Session F2G

Developing Team Competence as Part of a Person

Centered Learning Course on Communication and
Soft Skills in Project Management
Renate Motschnig-Pitrik, Kathrin Figl
University of Vienna, Research Lab for Educational Technologies, Faculty of Computer Science
Rathausstrasse 19/9, 1010 Vienna, Austria
renate.motschnig@univie.ac.at, kathrin.figl@univie.ac.at

Abstract - Since the capability to work in teams, both
national and international, has become a key requirement
on computer science graduates, we have been exploring
ways in which to support students in enhancing this
capability during their studies. In this paper we share our
approach, ‘philosophy’, and learning from the preceding
years regarding the development of team competence as
part of person centered, technology enhanced, active
learning courses such as “Communication and Soft Skills
in Project Management”. We provide students’ reactions
and the results of quantitative studies on component
competencies identified in the ALL framework such as
group decision making, adaptability/flexibility,
interpersonal relations, and communication. We hope that
our findings can throw some light on the potentialities,
limitations, preconditions, options, and effects of
promoting aspects of team competence in academic
settings.
Index Terms - teamwork, team competencies, communication,
Person Centered Learning
INTRODUCTION
Unlike team building that aims to create a good team from a
number of given team members, the development of team
competence in each single person or student is much more
generic. It is referred to as team competence at the individual can be seen to flow into or influence aspects of team
level [1]. The goal of this paper is to trace the effects that ancompetence as identified in the ALL framework.
active learning course on Communication and Soft Skills in
Project Management had on the participants’ development of
team competence at the individual level. In order to
complement and to some degree ‘objectify’ the students’
unstructured, written reactions, we build on the ALL (Adult
Literacy and Lifeskills) [2] teamwork framework that views
team competence as being composed of component
competencies. These lie on the level of knowledge (about
teams and team processes), skills such as effective
communication and decision making, and attitudes towards
teamwork. While we find the component competencies as
identified in the ALL teamwork framework highly relevant
and appropriate to be used in studies, we differ in the
categorization of component competencies under the labels of
skills and attitudes. For example, we’d consider openness and
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2G-15
flexibility as traits that depend on (inter)personal attitudes
rather than viewing them as skills, although their expression
may well require a skill. Equally, we cannot comply to view
communication as a skill only, since, if it is authentic, it tends
to reflect the inner world of values and attitudes of a person.
However, we fully comply with the ALL framework in
viewing communication as the basis for more specific
competencies such as decision making or seeking mutually
agreeable solutions. Having said this we highly appreciate the
ALL framework as a tractable means for deriving instruments
that help us to study significant aspects of teamwork.
An original idea in our approach to developing team
competencies is to build upon the Person Centered Approach
[3, 4-8] and to promote person centered attitudes, namely
congruence/genuineness, acceptance or respect, and empathic
understanding. It has been proved in several studies that
person centered attitudes form the basis for constructive
communication and mutually supportive interpersonal
relationships [3, 9-12]. Our hypothesis is that they also
constitute the baseline for (transnational) team competence.
This appears to be consistent with the ALL teamwork
framework in so far as ALL considers communication and
interpersonal relationships as component skills. We view these
skills as expressions of respective attitudes that are held/ lived
by the facilitator/educator and thus can be experienced and
acquired by students. Consequently, person centered attitudes
The next section introduces Person Centered Learning
and illustrates it by tracing four technology enhanced, active
learning scenarios that provide space for facilitators and
students to live and express person centered attitudes.
Students’ reactions are included to illustrate some effects of
the scenarios from the recipients’ points of view. Section three
summarizes the ALL teamwork framework, and section four
describes the study and discusses the results of quantitative
studies on component competencies identified in the ALL
framework such as group decision making, adaptability/
flexibility, interpersonal relations, and aspects of team
communication. The paper aims to illustrate, to inspire, and to
study a way of significant learning that has the potential to
increase students’ generic capabilities to work in teams.
Furthermore we discuss the influence of person centered
October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI

