Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
DEVELOPING TEAM SKILLS IN FUTURE PROBLEM
SOLVING: STRATEGIES AND CHALLENGES IN ELT
Phawani Vijayaratnam
INTI International University, Malaysia (phawani.vijayaratnam@newinti.edu.my)
ABSTRACT
The advances in technology and the dynamic changes in the workforce have put increased emphasis on
employees’ soft skills. Hence, at higher education, students must be challenged to think creatively, solve
problems and make decisions as a team as the enhancement of team skills through collaboration will be
beneficial for them in the real world. The task ‘Great Barrier Reef’ was adapted from the Future Problem
Solving (FPSI) website to stimulate learners and engage them as cognitive apprentices in a problem solving
task similar to what real engineers may go through. Future problem solving was originally initiated in 1974, by
Dr. E. Paul Torrance, as a program that would assist the learning and growth of accelerated learning
children/gifted children. This is a mixed method research and the primary method is a questionnaire to
determine students’ attitude and commitment towards the project. The qualitative study probed deeper into
students’ perspectives toward the group problem solving task. Data has gathered through a variety of methods
which include the group interviews, observations and document analysis. A key finding would be that
challenging tasks allow students to rise to the cognitive demands by the task and collaborative effectively with
peers to problem solve.
KEYWORDS
Cooperative learning, team skills, future problem solving, design, case study approach.
INTRODUCTION
The advances in technology and the dynamic changes in the workforce have placed increased
emphasis on employees’ soft skills. In a 2010 study, Fernando Tarnogol listed the 5 top soft
skills required in today’s knowledge based economy as having ‘a proactive attitude’, ‘the
ability to provide input and services to colleagues’, ‘good problem solving skills’, ‘good
cooperation’ and ‘effective teamwork’. Similarly, in another regional study conducted in
2010 by Kelly Services, Inc., over 1340 senior decision makers from a broad array of
industries identified ‘effective communication’, ‘problem solving and decision making’,
‘people management’ and ‘strategic thinking’ as highly important and critical work related
skills.
Hence, at higher education, students must be challenged to think creatively, solve problems,
and make decisions as a team as the enhancement of team skills through collaboration will
be beneficial for them in the real world. Future problem solving was originally initiated in
1974, by Dr. E. Paul Torrance, as a program that would assist the learning and growth of
accelerated learning children/gifted children. The task ‘Great Barrier Reef ‘scenario was
adapted from the Future Problem Solving (FPSI) website to stimulate learners and engage
them as cognitive apprentices in a problem solving task similar to what real engineers may go
through. Numerous researches on cooperative learning have expounded the benefits of this
1
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
strategy in promoting team skills (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 2007). However, recent studies
of small group collaboration among engineering majors in a future problem solving at higher
education are rare. What more with present day collaboration being more adaptive, agile,
fluid and virtual [Girard, J. et. al. (2011)]. This study, therefore, will explore the effectiveness
of these small group collaborations in developing team skills to achieve project outcomes.
Purpose of study
This descriptive research is designed to explore the effectiveness of small group collaboration
in developing team skills for first year engineering students on the Communications and
Study Skills course at a private university in Malaysia. The subject matter is a future problem
solving scenario entitled ‘Great Barrier Reef’ that students must read, understand, discuss
with their peers and problem solve. This futuristic scenario was selected as it is an ideal
platform to provide an authentic task for students to throw them into and engage them in a
scientific and complex problem solving environment. This will allow them to rise to the
cognitive demands of the task, reflect on their thinking and with the support of their peers
problem solve. The problem solving model employed is the step by step case study
methodology of Edge and Coleman (1978).
Research Questions
The research questions examined in this study are:
1. What was students’ attitude towards this cooperative task?
2. What team strategies did groups employ to problem solve the task?
3. How did teams manage conflict?
Definition of terms
Cooperative learning: An instruction method in which students work in groups towards a
common goal. The five key features of cooperative learning include positive
interdependence, promotive interaction, individual and accountability, small group,
interpersonal and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
Case study methodology: Using the Edge et al.,(1978) case study framework, students will
go through the steps of i) Understanding case situation, ii) Brainstorming problem areas, iii)
Formulating the problem statement, iv) Generating alternatives v) Checking solutions against
problem solving tools and vi) Defending implementation.
