Case-based simulations in the est classroom

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 46, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2003 221

Case-Based Simulations in the EST Classroom

Tutorial Abstract—This tutorial is an outgrowth of a classroom-basedsimulation project and should act as a general outline for usingsimulations in English for Science and Technology classrooms. Thesimulation was created based on an actual court case involving twosoftware companies; however, the case was altered significantlyto meet the needs of the students. Twenty-six Japanese studentsstudying computer science at a university in northern Japanparticipated in the simulation. In phase one of the simulation, teams ofstudents were required to make difficult decisions about the case intheir role as company engineers. They subsequently wrote of theirpositions in teams. In phase two of the simulation, each student wasrequired to preside over the related court case, judge between thetwo companies, and render a fair verdict in writing. The students’writing exhibited an understanding of the complexity of problemsand sound reasoning for addressing such problems; therefore,the simulation-based curriculum was deemed highly successful.Furthermore, students remained engaged throughout the simulation,in part because they could see its long-term value.

Feature byMARK R. FREIERMUTH

Index Terms—Background knowledge, case studies, English forScience and Technology (EST), English for Specific Purposes (ESP),problem-based language learning, role cards, simulations.

Manuscript received February 26, 2003;revised April 17, 2003.M. R. Freiermuth is with theCenter for Language Research,University of Aizu,Fukushima 965-8580, Japan([email protected]).IEEE DOI 10.1109/TPC.2003.816787

Of the many tasks common toengineers and scientists, assessingproblems, looking at potentialsolutions, and deciding uponthe best solutions based uponthose assessments are amongthe most fundamental. However,this creative process is oftenneglected by those engaged in theteaching of English for Scienceand Technology (EST) and Englishfor Specific Purposes (ESP).One solution, proposed here, isto incorporate problem-based,language-learning simulations intothe curriculum. The crux of thetutorial presented here, then, isto provide a roadmap for teacherswho wish to incorporate suchsimulations into their classrooms.

SITUATION

This simulation project wasconducted at a computer scienceuniversity in northern Japan inAcademic Writing II, which is the

preparatory course for TechnicalWriting I. One class of 26 Japanesestudents (22 males and 4 females)in their second year took part inthe simulation. Upon entering thecourse, most of the students hadstudied English seven or eightyears; however, they had littleexperience beyond sentence-levelwriting. Additionally, all of thestudents in the university arecomputer science majors, so thebulk of their courses consisted ofvarious computer science classes.Despite this, English is important tostudents because they must write asenior thesis in English to graduatefrom the university. Additionally,although most of the students willbe employed in Japan, many ofthem will still need to use English(especially related to computerscience) in the workplace.

RATIONALE

To appreciate the reasons behindchoosing a simulation-based

0361-1434/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE

222 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 46, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2003

project, it is important tounderstand that students whoparticipated in this projectwere completely unfamiliar withprofessional styles of writing inEnglish (not to mention Japanese),primarily because they were young(19 or 20 years old) and lackedany professional work experiences.When this reality is coupled witha lack of experience in writingdiscourse length prose in English,two problems become evident:(1) students have difficultiesexpressing abstract notions inEnglish, and (2) students havedifficulties constructing logicaltexts where ideas are connectedand grounded in the discourse.Here is an example of suchdifficulties exhibited by studentsin Academic Writing I (entitled “MyRealizing”):

I find that to help someone tounderstand is very hard anddifficult. And that, I have to take(a matter) into considerationabout individual personality. Inthe other hand, I must teach byindividual fitting study style.

When student’s result of test isbad, I feel. . ., but heartbreakingthing is not all. At the sametime, I get many many things!What is more, I, maybe dosame things toward you, I’msorry. So no matter how hard, Iam satisfaction, because I getmany many things in exchangefor bitterness.

Besides the student’s grammaticaldifficulties, he also hasproduced prose that is quitedecontextualized. By readingbetween the lines, the experiencedlanguage teacher may guess thatthis student writer is discussinghis part time job as a tutor. In anycase, this is typical of the quantityand the quality of students’writings when they enter AcademicWriting II.

