developing transferable groupwork skills

7/28/2019 Developing Transferable Groupwork Skills

1/8

Developing Transferable Groupwork Skillsfor Engineering Students*

PAUL HUMPHREYS, VICTOR LO, FELIX CHAN and GLYNN DUGGAN

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, University of Hong Kong.

E-mail: [email protected]

Student assessment and the development of transferable personal skills are receiving increasingattention in higher education establishments. This study examined the potential for enhancingstudent learning through the development of groupwork, presentation and self- and peer-assessmentskills on an industrial engineering undergraduate course. A methodology is described whichindicates the approach adopted and a questionnaire evaluates students' impressions of the process.The overall conclusion to be drawn from the investigation is that skill development does take placeand that students find groupwork an enjoyable learning experience. With regard to self- and peer-assessment, students were not as enthusiastic. Ultimately, there is a need to continue to involvestudents so that they can see evaluation in a positive, developmental light and to encourage studentsto take a more proactive role in assessing their performance.

INTRODUCTION

FEW ISSUES are currently exciting more attentionin teaching and learning in higher education thanthe student assessment process [1]. Just at the timewhen academics are coping with increasing studentnumbers against a fixed or falling unit of resource,the focus upon competence-based learning is caus-ing a re-examination of assessment practices.Simultaneously, there is a shift towards assessment

of students' transferable personal skills as well asthe academic content of what they are studying.All of this is leading to the development of newassessment methods, giving rise to the need forgreater ingenuity and flexibility, while still moni-toring and assuring the quality of the process [2].

In the last few years there has been a majorimpetus for change in the way tutors interact withand communicate knowledge to students. There isa growing awareness amongst educators that it isimportant to increase student participation in thelearning process and to provide a skills-basededucation as well as one based on academic

achievements. This appears to be confirmed byrecent analyses of engineering education, whichconcluded that the educational system ignoredimportant practical and personal competencies[35].

At the same time many of the new teaching andlearning strategies developed have been designedto ensure that students become more aware of thedemands of future employers for graduates whoare able to display a range of personal transferableskills. These include:

. communication and presentation skills;

. problem-solving and organisational skills;

. team-work;

. leadership skills.

In addition, in many fields of professional trainingthere has been a concern for developing students'ability to assess and evaluate their own work inways which are applicable to their future pro-fession [6]. According to Boud and Lublin [7],`one of the most important processes that canoccur in education is the growth in students of

the ability to be realistic judges of their ownperformance and the ability to monitor their ownlearning'.

From an historical viewpoint the prevalentmodel for assessment throughout the educationsystem has been one in which, `students havelittle or no input, are often unaware of theassessment criteria and have little recourse regard-ing the judgements made of them' [8]. Within thecontext of the changing climate of higher educa-tion, development of groupwork and self- andpeer-assessment skills are becoming increasinglyimportant issues in many institutions, reflectingthe changing face of the work and social

environment as outlined below.In relation to the requirements of the workplace,

various studies have indicated employer dissatis-faction with the development of transferable skillsin undergraduates [9] and a recognition by under-graduates of their weakness in these skills [10]. Thisis particularly important for engineers, who spenda considerable proportion of their day workingand dealing in a group environment. For example,engineers may be part of a project team involved inR&D or new product development. As a memberof a work group that interacts with various groupsboth inside and outside the firm, organisational

personnel must understand the dynamics of groupsand how they can influence the total level of* Accepted 2 March 2000.

59

Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 5966, 2001 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain. # 2001 TEMPUS Publications.


2/8

accomplishment. It is therefore important thatstudents have an opportunity to work in groups,in order to experience the behavioural andmanagerial processes that are exhibited, such as[11]:

. security and protection;

.

affiliation;. esteem and identity;. task achievement;. member roles and status;. group cohesiveness;. norms;. conflict resolution;. negotiation;. teamwork;. communication.

