Enabling Effective Engineering Teams: A Program for ... - CiteSeerX

Enabling Effective Engineering Teams: A Program for Teaching Interaction Skills Elaine Seat University of Tennessee, Counselor Education & Counseling Psychology, Claxton Addition, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37996 Susan M. Lord Department of Engineering, University of San Diego, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110 Abstract Working in teams is an integral part of modern engineering practice and education. However, successful team interaction depends on individuals possessing skills that allow them to communicate and interact with other people in adaptive and contributing styles. Simply putting people in teams does not teach them to work together effectively. A program for teaching interaction skills to engineers was developed at the University of Tennessee and has been expanded and used at the University of San Diego and in industry. Based on learning style theory, this customized program relies on the typical problem solver’s strengths to teach skills of interviewing, questioning, exchanging ideas, and managing conflict. The goal of this program is to enable problem solvers to more effectively apply their technical skills by improving interpersonal interactions. This training has been developed over the last three years and has been used with freshmen, sophomore, and senior engineering students and in industry with practicing engineers. The modular nature of the training program makes it easily transportable and all or part of it would be useful in any course that requires students to work in teams. This paper discusses what makes this training “a good fit” with engineering students, the background for its content, and the program’s six modules. Personal experiences with teaching this material, lessons learned, and recommendations for implementation are discussed. Similarities and differences between teaching the engineering professional and student, student comments about the training, and future directions are also addressed.

Introduction Rarely is there a complaint about the technical performance of engineers. However, the lack of people skills among the technical community of scientists, engineers, computer specialists, and other problem solvers is notorious. This paper describes a program that has been specifically developed to teach communications skills to technical performers. The program and techniques described in this paper directly address this issue – not by hoping that interpersonal or soft skills are learned through osmosis from simply working in groups, but creating curriculum and programs that focus on soft skills.

It is recognized that engineering students need to learn teaming and interacting skills as a part of their education. In the National Science Foundation’s report Shaping the Future [1], education is said to be more than an acquisition of facts. Science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SME&T) education has been encouraged to become more holistic through engaging the student in the larger campus setting and creating a sense of professionalism [2]. Soft skills and group interaction are discussed frequently in terms of learning styles, improved learning in groups, socialization for working with others, and interpersonal skills. From a review of presentations at the 1996 Frontiers in Education conference [for examples, see 3, 4], it is apparent that educators are attempting to teach soft skills. However, the usual strategy is that students will learn to work in teams by doing projects in teams. Specific communication and teaming skills are not the focus of the class, and interaction skills are presumed to learned by a few class sessions of soft skill training and a class criteria that work be done in teams. However, good practice in interpersonal skills is not learned by simply being with people any more than statics is learned simply by attending statics lectures. The fundamentals of how people work and interact must be taught, practiced, and then evaluated, just like any other skill. Custom communications training was developed and implemented by Elaine Seat at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, (UTK) in response to requests from engineering professors leading capstone design projects [5]. Susan Lord, an engineering professor at the University of San Diego (USD), has begun using these modules in her freshman Introduction to Engineering classes. This collaboration influenced design of the training so that it can be learned and taught by those without a counseling background, and in a format that lends itself to the more generic classroom. Elaine draws from her experiences teaching instructors, students, and industrial professionals using this program. Susan uses her experiences with learning the material and teaching her students.

Interacting is a learned skill Soft skill instruction has its origins in the disciplines of education, counseling, and psychology under the influence of people who have a natural tendency to excel at personal interactions. Just as those who naturally excel at

mathematics and science migrate toward the hard sciences, the soft sciences attract people who have a natural ability in those disciplines. Thus, soft skills training is usually developed from the perspective of people who have an innate ability. Their sense of how to teach interpersonal skills matches the learning style of students in the soft skill disciplines, but does not always match the way problem solvers understand and learn new skills. Custom communications training was designed for engineering students using a combination of principles from learning style theory, human motor behavior, and group dynamics. The same skills are taught that soft skill specialists use, but are presented in a format and terms that problem solvers understand. Building on field independence theory [6], the training design provided a simple structure of rules. Then, a method of teaching was devised from human motor behavior. Offsetting the engineering student’s natural tendency to take in information and then assemble it for themselves into a useful structure, the training purposely required the student to role play and interact in closely supervised groups where each person spent time observing, and a facilitator provided personal feedback to the performer [7]. This system of teaching communications skills prevents the learner from assembling the information in their own “convenient” fashion, instead providing a closely coached practice opportunity of demonstration and observation of each other’s mistakes and suggested corrections. Learning style theory of field independence/field dependence. Field independence/field dependence learning style theory poses a fitting description of how technical people take in and assemble information. This theory proposes that people can be classified as independent or dependent learners [6]. The independent learner takes in information, internally assembles it into a pre-existing structure and uses the information passed through the structure to solve a problem. Other characteristics of independent learners are that they have poor interpersonal skills, and withdraw or isolate when in conflict. They are termed independent for a reason - they prefer to work by themselves to draw their own conclusions. Dependent learners prefer to work in groups and depend on the interaction of the group to make decisions. They excel at communicating with others, but flounder working alone. Elementary school teachers and sales persons are often dependent learners, while engineers and scientists are usually independent learners. The primary function of SME&T education has been to teach the structures that explain how the physical world works. People who are independent learners are taught the rules, and then exercised in interpreting information using these rules. An independent learner naturally excels at learning a governing structure and then fitting information to the structure to reach a conclusion. The nature of SME&T plays to this learning style while interacting with others does not. In learning soft skills, engineers and engineering students complained about role plays and because the