In a nutshell, the universityEnglish teacher is confrontedwith this decision in AcademicWriting II: concentrate on grammar(again), or struggle to deal with themore complex issues of purposeful

writing so that students will bebetter prepared for the discourselength writing they will encounterin technical writing classes andin professional life. A goal of thisclass was to help students producelonger, cohesive documents. Inaddition, it was felt that the courseought to prepare students to betterunderstand how to present theconcepts of problems and solutionsin written form, considering this iswhat some of the students mightfind themselves faced with in thefuture.

To minimize some of the difficultiesassociated with trying to getstudents to understand suchabstract notions as problems andsolutions, a simulation approachwas used whereby students playedthe role of employees in a companyand had to make real decisions,which would (at least fictitiously)result in real consequences. It wasfelt that students needed to: (1)have a stake in their writing; (2)have interest in the subject matter;(3) produce writing where they hadto consider problems and theirconsequences; (4) understandand write about concepts incomputer science (i.e., EST); (5)gain knowledge about their fieldof study (since for the most partthese students are really fledglingcomputer scientists and have noteven discovered their niche); (6)work and write in teams, as if theywere really working in a company(Simulation 1); (7) work andwrite alone to demonstrate theirknowledge of EST in computerscience (Simulation 2); and (8) beengaged during all of the tasks,both with their peers in spokencommunication and in the writingprocess. For these reasons, asimulation seemed to be an idealpedagogical tool.

A final motivation for incorporatingsimulations in the classroomconcerns the difficulties involvedin finding appropriate materialsto fit the needs of EST students.A constant request on the ESPlist server I subscribe to is: “Iam teaching English to students

studying “x” and I can’t find anymaterials that fit my students’needs. Can anyone help me?”The problem is multifold. First,there are very few texts thatare appropriate if the goal isreally to get students to startincorporating very specific ESTconcepts into their writings.Second, materials that areavailable are often outdated andinaccurate; texts over five years oldin computer science are basicallyancient history. Other texts areincomprehensible to students dueto the complexity of the languageor the complexity of the subjectmatter, and still others are notinteresting to students because theconcepts are so basic (e.g., “This isa mouse,” “This is a monitor,” etc.),and thus, quite boring to students(and teachers). Third, mostexercises designed for EST/ESPwriters suffer the same maladyfound in many ESL texts, namelythat the writing tasks provided lackany meaningful, problem-solvingaspect. It is one thing to write fromthe aspect of fulfilling a role-playor navigating a case study (neitherof which should be confused witha simulation!), where there is onlythe “correct” and the “incorrect.”It is quite another thing to writeabout concepts where the studentsthemselves must determine whatis “right,” and the teacher’s opiniondoes not (or at least should not)hold any sway [1]. It is this aspectof simulations that makes themso viable as a pedagogical tool;students of the classroom todayare going to be making decisionsreplete with consequences inthe real work-a-day world oftomorrow. It was on this basisthat the simulation project wasdesigned—a simulation thatpresented our Japanese computerscience students with realistic andrelevant problems to solve by usingtheir own skills in concert withothers and all written in English.

PROJECT

The simulation was built uponthe foundations of a casestudy, which can be found in a


volume of computer-related casestudies entitled, “Case Studiesin Information and ComputerEthics,” by Spinello [2]. It wasdeveloped from a 1994 casewhereby the Japanese softwaregiant Sega Enterprises, Ltd.decided to sue Accolade, Inc.,a smaller competitor based inCalifornia. The primary tenetsof the case revolved aroundSega’s litigious accusation thatAccolade reverse engineered Sega’snewly released Genesis hardwaregame console, effectively allowingAccolade’s games to function onthe new console, thereby robbingSega of profits. Accolade’s defensewas based upon the historicaldevelopment of software in thegaming industry, which includedreverse engineering as a “commonpractice” and the fact that Segahad not sued Accolade in the pastfor developing games to run onearlier Sega consoles.

Table I illustrates the sequenceof events for this particularsimulation. It should be noted thatduring weeks 1–4, most of thework was done as homework, andin week 11, the debriefing did not

consume the entire class period(of ninety minutes). The class metonce each week.

Simulation 1 Before the studentsreceived role cards, they neededto understand the particularvocabulary for this type ofcomputer case study. At the heartof this phase of the project wasthe aim of building up students’background knowledge, so theywould be able to handle thecomplexities of the simulation. Asan initial homework assignment,students were asked to writedefinitions in English of vitalterminology and post theseto their websites. These weregraded for grammar, content,and spelling. The students werethen given one additional weekto revise definitions that weregrammatically deficient or notparticularly accurate. Studentsposted these to their websites aswell.