With regard to assessment, individuals practiseself- and peer-evaluation in many areas of theirlives. For example, staff appraisal in an organi-

sation requires individuals to reflect on their levelof achievement over a specified period and toidentify areas of weakness which require furtherwork. At the same time, an increasing number ofprofessional bodies [12, 13] recognise the need fortheir members to carry out an audit of theirindividual development requirements.

In many of the types of assessment that studentsundertake, they are expected to assess process aswell as product, and while the assessment ofproduct is very often best undertaken by a thirdperson (the tutor), assessment of process neces-sarily involves those involved in that process.Where, for example, students are being assessed

in groups, it is essential that if the process of groupworking is to be assessed [14], the participantsthemselves should be involved in carrying thisout. Thus, self- and peer-assessment gives learnersa greater ownership of the learning they are under-taking. Assessment is not a process done to them,but is a participative process in which they areinvolved. This in turn tends to motivate students,who feel they have a greater investment in whatthey are doing.

It is the intention of this article to examine theapproach adopted, on an Integrative Studies (IS)module, at the University of Hong Kong, within

the Department of Industrial and ManufacturingSystems Engineering (IMSE), to developing amethodology for enhancing transferable skillsand to encouraging students to take a moreproactive role in assessing their performance.Briefly, the aims of the study are to:

1. Determine the benefits and learning outcomesof group-based assignments.

2. Determine whether there is a development oftransferable personal skills through the use ofthis specific assessment process.

3. Assess whether group presentations are aneffective way of developing interpersonal and

presentational skills.4. Judge whether the practice of using self-

and peer-assessment enhances students'competencies with regard to self reflectivelearning.

PROGRAMME BACKGROUND

The IS module in the second year is designedto build upon the first year courses: IndustrialStudies, Manufacturing Engineering Processes,Professional and Technical Communication, andSummer Workshop Training. These coursesprovide the students with a basic appreciation ofthe fabrication and use of materials, the range ofmanufacturing processes, implications of designfor manufacture, and engineering communicationsystems. Integrative Studies makes use of thisknowledge and enables the student to apply it,together with the knowledge acquired inother courses in first and second years, to themanufacture of a typical commercial product.

The integrating principle of the programme isachieved through the use of a `vehicle' that is anactual product that the students must `design andmanufacture'. In addition to the integration oftechnical knowledge, the programme also aims atproviding students with the experience of auto-nomous group working and developing com-munication and meeting skills. At the beginningof the programme each group is presented with asample of the product that has been selected bythe academic staff. The selection criteria for theproduct selection includes:

. the product should use a variety of materials;

. the product should involve a variety ofmanufacturing processes;

. the product should be something that thestudents can understand and appreciate its use;

. the product design should not be too technicallycomplex;

. the product should allow some design initiatives;

. the product should be capable of manufactureusing conventional processes;

. if possible, the product should be of a similarnature to products made in local industry (thisfacilitates factory visits);

. it should be possible to acquire samples of such a

product, preferably of a `poor' design.The products that have been used in the pastinclude an electric fan-heater, a portable hair-dryer and a travel iron.

The task of the group is to design and manu-facture a new model of the product. The finalgroup reports should include detailed design ofthe product, details of manufacturing processes,details of equipment and manpower requirementsincluding jigs and fixtures, some standard times formanufacturing and assembly processes and somebasic costing. The groups are given basic informa-tion such as the target retail cost, the annual

output and the initial factory conditions (it isgenerally assumed that the factory is already

P. Humphreys et al.60


3/8

established and manufactures a range of similarproducts).

The programme is planned using the activelearning approach. The students' own activitiesare expected to be the focus of the program,while lecturers act as facilitators, giving guidanceand advice throughout the entire project. The

emphasis is on `action learning'learn best bydoingrather than the traditional `passive' teach-ing approach. Lectures are given only on thosetopics with which the students have had littleexposure at the time of the project. A supervisoris assigned to each group to provide administrativeguidance throughout the project. For technicaladvice and information, students are encouragedto seek the opinion of other lecturers. Groups arealso encouraged to discuss their project withexperts from industry and arrange visits to localfactories. They must also seek out the necessarytechnical standards and regulations relating to theproduct.

