This research examines computer-supported collaborative learning. Master’s of business administration (MBA) students in an online program were surveyed to examine the extent to which an orientation toward teamwork and the development of group cohesiveness affect overall student learning and the learning that results specifically from team interactions (team-source learning). The results indicate that both teamwork orientation and group cohesiveness predict student learning, with group cohesiveness mediating the relationship between teamwork orientation and student learning. Teamwork orientation and group cohesiveness appear to be equally important predictors of team-source learning. The implications of this research for the use of teams in online distance education are discussed.
Abrami, P. C., & Bures, E. M. (1996). Computer-supported collaborative learning and distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 10, 37-41.
2.
Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS Quarterly, 18, 159-174,
3.
Alavi, M., & Gallupe, R. B. (2003). Using information technology in learning: Case studies in business and management education programs. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 139-153.
4.
Alavi, M., Yoo, Y., & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1310-1333.
5.
Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood.
6.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000a). An exploratory study of the effects of gender on student learning and class participation in an Internet-based MBA course. Management Learning, 31, 533-549.
7.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000b). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction in Internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24, 32-54.
8.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000c). Virtual classrooms versus physical classrooms: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24, 207-227.
9.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the on-line classroom: A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of Web-based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 203-223.
10.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with Web-based courses. Management Learning, 33, 331-347.
11.
Arbaugh, J. B., & Stelzer, L. (2003). Learning and teaching management on the Web: What do we know? In C. Wankel & R. DeFillipi (Eds.), Educating managers with tomorrow’s technologies (pp. 17-51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
12.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mediator-moderator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
13.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay.
14.
Brower, H. H. (2003). On emulating classroom discussion in a distance-delivered OBHR course: Creating a non-line community. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 22-36.
15.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
16.
Carron, A., & Spink, K. S. (1995). The group size cohesion relationship in minimal groups. Small Group Research, 26, 86-105.
17.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91-109). New York: Harper & Row.
18.
Chidabaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20, 143-163.
19.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
20.
Connerly, M. L., & Mael, F. A. (2001). The importance and invasiveness of student team selection criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25, 471-494.
21.
Connick, G. P. (1997). Issues and trends to take us in to the twenty-first century. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver and evaluate programs (Vol. 71, pp. 7-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 169-189.
23.
Cottell, P. G., & Harwood, E. M. (1998). Using classroom assessment techniques to improve student learning in accounting classes. Issues in Accounting Education, 13, 551-564.
24.
Cummings, T. (1981). Designing effective work groups. In P. C. Nystrom, III, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, Vol. 2. Remodeling organizations and their environments (pp. 250-271). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
Davis, M., & Ralph, S. (2001). Stalling the learning process: Group dynamics in cyberspace. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33, 217-229.
26.
Dillon, C. L., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 6, 5-21.
27.
Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor’s role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52, 87-105.
28.
Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 275-295.
29.
Fornaciari, C. J., Forte, M., & Mathews, C. S. (1999). Distance education as strategy: How can your school compete?Journal of Management Education, 23, 703-718.
30.
Fornaciari, C. J., & Matthews, C. S. (2000). Student personality types and predispositions toward distance education. In S. J. Havlovic (Ed.), Academyof management best papers proceedings (MED B1-B6). Columbia, SC: Academy of Management.
31.
Frankola, K. (2001, October). Why online learners drop out. Workforce, 80, 52-60.
32.
Garrison, D. R. (1993). A cognitive-contructivist view of distance education: An analysis of teaching-learning assumptions. Distance Education, 14, 199-211.
33.
Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27, 321-338.
34.
Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 131-173). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
35.
Granitz, N., & Greene, C. S. (2003). Applying e-marketing strategies to online distance learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 16-30.
36.
Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated communication revisited: An analysis of the breadth and intensity of impressions. Communication Research, 28, 325-347.
37.
Hanson, D., & Maushak, N. (1996). Distance education: Review of the literature. Ames, IA: Research Institute for Studies in Education.
38.
Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.
39.
Hernandez, S. A. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 73-85.
40.
Hiltz, S. R., Coppola, N., Rotter, N., Turoff, M., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2000). Measuring the importance of collaborative learning for the effectiveness of ALN: A multi-measure, multi-method approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4, 103-125.
41.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective?Communications of the ACM, 45, 56-59.
42.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables—construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 39-155.
43.
