Instructor and Student Perceptions of
Passive, Active and Electronic Interpersonal Communication
in the Workforce Development Classroom in a Community College

Carla Hinkle

Assistant Professor in the Allied Health Division at the Metro Campus of Tulsa Community College, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the perceptions of Workforce Development (WFD) instructors and students at Tulsa Community College (TCC) with regard to passive, active and electronic interpersonal communication in both the workplace and classroom. The participants were 90 instructors and 1061 students in WFD education, each completing questionnaires using Likert-type scale responses. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the various components of this study.

TCC WFD instructors prioritized interpersonal communication in the workplace as being absolutely essential. There is strong cross-validation between the instructor and student responses regarding the availability, or rather lack of opportunities for interpersonal communication in the TCC WFD classroom. There is a lack of congruence between the high priority given to interpersonal communication as an element of success in the workplace and the lesser availability of interpersonal communication in the classroom. Both instructors and students perceived interpersonal interaction in the classroom via passive methods (reading, listening, or observing) as being available to a greater extent than were the active methods (writing, speaking, or performing skill demonstrations). Students perceived opportunities to interact electronically to a greater extent than instructors perceived having made such opportunities available. There is a need to enhance classroom learning experiences in the WFD courses at TCC with better opportunities for interpersonal interaction.

Introduction

Technical skills specific to a job or industry are the general focus during a person’s search for suitable employment, including demonstrable skills and unique knowledge of a subject, along with job training or education with credentials. However, with heavy competition among equally skilled applicants it is the “soft skills” which can determine the greatest potential between competitors (Ganzel, 2001; Overtoom, 2000). With the current availability of technology and fast pace of competition in the workplace, top billing no longer goes solely to the organization with the best product or service, but to one which also includes efficient people skills (Goldwasser, 2000).

A corporate trainer quoted by Ganzel (2001) on training workers in the soft skills stated, "There is nothing 'soft' about learning how to communicate, how to give constructive feedback or how to negotiate with a union, employees or customers. These are hard skills–the most difficult skills an employee has to learn" (p. 56). In the past, there may have been a layer of management whose responsibility it was to communicate. Now communicating is the responsibility of everyone.

Occupational education tends to focus time and effort on job-specific content and skill competency in preparation for technical and application-oriented work. While these aspects of the education may be stellar in their accomplishments of workforce preparation, interpersonal communication should not be a forgotten element in the workplace (Vice & Carnes, 2001). The methods of interpersonal communication relevant to industry should be integrated into the curriculum alongside core content and skills.

Instructors come from their respective fields to the community college setting as content experts having little or no formal education or training in instructional strategies. They may not be aware of the unique qualities of adults as participants in education. While instructors may be experts on best practice within their career fields, they may lack a working knowledge of educational principles and applications as these apply to adults. They may lack awareness regarding current methods or variations that are possible when attempting to implement instructional strategies (Bonwell & Sutherland, 1996). Many instructors tend to gravitate toward the traditional lecture as their primary teaching strategy, passively distributing information to learners (Brookfield, 1990; Huba & Freed, 2000). Knowles (1984) described adult learners based on the concept of andragogy, which includes several elements to characterize adult learners. These include the tendency to be self-directed, the desire to incorporate learning into practice immediately, the capacity to use their previous experience as a basis for their learning, and being motivated from within (Elias & Merriam, 1995; Gray & Herr, 1998; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Taylor, Marienau & Fiddler, 2000).

Many college instructors may believe they interact regularly with their students. However, these beliefs may not be backed up by classroom assessment techniques, leading to assumptions of having accomplished a teaching goal when in fact it has not yet been achieved by learners. Instructors may depend on student body language and infer the accomplishment of teaching goals (Angelo & Cross, 1993). Unfortunately, the gap between instructor and student communication may not be realized until the summative evaluation, such as the final exam or skill assessment, if the gap is ever identified at all. If student evaluations are based on content knowledge alone and do not include elements of interpersonal communication, assumptions of success may lead instructors far afield in accurately assessing the true skill set as required for success in the workplace. Knowledge regarding instructional assessment is an example of one of the many demands on instructors in terms of strategies with which WFD instructors may be unfamiliar (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Bonwell & Sutherland, 1996).