METHODOLOGY

The research approach adopted can be brokendown into five phases (see Fig. 1) and covers a24-week period which represents the length of atypical engineering module at the University ofHong Kong.

Phase 1 (week 1)A self- and peer-assessment process was

proposed to undergraduate (54) industrial engi-

neering students, within the context of writing

and presenting a group report relating to theapplication of theoretical business and engineeringconcepts.

Phase 2 (weeks 16)Before commencement of the assignment

students were introduced to the concepts of group-

work, presentation and assessment skills through aseries of participative workshops and formallectures. Within the groupwork session, studentscarried out a number of exercises in order tounderstand the dynamics of the process and toidentify the various skills which groupwork candevelop. In terms of presentation skills studentshad to view a customised (amateur) video tapewhich had been recorded by one of the tutorsinvolved in the study and reflected the subjectmatter that the groups had to cover. This videoprovided a variety of delivery styles and students,through discussion, had to identify those attributeswhich were important in delivering an effectivepresentation. In order to provide them with experi-ence of assessment, students were asked to mark ashort essay and then compare the mark that theyawarded against that of the course tutor. Ampleopportunity for discussion of the relevant issuesidentified from the essay was provided.

During these initial workshops, students wereasked to establish the assessment criteria bywhich the group presentations would be evaluated.It was felt that this would help to engender a senseof ownership of the tasks to be performed, aswell as allowing the students an opportunity todevelop their negotiation and communication

skills through active participation in setting thecriteria. Typical assessment criteria includedsuch factors as: visual presentation; content;presentation structure and verbal communication.

Phase 3 (week 2)Students were assigned to groups of 68

students. Over the course of the project, groupswere encouraged to verbally report progress on theassignment and the tutors were therefore able tomonitor the process on a continuous basis.

Phase 4 (weeks 724)Each group was required to prepare a written

report on the assignment topic and also present thefindings to their peers. In terms of mark allocation,the presentation was worth 30% (split in equalproportions between the tutor and students) andthe group report 70%. These mark allocations werediscussed and agreed with the students. Thepresentations were assessed by the other studentgroups in the class and by the tutors, according tothe criteria developed in Phase 2.

Individuals in each group were then requiredto weight the contribution of all members through-out the project duration. A form was given toeach member of the group; completion of this

form was confidential and allowed each studentto allocate a given number of marks, according toFig. 1. Research methodology.

Developing Transferable Groupwork Skills for Engineering Students 61


4/8

the perception of effort. For example, in a group ofthree people, 300 marks are available for allocationand if an individual felt they had been responsiblefor a significant proportion of the workload, thatstudent might award themselves 120, giving theother two members 90 each. On collecting the totalinformation for each group, a peer weighting could

be established for each individual and this wasapplied to the final group mark (combining thepresentation and report). Thus, students had theopportunity to be assessed by their peers as wellas allowing provision for self-assessment. Hence,the self- and peer-assessment process provided amechanism for moderating marks in relation togroup effectiveness and individual performance.

Phase 5 (week 24)On completion of the presentation and assess-

ment of performance, student feedback on the full

process was elicited via a questionnaire. The ques-tionnaire covered such topics as identifying theskills developed in the course of the assignmentand establishing students' attitudes to self- andpeer-assessment and groupwork. In addition, aseries of focus groups were conducted withmembers from the course to obtain further

qualitative data on the study and its outcomes.

RESULTS

In order to evaluate the success of the project, allthe students (n54) who attended the integrativestudies module completed a detailed questionnaire.In order to check the validity of the questionnairedesign, content validity was applied. Contentvalidity is a subjective measure of how appropriatethe questions in the research instrument appear to

Table 1. Summary of questionnaire results (n54)

Meanrating

Standarddeviation

Development of skills(1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree)

How do you feel the exercise has improved the following skills:

Problem solvingLeadershipResearchStudyCommunicationTime managementPresentationPeer-assessmentSelf-assessmentSubject knowledgeTeamwork

3.93.43.63.43.93.83.93.33.53.74.1

0.830.820.770.840.740.800.620.780.860.880.81

Attitudes to groupwork(1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree)