Future problem solving: A one page futuristic scenario adapted from the Australian Final
Future Problem Solving Program at www.fpsa.org.au for students to work on
Problem solving tools : Thinking tools such as ‘Appreciation - so what’ ,‘the 6 thinking hats’
, ‘5 whys’ and ‘Reversal’ that students will use for deliberate or conscious thinking
Subjects
The population for this study consisted of first year undergraduate students in engineering at
a private university in Malaysia. They were enrolled on the ENL291 – Communications and
Study Skills course. There were two sections in the course, one with 30 students and the other
20 students. Thus, a total of 50 students participated in the study. For the purpose of this
research, the researcher focused on the group project that students did in the course which
carries a 10% assessment course mark. The study took place over 10 weeks. The cooperative
2
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
learning model used is a small group of four to five students who are grouped
heterogeneously.
Procedure
The task
The one page scenario on ‘Great Barrier Reef’ is given to students to be read individually.
Groups then get together to understand the futuristic scenario and exchange ideas and input.
The project duration is ten weeks and some class time is given over that period for face to
face discussion in class. This serves as a check on students and also allows the researcher to
observe and note the strategies employed by groups when completing the task. In the fourth
week of this project a ‘mini viva platform’ was provided for groups to present their design to
and gather feedback from the class. Here, the class was given the opportunity to raise
questions and clarify doubts that arose.
The requirements for the task include:
1. Journal/log – 10 marks
Groups need to come up with a journal to record information gathering, planning
construction, some reflection on the strategies used by the group throughout the
project. There should be journal entries according to meeting dates/time.
Contributions and responsibilities of group members and group attendance at
meetings must be added in the journal.
2. Steps in the case study methodology
Prelude to project: Forming groups
Groups to establish the team charter which includes an agreement among
members on how they will interact and the roles each member must play in the
collaborative activity. The charter will also include the benchmarks and deadlines
for completion and submission of work.
Step 1 Comprehending case situation
Groups to provide a brief summary of the entire case study in one paragraph of
about 200 words. This will include a description of the present scenario i.e. the
problems, what caused them and what lies ahead.
Step 2 Diagnosing problem areas
In the form of a mind map, groups are to brainstorm the problems that exist in the
case study. Students are free to make assumptions based on the future scene.
Step 3 Problem statement
Groups are to construct and define the underlying problem in the case.
Step 4 Generate alternatives
Groups to brainstorm possible solutions to the problems in the scenario in a real
world setting.
3
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Step 5 Evaluate and select
This involves thinking and analysis from a wide range of perspectives. This is
where groups design an equipment which is practical, cost effective and
environmentally friendly. They can choose to either design a new
equipment/mechanism/ or to modify an existing equipment/mechanism in the
market.
Step 6 Defend implementation – the design
Here, groups present, justify and defend their design in class.
Role of students
Through a process of negotiation, students were put into groups of 4 or 5. They were briefed
on the purpose and the benefits of the cooperative project. They were also made aware of the
importance of work team, interpersonal skills and individual and group commitment.
Role of the instructor
The role of the instructor was to guide students accordingly through the case study steps,
facilitate group discussions where necessary, check on individual and group processing, clear
doubts and encourage inter and intra group discussions. Again, class time allowed the
instructor to advise and monitor on effective cooperative efforts such as positive
interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction, individual and group accountability,
appropriate use of social skills, and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1989) During the
mock and final presentations, the instructor encouraged and facilitated intra group discussions
and highlighted issues where necessary.
METHODOLOGY
This mixed method research veers towards the concurrent embedded strategy. Hence, both
quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously. The primary method in this
study is the five point likert scale survey design with 13 items to determine students’ attitude
and commitment towards the project. The questionnaire is adapted from Neo M’s (2005) 13item survey and cooperative constructs (skills) that assess students’ attitudes to and
experiences during the project. The purpose of the qualitative study is to further explore
deeper students’ perspectives toward the group problem solving task. These are gathered
through a variety of methods which include group interview, observations and document
analyses (Creswell, 2009).