The skill set that applies to effective interpersonal communication must be learned in the context of the job skills to which they will apply. It should not be assumed that these skills will be present later on the job if they are not taught in school (Bransford & Vye, 1989; Huba & Freed, 2000). Workforce education should be structured to intentionally engage students in various forms of interpersonal interaction, consistent with the expectations of the workplace (U. S. Department of Labor, 1991). The instructional strategies required to accomplish this teaching goal may be undeveloped in WFD instructors who come to the community college classroom from industry without the benefit of instructional training. As a result, these instructors may misinterpret their degree of integration of interpersonal skills in their curricula and instructional practices. At the same time, students may not recognize the value of interpersonal skills as an element of both their education and potential job skill set.

Review of Literature

There is a variety of information available confirming the need for effective communication in the workplace (Dolan, 2002; McLaughlin, 1997; Vice & Carnes, 2001; Watson & Gallois, 1998). There are several substantial sources that have examined and reported on the overall skills important for employability. These include the American Society of Training and Development’s 1990 study titled “Workplace Basics” (Carnevale, Gainer & Meltzer, 1990), the SCANS Report of 1991, a Delphi study conducted by Wilhelm in 1999, the IDEA Project’s list of “Examples of Essential Abilities” featuring fourteen institutions in the United States and United Kingdom (Brown, C., 1999), an overview written by Overtoom in 2000 on the skills sought by business recruiters. Each of these sources rated communication highly among skills critical in the workplace.

Wilhelm’s study (1999) compared the Foundation Skills and Competencies listed in the SCANS report (1990) with that of current employer requirements. In this study, employers rated “integrity/honesty” as first, “reading” as second, followed by “participates as a part of a team” as third. Other communication skills were “listening” as seventh, “sociability” as eighth, “speaking” as ninth, and “writing” as twelfth of thirty-seven skills (Wilhelm, 1999).

The most basic type of interpersonal communication is that of one-to-one interaction where the required skill set typically includes reading, writing, speaking and listening. These are crucial in many occupations (Carnevale, Gainer & Meltzer, 1990; Dolan, 2002; The Economist, 2002; U. S. Department of Labor, 1991; Vice & Carnes, 2001; Wilhelm, 1999). Speaking, listening and observing body language are valuable assets. “There’s no substitute for an in-person meeting with a customer. There’s the handshake, the eye contact and the personal relationship with the customer that often develops after several such meetings” (Lauer, 2003, p. 2). Bill Gates described customer service as a priority in business in the future: “Human involvement in service will shift from routine, low-value tasks to a high-value, personal consultancy on important issues—problems or desires—for the customer” (Gates, 1999, p. 67).

Today interpersonal communication in the workplace involves the use of technology, requiring an understanding of its nuances and etiquette (Chisholm, 2003). Telecommuting, instant messaging, video conferencing and web-based interactive software are examples of methods by which workers share information with one another, with customers, consultants and managers without requiring a physical presence or costly travel expense (Microsoft Press Pass, 2002; Stone, 2002; Syware, 2003; Thilmany, 2002).

Employee age impacts interpersonal communication at work via the differences in attitudes, self-perceptions, values, and vocabulary (Cordeniz, 2002). In the information age, technology has applied increased pressure on age variations in the workplace. The Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and now the Net Generation are all present together in the workplace (Cordeniz, 2002; Tapscott, 1998). Generalizing the approximate age groups, the Baby Boomers are those above age 40-ish, Generation X ranges from the late 30’s through mid-20’s, and the Net Generation are the early 20’s and younger (Cordeniz, 2002; Tapscott, 1998). These three groups have been said to have developed characteristics due to economic and historical events associated with their generations. In describing Baby Boomers who come more often from strong nuclear families Cordeniz (2002) stated, “This group equates work with self-worth, contribution, and personal fulfillment” (p. 2). By contrast, Generation X more often come from the homes of single-parent households and were latchkey kids. With their earlier exposure to technology, this group tends to expect a high degree of satisfaction with instant responses. They are also characterized as being self-absorbed, lacking basic skills in reading and communication, but are also capable of being independent, resourceful, industrious and accepting of diversity (Cordeniz, 2002; O’Bannon, 2001).