It was easy to work collaboratively in the groupI learned more through interaction with others

The groupwork sessions:(a) were enjoyable(b) helped me to learn(c) enhanced my motivation/interest levels(d) helped me to integrate more with other students

I felt reluctant about becoming a group memberI feel that groupwork only suits the non-contributorI would have learned more working alone on this project

3.64.0

3.73.83.43.9

2.42.22.4

0.830.92

0.80.820.840.68

1.110.841.01

The groupwork sessions:(a) limited my potential(b) decreased by level of ability(c) were a complete waste of time

2.62.42.2

0.90.960.95

Attitudes to assessment1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree)

I felt the peer assessment was fair and correctGroup sessions increased my ability to assess myself and

peers in a more analytical wayI felt uncomfortable about assessing other groupsI would prefer not to assess members of my own group

I resented being assessed by other students

3.1

3.52.83.4

3.1

0.83

0.750.861.02

0.85



5/8

a set of reviewers who have knowledge of thesubject matter. For the purpose of this study, atwo-stage process was applied. Firstly, the ques-tionnaire was designed based on the work ofprevious researchers who empirically investigatedvarious aspects of skill development, groupworkand self- and peer-assessment [1, 15, 16]. Secondly,

the research instrument was evaluated by anumber of educational experts who have experi-ence with the groupwork process and only minormodifications were proposed and applied to thequestionnaire design. Table 1 indicates those ques-tions relating to the issues of skill development andgroupwork/assessment attitudes and the meanratings and standard deviations obtained.

In terms of skill development, it can be seen thatthe overall marks ranged from 3.3 (peer assess-ment) to 4.1 (teamwork), with an average score of3.6 over the eleven categories identified. Since ascore greater than 3.0 can be viewed as a positiveresponse to skill development, the results wouldsuggest that the process adopted to developtransferable personal skills appears to have beensuccessful.

With regard to attitudes to groupwork, a favour-able response was obtained in terms of enhancingthe learning of students (3.6), providing a motivat-ing effect (3.4) and helping them to integrate morewith other students (3.9). The responses alsoindicated that students did not feel reluctantabout becoming a group member (2.4) and thatgroupwork did not limit student ability (2.2).Students also felt more comfortable with theevaluation system, which attempted to minimise

the effect of group members not contributing (2.2).Attitudes to assessment indicated that students

viewed the preliminary workshops positively andthat it increased their ability to critically evaluatepersonal and peer contributions (3.5). However,with regard to implementing peer-assessment, theywere indifferent to assessing other groups (2.8) andto being assessed by other students (3.1). Thiswould seem to indicate that students view assess-ment as being the responsibility of the lecturer

and they remain unconvinced that they have therequisite skills for assessment. Comments made onthe questionnaires regarding the assessmentprocess and at the focus groups support thisargument. For example, one student stated, `verysubjective, lecturer has a more in-depth knowledgeof the topic and should better appreciate the work

completed'. Another student when referring to themarking of the other groups indicated, `I wouldneed to be convinced that standards are beingmaintained and peers had some sort of agreedbenchmark'. This may be perceived as a naturalresponse to the move away from traditional assess-ment practices, and it is anticipated that asstudents become more experienced at self- andpeer-assessment, their attitudes will become muchmore positive.

Boud [17] argued that self- and peer-assessmentwas, `fundamental to all aspects of learning', andencourages the development of the reflectivestudent, one who has a degree of self-directingindependence and who is well placed to become alifelong learner. This reflects the growing need togive students a more active role in successfullymanaging their own learning, as well as meetingthe needs of industry for flexible, creative thinkerswho can transfer their learning and cope with newsituations in the workplace.

The results of the project to date would appearto indicate that overall there has been a favourableresponse to developing transferable personal skillsand groupwork, even though some students didfeel uncomfortable about evaluating both theirown work and that of their peers. In addition,

detailed discussions with the focus group wouldappear to suggest that further developments of theassessment implementation are required.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

In terms of the methodology developed, threeimportant areas for future work have been identi-fied based on an analysis of the questionnaires and

Fig. 2. Project log template.



