Our study explores the differences in the experiences and attitudes of students assigned to student teams in online courses versus face-to-face courses. The study was administered to 320 students in 14 sections (eight online and six face-to-face) of a graduate-level course. The results demonstrate that student ratings of team trust, team satisfaction, and team identity as assessed mid-semester are lower in online courses than face-to-face courses. As the semester progressed, these course modality differences in student perceptions of team trust and satisfaction diminished. However, feelings of team identity remained lower in online courses than in face-to-face courses through to the end of the semester. Implications for online instruction and recommendations for future research are offered.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51: 1173–82.
4.
BlackG (2002) Student assessment of virtual teams in an online management course. Journal of Business Administration Online1(2): 1–12.
5.
BrahmTKunzeF (2012) The role of trust climate in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology27(6): 595–614.
6.
BrannenSFBeauchampDCartwrightN, et al. (2021) Effectiveness of group work contracts to facilitate collaborative group learning and reduce anxiety in traditional face-to-face lecture and online distance education course formats. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning15(2): Article 5.
7.
BreuerCHüffmeierJHertelG (2016) Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology101(8): 1151–77.
8.
ChengXMacaulayL (2014) Exploring individual trust factors in computer mediated group collaboration: A case study approach. Group Decision and Negotiation23(3): 533–60.
9.
ClearyYSlatteryDMFlammiaM, et al. (2019) Developing strategies for success in a cross-disciplinary global virtual team project: Collaboration among student writers and translators. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication49(3): 309–37.
10.
ConnellyCETurelO (2016) Effects of team emotional authenticity on virtual team performance. Frontiers in Psychology7(1336): 1336.
11.
De JongBAElfringT (2010) How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal53(3): 535–49.
12.
DendirS (2016) An online premium? Characteristics and performance of online versus face-to-face students in principles of microeconomics. Journal of Education for Business91(2): 59–68. DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1110555
13.
DeOrtentiisPSummersJAmmeterA, et al. (2013) Cohesion and satisfaction as mediators of the team trust – Team effectiveness relationship. Career Development International18(5): 521–43.
14.
EllemersNSleebosEStamD, et al. (2013) Feeling included and valued: How perceived respect affects positive team identity and willingness to invest in the team. British Journal of Management24(1): 21–37.
15.
FeitosaJGrossmanRKramerWS, et al. (2020) Measuring team trust: A critical and meta-analytical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior41(5): 479–501.
16.
FulmerCAGelfandMJ (2012) At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management38(4): 1167–230.
17.
FungHP (2014) Relationships among team trust, team cohesion, team satisfaction and project team effectiveness as perceived by project managers in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Economics and Management1(1): 1–15.
18.
GabrielMAMacDonaldCJ (2002) Working together: The context of teams in an online MBA program. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology28(2): 49–65.
19.
GilsonLLMaynardMTJones YoungNC, et al. (2015) Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management41(5): 1313–37.
20.
GohSWaskoM (2012) The effects of leader-member exchange on member performance in virtual world teams. Journal of the Association for Information Systems13(10): 861–85.
21.
GooldAAugarNFarmerJ (2006) Learning in virtual teams: Exploring the student experience. Journal of Information Technology Education Research5(1): 477–90.
22.
GrossmanRFeitosaJ (2018) Team trust over time: Modeling reciprocal and contextual influences in action teams. Human Resource Management Review28(4): 395–410.
23.
GrzedaMHaqRLeBrasseurR (2008) Team building in an online organizational behavior course. Journal of Education for Business83(5): 275–82.
24.
HackerJVJohnsonMSaundersC, et al. (2019) Trust in Virtual Teams: A Multidisciplinary Review and Integration. Australasian Journal of Information Systems23: 1–36.
25.
HambleyLAO’NeillTAKlineTJB (2007) Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes103(1): 1–20.
26.
HanGHarmsPD (2010) Team identification, trust and conflict: A mediation model. International Journal of Conflict Management21(1): 20–43.
27.
HendarsjahHSusantoELies SugiantoBR, et al. (2019) Curvilinear relationship between intra-team trust and team innovation: The moderating role of task complexity. Journal of Asia Business Studies13(3): 472–87.
28.
