skip to main content
research-article

Are Professional Skills Learnable? Beliefs and Expectations Among Computing Graduates

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 April 2024Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Integrating graduate education with professional skills development is still a challenge. People's beliefs about learning impact their learning processes. Therefore, we need to understand the mindset of graduates to determine best practices for promoting professional skills development. In this study, we explore the perspective of computing graduates within an Engineering educational program. This study aims to answer the following research questions: Which skills do computing graduates perceive they need in the workplace, and how do they position themselves regarding these skills? What learning beliefs do computing graduates hold regarding the skills required in the workplace? The research team conducted semistructured interviews with computing graduates within an Engineering program to analyze their experiences. The interviews were analyzed using grounded theory. As a result, the participants viewed professional and technical skills as independent, with professional skills perceived as more relevant to work success. The participants considered themselves to possess these skills. Our findings identify four learning beliefs within a fixed and growth mindset: (1) An essential personal characteristic that context may influence; (2) a learning outcome determined by early experiences; (3) a learning process associated with informal learning experiences; and (4) a learning process associated with formal learning experiences. We acknowledge the differences in perception between alums and the industry regarding possessing essential professional skills. We also highlight the need to position these skills as learnable during lectures contributing to Computing and Engineering Education.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology ABET. 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2023 from https://www.abet.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] ABET. 2023. Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs, 2023–2024. Retrieved October 29, 2023 from https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-computing-programs-2023-2024/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] ABET. 2023. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2023–2024. Retrieved October 29, 2023 from https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2023-2024/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Adriansen Hanne K.. 2012. Timeline interviews: A tool for conducting life history research. Qualitative Studies 3, 1 (2012), 4055.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Apiola Mikko-Ville and Laakso Mikko-Jussi. 2019. The impact of self-theories to academic achievement and soft skills in undergraduate CS studies: First findings. In Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’19). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Archibald Mandy M.. 2016. Investigator triangulation: A collaborative strategy with potential for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Reseach 10, 3 (2016), 228250. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Asplund Fredrik and Flening Elias. 2021. Boundary spanning at work placements: Challenges to overcome, and ways to learn in preparation for early career engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education 47 (2021), 5069. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Bastable Susan B. and Dart Michelle A.. 2008. Developmental stages of the learner. Nurse as Educator. Jones & Bartlett, Boston, 147198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Baxter Pamela and Jack Susan. 2008. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report 13, 4 (2008), 544559. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Bernecker Katharina and Job Veronika. 2019. Mindset theory. Social Psychology in Action, Springer, Cham. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Braten Ivar and Strømsø Helge I.. 2020. On the roles of dispositions and beliefs in learning from multiple perspectives. In handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives, Peggy Van Meter, Alexandra List, Doug Lombardi, and Panayiota Kendeou (Ed.), Routledge, 141--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Brunhaver Samantha R., Korte Russell F., Barley Stephen R., and Sheppard Sheri D.. 2019. Bridging the gaps between engineering education and practice. U.S. Engineering in a Global Economy. University of Chicago Press. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Jeffrey Buckley, James Trevelyan, and Christine Winberg. 2022. Perspectives on engineering education from the world of practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 47, 1 (2022), 1–7. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Butler Ashleigh E., Copnell Beverley, and Hall Helen. 2018. The development of theoretical sampling in practice. Collegian 25, 5 (2018). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Byrne Zintia S., Weston James, and Cave Kelly. 2020. Development of a scale for measuring students’ attitudes towards learning professional (ie, soft) skills. Research in Science Education 50, 4 (2020), 14171433. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Calk Russell and Patrick Angela. 2017. Millennials through the looking glass: Workplace motivating factors. The Journal of Business Inquiry 16, 2 (2017), 131139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Campbell Anita L., Direito Inês, and Mokhithi Mashudu. 2021. Developing growth mindsets in engineering students: a systematic literature review of interventions. European Journal of Engineering Education 46, 4 (2021), 503527. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Caniëls Marjolein C. J., Semeijn Judith H., and Renders Irma H. M.. 2018. Mind the mindset! The interaction of proactive personality, transformational leadership and growth mindset for engagement at work. Career Development International 23, 1 (2018), 4866. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Kelly A. Cave, Zinta S. Byrne, Thomas J. Siller, and Anthony A. Maciejewski. 2019. Board 89: What engineering students think about how they learn professional skills. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, Florida, 2019, June. ASEE Conferences, 2019. https://peer.asee.org/32453Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] CC2020 Task Force. 2020. Computing curricula 2020: Paradigms for Global Computing Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Charmaz Kathy. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. Google Scholar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Charmaz Kathy and Belgrave Linda L.. 2019. Thinking about data with grounded theory. Qualitative Inquiry 25, 8 (2019), 743753. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Clarkson Mary. 2001. Developing IT staff: A Practical Approach. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Chou Wushow. 2013. Fast-Tracking Your Career: Soft Skills for Engineering and IT Professionals. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Charlene J. E. Chua , Iris A. G. Chuatoco , Airah M. C. Dela Peña , Danielle L. F. Jimenez , and Damirson Co . 2017. The influence of participation in extracurricular activities to the employability of industrial engineering graduates of one private university in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5, 2 (2017), 163170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Conlon Catherine, Timonen Virpi, Elliott-O'Dare Catherine, O'Keeffe Sorcha, and Foley Geraldine. 2020. Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies. Qualitative Health Research 30, 6 (2020), 947959. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Cortázar Catalina, Nussbaum Miguel, Alario-Hoyos Carlos, Goñi Julián, and Alvares Danilo. 2022. The impacts of scaffolding socially shared regulation on teamwork in an online project-based course. Internet and Higher Education 55 (2022), 100877. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Cortázar Catalina, Nussbaum Miguel, Harcha Jorge, Alvares Danilo, López Felipe, Goñi Julián, and Cabezas Verónica. 2021. Promoting critical thinking in an online, project-based course. Computers in Human Behavior 119 (2021), 106705 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Cruz Mariana L., Saunders-Smits Gillian N., and Groen Pim. 2020. Evaluation of competency methods in engineering education: A systematic review. European Journal of Engineering Education 45, 5 (2020), 729757. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Norman K. Denzin. 1989. Interpretive biography. Vol. 17. Sage, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Denzin Norman K.. 2012. Triangulation 2.0*. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6, 2 (2012), 8088. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Dweck Carol S.. 2008. The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17, 6 (2008), 391394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. [33] Carol S. Dweck. 2012. Implicit Theories. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 2. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. 43–61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Dweck Carol S. and Yeager David S.. 2019. Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14, 3 (2019), 481496. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Eagly Alice H. and Chaiken Shelly. 1993. Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers; First Edition (January 1, 1993).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Etikan Ilker, Musa Sulaiman A., and Alkassim Rukayya S.. 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5, 1 (2016), 14. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education EUR-ACE. Retrieved October 17, 2023 from http://www.enaee.eu/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. [38] Exter Marisa, Caskurlu Secil, and Fernandez Todd. 2018. Comparing computing professionals’ perceptions of importance of skills and knowledge on the job and coverage in undergraduate experiences. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 18, 4 (2018), Article 21, 29 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Flening Elias, Asplund Fredrik, and Grimheden Martin E.. 2022. Measuring professional skills misalignment based on early-career engineers’ perceptions of engineering expertise. European Journal of Engineering Education 47, 1 (2022), 117143. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Uwe Flick. 2020. Introducing research methodology: thinking your way through your research project. Introducing Research Methodology. 1–416.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] Gallagher Silvia E. and Savage Timothy. 2023. Challenge-based learning in higher education: An exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education 28, 6 (2023), 11351157. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. [42] Garousi Vahid, Giray Gorkem, Tuzun Eray, Catal Cagatay, and Felderer Michael. 2020. Closing the gap between software engineering education and industrial needs. IEEE Software 37, 2 (2020), 6877. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. [43] Lisa M. Given. 2016. 100 Questions (and Answers) About Qualitative Research. California: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. [44] Glaser Barney G. and Strauss Anselm L.. 2017. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, New York. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Gunderson Elizabeth A., Hamdan Noora, Sorhagen Nicole S., and D'Esterre Alexander P.. 2017. Who needs innate ability to succeed in math and literacy? Academic-domain-specific theories of intelligence about peers versus adults. Developmental Psychology 53, 6 (2017), 11881205. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Haddad Marché R.. 2018. The employment expectations of masters engineering students. In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET’19). 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. [47] Heyder Anke, Weidinger Anne F., Cimpian Andrei, and Steinmayr Ricarda. 2020. Teachers’ belief that math requires innate ability predicts lower intrinsic motivation among low-achieving students. Learning and Instruction 65 (2020), 101220. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [48] Mohamed Hussein, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, and Joseph Osuji. 2014. Using grounded theory as a method of inquiry: Advantages and disadvantages. The Qualitative Report, 19, 27 (2014), 1–15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Ingram Nicola and Allen Kim. 2019. ‘Talent-spotting’ or ‘social magic’? Inequality, cultural sorting and constructions of the ideal graduate in elite professions. Sociological Review 67, 3 (2019). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [50] Iniesto Francisco, Sargent Julia, Rienties Bart, Llorens Ariadna, Adam Araceli, Herodotou Christothea, Ferguson Rebecca, and Muccini Henry. 2021. When industry meets education 4.0: What do computer science companies need from higher education? In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 367372. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Johri Aditya. 2021. Lifelong and lifewide learning for the perpetual development of expertise in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education 0 (2021), 115. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. [52] Kim Jeongeun and Bastedo Michael N.. 2017. Athletics, clubs, or music? The influence of college extracurricular activities on job prestige and satisfaction. Journal of Education and Work 30, 3 (2017), 249269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. [53] Lou Nigel M. and Noels Kimberly A.. 2019. Promoting growth in foreign and second language education: A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teaching. System 86 (2019), 102126. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. [54] Majid Shaheen, Mary Eapen Chithra, MonOo Ei, and Aung Khine Thazin. 2019. The importance of soft skills for employability and career development: Students and employers’ perspectives. IUP Journal of Soft Skills 13, 4 (2019), 739.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. [55] Male Sally. 2010. Generic engineering competencies: A review and modelling approach. Education Research & Perspectives 37, 1 (2010), 2551. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=79555631&site=ehost-liveGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. [56] Malterud Kirsti, Siersma Volkert D., and Guassora Ann D.. 2016. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research 26, 13 (2016), 17531760. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. [57] Marin-Zapata Sara I., Román-Calderón Juan P., Robledo-Ardila Cristina, and Jaramillo-Serna Maria A.. 2022. Soft skills, do we know what we are talking about? Review of Managerial Science 16 (2022), 9691000. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. [58] Inocencia M. Martínez-León , Isabel Olmedo-Cifuentes , and María C. Ramón-Llorens . 2018. Work, personal and cultural factors in engineers’ management of their career satisfaction. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 47 (2018), 2236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. [59] Mason Jennifer. 2017. Qualitative Researching (3rd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Matturro Gerardo, Raschetti Florencia, and Fontán Carina. 2019. A systematic mapping study on soft skills in software engineering. Journal of Universal Computer Science 25, 1 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] Janet McDaid. 1993. Book reviews: Practical sampling, by Gary T. Henry. Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1990, 139 pp. Evaluation Practice, 14, 1 (1993), 69--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. [62] McGunagle Doreen and Zizka Laura. 2020. Employability skills for 21st-century STEM students: The employers’ perspective. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning 10, 3 (2020). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. [63] Meissner Dirk and Shmatko Natalia. 2019. Integrating professional and academic knowledge: The link between researchers skills and innovation culture. Journal of Technology Transfer 44, 4 (2019), 12731289. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. [64] Mercer Sarah and Ryan Stephen. 2010. A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about the role of natural talent. ELT Journal 64, 4 (2010), 436444. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. [65] Mihas Paul. 2019. Qualitative data analysis. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. [66] Miscenko Darja and Day David V.. 2016. Identity and identification at work. Organizational Psychology Review 6, 3 (2016), 215247. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. [67] National Science Foundation. 1997. Systemic engineering education reform: An action agenda. NSF98–27. http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf9827Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. [68] Noah Joanna B. and Aziz Azlina A.. 2020. A systematic review on soft skills development among university graduates. EDUCATUM Journal of Social Sciences 6, 1 (2020), 5368. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. [69] O'Neill Thomas A., Deacon Amanda, Larson Nicole L., Hoffart Genevieve C., Brennan Robert W., Eggermont Marjan, and Rosehart William. 2015. Life-long learning, conscientious disposition, and longitudinal measures of academic engagement in engineering design teamwork. Learning and Individural Differences 39 (2015), 124131. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. [70] Owen William F.. 1984. Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 3 (1984), 274287. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. [71] Pais-Montes Carlos, Freire-Seoane Maria J., and López-Bermúdez Beatriz. 2019. Employability traits for engineers: A competencies-based approach. Industry and Higher Education 33, 5 (2019), 308326. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. [72] Passow Honor J.. 2012. Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work? Journal of Engineering Education 101, 1 (2012). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. [73] Passow Honor J. and Passow Christian H.. 2017. What competencies should undergraduate engineering programs emphasize? A systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education 106, 3 (2017), 475526. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. [74] Patrick Susan K. and Joshi Ela. 2019. “Set in stone” or “willing to grow”? Teacher sensemaking during a growth mindset initiative. Teaching and Teacher Education 83 (2019), 156167. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. [75] Polmear Madeline, Bielefeldt Angela R., Knight Daniel, Canney Nathan, and Swan Christopher. 2019. Analysis of macroethics teaching practices and perceptions in engineering: A cultural comparison. European Journal of Engineering Education 44, 6 (2019), 866881. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. [76] Radermacher Alex and Gursimran Walia. 2013. Gaps between industry expectations and the abilities of graduates. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). Association for Computing Machinery, 525530. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. [77] Rajan Shanthi and Pandita Archana. 2019. Employability and hiring trends of engineering job aspirants in UAE. In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET’19). IEEE, 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. [78] Raj Rajendra, Mihaela Sabin, John Impagliazzo, David Bowers, Mats Daniels, Felienne Hermans, Natalie Kiesler, Amruth N. Kumar, Bonnie MacKellar, Renée McCauley, Syed Waqar Nabi, and Michael Oudshoorn. 2021. Professional competencies in computing education: Pedagogies and assessment. In Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’21). Association for Computing Machinery, 133161. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. [79] Rashid Yasir, Rashid Ammar, Warraich Muhammad Akib, Sabir Sana Sameen, and Waseem Ansar. 2019. Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18 (2019). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. [80] Reja Urša, Katja Lozar Manfreda, Valentina Hlebec, and Vasja Vehovar. 2003. Open-ended vs. Close-ended Questions in Web Questionnaires. Adv Methodol Stats. 19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. [81] Saunders Benjamin, Sim Julius, Kingstone Tom, Baker Shula, Waterfield Jackie, Bartlam Bernadette, Burroughs Heather, and Jinks Clare. 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity 52, 4 (2018), 18931907. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. [82] Shuman Larry J., Besterfield-Sacre Mary, and McGourty Jack. 2005. The ABET “professional skills”—Can they be taught? Can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education 94, 1 (2005), 4155. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. [83] Stewart Fran. 2017. The STEM Dilemma: Skills that Matter to Regions. WE Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. [84] Sukiman Safura A., Yusop Haslenda, Mokhtar Rashidah, and Jaafar Nur Huda. 2016. Competition-based learning: Determining the strongest skill that can be achieved among higher education learners. In Regional Conference on Science, Technology and Social Sciences (RCSTSS’14). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. [85] Touloumakos Anna K.. 2020. Expanded yet restricted: A mini review of the soft skills literature. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. [86] Trevelyan James. 2019. Transitioning to engineering practice. European Journal of Engineering Education 44, 6 (2019), 821837. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. [87] Roos Van Gasse , Vanlommel Kristin, Vanhoof Jan, and Peter Van Petegem . 2020. Teacher interactions in taking action upon pupil learning outcome data: A matter of attitude and self-efficacy? Teaching and Teacher Education 89 (2020), 102989. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. [88] Wang Ming-Te, Zepeda Cristina D., Qin Xu, del Toro Juan, and Binning Kevin R.. 2021. More than growth mindset: Individual and interactive links among socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents’ ability mindsets, metacognitive skills, and math engagement. Child Development 92, 5 (2021), e957e976. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. [89] Winberg Christine, Bramhall Mike, Greenfield David, Johnson Patrick, Rowlett Peter, Lewis Oliver, Waldock Jeff, and Wolff Karin. 2020. Developing employability in engineering education: A systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Engineering Education 45, 2 (2020), 165180. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. [90] Yin R. K.. 2003. Case study research design and methods. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Are Professional Skills Learnable? Beliefs and Expectations Among Computing Graduates

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
        ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 24, Issue 2
        June 2024
        264 pages
        EISSN:1946-6226
        DOI:10.1145/3613624
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 16 April 2024
        • Online AM: 24 January 2024
        • Accepted: 4 January 2024
        • Revised: 13 November 2023
        • Received: 2 February 2023
        Published in toce Volume 24, Issue 2

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)166
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)67

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text