6/8

focus group discussions and these are outlinedbelow.

GroupworkWith regard to the groupwork process one

measure which is proposed is the introduction ofa project log, which would be completed by eachstudent group and provide records of meetings, adescription of the tasks allocated along withresponsibilities assigned to individuals, and arecord of tasks completed.

Figure 2 provides an illustration of a templatefor the contents of such a project log. This logwould serve a number of purposes, namely:

. to raise the level of student awareness of thedynamics of groupwork and the complexities ofteam-based approached in a work environment;

. to enable groups to effectively prioritise theworkload and ensure that it is equitablydistributed among group members;

. to provide a more objective method ofevaluating the individual contributions ofgroup members with regard to self- and peer-assessment;

. to provide a better mechanism for tutors tomonitor the groupwork process, so enablingthem to assist groups who encounter difficulties.

AssessmentThe results above have indicated that students

are uncomfortable with both self- and peer-assessment. It should be noted that the traditionalteaching approaches at secondary school level in

Hong Kong could act as a barrier to the successfulintroduction of new forms of assessment [18],when students enter higher education. The presentapproach is a fairly rigid, highly competitive,examination-dominated system involving heavyworkloads with a strong if not exclusive academicfocus. The introduction of groupwork, at tertiarylevel, therefore requires a major shift in mindsetand culture for the student body. However, it isargued that the practice of encouraging students tobecome involved in their own and each other'sassessment should be developed. This will act as ameans of providing feedback to students and alsoenhance their capability to judge their own perfor-mance, thus providing opportunities to developskills for learning that will be of value long afterleaving university.

The focus groups identified the subjectivity ofthe assessment process as an area of concern andfurther consideration suggested that instead ofreceiving one peer evaluation during the year,regular assessment would be established withstudents obtaining feedback on four occasions(middle and end of each semester). Such anapproach should assist in establishing a cultureof ongoing self- and peer-assessment by thestudents. It is anticipated that over time as

students obtain practice in evaluating themselvesand their colleagues, that their prejudice will begin

to diminish and that they will come to accept thismethod of evaluation.

In addition, even though students had beendirectly involved in determining the criteria formarking the presentations in Phase 2, it wasidentified during the focus group meeting thatthey had difficulties in evaluating them. For most

students this was their first opportunity to beinvolved in evaluating the work of other students.Consequently, for the initial presentations therewas no benchmark to compare them against.Students felt that they tended to be too lenientwhen awarding marks to these early groups. As thepresentations progressed, they felt that their abilityto mark effectively improved.

In order to assist students in the marking of thepresentation, certain developments are planned:

1. After a presentation and before any formalassessment, the class will be given the opportu-nity to discuss with the tutor the merits of the

delivery style and content. This process shouldallow students to deliberate on the appropriate-ness of the presentation criteria which theydeveloped and to more fully understand thekey attributes of a successful presentation.

2. Each presentation will be recorded on video-tape, and a copy will be given to the groupinvolved so that members have the opportunityto view their own performance and criticallyreflect upon it.

Implications for staff and course developmentThe project log will provide a mechanism to

enable the tutor to take an active role in dealingwith group and individual problems. Whereconflict arises between group members thatcannot be resolved internally, the tutor must beprepared to act as a facilitator. This approachdemands appropriately trained staff and has impli-cations for staff development in such areas as teambuilding, conflict resolution and negotiation skills.

The methodology described has only beenapplied to a limited number of modules withinthe IMSE Department. The application of thismethodology in other years and across coursesrequires a planned approach. If students are todevelop their learning and assessment skills thenthey need to perceive a developmental processtaking place as they progress through theircourses. This demands a dedicated core of tutorswho know what has been covered in previousmodules and are prepared to enhance the processthrough continuous improvement.