In his book Growing up Digital, Tapscott (1998) described the Net Generation (or N-Gen) as having grown up with computers and the Internet in their lives. This group is characterized as “accepting of diversity, curious, assertive, and self-reliant” (Dorman, 2000, p. 1). Tapscott emphasized that one difference between this group and those previous is their demand for an interactive environment. Using a computer, this group can explore any issue or product, shop, keep up on current events, and communicate with others around the globe. They know few barriers, except those caused by poor bandwidth. While previous generations have devoted their time to television, media controlled and programmed by hidden strangers, N-Geners are more likely to choose media they can construct for themselves. They are proficient with hardware and software and are capable of accessing information for themselves. “This shift from broadcast to interactive is the cornerstone of the N-Generation. They want to be users—not just viewers or listeners” (Tapscott, 1998, p. 3). Papert (1996) emphasized the inexhaustible source of feedback that can be used for learning through technology, and how with exploration being self-motivating activity, young people take control of their own learning. In a survey of the top online activities performed by a group aged 16-22, 96% communicated via e-mail, 69% used instant messaging, and 52% kept up with current events via the Internet (Lach, 2000). The characteristics of this age-group are dramatically different from their predecessors, bringing an entirely new culture into the workplace.

Educators in workforce development programs must adapt to meet the demands of preparing workers of today and tomorrow. Gray and Herr (1998) described a dual mission of workforce education:

Problem

If WFD instructors, being proficient in their field, are aware of the level of importance of interpersonal communication in their industries, then they should translate that knowledge into fostering an equal level of importance for interpersonal communication to their students. If this is so, a similar level of importance relating to interpersonal interaction might then be perceived by students. On the other hand, if the instructor perceives interaction as a high priority in the workplace, but does not inject it into the classroom, the students might not perceive its necessity and might not be amply prepared for the workplace upon graduation.

Prior to this study, there was a lack of knowledge in many areas relating to interpersonal communication as it applies to WFD education at Tulsa Community College (TCC). Little if anything was known about the level of awareness WFD instructors have regarding interpersonal interaction in both the workplace and in the classroom. Due to these knowledge gaps, there was a lack of data upon which to base decisions about whether the current status of interpersonal interaction in the WFD classroom at TCC should be modified.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the perceptions of WFD instructors and students at TCC with regard to passive, active and electronic interpersonal communication in both the workplace and classroom (Hinkle, 2004). The research questions included:

1. What priority ratings did WFD instructors at TCC place on interpersonal communication as an element of workplace success?
2. How did TCC WFD instructors and students perceive the availability of different methods of interaction including passive (reading, writing, listening), active (speaking, observation, skill performance) and electronic?
3. What is the relationship between instructor and student perceptions regarding the availability of passive, active and electronic methods of interaction in the TCC WFD classroom?
4. What is the relationship between instructor perceptions of the priority of interpersonal communication in the workplace and student perceptions of availability of classroom opportunities for interpersonal interaction in the TCC WFD classroom?

Populations

This study was a population or consensus study limited to the instructors and students from the WFD programs at TCC. The instructor population (N=90) for this study consisted of the full-time instructors teaching 16-week WFD program courses via the traditional classroom at TCC during the Fall 2003 semester (Table 1). The student population (N=1061) included all those students enrolled and present to complete a questionnaire in selected courses taught by the instructor population.

Methodology and Procedures

Since no relevant instrument matching the requirements of this study was found to exist, three separate questionnaires were created and used to gather data addressing the research questions. In this study the Likert-type scale was used with a “not available” response and four other choices directing participants to rate their perceptions of current interpersonal communication events perceived to be available in their courses.