attitudes on teamwork and other influence factors that, in our
experience, appeared to affect the development of specific
team skills held at the individual level.
PERSON CENTERED LEARNING: BASELINE AND
ILLUSTRATIVE SCENARIOS
Person Centered Learning builds upon humanistic educational
principles. It has been developed by the American
psychologist Carl Rogers [3, 4] as an application of Rogers’s
Person Centered Approach (PCA). Person Centered Learning
is an experiential, significant kind of learning that “combines
the logical and the intuitive, the intellect and the feelings, the
concept and the experience, the idea and the meaning. When
we learn in that way, we are whole." [3]
Person Centered Learning is characterized by active
participation of students in all aspects of a course, including
setting learner-centered goals, evaluation, and decision
making on aspects that are not preset by the curriculum. We
view the open, inclusive, empowering, self-responsible, and
yet relationship-focused tendencies inherent in the PCA as
smoothly complementing the open spaces and free contacts
enabled by current web-based environments.
Research in the PCA showed [3, 9, 13, 14] that students
enrich and deepen their learning with personal growth if they
learn in an atmosphere in which the facilitator (instructor,
teacher, etc.) communicates three core attitudinal conditions
that students can perceive at least to some degree [4]. These
core conditions are:
• Realness, with synonyms such as congruence, openness,
transparency, genuineness, or authenticity;
• Acceptance, else referred to as respect, unconditional
positive regard, caring attitude, concern for the individual;
• Empathic understanding, a deep form of understanding of
the meanings as well as feelings of the learner.
Person Centered Learning derives its motivational forces
from living person centered attitudes and expressing them in
all facets of the course. For example, acceptance or respect is
expressed by including students in as many decisions
regarding the course as possible. Due to their participatory
mode, person centered courses bear in themselves the
unexpected, the chance to learn or grow from situations and
interpersonal relationships in the “here and now”. As will be
illustrated below, person centered education requires a large
amount of internal flexibility as well as trust in both facilitator
and students. Consequently, personal resourcefulness of the
facilitator and his or her relationship with students has
significant influence on the students’ learning. This, along
with the insight that facilitators equally learn in the facilitation
experience, causes us to prefer the term “person centered”
rather than “student centered” or “learner centered”. The
current paper shares four generic scenarios that provide space
for the core conditions to be expressed at least to some degree.
Furthermore, we illustrate the effects of the course on team
competences held at the individual level following the ALL
framework.
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2G-16
Session F2G
Promoting active listening
Students are asked to read a brief article on active listening
that we provide as an online resource [15]. The subsequent
active listening exercise is intended to raise knowledge and
skills in good listening and, most importantly, influence the
participants’ attitudes towards listening. In the spirit of
experiential learning, students are asked to form teams of three
persons, in which one shares some personally meaningful
experience, another person listens and the third person
observes the communication. Then the ‘roles’ are switched
such that each person gets a turn as speaker, listener and
observer. Participants then share their experiences and insights
in class and the facilitator actively listens to each voice.
A student commented in his reaction sheet: “The listening
exercise was astonishing. I had the evidently rare feeing that
someone had really been listening. This had the effect that I
experienced a perceivable relaxation in one aspect of my
problem.”
„I tried intentionally not to give any advice or propose
solutions to my partner. Only when taking care about that I
realized how hard it was and to what extent I usually reacted
that way.”
“As an observer I found it difficult just to observe and not
to say anything. As listener, it was an insightful experience not
to drive the conversation into a particular direction, not to give
hints, and not to drive the focus onto oneself.”
Reaction Sheets
Online reaction sheets serve to capture and subsequently to
share any kind of reflections, comments or reactions students
have in response to a course unit. The reactions are written
within a few days after a course unit and are intended to be
shared, read, and discussed in the forthcoming unit. In our
experience, reaction sheets are simple and effective means to
engage students as whole persons, or in other words, at all
levels of learning. The concept is almost trivial and
technologically simple to implement. Despite or perhaps as a
consequence of this simplicity it can be applied for improving
the quality of a course under two essential conditions. Firstly,
students are willing to openly share themselves. Secondly,
educators are – and, due to sufficient space provided by the
curriculum, can be – sufficiently open to students’
perceptions. With reaction sheets the real challenge lies in the
interpersonal handling of the reactions and acting upon the
expressed feelings, meanings, observation, suggestions of
students.
There exist multiple issues that keep motivating us to use
reaction sheets in several courses. Primarily we wish to
inspire/cause students to consciously reflect on a course unit,
to find inner meanings and support us in shaping the course
according to the needs of all participants. Students are
encouraged to participate in a group effort to bring the course
onto a track that unanimously satisfies the needs of the group
viewed as a whole. Furthermore, students are intended to
practice giving open, yet constructive feedback and to
experience how their feedback/reaction is perceived by others.
Equally, to experience that what they leave unsaid is either
October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI

voiced by another student (and they may explore, “So why
have I not written/said this?”), or not addressed explicitly.
Students and educators can enter an open dialogue, however,
not completely from scratch but by being previously informed
about perceptions and issues that have had some time to
mature before being brought up in the group. An advantage of
submitting reactions online is that every student, even the
more shy or quiet one, has equal “voice” and can “speak up”
to become better known to the group. The subsequent dialogue
in class can be joined by anybody and is intended to share
what meaning the collective feedback had on individual
persons.
For example, a student reflected on the practice of having
reaction sheets: “I liked the fact that we discussed the reaction
sheets in the beginning of the course unit. This way it was
possible to have a smooth transition into the next course unit.”
Another student noted: “In the beginning of the unit we
discussed the reactions. I found this quite good, because on
this basis one can see that they are being considered seriously
and are respected.”
Summarizing, the web-enhanced reaction sheet scenario
offers feedback potentials that optimally complement
discussion and dialogue in class. The educator’s way of
introducing and employing reaction sheets (as well as, to a
lesser degree, the students’ talents of expressing themselves)
largely determines the degree to which this simple but
powerful concept turns out to be effective in contributing to
significant learning.
Shared Responsibility in the Choice of Topics
Group dialogue and decision making are promoted and
practiced along an authentic topic, namely the choice of more
specific ‘themes’ in the very broad realm of communication
and soft skills. First we elaborate and discuss the concept of
soft skills by collecting what students consider to be soft
skills. Then the facilitator provides some expert opinions and
students are asked to identify the soft competencies they
consider most relevant/interesting for themselves. We gather
and cluster the themes on a flipchart such that any number
(say 5-10) of focal topics arises. The facilitator arranges them
in a list and every participant is asked to distribute three bars
among the topics according to his or her preferences. Finally,
we view the results as a starting point of forming small teams
around the most wanted topics. A student reflects on this
group decision process: “I was fascinated by the way of
building teams. Some persons embodied topics they were
most attracted to and the yet undecided students could move
between the topics until they found the topic of their choice.”
In this way nobody needed to be assigned to a topic by the
instructor and everybody could participate in a team project of
their choice.
Team Moderates Unit
It is impressive how creative student teams turn out to be
when provided with a resourceful environment and sufficient
free space for action. In the course on Project Management
Communication and Soft Skills, the first three units are
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2G-17
Session F2G
moderated by the facilitator who applies various moderation
elements such as elaborating topics in small teams, group
discussion, moderation card sequences. The subsequent
workshops are then moderated by teams of three to four
students who get access to a knowledge base with soft skills
topics. Once they elaborate a concept for their 2.5 – 3 hour
active learning workshop they meet with the facilitator for a
consultation session to align the workshop topics, activities
and discuss the proposed exercises and their interpretation.
The richness of learning possibilities that arise from the
moderated workshops and their careful reflection is hard to be
put into words. Successful and equally less successful
elements and processes offer almost unconstrained sources for
learning from experience, mistakes, feelings, meanings,
insights, the group process, feedback, reflection, etc. Recently,
a student described her experience from moderating a course
unit with the following words: “The design of a workshop unit
turned out to be a challenging task. It was not easy to decide
which materials to include. It requires considerable time to get
an overview over the theme and once this is accomplished
everything appears necessary to capture the whole context.
The next really challenging issue was to moderate the
workshop over a considerable time period which I had never
practiced before. But it turned out to be an insightful and
useful experience. […]. With such a major task I experienced
the process of integrating myself into the team and realized
how we resolved problems within our team. In my view, our
team really grew together in the preparation phase of our unit.
[…] I also considered the constructive criticism after our
workshop more than appropriate to learn/grow from it.”
TEAM WORK COMPETENCIES AND THE ALL TEAMWORK
FRAMEWORK AS A BASIS FOR STUDYING TEAMWORK
In literature formerly a strong focus lied on identifying generic
teamwork skills within most teams, but more recently there
was a shift to identify specific competency requirements of
team members [2]. Team competencies are the characteristics
a team member has to have to engage successfully in
teamwork [16]. The understanding of the necessary
competencies underlying teamwork is important for selection
of personnel, creating and leading team trainings and assessing
team performance [1].
According to Cannon-Bower et al. there are three
important types of team competencies [1]: Knowledge
Competencies, Attitude Competencies and Skill
Competencies. Knowledge Competencies include e.g. to know
about appropriate team behaviours, roles in a team or the
team’s goals. Regarding Attitude Competencies positive
attitudes towards teamwork are important for effective
teamwork or for example mutual trust among members of a
team. Figure 1 shows the ALL Model for Understanding
Teamwork that refines the Skill Competencies in the form of
behavioural examples.
October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI
 Session F2G
Figure 3 shows detailed results on the Flexibility
Competencies. It can be seen that the students rate the
enhancement of providing and accepting feedback especially
high. This can be due to the fact that feedback on students’
work and the course units was provided and given in feedback
rounds and online reactions sheets following each unit.