The qualitative data was analysed inductively, with the researcher creating codes and looking
for recurring patterns and related themes in order to present a ‘rich, descriptive account of the
findings’. This was then described and analysed to answer the relevant research questions.
This triangulation of methods serves to enhance the authenticity of the findings (Merriam,
2002).
4
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for this small group collaboration project is embedded in the
social constructivist learning structure and takes into consideration that the students are part
of the net generation. According to Oblinger/Oblinger (2005), what characterizes this new
generation of millenials from a pedagogical point of view is their visual literacy, rapid
networking connection, immediacy of response and self initiated discovery. Today’s net
generation prefers learning via their peers with the support of technology to promote and
reinforce social interaction and to achieve the learning outcomes. Mc Loughlin and Lee
(2007) discussed the positive impact of information and communication technologies (ICT)
in empowering the net generation to learn and build knowledge cooperatively. With social
lives being highly interconnected today, Mitchell and Honore (2008)) highlighted that in
collaboration and virtual teamwork immense knowledge is derived via the internet. They
even went on to say that ‘social software supports the pedagogical classroom’.
As mentioned earlier, the modern workforce needs workers who are competent
communicators, good problem solvers and effective team players. Also, numerous researches
on cooperative learning has expounded the benefits of this strategy in promoting team skills.
Firstly, cooperative learning promotes deep learning of course materials through interactions
among peers (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 2007). Secondly, students imbibe positive values
that they carry with them in life (Abrami & Chambers 1994; Johnson, Johnson & Smith,
2007). Thirdly, and related to the first benefit, students are naturally exposed to higher order
thinking skills as complex problems are solved easier by groups than individuals
(Windschitl,1999). This is because sharing their views with peers allows students to confront
and reflect upon their narrow individual views and gives them opportunities to deal with and
resolve their misconceptions and explore new ideas proposed by peers.
Future problem solving was originally initiated in 1974, by Dr. E. Paul Torrance, as a
program that would assist the learning and growth of accelerated learning children/gifted
children. Hence, the task ‘Great Barrier Reef’ scenario was adapted from the Future Problem
Solving (FPSI) website to stimulate the learners and engage them as cognitive apprentices in
a problem solving task similar to what real engineers may go through. According to
Honebein, et. al. (1993), authentic learning tasks contain cognitive challenges which are
consistent with the environment for which the learners are prepared for. Hence, students in
groups are given ample opportunity to articulate their reasoning and reflect and learn from
each other. As it is futuristic, there are no parameters drawn and students are free to make
assumptions based on their reading and internet search. This cognitive conflict or puzzlement
is the stimulus for learning and will determine the nature of the learning environment
(Dewey, 1938 cited by Rochelle, 1992) Hence, the challenge for students in the ‘Great
Barrier Reef’ is not only the solving of problems, but also the design of a futuristic
mechanism/instrument. According to Egan (2003) and cited by Shambaugh (n.d) going
beyond what we literally see and envisioning fanciful possibilities is a noted human ability.
Therefore, imagination is the one strength that motivates citizens to tackle impossible
problems and suggest new paths to solving them. Among the benefits of discovery learning is
it complements the essence of cooperative learning such as active engagement, motivation,
responsibility, independence, creativity and problem solving skills. As succinctly put forward
by Lubart and Zenasni (2010), today, creative giftedness in science which represents creative
talent is a much sought after contributor in modern society and should be included embedded
in educational programs.