training was not written down for them to study on their own. In the true style of independent learners, they preferred predictable and structured problems – role plays and responses are neither. This training teaches by presenting a structure. The independent learner's tendency to withdraw or isolate must be countered, and supervised interaction provides a safe format for practicing these skills. Study alone will not teach interaction skills because people are an unpredictable problem and there is no single right answer or sure thing. Without practice and coaching, the independent learner will not be able to apply his or her knowledge. People learn better when watching other people learn. It has been demonstrated that people learn better when they watch other people learn and can also hear the feedback given by the instructor to the performer [7]. Interacting with other people requires responsiveness to a dynamic situation, where replies can not be planned and reactions can not be assumed. Training is best taught in a group, with experiential activities that allow for each individual to participate, receive individual feedback, and observe others learning the same technique. Once again, exercises are taught in groups, and debriefs and supervision are frequent.

Description of program This program for teaching soft skills is modular and has six sections. Its instruction has been designed using the learning styles of problem solvers, and exploits their strengths to improve their weaknesses. Each module has two instructional components, (1) an applied soft skill and (2) a "how people work" discussion. An experiential exercise and outside activity are used with each module. The experiential exercise provides an opportunity for the student to observe and be coached, and the outside activity encourages extension of the skills into everyday life. Module 1: The Nature of Problem Solvers Concepts Learned: How the very qualities that make problem solvers successful tend to cause difficulties with interpersonal interactions. The abilities that created the successful problem solver are then used to learn successful communication skills. Classroom Principles: Field Independence/Dependence Learning Theory; Learning a communications structure for the Independent Learner; A format for phrasing statements Experiential Exercise: Carkhuff's Laws of communication Outside Practice: What's fun/What's worst exercise Module 2: Getting Information Concepts Learned: Problem solvers need to get information so that they can identify, understand, and then solve the problem. Classroom Principles: Why interview?; Interviewing Don'ts; Interviewing Do's; Under the surface - getting to the real information; Understanding dialogue Experiential Exercise: Interviewing for Information Exercise

Outside Practice: Expert/Novice Interview Question Preparation Module Three: Giving Advice Concepts Learned: Techniques for giving advice and presenting ideas so that they are heard. Principles of giving feedback for coaching each other. Classroom Principles: Whys of giving advice: why we do it, why we should do it, why it doesn't work; Specific ways to give advice; how to give feedback Experiential Exercise: Giving Feedback exercise using Values game, Values awareness exercise, Outside Practice: Expert/Novice Interviews Module Four: Defending Yourself Concepts Learned: Techniques for self-defense against specific verbal attack and typical workplace manipulation of individuals. The concept of a personal right to clarification is developed. Principles of how behavior is controlled through norms is explored. Classroom Principles: The many forms of harassment: jargon, cliche, innuendo; Personal attack; Defending yourself; Identifying harassment; the role of norms Experiential Exercise: Language exercise Outside Practice: "What is your style?" exercise Module Five: Disagreeing Agreeably Concepts Learned: Using communication skills to effectively express opinions. Principles of sociotechnical problem solving. Principles of preferences in team decision making. Classroom Principles: Interfering group interactions; Helping group interactions; Preferences in team decision making; Socio-technical influences on advice giving and receiving Experiential Exercise: Coached group discussion of sensitive issue Outside Practice: Observation of typical problem solving team interaction Module Six: Case Studies Concepts Learned: Consideration of blindspots and assumptions we make based on race, gender, and ethnicity. Principles of the differences in team preferences in decision making based on gender are explored. Classroom Principles: Getting a communications strategy; How our blindspots affect our strategies; How to accommodate differences Experiential Exercise: Case Study 1: Emotional encounters; Case Study 2: Aggressive encounters Outside Practice: Strategizing an interaction