Students were required to“discover” the definitions ontheir own, primarily via websearches. The students wereinstructed not to write dictionary

style definitions; their definitionshad to answer this question,“How does this term affect me orpeople/organizations/companiesworking in the computer sciencefield?” The use of specific exampleswas encouraged, and the betterdefinitions were posted on theinstructor’s class webpage forstudent viewing.

Before starting the core phaseof Simulation 1, the studentsneeded a little direction beforeproceeding (week 4). Because theinitial group writing embodiedthe framework of a “classic”problem–solution situation, theideas of background information,problems, consequences, andsolutions were discussed inclass. This was done primarilyto make students cognizant ofthese elements, which they were toinclude in their texts. The studentswere informed that successfulwriting needed to include thefollowing elements:

(1) Background information.This was to include a briefintroduction of the company,as well as the students’ roleat the company.

TABLE ISEQUENCE OF SIMULATION EVENTS


(2) Problem statement. This wasto include the parametersof the problem and whatstudents needed to decide.

(3) Reason statement. This wasto include a defense of thechosen plan of action, andthe basis for not choosingother options.

In week 5, Simulation 1 began inearnest. Students were put intogroups of three or four members;the class consisted of eight totalgroups. Four groups receiveda prompt informing them thatthey were engineers at Sega andthe other four groups receiveda prompt informing them thatthey were engineers at Accolade. Ialtered the realities of the case bythrowing a couple of wrenches intothe information to emphasize theelement of conflict (this is commonsimulation practice, see [3], [4]).

From the information on the rolecards, the group of engineersemployed by Sega were under theassumption that Accolade hadalready reverse engineered theconsole. Under a directive fromthe president, the engineers wereto decide what action was bestfor the company. The students“employed” at Sega were providedthree potential options (but coulddevise their own solution as well):

(1) Allow Accolade to developthe software, which Segahad done in the past.

(2) Demand that Accolade paya software-licensing fee(made especially hefty forthe purposes of the simula-tion—$200,000,000USD persoftware title).

(3) Take legal action againstAccolade in a U.S. court forviolating copyright.

The groups of engineers fromAccolade were faced with a slightlydifferent problem. The role cardstated that Sega’s Genesis consolehad just been developed. Thecompany president asked theengineers what should be doneabout this new development. Theoptions were as follows:

(1) not develop any games forthe new console (they wouldstill develop and producegames for the older Segaconsole);

(2) pay Sega’s licensing fee;(3) use reverse engineering to

discover the source code ofthe console, and continue todevelop the new games thatare being worked on.

Any group of engineers coulddevise an alternate solution, aslong as the core information on therole cards was not distorted. Ofcourse, each of the aforementionedoptions provided had specific andserious negative consequences.For example, if Accolade decided topay Sega’s licensing fee, this wouldbe a heavy financial setback.

Students discussed the optionswith their team members, devisedsolutions, divided up tasks, andbegan the group writing phase(weeks 6 and 7). By week 7,students needed to have theirinitial draft finished so theycould show the work to theirinstructor, who then offeredstudents additional tips. Studentswere required to finish their teamwriting prior to class in week 8.

During class in week 8,students were given the firstdebriefing survey. Althoughmany simulations employ spokeninteraction as a means ofdebriefing, I chose the writtenapproach because I wantedstudents to debrief in English. Thedebriefing phase of a simulation isto allow students the opportunityto reflect upon their experiences.The primary aspects I wantedstudents to consider were theirexperiences working in groups andthe value of the simulation (seestudent comments in a subsequentsection).

Simulation 2 The second, more“dramatic,” simulation began inweek 8, following the completionof the debriefing survey phaseof Simulation 1. The role cardsexpressed that Accolade haddecided to use an “extreme” form

of reverse engineering (called“peeling a chip”) to break Sega’ssecurity code with the intent ofproducing software games to runon the Genesis console. As a result,Sega sued Accolade for violatingcopyright protection.

The students, in their role asjudges in the case, were requiredto decide the outcome of thecase based upon the informationincluded in the role cards. In thispart of the case, students wererequired to write an individualdecision based upon what theyconsidered to be fair.