5
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Having taught business students and experienced the efficacy of the case study method in
teaching business students, the researcher adapted Edge and Coleman’s (1986) steps to doing
a case study as a guide to walk students through the problem solving process. Researchers
such as Catanach et.al (2000) cited by Jones (2002); Saraoghu, Yabaccio, & Louton (2000)
studied hands-on activities for business courses, and in all studies, the elements of modelling,
questioning techniques and guiding student learning were stressed. These elements fall under
the cognitivist apprentice model and allowed students to identify with and understand the
relevance of the task, articulate the common aspects and transfer what they had learnt. This
involved brainstorming the problems, identifying the crux of the problem, seeking alternative
solutions, testing their solutions using thinking tools and finally defending their
implementation. This scaffolding is designed to support the learners in developing their
confidence and problem solving cum thinking skills. This involves thinking about and
confronting the issues, discussing and convincing their group members and negotiating
viewpoints. Interestingly, this very valuable higher-order thinking skills are learnt accidently
and unconsciously in real problem solving environments (Scriven, M. & Paul R, 2008).
DISCUSSION
Research question 1: What were students’ attitudes towards the cooperative learning task?
Table 1 below shows the results of the questionnaire. The Cronbach Alpha reliability was
high at .94
Table 1. Results of the Questionnaire
SURVEY ITEMS
1. We were able to achieve our group goals.
2. Our group leader was very effective.
3. I enjoyed collaborating with team members.
4. I was able to contribute well to the project.
5. The collaboration enhanced my learning of the topic.
6. My group members contributed well to the project.
7. The collaboration was a challenge, but I enjoyed it.
8. My group was able to work together effectively.
9. We were able to solve our problems as a group.
10. I found the collaboration very motivating.
11. My group communicated well with each other
12. I learnt more from collaboration than on my own
13. My group taught me some things I would not have
learnt on my own.
Mean(m)
4.14
4.04
4
3.92
3.90
4.02
4.02
3.90
4.02
3.84
4.00
3.98
3.90
% (p)
82
70
84
82
76
82
82
74
80
76
74
80
80
N= 50
Overall the respondents’ feedback favored a positive attitude towards the project with high
means and percentages (agree and strongly agree) in all items.
Based on this cooperative learning environment, several cooperative constructs can be
assessed.
6
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
1. Individual contribution and experience
 Items 3, 4 and 10 in the survey were used to measure individual
contribution of members.
 84% of students reported that they enjoyed collaborating with group
members (Item 3, m=4.00).
 Respondents also were able to contribute well (Item 4, m=3.92) and found
the collaboration very motivating (Item 10, m=3.84)
2. Teamwork and communication skills
 Work team and communication skills were measured by items 6, 8,9and
11.
 82% of the respondents reported that their group members contributed
well to the project (Item 6, m =4.02).
 Interestingly, there was a strong positive correlation between members
ability to solve problems in groups (Item 9, m=4.02) and their ability to
communicate well with each other (Item 11, m=4.00)
 However, within this construct, only 74% of the respondents (Item 8,
m=3.09) agreed that they could work effectively in groups.
3. Students’ learning outcome
 Items 1, 5,7,12 and 13 were used to measure students’ learning outcome.
 83% of the students found the collaboration a challenge, but nevertheless
enjoyed it (Item 7, m=4.02).
 There was positive interdependence among members in achieving group
goals as 80% of the respondents felt that they had leant more from the
collaboration than on their own (Item 12, m=3.98) and moreover, 79% felt
that their group members had taught them things they would not have
learnt on their own (Item 13, m=3.88).
 76% of the groups felt that the collaboration was positive and that they had
enhanced their learning of the project (Item 5, m= 3.90).
 In terms of achieving their group goals, 80% (Item 1, m= 4.14) strongly
felt that they had been successful.
4. Leadership
 Only item 2 were used to measure project leadership.
 In terms of providing leadership, only 70% of the respondents agreed that
their leader was effective. This was the lowest percentage as compared to
the other items. Also, 20% of the respondents were undecided on this
(Item 2, m=4.04).
Feedback from interviews and observations
The above data corroborates with the findings from the focus group interviews, student
journals and written feedback. When asked what they liked best about ‘Great Barrier Reef’
project, the recurring themes were that it was ‘interesting’, ‘engaging’ and a ‘real life
7
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
problem related to the environment’. The group interview also revealed that because the
scenario was futuristic, the case was open to assumptions. As mentioned by a respondent,
“This was challenging as we had to work on a future technological design that had to be used
in a foreign land”. Survey item received the highest percentage at 84% and this is clear
testimony that students enjoyed the challenges in the collaborative project.