Construct-related validity of the instruments was supported by having clustered the questionnaire items according to the quality of interaction, including passive, active and electronic as well as from both the instructor and student perspective (Wiersma, 2000). Content validity was reinforced by asking participants to consider events as they were perceived to have occurred in specific settings (Leedy, 1997). Instructors

were asked in the initial questionnaire to consider the priority given to interpersonal communication in the workplace. In the later questionnaires, instructors and their students were both asked to consider the availability of interpersonal communication as it occurred in the classroom. In the analysis, the items and rating scales that were used to compare the perceptions of the instructors with the perceptions of the students were the same.

Also in support of content validity, the questionnaires were pilot tested by instructors and students not involved in the study before being used in this study (Gay & Airasian, 2000; Leedy, 1997; Wiersma, 2000). Their feedback included comments regarding relevance of the overall content, mechanics of the instruments, as well as the identification of confusing or ill-defined items. This feedback was incorporated into the instrument design.

At the start of a 16-week semester, an initial questionnaire was sent to the WFD instructors at TCC asking them to rate their perception of interpersonal interaction as an element of success in the workplace associated with his or her specific teaching field. Later, at around twelve weeks into the semester, questionnaires were sent to the same WFD instructors and their students, asking both groups to rate their perceptions regarding various methods of interpersonal communication that occurred in the designated course (Hinkle, 2004). It was intended that the time frame would give instructors and students the opportunity to experience a variety of learning activities in each course, should such opportunities have been made available.

The twelfth-week questionnaire items elicited participant perceptions about passive (reading, listening to, observing), active (writing, speaking, performing skills) and electronic communication as elements of classroom activities. The nine items (Figure 1) were designed to be examined both individually as well as within several different clusters according to specific method of interaction. Items #1, 4, & 7 were concerned with the passive elements, while items #2, 5, & 8 were concerned with the active elements. Items #3, 6, & 9 were concerned with interaction involving electronic media.

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the various elements of this study. Measures of central tendency and variability assisted in clarifying patterns in the frequency distributions associated with the various perceptions of instructors and students. The scope of this study was strictly limited to the population of WFD instructors and students within TCC. Inferences to behaviors of other populations have not and will not be drawn.

The data described for the instructor and student perceptions for all nine items was combined to reflect the ratings as they pertain to the availability of different methods of interaction in the classroom. To accomplish this, the average of the means based on samples of unequal size was calculated (Shavelson, 1996). By calculating an average of the means for each cluster of items based on similar methods of interaction, it became possible to reinforce the description of any trends that might have been apparent when examining the means for each item individually within a population.

Findings

Populations

The instructors in this study varied in age from 29 to 70 years with a mean of 49.52, the median was 50.0, and a mode was 55 years of age (Table 1). The students varied in age from 16 to 70 years with a mean age of 30.15 years, a median of 27.0, and a mode of 21.

Interpersonal Communication and Workplace Success

The instructors’ ratings of their perceptions of interpersonal interaction as elements of success in the workplace were measured with a five-point Likert scale. The options in the instructor questionnaire relating to the priority of interpersonal communication in the workplace were 1 = Not necessary, 2 = Available but optional, 3 = Encouraged, 4 = Essential, 5 = Absolutely essential (Figures 1-2).

WFD instructors at TCC (N = 90) consistently rated interpersonal communication as an element of success in the workplace very high, with 72.2% choosing “absolutely essential” while 26.7% chose “essential,” and only 1.1% chose “encouraged”. The mean rating was 4.71, the median was 5, and the mode was 5. These responses give clear indication that these WFD instructors perceive interpersonal communication as an essential component of successful performance in the workplace.

Availability of Different Methods of Interaction

A five-point Likert scale was again used to measure the perceptions of the instructors and students questionnaires relating to the availability of opportunities for interpersonal communication in the classroom. The options in the instructor and student questionnaires relating to the priority of interpersonal communication in the classroom were 1 = Not available, 2 = Available but optional, 3 = Encouraged, 4 = Strongly encouraged, and 5 = Required (Figure 1-2). Questionnaire items were sorted into clusters according to the different methods of interaction including reading, writing, listening, speaking, observation, skill performance and electronic media. The mean was calculated for each item (Table 2). An average of the means based on samples of unequal size was also calculated for each cluster, allowing for comparisons between the different clusters (Shavelson, 1996).