FIGURE 1
ALL MODEL FOR UNDERSTANDING TEAMWORK [2]

EVALUATION RESULTS FIGURE 3

FLEXIBILITY COMPETENCIES OF STUDENTS, N=19
In this section the evaluation results of the course on Project
Management Communication and Soft Skills (in brief Soft Group Decision Making Competencies, shown in figure 4
Skills) will be presented. For the evaluation the students were were presumably trained in planning and moderating a part of
asked to fill out an online questionnaire in the beginning and a course unit in small teams. In addition, evaluation of
at the end of the term. First, results on the Skill Competencies information and identifying problems took place in feedback
of the students will be outlined. Attitude Competencies were rounds, reactions sheets and in the self and peer evaluation.
measured in the form of a scale on team orientation and will
be discussed afterwards. Knowledge Competencies were not
part of the evaluation since the course did not focus on them.
Furthermore results on person centered attitudes of students
and the instructor will be presented.
Team Related Skills of Students
As mentioned above, we used the ALL model to derive an
instrument that served to indicate whether students perceive
that they developed teamwork competencies as a result of
participating in the course on Project Management FIGURE 4
Communication and Soft Skills. Figure 2 shows the mean GROUP DECISION MAKING COMPETENCIES OF STUDENTS, N=19
values, how students judged the enhancement of their team
related skills competencies due to participating in the course. Figure 5 shows the students’ rating of the course effect on
The items are taken over in the figures, but abbreviated in Interpersonal Relations Competencies. In the course doing
some cases. The scale went from “-2” meaning that the skill things in different ways was for example realized by different
declined up to “+2” standing for enhancement (“0” for staying styles of teams in their moderation sequences. Students had to
the same). In general students indicated an enhancement of all seek mutually agreeable solutions on several instances, e.g.
skill competencies. One sample t-test showed that all mean regarding topics in the course or regarding breaks.
judgments were significantly higher than “0”. Further detailed
results show that more significant enhancement had occurred
if the skill had been explicitly addressed in the learning
scenarios.

FIGURE 5
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS COMPETENCIES OF STUDENTS, N=19
FIGURE 2
TEAMWORK COMPETENCIES OF STUDENTS, N=19 Open sharing and asking of questions was encouraged and
practiced throughout the course. In addition, active and
effective listening was practiced in a specific exercise and