Howard, C., & Discenza, R. (2000). The emergence of distance learning in higher education: A revised group decision support system typology with empirical results. In L. K. Lau (Ed.), Distance learning technologies: Issues, trends and opportunities (pp. 143-156). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
44.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.
45.
Kaye, A. (1989). CMC and distance education. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave, communications, communications and distance education (pp. 3-21). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
46.
Klobas, J., & Haddow., G. (2000). International computer-supported collaborative teamwork in business education. International Journal of Educational Technology, 2. Retrieved from http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n1/klobas/index.html
47.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110-132.
48.
Lankau, M. J. (1996). An examination of mentoring, peer developmental relationships, and team participation as sources of learning in an organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, Florida.
49.
LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2000). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for Web sources: A social cognitive explanation. Communication Education, 4, 320-338.
50.
Lawther, P., & Walker, D. H. T. (2001). An evaluation of a distributed learning system. Education & Training, 43, 105-116.
51.
Leidner, D. E., & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving student learning of conceptual information: GSS-supported collaborative learning vs. individual constructive learning. Decision Support Systems, 20, 149-163.
52.
Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19, 265-291.
53.
Lick, D. W. (2000, winter). Whole-faculty study groups: Facilitating mentoring for school-wide change. Theory into Practice, 39, 43-49.
54.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York: John Wiley.
56.
Mangan, P. (2001). What is distance learning?Management Quarterly, 42, 30-35.
57.
Massey, A. P., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Hung, Y. (2003). Because time matters: Temporal coordinate in global virtual project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 129-155.
58.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An integration model of trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-730.
59.
McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher & R. Kraut (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60.
Meyerson, D., Weick, R. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166-1959). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
Michaelson, L. K. (1994). Classroom organization and management: Making a case for the small-group option. In K. W. Prichard & R. M. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of college teaching: Theory and applications. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
62.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1251-1262.
63.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three modes of interaction. A presentation of the NUCEA forum: Issues in instructional interactivity. Presented at the annual meeting of the National University Continuing Education Association, Salt Lake City, Utah.
64.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor or organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.
65.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
66.
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14, 15-35.
67.
NCES. (1997). NCES issues report on distance education. College and Research Libraries News, 58, 689-689.
68.
Neubert, M. J., & Cady, S. (2001). Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54, 421-448.
69.
Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001). Student responses to collaborating and learning in a Web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 34-47.
70.
O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37.
71.
Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Williams, M. L. (1993). Do substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 1-44.
72.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
73.
Ravenscroft, S. P., Buckless, F. A., & Hassall, T. (1999). Cooperative learning: A literature guide. Accounting Education, 8, 163-176.
74.
Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance: A case study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49, 33-48.
75.
Savard, M. S., Mitchell, P., Abrami, M., & Corso, J. (1995). Learning together at a distance. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24, 117-131.
76.
Sawyer, J. E., Ferry, D. L., & Kydd, C. (2001). Learning about and from group support systems. Journal of Management Education, 25, 352-371.
77.
Scandura, T. A. (1995). Management practices survey. University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida.
78.
Scifres, E. (1998). An empirical investigation of electronic groups in the classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 247-250.
79.
Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners’ satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure. American Journal of Distance Education, 12, 4-28.
80.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A source book for higher education (pp. 9-22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
81.
Smith, J., & Vanecek, M. (1990). Dispersed group decision making using non-simultaneous computer conferencing: A report of research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7, 71-92.
82.
Steinberg, J., & Wyatt, E. (2000, February 13). Boola, boola: E-commerce comes to the quad. The New York Times, pp. 1-5.
83.
Stelzer, L. (2001). Using learning style to explain student satisfaction and performance in a business course. Presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
84.
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education Communication and Information, 2, 23-49.
85.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact, and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 389-413.
86.
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver and evaluate programs (Vol. 71, pp. 19-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
87.
Wagner, J. A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172.
88.
Walker, K. (2003). Applying distributed learning theory in online business communication courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 66, 55-67.
89.
Wells, R. A. (1990). Computer-mediated communication for distance education and training: Literature review and international resources. Boise, ID: U.S. Army Research Institute.
90.
Worley, R. B. (2000). The medium is not the message. Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 93-103.
91.
Yoo, Y., Kanawattanachai, P., & Citurs, A. (2002). Forging into the wired wilderness: A case study of a technology-mediated distributed discussion-based class. Journal of Management Education, 26, 139-163.