KarauSJHartJW (1998) Group cohesiveness and social loafing: Effects of a social interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups. Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice2(3): 185–91.
29.
KimbleC (2011) Building effective virtual teams: How to overcome the problems of trust and identity in virtual teams. Global Business and Organizational Excellence30(2): 6–15.
30.
KohutGF (2012) Enhancing student collaboration in global virtual teams. The Journal of Effective Teaching12(3): 44–60.
31.
LipmanM (1991) Thinking in Education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LitchfieldRCKarakitapoğlu-AygünZGumusluogluL, et al. (2018) When team identity helps innovation and when it hurts: Team identity and its relationship to team and cross-team innovative behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management35(3): 350–66.
33.
LouYAbramiPCSpenceJC, et al. (1996) ‘Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research66(4): 423–58.
34.
MitraS (2022) Does collaborative learning improve student outcomes for underrepresented students?: Evidence from an online bottleneck business course. Journal of Education for Business97: 161–7.
35.
MontelongoR (2019) Less than/more than: Issues associated with high impact online teaching and learning. Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research9(1): 68–79.
36.
OrtegaASánchez-ManzanaresMGilF, et al. (2010) Team learning and effectiveness in virtual project teams: The role of beliefs about interpersonal context. The Spanish Journal of Psychology13(1): 267–76.
37.
OswalSKPalmerZBKorisR (2021) Designing virtual team projects with accessibility in mind: An illustrative example of cross-cultural student collaboration. Journal of Virtual Exchange4: 1–27.
38.
O’ConnorCMullaneKLuethgeD (2021) The management and coordination of virtual teams in large classes: Facilitating experiential learning. Journal of Management Education45(5): 739–59.
39.
PalanskiMEKahaiSSYammarinoFJ (2011) Team virtues and performance: An examination of transparency, behavioral integrity, and trust. Journal of Business Ethics99(2): 201–16.
40.
ParrishCWGuffeySKWilliamsDS (2021) The impact of team-based learning on students’ perceptions of classroom community. Active Learning in Higher Education: 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/14697874211035078
41.
PetrovskayaIShaposhnikovS (2020) Enhancing intercultural effectiveness in international virtual student teams: An exploratory study. Educational Research for Policy and Practice19: 345–61.
42.
PowellAPiccoliGIvesB (2004) Virtual teams: A review of current literature and directions for future research. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems35(1): 6–36.
43.
PrestridgeSCoxD (2021) Play like a team in teams: A typology of online cognitive-social learning engagement. Active Learning in Higher Education: 1–18. DOI: 10.1177/1469787421990986
44.
SaghafianMO’NeillDK (2018) A phenomenological study of teamwork in online and face-to-face student teams. Higher Education75(1): 57–73.
45.
SchillerSMenneckeBENahFFH, et al. (2014) Institutional boundaries and trust of virtual teams in collaborative design: An experimental study in a virtual world environment. Computers in Human Behavior35: 565–77.
46.
SherA (2009) Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning8: 102–20.
47.
SherblomJCWithersLALeonardLG, et al. (2018) Virtual team communication norms: Modeling the mediating effects of relational trust, presence, and identity on conversational interactivity, openness, and satisfaction. In: LakkarajuKSukthankerGWigandRT (eds) Social Interactions in Virtual Worlds: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.103–29.
48.
StarkEMBierlyPEIII (2009) An analysis of predictors of team satisfaction in product development teams with differing levels of virtualness. R&D Management39(5): 461–72.
49.
StoicaMFloreaL (2020) Innovation in virtual team business education: Ways to increase trust and cohesiveness. Business Education Innovation Journal12(2): 119–27.
50.
TajfelH (1978) Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.
51.
TajfelHJCTurner (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp.33–48.
52.
TeslukPEMathieuJE (1999) Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology84(2): 200–17.
Van Der VegtGSVan De VliertEOosterhofA (2003) Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal46(6): 715–27.
55.
WellsRA (1990) Computer-Mediated Communication for Distance Education and Training: Literature Review and International Resources. Boise, ID: U.S. Army Research Institute.
56.
ZeitunRMAbdulqaderKSAlshareKA (2013) Team satisfaction and student group performance: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Education for Business88(5): 286–93.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