The role cards provided thenew “judges” with the followinginformation about Sega’s suit.

• Sega was suing for lostrevenue and potential lostrevenue (millions of dollars).

• Sega’s claim was that Accoladeviolated copyright using anextreme form of reverseengineering called “peeling achip.”

• Sega’s demand was thatAccolade pull six games thathad already been producedand stop production on eightnew titles in production.

Accolade’s position was as follows.• Peeling a chip is just one type

of reverse engineering, noworse than any other kind.

• The console is a standardinterface, and without accessto the console, Accoladewould suffer severe financialhardship.

• If the Sega suit were allowed tostand, this would represent anunhealthy trend in softwaredevelopment, opening thedoor for additional lawsuitswhile hindering the advancesof the software industry as awhole.

Students needed to consider theinformation, form their opinion,and post their written decisionto the web. To receive creditfor content, the texts needed toexpress the framework of the case,including background informationon the two companies involved.The students gathered most of


their information from the web.The writing assignment, whichwas completed during weeks 9 and10, also asked the judges to casttheir decision built upon soundreasoning. These writings wereposted to the students’ homepagesand linked to the instructor’shomepage. Immediately followingthis (week 11), students wereprovided with the second debriefingquestionnaire.

ACHIEVEMENTS

The primary purpose for requiringstudents to write definitionsrelated to the simulation wasto ensure that they had thebackground knowledge to writeeffectively as a team (Simulation 1)and individually (Simulation 2).Hence, the students needed todemonstrate clear understandingof the concepts, and as such,definitions were graded for contentas well as grammar. Fig. 1 providesan example from week 1 thatreceived high marks. As onecan see, there are number ofgrammatical errors, attesting tothe difficulties that many of thesestudents have when writing inEnglish. On the other hand, thestudent clearly has demonstrateda measure of understandingof the notion of copyrightprotection. This is complementedby the fact that the student hasapplied this particular computerscience concept by providingspecific examples, indicating hisunderstanding.

Fig. 2 provides a second examplewhere the student has notsatisfactorily demonstrated anunderstanding of the concept hewas trying to define. This writer’sattempt is a stiff definition, simplydefining each word in succession.His level of understanding of theconcept is in doubt despite thelast sentence’s summative value.

Fig. 1. Example of student responsefrom week 1 receiving high marks.

It is important to give students achance to rewrite definitions; itprovides them with an additionalopportunity to clarify conceptsfor the teacher, but moreoverfor themselves. His revisedattempt in Fig. 2 demonstrateshis understanding of the concept.Most of the students used the webto discover the meanings of theseconcepts. Through observation, anunexpected bonus was uncovered,namely that students searchedwebpages in English, which wassomething new to many of them asthis student comment conveys:

At this work, we must searchsome page wrote in English.Usualy we don’t brows Englishpage. So, this is very importantexperience to brows Englishpage.

The purpose behind havingstudents post their definitions tothe web was to give students aself-invented web list of terms thatthey could then access and use byapplying those concepts to theirdiscourse length writings (i.e.,Simulations 1 and 2). Additionally,I wanted students to exhibit anunderstanding of problems andsolutions by addressing suchissues in their writings. Thatmeant not only expressing theproblem and the solution clearly(understanding key terminology),but also providing reasons whya particular plan of action waschosen (again requiring the abilityto use key terminology effectively).

Fig. 2. Example of original student response from week 1 receiving low marks and revised response earning highermarks.


Of course, the primary writing goalwas that students would be able toproduce logical, discourse-lengthtexts. Since students wouldprobably be working in teams inthe workplace, they worked inteams throughout Simulation 1.Additionally, basing the simulationupon an actual case study providedthe students with a somewhatrealistic task. The final studenttexts demonstrated a great deal ofunderstanding, as the example inFig. 3 shows.

What is clear from this example isthat the group was able to producea discourse-length documentthat clearly incorporated ESTterminology and concepts.Furthermore, the writing includessufficient background knowledgefor the reader to understand the“present” state of affairs: namely,that Accolade has already reverseengineered the Genesis Console.The essay in Fig. 3 presents asolution to the problem, namelythat they wanted to negotiate with

Accolade about the licensing fee,and they stated their reasons fortheir choice, namely that thereis a high risk associated withtaking Accolade to court and thattheir own fee seems outrageouslyhigh. It should be noted that thisresolution was concocted entirelyby the students.