As students' expectations are raised and as theirskills in self- and peer-assessment improve, theyare likely to begin to apply those skills to othermodules, even those that use the traditional, indi-vidual assignment as a method of assessment.Consequently, the long-term implication is that achange in the assessment culture, within the

university, will be required. Tutors must thereforebe prepared to accept a changing role, as students



7/8

take on more responsibility for their own learning.This is likely to be a much more demanding role asstudents will expect more discussion and clarifica-tion in terms of, for example, the assessmentcriteria and feedback on overall performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The groupwork project described in this papersupports the views outlined by Parnaby andDonovan [3], Finniston et al. [4] and Steiner [5],who recommended possible improvements toengineering education. They indicated that:

. programmes should focus on participants' needsand be more interactive in design;

. they should offer participants the opportunityto apply theoretical concepts in practicalsituations;

. curriculum development must focus on utilising

appropriate pedagogic techniques whichenhance learning and develop leadership andinterpersonal skills.

In addition, Katz [19] suggested that majorobstacles to student learning included a lack ofcollaboration in learning and lack of opportunityfor student responsibility. Too often, as indicatedby Race [20], a `passivity' still dominates learningand `higher education students may still be over-taught', therefore limiting the development of thehighly valued transferable skills. Such an overemphasis on attaining knowledge assumes thatunderstanding comes later, but perhaps a more

realistic or flexible approach would help in advo-cating personal involvement, by the student, in thelearning experience: `I hear and I forget; I see and Iremember; I do and I understand' [21].

Undoubtedly, some tutors may be concernedthat the group assessment process described maylack some of the precision of marking the tradi-tional written assignment, but this is more thancompensated for by the development of trans-ferable skills and an enhancement of theoverall learning experience for the students ashighlighted by the favourable response to thequestionnaire. Certainly, over-reliance on anysingle form of assessment is questionable and a

variety of different forms of assessment, includingoral presentations, group projects, self- and peer-assessment as well as the more formal and tradi-tional written submissions, is a better alternative.The controversial aspect of self-assessment is itscontribution to grading student work, but whenmoderated and used as an element of collaborative

assessment its potential is significant, providing ashared culture between the various stakeholders inthe learning process and helping to strike the rightbalance between assessment and development.

With such an approach, there will always be aproblem of subjectivity and variation in individualpreferences and the right balance must be achievedbetween assessment and the management of thedevelopment process. If used correctly as addi-tional techniques, groupwork and assessment canbe effective and adaptive in improving manyaspects of performance. The aim is to continuethis work, to monitor trends in student develop-ment throughout the course, whilst continuing todevelop the necessary cognitive and affectiveskills. However, a parallel need is to monitor thesyllabus content and assessment methods, toensure that students are not merely overloadedwith unnecessary innovative methods, whichmay be just as monotonous and ineffective as themore traditional versions. It is important torecognise that there is potential for competenceand incompetence in all teaching methods andprogrammes.

Traditionally, we have conceived of twoseparate learning arenas: the academic instituteand the organisation. The university has provided

cognitive, intellectual frameworks; the organi-sation or enterprise has taught skills in applyingthese to the work environment. It is arguedthat new assessment practices should attempt tointegrate these two areas, so that the students'overall learning experience is enhanced. Theassessment process described in this articletogether with the planned improvements shouldgo part of the way towards achieving the aspira-tions of both engineering educators and teachingand learning professionals.

AcknowledgementThe authors would like to acknowledge thesupport of the Action Learning Project, Hong Kong whichprovided funding for this project.

REFERENCES

1. I. Kemp and L. Seagraves, Transferable skillscan higher education deliver? Studies in HigherEducation. 20, 3 (1995) pp. 315328.

2. S. Brown and P. Knight, Assessing Learners in Higher Education, Kogan Page, London (1994).3. J. Parnaby and J. Donovan, Education and training in manufacturing systems engineering, IEE

Proc., 134, 10, Pt. A (1987) pp. 816824.4. M. Finniston, T. Duggan and J. Bement, Integrated engineering and its influence on the future of

engineering education in the UK, Int. J. App. Eng. Educ., 5, 2 (1989) pp. 135145.5. C. Steiner, Educating for innovation and management: the engineering educators' dilemma, IEEE

Trans. Educ., 41, 1 (1998) pp. 17.6. D. Magin, and A. Churches, What do Students Learn from Self- and Peer-Assessment? Designing for

Learning in Industry and Higher Education, Australian Society for Educational Technology,Canberra (1989) pp. 224233.