To the question of which was the most difficult part of the assignment, the group interview
revealed that most of the students had problems understanding the scenario, thinking about
the project design which is supposed to be futuristic and working against time. This explains
why apart individual from reading and researching online, members had to work together and
combine their strengths and ‘think out of the box’ to deepen their understanding of the subject
matter. As aptly put forward by a member, “more ideas from members mean more in- depth
evaluation and the ability to come up with more suitable and creative solutions”.
The above finding was also evident from the study of the researcher’s observation notes. In
the beginning, it was observed that they were grappling with the scenario and took time to
understand the subject matter on their own and via online research. It can be inferred that the
task-ill structured problem scenario created positive interdependence as the task contained
global issues that were debatable, challenging and which needed the commitment of all
members. This is corroborated by Lou et.al. (2000) who noted that for members to stay united
and cohesive, ill-structured problems, authentic case studies or open ended scenarios that
require reflective judgment should be used.
Research Question 2: What strategies did groups employ to problem solve the task?
The focus group interview, student feedback and observation revealed interesting strategies
used by members. These strategies will be seen in three stages using the three stages in the
life cycle of groups (Oakley et al. 2004; Rousseau, Aube & Savoie, 2006).

First, at the development stages, the members had face to face discussion to
understand the scenario, each other and project requirements. Members also created a
closed facebook group link to keep in touch. Next, they checked on members’
strengths and delegated tasks for members to work on. As ‘Great Barrier Reef’ was
foreign to some members, the online internet search during the meetings helped.

At the operation stage, the step by step method provided a good scaffold for the task
and got students more focused on ideas. This helped them save their time as there
were no overlaps. At this stage too, the problem solving tools such as ‘the six thinking
hats’, ‘appreciation’, ‘reversal’ and the ‘5 whys’ got students to consciously assess
face to face the quality of their ideas/design and to find improvements. The interview
revealed that when members had conflicting ideas, ‘groups researched further and
had to be convinced’ into accepting an idea. More online discussion and online
research took place at this stage.

Another strategy used during the feedback session was questioning techniques. The
interview revealed that questioning each other face to face and online allowed
members to clarify, elaborate, paraphrase and justify their points of view (Strachan,
2007). Hence, questioning proved to be an effective soft scaffolding technique in the
problem solving process.
8
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia

The mock/viva presentation at mid stage was beneficial to all. As mentioned by a member,
teams were able ‘to rectify mistakes and add in things which we had not thought about
before’. Also from the mock presentation, teams had a clearer idea on how the final
presentation
was
going
to
be.

At the output and disbanding stage, groups roles were defined. The recurring theme
here was working on ‘members strengths’ This involved the preparation of slides for
the presentation, product design, selecting the presenters and the research team to
defend the plan. Rehearsals took place within groups and during this time
‘questioning and feedback sessions’ provided helpful insights.
Research question 3: How did students overcome conflict in their groups?
The interviews and journals revealed that conflict did exist in all groups. Most prevalent were
issues on leadership, commitment level and contribution of members. However, they
overcame these problems in a number of ways.

The most effective way was via positive communication. Analysis from the focus
group interview revealed that the in-class faces to face meetings were a necessity not
just at group formation stage but also as the project progressed. This is because
members needed to ‘…dedicate the time and effort to listen and receive input from
members and confront issues, although you may not agree with them. This involved
not only politely criticizing others’ ideas, but also convincing members to accept your
ideas’. The facebook group link was used to keep members informed of updates on
the project.

The second was going against the time factor. The assignment challenge made them
realize the importance of proper planning and setting of goals for every meeting. This
was because they came from different disciplines i.e. mechanical, civil and electronics
engineering. Furthermore, groups were already working on their final semester project
presentation for an engineering course due about the same time as this assignment.
Hence, finding a common time remained a challenge.

