This study is based on the hypothesis that group cohesion and efficacy have significant effects on the academic performance of individuals in online (virtual) education environments no less than in-person education environments. To that end, this study explores the effectiveness of group activities in a virtual classroom environment using VC (Virtual Conferencing). It is based on a hypothesis that strong group cohesion and efficacy of a learning group influence the individual academic performance. The findings are as follows. First, team-building activities conducted in an online environment can further improve the level of group efficacy. Second, group cohesion formed in the online educational environment has a positive effect on the individual academic performance. Third, group efficacy amplified through online team-building activities mediate the relationship between group cohesion and individual academic performance. The results of the study support the hypothesis that psychological group variables can also affect the individual academic performance even in online educational environments. These findings will be helpful for researchers who are interested in designing educational collaborative activities and system development for computer-supported cooperative learning (CSCL).
AdnanM.AnwarK. J. O. S. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1), 45–51.
2.
AubkeF.WoeberK.ScottN.BaggioR. (2014). Knowledge sharing in revenue management teams: Antecedents and consequences of group cohesion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 149–157.
3.
BanduraA. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
4.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-self efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
5.
BanduraA.FreemanW. H.LightseyR. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Spinger.
6.
BaoW. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115.
7.
BeauchampM. R.McEwanD.WaldhauserK. J. (2017). Team building: Conceptual, methodological, and applied considerations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 114–117.
8.
BloomD. A.ReidJ. R.CassadyC. I. (2020). Education in the time of COVID-19. Pediatric Radiology, 50, 1055–1058.
9.
BraunM. T.KozlowskiS. W.BrownT. A.DeShonR. P. (2020). Exploring the dynamic team cohesion–performance and coordination–performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Research, 51(5), 551–580.
10.
CarronA. V.BrayS. R.EysM. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(2), 119–126.
11.
CastilloM.HerediaY.GallardoK. E. (2017). Collaborative work competency in online postgraduate students and its prevalence on academic achievement. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(3), 168–179.
12.
Castro-HernándezA. (2016, August2). Content and temporal analysis of communications to predict task cohesion in software development global teams [Conference session]. 2016 IEEE 11th international conference on global software engineering workshops (ICGSEW), Orange County, CA. IEEE.
13.
Castro-HernándezA.SwiggerK.Ponce-FloresM. P. (2014, October22–25). Effects of cohesion-based feedback on the collaborations in global software development teams [Conference session]. 10th IEEE international conference on collaborative computing: Networking, applications and worksharing, Miami, FL. IEEE.
14.
ChangA.BordiaP. J. . (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379–405.
15.
CummingsJ. N.KieslerS. (2008, November8–12). Who collaborates successfully? Prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research [Conference session]. 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA. ACM.
ForsythD. R. (2018). Group dynamics. Cengage Learning.
18.
FurstS.BlackburnR.RosenB. (1999). Virtual team effectiveness: A proposed research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 9(4), 249–269.
19.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.BachmanB. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3–4), 271–290.
20.
GibbonsS. (2010). Collaborating like never before: Reading and writing through a wiki. English Journal, 99, 35–39.
21.
GibsonC. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138–152.
22.
GullyS. M.IncalcaterraK. A.JoshiA.BeaubienJ. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832.
23.
GuptaP.WoolleyA. W. (2018). Productivity in an era of multi-teaming: The role of information dashboards and shared cognition in team performance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1-–18.
24.
HandkeL.KlonekF. E.ParkerS. K.KauffeldS. (2020). Interactive effects of team virtuality and work design on team functioning. Small Group Research, 51(1), 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419863490
25.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall.
26.
HochiY.YamadaY.MizunoM. (2017). Team building program for enhancement of collective efficacy: The case of a university baseball team in Japan. In SalmonP.MacquetA. C. (Eds.), Advances in human factors in sports and outdoor recreation (pp. 125–129). Springer.
27.
KaneA. A.ArgoteL.LevineJ. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 56–71.
28.
KatzR. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.
29.
KimJ.KeeganB. C.ParkS.OhA. (2016, May7–12). The proficiency-congruency dilemma: Virtual team design and performance in multiplayer online games [Conference session]. 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA. ACM.
30.
KirschnerP. A.MartensR. L.StrijbosJ.-W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? In StrijbosJ. W.KirschnerP. A.MartensR. L. (Eds.), What we know about CSCL (pp. 3–30). Springer.
31.
KleinC.DiazGranadosD.SalasE.LeH.BurkeC. S.LyonsR.GoodwinG. F. (2009). Does team building work?Small Group Research, 40(2), 181–222.
32.
KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.
KumarA. (2002). Research methodology in social science. Sarup & Sons.