The Accolade engineers did as wellas the Sega engineers, as Fig. 4illustrates. They incorporated ESTinto a document where they needed

Fig. 3. Example of final student text written by Sega team.


to demonstrate an understandingof “problem–solution” writing.Although this may seem a smallachievement, it should be notedthat the Japanese students at thisuniversity have had difficulty inelucidating these ideas in theirwritings, in many cases even asseniors, writing their graduationtheses.

For Simulation 2, students wereasked to demonstrate their abilitiesto write about EST concepts forcomputer science as individuals.It was hoped that the experiencesgained while working in teamswould help some of the weakerwriters express difficult conceptsclearly in English. The writingsshowed that even the weakerstudents understood complex

concepts, as the example in Fig. 5indicates.

Obviously, this student’s writinghas some problems, such assentence-level grammar errors andaudience awareness problems;however, the writer has shownunderstanding of concepts suchas reverse engineering by usingsuch concepts in the correctcontext. He also understandsthe given problem and offers areasoned solution. In other words,it appears that he has begunto understand about writing ina more scientific framework.Certainly, much improvementis needed in the other areas,but these kinds of problems canbe and were (in my classroom)continually being addressed

in tandem with the simulationinstruction, primarily by providingexamples of correct grammaticalforms, by drawing attention tofrequent errors and by offeringadvice to individual students.The students made improvementsin grammar; however, it shouldalso be noted that for thesestudents, English grammar (inparticular) is a constant struggle,and improvement comes insmall increments. On the otherhand, students showed markedimprovement in their abilities towrite about complex concepts.

I would also like to provide anexample of what students arecapable. Fig. 6 is one of thebetter examples. It is logically andclearly written; it demonstrates

Fig. 4. Example of final student text written by Accolade team.


understanding of the particularEST concepts, and it identifies theproblem and proposes the bestsolution. Most of the JudgmentDay writers were able to elucidatethese same elements, indicatingthat they are better ready to tackletechnical proposals and similarkinds of technical documents(which they will encounter inTechnical Writing I and on the job).

Other goals were more qualitativein nature but, nevertheless,of equal importance. Students

who lack interest in the tasksand subject matter will notperform as well as students whohave an interest in the tasksand subject matter [5], [6]. Thedebriefing surveys were used as aqualitative measurement tool todocument students’ experiencesand assessments of the tasks.

Students’ overall ratings for bothsimulations were high: 96.2% ofthe students found Simulation 1either useful or extremely useful,while 95.8% of the students found

Simulation 2 either useful orextremely useful (students chosefrom: extremely useful, useful,not very useful, not useful). Thedebriefing survey also askedfor the reasons behind theirdecision. Here are some of themore poignant comments aboutSimulation 1.

• I think that there are nothingwhich will not be useful in thefuture.

• I think it’s important to worktogether, and teammatescheck my English, and

Fig. 5. Example of text written in response to simulation 2 by a weaker student.

Fig. 6. Example of text written in response to simulation 2 by a stronger student.


communicate each other.I think another simulationmaybe agree.

• Through this simulation,I understood that I mustnot think only income andmust think the near futureeconomy.

• It’s important to think forcompany’s and make adecision.

• The simulation was usefulbecause I read many web pagein English to search.

• At first, we thought that not todevelop any games for the newconsole because it seemedto be the safest decision.However, we realized that torun a risk produces betterresult in some cases throughthis working.

• I reflected this problemseriously. Perhaps, I neverreflect such a thing like this ifI don’t face such a problem. Itwas a good experience.

• This simulation makes ourmore thinking deeply.

• This simulation was study fornot only English but economyas well.

• When I start working, I needto have and speak my opinionabout my company.

• I didn’t know this issue.We will get a job related tocomputer, so we had betterknow this information.

• Like this simulation ispossible in the future in fact,so we can simulate and thinkabout “what is copyright”seriously. This experience willbe utilize a lot.

• I think this experience is themost important, so I thinkthis simulation is very useful.I have to gain experience bypractical use.