Each of the nine questionnaire items received similar ratings from the two groups of participants (Table 2 and Figure 2). Of the nine items, only items #1, 2 & 4 received a rating greater than “encouraged” in the WFD classroom (Figure 2). Three items were rated by both the instructors and students alike just at “encouraged”. Three items were rated by both the instructors and students as being less than “encouraged” and were even rated at and below the level of “available but optional”.

In comparing the means for the individual items as well as the averaged means for the three clusters as plotted in Figure 2, a steady decline was observed when considering the first through the third cluster. The perceptions of both groups appear to have diminished after the passive methods of interaction represented in the first cluster.

The average mean for the cluster consisting of the passive elements of communication, including reading, listening to, or observing activities, from the instructor questionnaires was 3.75. The average mean for the same cluster from the student questionnaires was 3.57 (Table 2 and Figure 2). Both fell between the ratings of “encouraged” and “strongly encouraged”.

The average mean for the cluster consisting of active elements of communication, including submitting written work, speaking or performing skill demonstrations, from the instructor questionnaires was 3.36. The average mean for the same cluster from the student questionnaires was 3.24 (Table 2 and Figure 2). Again, both fell between the ratings of “encouraged” and “strongly encouraged”.

The average mean for the cluster consisting of electronic communication from the instructor questionnaires was 2.34. The average mean for the same cluster from the student questionnaires was 2.55 (Table 2 and Figure 2). Both fell between the ratings of “available but optional” and “encouraged”, even though item #9 fell at and below the rating of “available but optional” for the students and instructors respectively. It was only in the third cluster that the averaged mean as well as the mean for each of the individual items for the student responses was greater than the averaged mean for the instructor responses.

Workplace Priority and Perceptions of Available Opportunities

The instructors rated their perception of interpersonal interaction as an element of success in the workplace associated with their teaching fields as “absolutely essential”, with a mean of 4.71. They then rated the availability of opportunities for interpersonal interaction in the WFD classrooms in all three clusters at averaged means from 3.75 for the passive opportunities, 3.36 for the active opportunities and dropping to 2.34 for the electronic opportunities. Averaged means of student ratings were 3.57 for the passive opportunities, 3.24 for the active opportunities, and 2.55 for the electronic opportunities.

Conclusions

Overall, TCC WFD instructors placed a high priority on interpersonal communication as an element of success in the workplace. They appear to be aware of the need for interpersonal communication to an extent that is consistent with the current literature on the subject.

There is strong cross-validation between the instructor and student responses regarding the availability, or lack thereof, in terms of opportunities for interpersonal communication in the TCC WFD classroom. Although the two populations are quite different according to age, both instructors and students perceived interpersonal interaction in the classroom via passive methods (reading, listening, or observing) as being available to a greater extent than were the active methods (writing, speaking, or performing skill demonstrations). This indicates that WFD instructors tend to more often use instructor-centered methods lacking opportunities for interpersonal interaction, as opposed to student-centered methods, which might include better opportunities for students to collaborate, cooperate and work in teams, all skills highlighted in the literature as being critical in the workplace.

Instructors who have not been schooled in the principles of adult education may tend to teach as they were taught, and so prevails the more instructor-centered methods as opposed to the student-centered methods involving more opportunities for self-direction, opportunities to apply their learning as well as opportunities to solve real problems related to their learning.

While instructors did not perceive electronic communication as available in their courses, students did perceive these opportunities to be present to a limited extent. The students were taking it upon themselves to make their courses more active and technology-rich. This probably has two reasons. First, they are adults and thus focused on self-direction and quite capable of demonstrating their choices by going outside the course to contact resources in an attempt to solve their own problems. Second, many of these students are young enough to be technology literate. This conclusion is supported and predicted in the literature by both Papert (1996) and Tapscott (1998), who stated that young people would seek out for themselves the interactive and electronic environment, thereby taking control of their own learning and perceiving more availability than their instructors feel they provided.

There is a lack of congruence between the high priority given to interpersonal communication as an element of success in the workplace as reported by instructors and the lesser availability of all three methods of interpersonal communication in the classroom reported by both the instructors and students. Therefore, opportunities for interpersonal communication are not being made available to students in such as way as to adequately prepare them for the workplace.