Applied Experiences (Student Perspective) This training program has been used in university and industrial settings. All or part of the modules have been taught at the UTK to engineering freshmen and upperclassmen. It has been used with USD freshmen engineering students and with practicing engineers in

industry. Common themes emerge from this student base that are helpful in understanding student reactions. An observation from teaching this material is that technical people resist learning communications skills. The university student is a captive audience with forced exposure to the professor’s curriculum and course design. Engineering students do not expect soft skills training in engineering courses, and often exhibit initial resistance. The industry student may be attending the training because of a recognized need for improved interpersonal skills, or in some cases, has been sent by a supervisor or human relations mediator. Typical students are not in this training out of a fundamental interest in the topic. Thus, it is important to understand potential resistance and accompanying dynamics. The difference between industrial professionals and university students comes from maturity and workplace experience. Professionals readily start to apply these techniques to both home and workplace scenarios. They ask advice on how to use their new skills in specific settings. Younger students don’t have the variety of life experiences, and typically think about using their new skills with their friends. Thus the examples and practice scenarios differ between the two groups. The following general themes have emerged: 1. Although experiential exercises are necessary, students want hard copy to read and study. This theme is to be expected because as independent learners, engineers want to read and assemble new information for themselves. The experiential exercises provide an opportunity to verify that the information has been interpreted correctly, but the independent learner needs individual time to digest new concepts. The worst thing about this class was that there were no reference materials for reinforcement other than class notes and handouts… 2. Students learn from the lectures and class discussions that explain how people are. Students indicated that they learned from the teacher’s explanations of how people are. Use of examples and discussion of personal experiences were valuable in learning new ways to handle situations. It was effective to learn why people act like they do and techniques to use… Learning about personalities and getting a better understanding of how each person works… understanding personalities to be quicker in identifying sources of conflict… I liked the anecdotes and examples… 3. Students learn most from the experiential exercises. The class exercises that allowed the student to practice what had been taught were deemed the most valuable. Interacting with people can not be done alone, and the class exercises were a format for trying out new skills. The best part was the group examples/games that were done… They reinforced and re-taught what was presented in the lecture part of the class. These examples always cleared up any questions I had about the lecture. A "hands-on" approach is always a fun and good way to involve everyone

and teach as well… The best part was practicing the rules we had learned and then talking about the experience. 4. Students find this training helpful in all aspects of their lives. Senior engineering students often comment that this training should begin as freshmen and would have been helpful in interviewing for jobs, and practicing engineers often talk about how they use their new skills with their families. (From a freshman) If I had to choose what was the most important thing I learned this semester, it would have to be the effective listening skills. As odd as that seems, I think I will be able to use the skills that were taught to me in everyday life and in the field of engineering, not just the field of engineering. 5. Students don’t know that they need this training and show initial resistance. Students initially resist this training, but their closing comments are positive and express a desire to have been trained earlier in both professional and academic careers. The professional often reflects that other similar training has been difficult to use, but this program’s structured approach of rules has provided them with a communications toolkit they can apply in real life situations. I was not sure if this class was going to be helpful after your introduction, but after the first few classes I realized how useful it was going to be. I really have some tools/rules to use in the workplace versus just ideas… This experience has been one of my most valuable at the university. No other single course I have taken here (at the University) has as much application in my career and in my life as this one does (a junior)… This class has been one of the most profitable classes… It has given me a great tool to use in interviewing for a job already…

Case Study: Interviewing for Information (Module 2) The Interviewing for Information module teaches the student how to ask questions to get information. It has a short lecture that explains do’s and don’ts, a role playing experiential exercise, homework to help the student recognize and use interviewing behaviors, and an interviewing project. Each applied technique is presented to the student as a set of three common don’ts and three simple helping behaviors. The experiential exercise is designed to help students practice these rules with a coach to suggest alternate statements and provide feedback on performance. Typical rules for a communication skills module are illustrated in FIGURE 1 for Module 2. In the freshman Introduction to Engineering course at USD, Module 2 was implemented in the fall of 1997. During class time, these rules for effective listening to facilitate interviewing were discussed and practiced by students interviewing each other about their pet peeve.