1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI

37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2G-18
 Session F2G
non-verbal behaviors as explicit theme moderated by a student semester was high (r = 0.84, p ≤ 0.001), as expected. This is
team. All rated effects on communication competencies can because team orientation is a personality characteristic and
be seen in figure 6. hence tends to be stable.
Person Centered Attitudes of Students
In addition to the questionnaires derived from the ALL
framework we developed questionnaires for assessing person
centered attitudes. We asked students to estimate their person
centered attitudes in the beginning and at the end of the
course. For each of the 4 dimension there were about 5 items,
e.g. “I meet others as the person who I really am” for
“Congruence”, or “I show understanding for problems of
others from their point of view” for “Empathic
FIGURE 6 Understanding”. Figure 7 shows the means of students’ self-
COMMUNICATION COMPETENCIES OF STUDENTS, N=19
ratings (Scale from “1” meaning “not at all” to “5” meaning
Hints for improvement of communication were also found “totally”).
in the reaction sheets. One student wrote: „My communication
competence and openness in teams has significantly improved
in this course. In the first unit I reported, that I have
difficulties talking in front of a group. As a result of the
noticeable tolerance and acceptance of the participants, it
became easier for me to pipe up. And this did not only have an
effect on my behavior in the Soft Skills course, but also on
other areas of my life.”
The following statement of a student revealed the effect
of the course in more general terms: „All in all, the course FIGURE 7
assisted me in revitalizing my creative side, in training skills PERSON CENTERED ATTITUDES OF STUDENTS, N=17
like presentation techniques, online communication (via
WIKI, bulletin board), working in a team, discussing and in The person centered attitudes of students, namely their
enhancing my knowledge on soft skills.” openness, regard towards others and congruence did not
change significantly during the term according to t-tests. But
Team Related Attitudes of Students
there was a trend in the dimension “Empathic understanding”.
For measuring students’ team related attitudes, the scale “team Students judged themselves to be more empathically
orientation” was taken from a standardized german understanding in the end of the term than in the beginning
questionnary “Bochumer Inventar für berufsbezogene (Mbegin=3.79, SDbegin=0.47, Mend=3.98, SDend= 0.47, t17=-1.92,
Beschreibung (BIP)” [Bochumer inventory for occupational p=0.072).
description] [17]. Team orientation stands for a high esteem of Looking at the individual items, t-tests showed that
teamwork and cooperation, as well as the readiness to support students experienced themselves as significantly more open
team processes actively. In addition, the willingness to take and congruent in the end of the term. A trend also indicated
back the own interest and position in favour for the team that students showed more acceptance and regard towards
cooperation is measured. Herewith the takeover of other and communicated more directly and transparently in the
responsibility for the cooperation is also connected as well as end of the term. Table 1 shows detailed item results.
the readiness to support team decisions. Altogether the scale
includes 13 items, example items are “I am persuaded of the TABLE I
PERSON CENTERED ATTITUDES OF STUDENTS, N=17
fact that nearly all current problems can be mastered only in a
mean sd t df p
team.”, “I can fully unfold my abilities, particularly in the Dimension “Empathic
collaboration with others.” The answering format consisted of -0.17 0.37 -1.92 17 0.072+
Understanding”
six items from “not at all” to “completely”. I show acceptance and regard
-0.28 0.67 -1.76 17 0.096+
To find out whether the team orientation has changed towards others.
during the semester, a t-test for dependent samples was I experience myself as open
-0.44 0.04 -2.20 17 0.042*
and congruent.
calculated. It was not significant, i.e. the team orientation has
I communicate directly and
not changed during the semester (Mbegin = 53.27, SDbegin = -0.33 0.77 -1.84 18 0.083+
transparently.
9.34; Mend = 54.20, SDend = 10.17). According to the
standardisation table in the manual for graduates and students Although there could not be found significant
of engineering science this corresponds to the percent rank of
enhancement in all person centered dimensions in the
50, thus exactly to the average. The correlation between the
questionnaire data, students’ statements in the reaction sheets
team orientation at the beginning and in the end of the clearly indicate that they experienced how empathic
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2G-19