Many instructors come to WFD education without the benefit of training in content development and teaching skill. These instructors need to be provided with professional development opportunities to sharpen their skills. Without access to such opportunities, the instructors may be unable to assist in adequately preparing graduates for the workplace. Instructors could benefit from professional development that supports an increased awareness of interpersonal communication as a teaching goal as well as instructional and assessment strategies that can be successfully integrated into WFD education to the benefit of students. Development opportunities in curriculum design, instructional strategy, assessment, and the principles of adult education could benefit efforts in WFD instructor-preparation.

TCC WFD instructors are not at all negligent in their attempt to provide opportunities for interpersonal interaction in the classroom. This was supported by the data collected in this study indicating that all items except one were rated at or above “available but optional”. The only item receiving a rating below that of “available but optional” was the perception of the instructors regarding electronic communication, and for this item, the students perceived more opportunities for electronic communication than the instructors did. No items were rated by the two groups overall as wholly “not available”.

Recommendations for Practice

Based on these conclusions, the recommendations for improving the availability of opportunities for interpersonal communication in the WFD classroom would include first making WFD instructors aware of the collective perceptions held by themselves and students regarding interpersonal communication in their classrooms. Curriculum developers need to be apprised of the current and future priority of interpersonal communication across a variety of methods of communicating as they apply to the current workplace and classroom environments. It is important to create, update and/or maintain WFD program standards and performance criteria which are current with industry standards for interpersonal communication.

Instructors require support in their efforts to enhance WFD classroom learning experiences with a variety of instructional delivery methods and strategies. It is important to integrate current and developing technology into WFD curricula. Professional development opportunities and resources need to be available to faculty to assist with these efforts.

The skill set that applies to effective interpersonal communication must be learned in the context of the job skills to which they will apply. It should not be assumed that these skills will be present later on the job if they are not taught in school (Bransford & Vye, 1989; Huba & Freed, 2000). Workforce education should be structured to intentionally engage students in various forms of interpersonal interaction, consistent with the expectations of the workplace (U. S. Department of Labor, 1991).

Recommendations for Further Research

Further research could shed more light on many aspects of this study. It would be beneficial to explore the incongruence between instructor awareness of the necessity for interpersonal communication in the workplace and the availability of such learning opportunities in the classroom. It would also be beneficial to identify the interpersonal communication skill requirements of specific career field or WFD program, as they might differ with respect to allied health, business, human services, manufacturing, nursing, science, technology, etc.

It might also be helpful to examine the uses and prevalence of electronic communication among community college and WFD instructors in their own cooperative and collaborative efforts. Establishing and evaluating the degree of inclusion of interpersonal communication within specific WFD programs or disciplines might also be helpful.

From the adult educator’s perspective, it might be important to evaluate the awareness of instructors regarding the andragogical principles of adult education, and how such principles might benefit WFD education. Faculty development efforts might include evaluating the skills of current and new WFD instructors regarding instructional design and delivery, and the use of these elements in WFD classes. It would also be important to evaluate the effects of professional development training in interpersonal communication teaching strategies in the classroom practices of WFD instructors.

It might also be beneficial to replicate the results of this study within larger populations across the non-WFD areas of the community college, and within other community colleges.

Summary

In order to provide educational opportunities through which adult learners can eventually create their own successes, WFD educators must learn to remove themselves from the center of the educational process and regard students and their learning as the highest priority. Most adult learners possess characteristics that make them suitable partners in the pursuit of the goal of becoming a productive asset to the workplace.

Adult learners require assistance in creating and accessing their own educational environments which will facilitate their development toward becoming efficient and ever-learning workers who are capable of analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating information to solve problems, then combining technical knowledge with strong interpersonal communication skills for the betterment of their future employers and communities. It should be the mission of WFD educators to assist students in achieving this goal.

It is hoped that this study will contribute to research in WFD education, serving to bring attention to the need for improved interpersonal communication to WFD education, and improve the availability of opportunities for such interaction in the classrooms.

