.R., A. Bagiati, and S.E. Sarma. 2014. " Fostering 21st Century Skills in Engineering Undergraduates through Co-Curricular Involvement." In 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 24.623.1–24.623.10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goleman, D. 2005. Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY : Bantam Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatmaker, D.M. 2013. " Engineering Identity: Gender and Professional Identity Negotiation among Women Engineers." Gender, Work & Organization 20 (4): 382 – 396. doi: 10.1111/gwao.2013.20.issue-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hening, D.A., and D.A. Koonce. 2015. " Important Soft Skills for Engineers to Succeed in a Work Environment." In International Conference on Operations Excellence & Service Engineering, Orlando, FL, USA, 852 – 861.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hossain, A.D., and T. Cumming. 2016. " Alignment of Regional and ABET Accreditation Efforts: An Efficient Approach to Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes." Technology Interface International Journal 16 (2): 5 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Itani, M., and I. Srour. 2015. " Engineering Students' Perceptions of Soft Skills, Industry Expectations, and Career Aspirations." Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 142 : 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, W. J., and J. G. Skakoon 2010. The unwritten laws of engineering, part 3 of 3: Professional and personal considerations. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Mechanical Engineering, 132 (12): 43 - 47. doi: 10.1115/1.2010-Dec-4. <ulink href="http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/December/Unwritten%5fLaws.cf">http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/December/Unwritten%5fLaws.cf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, C., R. Perry, and A. Murata. 2006. " How Should Research Contribute to Instructional Improvement? The Case of Lesson Study." Educational Researcher 35 (3): 3 – 14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X035003003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losko, J.M., and T.L. Cekada. 2015. " Key Competencies: Preparing Graduates for the Global Workplaces." Professional Safety 60 (12): 45 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahasneh, J.K., and W. Thabet. 2015. " Rethinking Construction Curriculum: A Descriptive Cause Analysis for the Soft Skills Gap among Construction Graduates." In 51st ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings, College Station, TX, USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, D.I., A.H. Eagly, and M.C. Linn. 2015. " Women's Representation in Science Predicts National Gender-Science Stereotypes: Evidence from 66 Nations." Journal of Educational Psychology 107 (3): 631 – 644. doi: 10.1037/edu0000005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothman, J. 1997. Resolving Identity-Based Conflict: In Nations, Organizations, and Communities. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shelby, R., E. Patten, F. Ansari, L. Pruitt, G. Walker, and J. Wang. 2013. " Implementation of Leadership and Service Learning in a First-Year Engineering Course Enhances Professional Skills." International Journal of Engineering Education 29 (1): 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voyer, D., and S.D. Voyer. 2014. " Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis." Psychological Bulletin 140 (4): 1174 – 1204. doi: 10.1037/a0036620.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waychal, P., and L.F. Capretz. 2017. " Need for a Soft Dimension." In 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Dubai, UAE, 141 – 145. arXiv:1704.00801v1. doi: 10.5121/csit.2017.70414.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, C., L. Breslow, and D. Hastings. 2015. " Understanding Curricular Approaches to Communication as a Global Competency: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Teaching and Learning of Communication." In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, USA. 10.18260/p.24957 26.162.1–26.162.11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J.M. 2001. " Transformations in Technical Communication Pedagogy: Engineering, Writing and the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000." Technical Communication Quarterly 10 (2): 149 – 167. doi: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1002_3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng, G., C. Zhang, and L. Li. 2015. " Practicing and Evaluating Soft Skills in IT Capstone Projects." In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, Chicago, IL, USA, 109 – 113. 10.1145/2808006.2808041</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Andrea C. Burrows and Mike Borowczak</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref43"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1225900
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Computer Science and Engineering: Utilizing Action Research and Lesson Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burrows%2C+Andrea+C%2E%22">Burrows, Andrea C.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-3596">0000-0001-5925-3596</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Borowczak%2C+Mike%22">Borowczak, Mike</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9409-8245">0000-0001-9409-8245</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Action+Research%22"><i>Educational Action Research</i></searchLink>. 2019 27(4):631-646.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1339853
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Science+Education%22">Computer Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Action+Research%22">Action Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conflict+Resolution%22">Conflict Resolution</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+Skills%22">Communication Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09650792.2019.1566082
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0965-0792
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article explores one group's use of action research (AR) and lesson study in three US university-level computer science courses affecting 85 undergraduate computer science and engineering students. It offers an overview of three areas including AR, lesson study, and engineering soft skills. The research group identified a problem: undergraduate engineering student soft skill understanding. The group collaborated to enhance participant engagement with this problem by utilizing one lesson focused on soft skills over three research lesson iterations in three distinct university semesters (2017-2018). Field notes were the main data collection method. Observational field notes were recorded in the three research lesson iterations, and themes from the notes were identified. The group valued peer interactions, and the research lesson adaptations as well as pedagogical changes were based on evidence. Four themes were identified, and participant comments were considered as the lessons became more focused . The research group argues that AR and lesson study are separate and distinct ventures based on this yearlong experience, which is counter to some other literature presented. Implications are large for all stakeholders interested in AR, lesson study, soft skill utilization, conflict management, and participant learning impact. Possibilities for enhanced participant engagement exists with honed lesson pedagogy.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1225900
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1225900
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09650792.2019.1566082
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 631
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Action Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conflict Resolution
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Computer Science and Engineering: Utilizing Action Research and Lesson Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burrows, Andrea C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Borowczak, Mike
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0965-0792
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Action Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1