understanding, acceptance and regard can improve
communication. One student e.g. wrote: „I have learned that if
one really listens to somebody else and not just pretends to
listen, one gets a better understanding of the viewpoints of the
other. The empathy that arises gives the other the feeling of
being really understood. […] I have learned that mutual
respect is an inevitable part of communication.”
Another student reported that he also wanted to transfer
what he got to know in Soft Skills to other aspects of life:
“The essence I take with me from Soft Skills is the atmosphere
that dominated in the group. How comfortable and understood
one feels, when the others listen to and accept you. A pleasant
feeling of security, when others encounter you with openness
and transparency. I do want to show this acceptance and
regard to all people and enable them to perceive the same
feeling that I experienced in the Soft Skills group.”
Person Centered Attitudes of the Facilitator
Furthermore, we were interested in the person centered
attitudes of the facilitator as perceived by the students. Note
that high values in these attitudes are a necessary condition for
a course or learning experience to be called person centered.
The person-centeredness of the course instructor was judged
as very good by the students very good (MOpenness=4.58,
MAcceptance=4.84, MEmpathic Understanding=4.54, MCongruence=4.56 on
a scale from 1 (doesn’t fit at all) to 5 (fits totally)). A further
positive consequence or sign of the person-centeredness of the
course was the course dropout rate of 0 students.
Interpretation
The quantitative and qualitative evaluation results showed that
students perceived a clear enhancement of their team skill
competencies as a result of the Soft Skills course. Component
skills that had explicitly been addressed tended to increase
more significantly than skills that just were required
implicitly, such as sharing information and work.
Interestingly, however, the enhancement was most significant
in communication and spread, at least to a subtle degree, to all
team skills. One reason for this may be the person centered
atmosphere of the course that had been shown to have a
positive effect on interpersonal relationships in person
centered workshops and courses [18, 19].
Although it had been hypothesized that the course on Soft
Skills might also increase person centered attitudes and
attitudes towards teamwork such as “team orientation”, these
hypotheses could not be confirmed in general on the basis of t-
tests. Nevertheless, individual characteristic items and
descriptive statistics indicate slight trends towards the
enhancement of person centered attitudes. Moreover, the
online reactions sheets and self evaluations showed clearly
how students experienced empathic understanding, acceptance
and openness in the course. Several students reflected how
important these dimensions were in their professional and
personal lives and in which ways they could improve their
communication.
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2G-20
Session F2G
CONCLUSION
Although no explicit knowledge about teamwork had been
included in the course, students perceived an enhancement of
their team competencies as a result of the course on Soft
Skills. For even better results, a course focusing on team
development should, in addition, include knowledge about
teamwork and explicitly address more of the component
competencies that we did not consider due to the broad
orientation on soft skills. There was also a slight enhancement
in implicit aspects of teamwork that may be the result of the
person centered atmosphere that had been perceived and
appreciated by all students. The course on Soft Skills just
marginally touched personality traits like congruence, regard,
or team orientation, and our research confirmed that such
slight shifts are better seen from qualitative than from
quantitative studies. However, the results indicate that
academic courses have the potential to equally address the
level of attitudes. Qualitative research, specific focus and
settings and longer term observation appear to be promising
vehicles for further research.
REFERENCES
[1] Cannon-Bowers, J.A., et al., Defining competencies and establishing
team training requirements, in Team effectiveness and decision
making in organizations, R. Guzzo and E. Salas, Editors. 1995, Jossey
Bas: San Francisco. p. 333-380.
[2] Baker, D.P., et al., The ALL Teamwork Framework, in International
Adult Literacy Survey, Measuring Adult Literacy and Life Skills:
New Frameworks for Assessment, T.S. Murray, Y. Clermont, and M.
Binkley, Editors. 2005, Minister of Industry: Ottawa. p. 229 - 272.
[3] Rogers, C.R., Freedom to Learn for the 80's. 1983, Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
[4] Rogers, C.R., On Becoming a Person - A Psychotherapists View of
Psychotherapy. 1961, London: Constable.
[5] Cornelius-White, J. H. D. (2007). Learner-Centered Teacher-Student
Relationships Are Effective: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 77(1), March 2007, pp. 1-31.
[6] Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). Person-Centered e-Learning in Action:
Can Technology help to manifest Person-centered Values in
Academic Environments? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45 (4),
SAGE, 503-530.
[7] Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Holzinger, A. (2002). Student-Centered
Teaching Meets New Media: Concept and Case Study. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 5 (4), 160-172.
[8] Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Mallich, K. (2004). Effects of Person-
Centered Attitudes on Professional and Social Competence in a
Blended Learning Paradigm. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 7(4), 176-192.
[9] Barrett-Lennard, G.T., Carl Rogers' Helping System - Journey and
Substance. 1998, London: Sage Publications.
[10] Barrett-Lennard, G.T., Relationship at the Centre - Healing in a
Troubled World. 2005, Philadelphia, PA: Whurr Publishers.
[11] Nykl, L., Beziehung im Mittelpunkt der Persönlichkeitsentwicklung.
2005, Münster-Hamburg-London-Wien: LIT Verlag.
[12] Tausch, R. and A.-M. Tausch, Erziehungs-Psychologie. 11th ed.
1963/1998, Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
[13] Aspy, D.N., Toward a Technology for Humanizing Education. 1972,
Champaign, Illinois: Research Press Company.
[14] Cornelius-White, J., et al., Person-Centered Education: A Meta-
Analysis of Care in Progress. Journal of Border Educational Research,
2004. 3(1): p. 81-87.
October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI
 Session F2G
[15] Rogers, C.R. and R.E. Farson, Active listening. Communication in
Business Today, 1987.
[16] Baker, D., et al., Medical Teamwork and Patient Safety: The
Evidence-based Relation.Literature Review. AHRQ Publication. Vol.
05-0053. 2005, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality.
[17] Hossiep, R. and M. Paschen, Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen
Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung - BIP. 2. vollständig überarbeitete Auflg.
ed. 2003, Göttingen: Hogrefe.
[18] Motschnig-Pitrik, R. "The Effects of a Blended Course Including
Person Centered Encounter Groups on Students' Learning,
Relationships, and Teamwork". in Networked Learning Conference
2006. 2006. Lancaster, UK.
[19] Rogers, C.R., Carl Rogers on Encounter Groups. 1970, New York:
Harper Row.

1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI

37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2G-21