Clearly, these comments are strongendorsements for simulations.Students appeared very motivatedby the activities involved in thesimulations tasks. The commentsby students concerning Simulation2 echoed similar thoughts.

• I didn’t know about thelicensing fee. I may run into

trouble if I don’t know aboutthe licensing fee

• I think that I may be in likethis situation.

• We can more understand thesimulation from the judgment.

• It is important for me(students) to make manyEnglish sentences. I canalso understand that I makemistake.

• If there is a problem likesimulation, I won’t missjudge.

• I could think about the reasonof the judgment deeply.

• I could think about futurework in English.

• I think that I will be confrontedwith an unexpected situationin the future, so I will beuseful this simulation.

• I will go to the world ofcomputer sience. I may meetthis problem.

• Without this simulation, wewould not cope well with theproblem in the future.

• I little write long Englishcentens so it is useful toincrease my English writingskill.

• I can think various idea in thesituation. It is important toconsider by order. I have toresearch to judge. It is goodtraining.

Overall, the students’ writingsexceeded my expectations,and they remained on taskand engaged throughout bothsimulations. Jones claims thatteachers are often pleasantlysurprised by the abilities theirstudents demonstrate whenengaged in simulation activitiesthat are well designed [3], [4].

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

In this simulation, studentswere given opportunities towork on their English skills inan environment that requiredusing and understandinglanguage specific to their fieldof specialization. From personalexperience, I have rarely seenour Japanese students exert somuch effort to complete writing

tasks such as these. These arevery inexperienced writers, andtheir efforts revealed some oftheir weaknesses, but they helpedeach other make corrections, andmoreover, they learned from oneanother.

Because of my experiences, Ihave no hesitation in promotingsimulations of this kind. However,there are few elements that theteacher should consider. Anycurriculum without the properattention to detail is bound to fail.Advanced preparation is a vitalelement leading toward success.In light of this, the teacher shouldconsider the following questionsbefore commencing.

• What are the simulation tasksto be implemented?

• How many class sessions willbe needed to complete theentire simulation? How muchtime will each task consume?What is an alternative planif a task finishes early? Canthe next task be startedimmediately? What is analternative plan if a task takeslonger than intended? Whatif one student or group ofstudents finishes a task early?

• Does the simulation havemultiple sections (e.g., Part“A,” Part “B,” etc.)? Are thesections interconnected? If so,what happens if the resultsfrom the initial section areunexpected? Will this renderthe second section useless?

• How does this simulationaddress the linguistic needs ofESP students? What linguisticelements are going to beaddressed? How are theygoing to be assessed?

• Will there be group work (inmany simulations this is anessential element)? What arethe consequences (if any) ifone member from a particulargroup is absent? Can theparameters of the simulationbe easily adapted to countersuch problems?

• What roles will students have?Will each student have thesame role as his/her peers,


or will each student have aspecific role within a groupor classroom (e.g., engineer,consultant, designer, etc.)

• Is there some type of debriefingwhere students can eitherdiscuss their experiences orwrite down them down?

If these questions are addressedand the teacher finds a suitablecase to develop into a simulation,the simple addition of a dashof creativity can lead to a trulyeffective simulation that studentsmight find more than just a littlevaluable.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Gredler, Designing and Evaluating Games and Simulations: AProcess Approach. London, U.K.: Gulf Publishing, 1992.

[2] R. Spinello, Case Studies in Information and ComputerEthics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall, 1997.

[3] K. Jones, Designing Your Own Simulations. New York: Methuen, 1985.[4] , Simulations in Language Teaching. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1982.[5] M. Lepper, “Motivational considerations in the study of instruction,”

Cogn. Instruct., vol. 5, pp. 289–309, 1988.[6] M. Lepper and D. Cordova, “A desire to be taught: Instructional

consequences of intrinsic motivation,” Motivat. Emot., vol. 16, pp.187–208, 1992.

Mark R. Freiermuth is an Associate Professor in the Center for Language Research at

the University of Aizu in northern Japan, where he teaches EST/ESP to computer

science students. Besides his research interests in simulation applications in the

EST/ESP classroom, he is also involved in computer-mediated communication

research. His most recent publications and presentations have reflected these

research interests.

Case-based simulations in the est classroom

Documents

Transcript of Case-based simulations in the est classroom