Thirdly, they had to overcome the language barrier among them. The main cause was
the low proficiency of the target language among members. This compounded the
problem in understanding the scenario and moving forward in the project. This
problem led to members being rather quiet during discussions. Again, the facebook
link proved to be a good channel for members to throw in researched ideas and to
keep in touch. The reading of students’ facebook pages supported Girard, J. et.al. ’s
(2011) notion that online collaboration proved more collaborative, refreshing, fun and
inspiring than the traditional face to face meetings.
A sample facebook page entry of one of the groups:
Source:http://www.facebook.com/groups
9
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia

Next was the issue of managing people. Leadership proved to be a stumbling block
and this is evidenced when only 70% of respondents agreed their leader was effective.
Hence, members unconsciously took on the leadership role and went the extra mile to
adapt to and understand each other by ‘working on members strengths’ and
‘compensating them for their weaknesses’. This had to be done to increase the
confidence level of these members. There was also ‘personal feelings’ to manage
whereby ‘a line had to be subconsciously drawn between criticizing ideas and
criticizing persons’.

The final issue was tackling the commitment level of members. A participant revealed
that some members behaved ‘with no affinity to the project’ and some even ‘were
calculative’ and ‘weighed the sacrifices’ in the project. Also, most of the time, groups
did not get 100% cooperation in achieving group goals. This free rider problem was
prevalent in all groups and this somewhat created conflict for some groups. As aptly
put by a member ‘…the lack of seriousness was disturbing sometimes, as people were
taking it as a game, and not as work’. The effect on group dynamics was telling
especially ‘when one member works, and the others do not’. To a further question on
what part of working in groups was least helpful, most respondents categorized
members into those who were ‘too serious’ and ‘rigid’ on the one hand, and ‘tardy’
and ‘forced to work’ on the other. These frustrations among members are explicitly
seen by the following feedback by two respondents reproduced verbatim:
‘Sometimes it was difficult to argue about a particular point, especially about the
design, because people were stuck with their idea that it was a design, whereas I
thought we could imagine a plan.’
10
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Another respondent remarked:
‘Sometimes your group considers that you are better. It makes you feel bad that you are
going to lose marks because of your group members’.
When probed further on these group processing conflicts, themes on ‘mutual respect for one
another’ and ‘pick members’ strength’ and ‘compensate them for their weaknesses’ surfaced.
It is noted that conflicts did exist in groups, although at not a large scale so as for the team to
crumble. This is evidenced from the questionnaire survey where 81.6% of the respondents
agreed that they could achieve their group goals. Other conflicts included members who were
‘low in confidence’ and ‘reluctant to carry on with work’.
CONCLUSION
With the emphasis today on the employability of graduates, the debate is still on as to
whether classroom practices have much relevance to the ‘real world’. The above research has
proved that adopting interesting real world tasks centered on cooperative learning strategies
helps to create ‘real life simulations that challenge students’ thinking and test their team
skills. As stated by Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M.(1992), cited by Gok, T.& Silay, I. (n.d), like
in any group challenge, members will come to realize that the problem they are going to
solve is a group problem and the success and failure of the group will be shared by all
members. Hence, they rise to the challenge, take advantage of technology and unconsciously
imbibe the virtues of cooperative skills. Research has time and again proven that students
who have opportunities to work collaboratively on real world tasks learn faster and more
efficiently, and have greater retention and feel more positive about their learning experience
(Johnson& Johnson, 1989).
In this research, most students did not realize that while working around assumptions,
researching and designing future technologies they were unconsciously acquiring information
and sharing knowledge with peers. Added to that, technology via facebook helped create the
bond and encouraged real time collaboration. A written feedback read ‘although the other
tasks given in class also support discussion among students, this project encouraged the most
interaction among us’. The above is testimony that socio cultural perspectives and modern
digital interaction, allow students to discover learning with peers in their small intellectual
community, [Vygotsky (1978)].