Effective Listening Dos Restating Paraphrasing Door-openers

Don'ts Silent Arguing Interrupting Sidetracking

FIGURE 1: Sample rules for communication training The homework assignment shown in FIGURE 2 was used to reinforce Module 2. Students were given 5 days to submit a topic to the professor via email and 12 days to submit the typed memo. Choose an activity and find someone who is an expert at it and someone who is a novice (just beginning to learn). Interview each of these people to learn about how they do the activity. Practice the strategies for gathering information during an interview that we learned in class. Please write a report about the differences in how novices and experts do this activity and how this might apply to different ways that novices and experts do all activities. You should also describe the differences between your interviews with the expert and the novice. How did they describe their activity differently? FIGURE 2 Sample Homework Assignment Students chose topics including golf, soccer, surfing, playing the guitar, and speaking Spanish. Grading of the memos was based on format and content. This exercise allowed students to practice effective listening and to see how people learn by exploring the differences between novices and experts. Overall, the assignment seemed to have accomplished its goals. Several students commented on how the effective listening skills enhanced their interviewing. For example: [The effective listening skills] helped me a lot by making the interviews last longer than they normally would have… . When you do not interrupt or concoct premature arguments within your head, a dialogue between persons can be an enjoyable experience… [These] rules seemed to be useful during my gathering of information for these two people. I tried not to reply prematurely. But that was difficult for me… Students learned some important differences between novices and experts. Several of the themes that emerged are summarized in TABLE 1. From these themes, many students recognized that learning from a novice versus an expert is quite different and each has its strengths.

Applied Experiences (Professor Perspective) Educators having a variety of backgrounds including Counseling Psychology, Education, and Engineering have taught this material. Each group has a unique set of experiences teaching the soft skills to a technical audience of problem solvers. Expert Gives complete information with specific details Uses technical terms Describes entire experience

Novice Gives brief amount of often vague information

Uses non-technical terms Focuses on how to achieve specific goals relying on personal experience Loves the activity Just does the activity TABLE 1: Differences Between Experts and Novices For those having a background in the soft skills, there is no difficulty understanding or demonstrating the material. However, they are often not accustomed to teaching a soft skill in such a rules-based manner. For instance, the interviewing training gives the student three do's and three don'ts to conducting a successful interview. Sometimes the soft skills trainer, knowing that optimum interviewing requires observation of non-verbal signals and use of a wide variety of responses, has difficulty teaching such a limited set of rules. However, for the novice communicator, the learning of six new rules can be a sizeable task. Too much information is overwhelming and results in the student having little or no success in learning a new skill. Those having a counseling background are often trained in letting a person find their own way by reflecting statements or helping them arrive at their own plan for change. In teaching this material, the student needs corrective intervention. Poor communication skills are immediately pointed out, and the teacher suggests alternative methods. Student comments often acknowledge the value of being corrected and getting feedback. Counselors have to assume the role of coach and facilitator, not therapist. For an engineering professor accustomed to teaching equations, facts, and physical phenomena, teaching soft skills can be uncomfortable. Engineering professors may feel they lack sufficient formal training in the soft skills and may feel ill equipped to teach them. Even if engineering professors believe that communication training is important, many of the resources available seem inappropriate for engineering students. The modules described in this paper were particularly helpful to one of the authors (SML) in providing a framework for communication training in her freshmen Introduction to Engineering course. Because the rules and specific exercises fit in with the engineering mindset, she was able to feel comfortable running the first two modules in her classroom with relatively little training. As she learned some of this material, she also found it

helpful in dealing with students in and out of the classroom. Having a structured format that agrees with the engineering approach enables engineering professors to buy in to the program and teach their students without having to take extensive courses in counseling or other fields. Modules also enable the material to be integrated into an existing course taught by an engineering professor rather than having to create a new course on communication training which is impractical in most curricula and more likely to be taught outside of engineering. Having engineering faculty involved in the training can help legitimize its importance for the students.

Recommendations for Implementation This program has been developed over the last three years, and has benefited from use with a wide variety of people. Several factors are important in successful implementation, including timing of the instruction, facilitation skills to encourage discussion of personal experiences, and adequate classroom time to fully debrief students. Timing of the training refers to when the instruction is given. This program has been taught during engineering courses as a part of the class material with great success. When a class period is set aside, outside activities are assigned as homework, and the student’s task is to learn the skill, it is a positive experience. However, when the training has been incorporated into capstone projects where the student’s focus is to complete design or technical problem, the training is seen as a distraction. Although the students patiently sit through it, they never seem to gain new skills. In fact, they resent the interruption and devalue the benefits of good interpersonal skills. Successful timing means that learning the modules is the student’s task, not just another chore lumped on a technical task. For example, in 1996, communications skills were taught to seniors during the first semester of a two semester sequence [5]. The first semester was a set of professional skills and small tasks that prepared the student for a second semester long project. The skills were well received since they were an actual class activity. However, in 1998, these same skills were taught during the capstone project. The students were so overwhelmed with their large project, they did not have the attentional capacity nor motivation to change their behaviors. Timing also concerns when the training is taught in the entire curriculum. It is best started in the freshmen year where it gives students tools to use in working with other students and faculty. These tools can help them with job interviews, co-op jobs, and interacting with professors. The training is not a single step process, and although best when started in the freshman year, the concepts can be expanded and further developed during the rest of the degree program. Putting these skills into practice requires facilitation of a group discussion about using them. The facilitator must be willing to ask the group to describe what happened when they used these skills in the outside activity, and must be