References

Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bonwell, C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, 1991.) Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED340272)

Bonwell, C. & Sutherland, T. E. (1996). The active learning continuum: Choosing activities to engage students in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 67, Fall. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bransford, J. & Vye, N. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds. ), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research, 1989 ASCD Yearbook (pp. 173-205). Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Brookfield, S. (1990). The skillful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, C. (1999, July). Examples of essential abilities: The IDEA project. Centre for curriculum, transfer and technology. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved June 14, 2003, from http://www.c2t2.ca/lo/IDEA/symposium99/Abmodels.html

Business: Press the flesh, not the keyboard: Face-to-face communications. (2002, August 24). The Economist Newspaper Ltd.

Carnevale, A., Gainer, L. & Meltzer, A. (1990). Workplace basics: the essential skills employers want. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chisholm, C. K. (2003). Internet for beginners. About. Inc. Retrieved July 16, 2003, from http://netforbeginners.about.com/

Cordeniz, J. (2002, July/August). Recruitment, retention, and management of generation X: A focus on nursing professionals. Journal of Healthcare Management, 47(4), 237-250.

Dolan, T. (2002). Observations on the future of healthcare professions. Health Administration Press, 18(2), 35-37.

Dorman, S. M. (2000, December). Implications of growing up digital. The Journal of School Health. 70(10), 420-422.

Elias, J. & Merriam, S. (1995). Philosophical foundations of adult education, (2nd ed. ). Malabar, Florida: Krieger.

Ganzel, R. (2001). Hard training for soft skills. Training, 38(6), 56-59.

Gates, W. (1999). Business @ the speed of thought: Using a digital nervous system. New York: Warner Books.

Gay, L. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Goldwasser, D. (2000). Retention café. Training, 37(12), 44-48.

Gray, K. & Herr, E. (1998). Workforce education: The basics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hinkle, C. (2004). Instructor and student perceptions of interpersonal communication in the workforce development classroom in a community college. Unpublished master’s thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Huba, M. E. & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lach, J. (2000, January). Just surfin’ through. American Demographics, 22(1), 12.

Lauer, C. (2003, January 20). Don’t point and click: make the trip. Modern Healthcare, 33(3), 34-35.

Leedy, P. D. (1997). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

McLaughlin, M. (1997). Employability skills profile: What are employers looking for? Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services, Canadian Guidance and Counseling Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED399484)

Merriam, S. & Caffarella, R. (1999). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Microsoft Press Pass. (2002, May 22). Gates tells visiting CEO’s of technology trends driving the “Digital Decade”. Retrieved May 30, 2003, from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2002/ may02/05-22ceosummitkeynote.asp

Moody, J., Stewart, B. & Bolt-Lee, C. (2002, March). Showing the skilled business graduate: Expanding the toolkit. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(1),21-36.

O’Bannon, G. (2001, Spring). Managing our future: The generation X factor. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 95-110.

Overtoom, C. (2000). Employability skills: An update. ERIC Digest No. 220. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445236)

Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: Bridging the digital generation gap. Atlanta: Longstreet Press.

Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences, (3rd ed. ). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stone, A. (2002, April 2). How Wi-Fi can remake the workplace. Business Week Online. Retrieved on June 9, 2003, from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2002/tc2002041_8990.htm

Syware Press Release. (2003, May 21). Syware introduces FoneDBTM, the first database software for Smartphone Devices. Retrieved May 30, 2003, from http://www.syware.com/newsrev/pr/fonedb2.htm

Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, K., Marienau, C. & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developing adult learners: Strategies for teachers and trainers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thilmany, J. (2002, August). Changing times. Mechanical Engineering, 124(8), 38-40.

U. S. Department of Labor, Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, D. C. Retrieved April 12, 2003, from http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.html

Vice, J. & Carnes, L. (2001, March). Developing communication and professional skills through analytical reports. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(1), 84-98.

Watson B. & Gallois, C. (1998). Nurturing communication by health professionals toward patients: a communication accommodation theory approach. Health Communication, 10(4), 343-356.

Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wilhelm, W. (1999). A delphi study of entry-level workplace skills, competencies, and proof-of-achievement products. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 41(2), 105-122.