35.
LazarowitzR.Hertz-LazarowitzR.BairdJ. H. (1994) Learning science in a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1121–1131.
LiebowitzS. J.De MeuseK. P. (1982). The application of team building. Human Relations, 35(1), 1–18.
38.
LuL. (2015). Building trust and cohesion in virtual teams: The developmental approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People Performance, 2(1), 55–72.
39.
LubellM. (2002). Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behavior, 34(4), 431–454.
40.
MarkG.GrudinJ.PoltrockS. E. (1999). Meeting at the desktop: An empirical study of virtually collocated teams. In ECSCW’99: Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12–16September1999, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 159–178). Springer.
41.
MathieuJ. E.TaylorS. R. (2007). A framework for testing meso-mediational relationships in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior:, 28(2), 141–172.
42.
OlsonJ. S.WangD.OlsonG. M.ZhangJ. J.(2017). How people write together now: Beginning the investigation with advanced undergraduates in a project course. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 24(1), 1–40.
43.
PaskevichD. M.BrawleyL. R.DorschK. D.WidmeyerW. N. (1999). Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(3), 210.
44.
PearsonJ. (2006). Investigating ICT using problem-based learning in face-to-face and online learning environments. Computers & Education, 47(1), 56–73.
45.
PescosolidoA. T. (2003). Group efficacy and group effectiveness: The effects of group efficacy over time on group performance and development. Small Group Research, 34(1), 20–42.
46.
PoltrockS. E.EngelbeckG. (1997, November16–19). Requirements for a virtual collocation environment [Conference session]. International ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work: The integration challenge, Phoenix, AR. IEEE.
47.
PotnuruR. K. G.SahooC. K.SharmaR. (2019). Team building, employee empowerment and employee competencies: Moderating role of organizational learning culture. European Journal of Training and Development, 43(1/2), 39–60.
48.
RappT.MaynardT.DomingoM.KlockE. (2021). Team emergent states: What has emerged in the literature over 20 years. Small Group Research, 52(1), 68–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496420956715
49.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
50.
ReadeC. (2001). Dual identification in multinational corporations: Local managers and their psychological attachment to the subsidiary versus the global organization. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(3), 405–424.
51.
ReagansR.ArgoteL.BrooksD. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6), 869–881.
52.
ReguerasL. M.VerduE.MunozM. F.PerezM. A.De CastroJ. P.VerduM. J. (2009). Effects of competitive e-learning tools on higher education students: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(2), 279–285.
53.
ReveloR. A.SchmitzC. D.LeD. T.LouiM. C. (2017). Self-efficacy as a long-term outcome of a general education course on digital technologies. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60(3), 198–204.
54.
RiggsM. L.KnightP. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 755.
55.
RobbinsS. P.JudgeT. (2009). Organizational behavior. Pearson South Africa.
56.
RobertL. P. (2013, February23–27). A multi-level analysis of the impact of shared leadership in diverse virtual teams [Conference session]. 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, San Antonio, TX. ACM.
57.
SalasE.RozellD.MullenB.DriskellJ. E. (1999). The effect of team building on performance: An integration. Small Group Research, 30(3), 309–329.
58.
SchwandaV. L.BarronK.LienJ.SchroederG.VernonA.HancockJ. T. (2011, 19–23March). Temporal patterns of cohesiveness in virtual groups [Conference session]. ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Hangzhou, China. ACM.
59.
SenguptaA.WilliamsS. D. (2020). Can an engagement platform persuade students to stay? Applying behavioral models for retention. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 37(10), 1–12.
60.
SieboldG. L. (2007). The essence of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 33(2), 286–295.
61.
StajkovicA. D.LeeD.NybergA. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814.
62.
TekF. B.BenliK. S.DeveciE. (2018). Implicit theories and self-efficacy in an introductory programming course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(3), 218–225.
63.
van LeeuwenA.JanssenJ. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review, 27, 71–89.
64.
WangL. S.ChenJ.RenY.RiedlJ. (2012, February11–15). Searching for the goldilocks zone: Trade-offs in managing online volunteer groups [Conference session]. ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work, Seattle, WA. ACM.
65.
WangP.RodeJ. C.ShiK.LuoZ.ChenW. (2013). A workgroup climate perspective on the relationships among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity. Group & Organization Management, 38(3), 334–360.
66.
WangM. T.DegolJ. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315–352.
67.
WeickK. E.RobertsK. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.
68.
Widén-WulffG.GinmanM. (2004). Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 448–458.
69.
ZhengL.ZhengL. (2017). A socially shared regulation approach to improving group cohesion, collective efficacy, and regulation skills in CSCL. Knowledge Building and Regulation in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 83–96.
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.