able to frame responses using the concepts taught in the modules. Facilitation means being able to lead and provide feedback during the experiential exercises. Learning these skills is not exhibited by a written report or coming up with a specific answer – it requires personal interaction with the student as they practice. Teaching these modules requires providing time to debrief the students on what they have tried, what works, and what did not work in a group setting. An important part of this program is a discussion of experiences and alternate solutions among the entire group to provide a forum for learning from watching other people learn. This discussion can often take as much time as the lecture or experiential exercise, but is most likely where much of the learning is accomplished. This debrief is the mechanism for learning how to apply these skills in real situations. The best thing about the class was learning from everybody’s examples… Discussions brought different scenarios… I learned that some situations have no best answers or wrong answers.

Future directions This training is a cornerstone of efforts at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, to teach engineering students skills that will allow them to successfully use their technical skills as professionals. It is being used at the University of San Diego, and will continue to be modified and enhanced for use by other engineering schools. Future plans call for the development of workshops to train engineering professors to facilitate and teach the material, and continuing contact with Counseling Psychology programs to encourage interdisciplinary engagement with engineering schools. The modules are currently being redefined to fit the standard one hour class lecture format. They are being restructured to be woven into the entire curriculum so that the student has been exposed to and provided a forum for practice of a complete set of skills during their engineering education. This communications training program is conducted for the University of Tennessee College of Engineering by the College of Education's Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology Department. For additional information about the implementation of this training as a part of the engineering educational experience at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, see references [5], [8], and [9].

References 1. National Science Foundation (NSF) (1996). Shaping the future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, NSF 96-139. p. 2. 2. National Science Foundation (NSF) (1995). Restructuring engineering education: A focus on change. Report of an NSF workshop on engineering education, Meyers, Carolyn, Chair. NSF 95-65.

3. Allen, E. L., Muscat, A. J., & Green, E. D. H. (1996) Interdisciplinary Team Learning in a Semiconductor Processing Course. In M. Iskander (Ed.), Frontiers in education conference: Technology-based re-engineering engineering education. Salt Lake City, UT. November, 1996. 4. Parker, Joey, Midkiff, Clark, & Kavanaugh, Steve (1996). Capstone Senior Design at the University of Alabama. In M. Iskander (Ed.), Frontiers in education conference: Technology-based re-engineering engineering education. Salt Lake City, UT. November, 1996. 5. Seat, J. Elaine, Poppen, William A., Boone, Kathy, & Parsons, J. Roger (1996). Making design teams work. In M. Iskander (Ed.), Frontiers in education conference: Technology-based re-engineering engineering education. Salt Lake City, UT. November, 1996. 6. Witkin, Herman A. & Goodenough, Donald R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. International Universities Press, Inc. NY. 7. McCullagh, P. & Caird, J. K. (1990). Correct and learning models and the use of model knowledge of results in the acquisition and retention of a motor skill. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 18. 107-116. 8. Knight, D., Poppen, W., Seat, E., Parsons, J., Klukken, G., & Glore, A. (1998). Coaching Engineering Design Teams. Presented at the ASEE 1998 Annual Conference, Seattle, WA. 9. Knight, D., Poppen, W., Klukken, G., Parsons, J., & Seat, E. (1998). Training Engineering Upperclassmen to Facilitate Freshmen Design Teams. Presented at the ASEE 1998 Annual Conference, Seattle, WA.

Biography Elaine Seat ([email protected]) Elaine Seat received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering and is a licensed Professional Engineer. Her Ph.D. is in Sport Psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She is a researcher at Lockheed Martin Energy Systems in visualization and training through simulation, and teaches human performance topics for technical majors as an adjunct professor in Counseling Psychology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Susan M. Lord ([email protected]) Susan M. Lord received a B. S. in Electrical Engineering & Materials Science from Cornell University and the M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. Dr. Lord taught at Bucknell University from 1993-1997 and is presently an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of San Diego. Her teaching and research interests focus on optoelectronic materials and devices as well as first year engineering courses.