In this study, the focus was on developing team skills in a future problem solving task with
students having a choice on their mode of collaboration. Incidentally, all groups opted for
facebook. Future research could investigate the effectiveness of online collaboration in
unleashing students’ potential in real time problem solving.
REFERENCES
Abrami, P. C., & Chambers,B 1996, Research on cooperative learning and achievement:
Comments on Slavin. Contemporary Educational Psychology.
Catanach, A. H., Croll, D. B., & Grinaker, R. L. 2000, ‘Teaching intermediate Financial
accounting using a business activity model’. Issues in Accounting Education, 15(4), 583.
11
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Creswell, J. 2007, Research Design Qualitative, Quatitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches ,SAGE Publications Ltd. UK.
Elizabeth A. Jones 2002, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Association for the
Study of Higher Education, George Washington University, Graduate school of Education
and Human Development
Edge, A.G. and Coleman D.R. 1986. The guide to case analysis and reporting, London.
Future Problem Solving Program International, Inc. at http:www.fpspi.org/
Gok,T. & Silay, I. n.d.
‘The Effects of problem Solving Strategies on Students’
Achievement, Attitude and Motivation, date accessed 23 May 2011, available from
http://www.journal.lapen.org.my
Girard,J., Gordon,C., and Girard,J. 2011, Knowledge Sharing as an Enabler of Virtual
Business, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 9,Issue 3,2011.
Honebein, P.C., Duffy, T.M., Fishman, B.J. 1993. ‘Constructivism and the Design of
Learning Environments: Context and Authentic Activities for Learning’, Designing
Environments for Constructive Learning, Springer-Verlag Berlin.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. 2006. Joining together: Group
Boston: Pearson.
theory and skills (9th ed.).
Johnson,D.W.,Johnson,R.T. 1989, Cooperation and Competition : Theory and
Interaction Book Company, Edina(MN)
Kelly Services, Inc,
kellyservices.com.my
date
accessed
25
July
2011,available
from
Research,
http://www.
Lubart, T .& Zenasni, F.2010, ‘A New look at creative Giftedness’, Special Issue of Gifted
and Talented International – 25 (1), August, 2010 available at http://www.ghassib.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/GTI-251-August-2010.pdf
Mitchell, A., & Honore, S. (2008), Criteria for successful blended learning. Industrial and
Commercial Training.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M 2007, ‘Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical
choices with technology affordances in the Web2.0 era’. Proceedings Ascilite Singapore,date
accessed
1August
2011,
available
from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf
Merriam S. 2002, ‘Qualitative Research in Practice.Examples for Discussion and Analysis’.
Jessey-Bass Inc Pub.
Neo, M. 2005, ‘Engaging students in group-based co-operative learning-A Malaysian
Perspective. Educational Technology & Society,’ date accessed 20 April 2011, available at
http;//www. ifets.info/
12
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger,J.L.(eds.) 2005, ‘Educating the Net Generation, Educause, date
accessed 15 July 2011, available from www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/. Oakley, B.,
R. M. Felder, R. Brent,& I. Elhajj. 2004. ‘Turning student groups
into effective
teams’, Journal of Student Centered Learning 2(1): 9–34.
Rousseau,V. Aube, & A.Savoie. 2006. Teamwork behaviors. A review and an integration of
frameworks. Small Group Research.
Roschelle, J. 1992. ‘Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change’. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 2(3),235-276
Scriven, M. & Paul, R. 2007, Defining Critical Thinking, date accessed 20 July 2011,
available from http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm
Sicilia, C. 2007 ‘The challenges and benefits to teachers’ practices in constructivist learning
environments’, technology, Library and Archives Canada.
Shanbaugh N n.d.,
‘Future Design: Impossible Problem solving by Novices
:Society/Education/Adult & Continuing’, date accessed 20 July 2011, available from
www.bestthinking.com
Strachan,D.(2007). Making questions work: A guide to what and how to ask for facilitators,
consultants, managers, coaches and educators. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass
Tarnogol F., 2010, ‘Top 5 skills Employers seek and How to Use Them in a job Interview’,
date accessed 20 February 2011, available from http://fernandotarnogol.com
13