8/8

7. D. Boud, and J. Lublin, Self-assessment in Professional Education: A Report to the CommonwealthResearch and Development Committee, Tertiary Education Research Centre, University of NewSouth Wales (1983).

8. N. Falchikov, Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer and self-assessment,Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 4 (1986) pp. 146166.

9. S. Otter, Learning Outcomes in Higher Education, Leicester University, Unit for the Developmentof Adult Continuing Education (1992).

10. J. Brennan and P. McGeevor, CNAA Graduates: their employment and their experiences aftercollege; Summary Report, CNAA Development Services Publication 13, London (1987).

11. R. Vecchio, Organisational Behaviour, Third edition, Dryden, Fort Worth (1995).12. F. Barthorpe, Marking time over CPD, Professional Engineering, 9, 12, June 19th (1996) p. 32.13. The Institute of Management, New approach to training, Professional Manager, 5, 2, March (1996)

p. 20.14. N. Falchikov, Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment, Innovations in Education and

Training International, 32, 2 (1996) pp. 175187.15. J. Garvin, C. Butcher, A. Stefani, V. Tariq, M. Lewis, N. Blumson, R. Govier and J. Hill, Group

projects for first-year university students: an evaluation, Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation, 20, 3 (1995) pp. 273288.

16. A. Wollard, Core skills and the idea of the graduate, Higher Education Quarterly, 49, 4 (1995)pp. 316325.

17. D. Boud, Assessment and the promotion of academic values, Studies in Higher Education, 17, 2(1990) pp. 101111.

18. J. Biggs and D. Watkins, Learning and Teaching in Hong Kong, University of Hong Kong (1993).19. J. Katz, Teaching as Though Students Mattered, Jossey-Bass, London (1993).20. P. Race, Quality for somewhat about the rest? J. Further and Higher Educ., 19, 1 (1995)

pp. 5461.21. M. Jackson and M. Prosser, Less lecturing, more learning, Studies in Higher Education, 14, 1 (1989)pp. 5568.

Paul Humphreys is an Assistant Professor in Industrial Management at the University ofHong Kong. Previously he held lecturing positions in Operations Management at theUniversity of Ulster and The Queen's University of Belfast. He obtained his M.Eng. andPh.D. in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering from The Queen's University of Belfast in1986 and 1990, respectively, and his MBA from the University of Ulster in 1990. Hisresearch interests are in the area of operations and supply chain management. DrHumphreys is a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of MechanicalEngineers, UK.

Victor Lo is an industrial management specialist who has around twenty years of experiencein both the manufacturing and the service industries. He is a Chartered Engineer and aFellow of the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers. He is currently a lecturer in The IndustrialManufacturing Systems Engineering (IMSE) Department, The University of Hong Kong.He obtained a BSc in Production Engineering in 1980 from Leeds Polytechnic, an MSc inIndustrial Engineering in 1986 from The University of Hong Kong and his EngineeringDoctorate in Engineering Management from Warwick University in 1996. Dr Lo's researchinterests are focused on Quality management development in Hong Kong and the PRC,with special emphasis on the adoption of Chinese culture and philosophies in modernmanagement.

Felix Chan received his B.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering from Brighton University in 1981.He then obtained his M.Sc. in Advanced Applied Mechanics and Ph.D. at Imperial Collegeof Science and Technology, University of London in 1982 and 1986 respectively. He was aresearch fellow for two years in the Department of Design, Manufacture and Engineering

Management, University of Strathclyde. Dr Chan is now a lecturer in the Department ofIndustrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The University of Hong Kong. Hiscurrent research interests are modeling and simulation in advanced manufacturing systems,applying analytic hierarchy process with simulation to design and evaluating flexiblemanufacturing systems.


developing transferable groupwork skills

Documents