![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Researchers have found that the electronic methods in use for online team communication today increase communication quality in project-based work situations. Because communication quality is known to influence group cohesion, the present research examined whether online student project teams are more cohesive than traditional teams. We tested this question using parallel online and traditional teams in introductory marketing courses. Compared with the traditional teams, online team members communicated more positively and participated more in team activities, both of which suggest a higher level of team cohesion. The online teams were more satisfied with their team experience and performed better on their projects than did the traditional teams. The importance and application of this research is discussed. Because the existing research in marketing education has focused on traditional teams, the study findings open a potentially important line of research.
References
Section:
|
Andres, H. P. (2006). The impact of communication medium on virtual team group process. Information Resources Management Journal, 19(2), 1-17. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Bacon, D. R. (2004). The contributions of reliability and pretests to effective assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(3). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=3 Google Scholar | |
|
Bacon, D. R., Bean, B. (2006). GPA in research studies: An invaluable but neglected opportunity. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 35-42. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar | |
|
Bargh, J. A., Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593-604. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Barr, T. F., Dixon, A. L., Gassenheimer, J. B. (2005). Exploring the “lone wolf” phenomenon in student teams. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 81-91. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R., Burke, M. J., McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-188. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Bordia, P. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 99-118. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Carte, T., Chidambaram, L. (2004). A capabilities-based theory of technology deployment in diverse teams: Leapfrogging the pitfalls of diversity and leveraging its potential with collaborative technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(11), 448-471. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M. L., Toy, D., Wright, L. K. (2009). Are student groups dysfunctional? Perspectives from both sides of the classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 39-49. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20, 143-165. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cummings, T. G. (1981). Designing effective work groups. In Paul, C. N., William, H. S. (Eds.), Handbook of organization design (Vol. 2, pp. 250-271). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In Staw, B., Cummings, L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N. (2003). Patient care teams and customer satisfaction: The role of team cohesion. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 666-683. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 114-124. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Dool, R. (2007, February). Mitigating conflict in online student teams. eLearn Magazine. Retrieved from http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1229760 Google Scholar | |
|
Drago, W., Peltier, J. W., Sorensen, D. (2002). Course content or the instructor: Which is more important in on-line teaching? Management Research News, 25(6/7), 69-78. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Driskell, J., Hogan, E. R., Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In Hendrick, C. (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relationships (pp. 91-112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Evans, C. R., Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-187. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Fiol, C. M., O’Connor, E. J. (2002). When hot and cold collide in radical change processes: Lessons from community development. Organization Science, 13, 532-546. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Girnnell, L., Sauers, A., Appunn, F., Mack, L. (2012). Virtual teams in higher education: The light and dark side. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 9, 65-78. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Goold, A., Craig, A., Coldwell, J. (2008). The student experience of working in teams online. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/goold.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Guzzo, R. A. (1995). At the intersection of team effectiveness and decision making. In Guzzo, R. A., Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 1-8). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar | |
|
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In Dunnett, M. D., Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Hackman, J. R., Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1-55). New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Hansen, D. E. (2008). Knowledge transfer in online learning environments. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 93-105. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Hogg, M. A., Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16, 7-30. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Hoyle, R. H., Crawford, A. M. (1994). Use of individual-level data to investigate group phenomena: Issues and strategies. Small Group Research, 25, 464-485. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199-218. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15, 127-147. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Lind, M. R. (1999). The gender impact of temporary virtual work groups. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42, 276-285. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Losada, M., Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Science, 47, 740-765. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Lott, A. J., Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408-412. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Lott, A. J., Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
|
Mayfield, J., Mayfield, M. (2002). Leader communication strategies: Critical paths to improving employee commitment. American Business Review, 20, 89-94. Google Scholar | |
|
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York, NY: Holt. Google Scholar | |
|
Miesing, P., Preble, J. F. (1985). Group processes and performance in a complex business simulation. Small Group Behavior, 16, 325-338. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Mueller, J. R. (2012). The fundamentals and fun of electronic teamwork for students and their instructors. American Journal of Business Education, 5, 581-588. Google Scholar | |
|
Nelson, K. M., Cooprider, J. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20, 409-432. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Neu, W. A. (2015). Social cues of (un)trustworthy team members. Journal of Marketing Education, 37, 36-53. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Olson, J. S., Olson, G. M., Meader, D. K. (1995). What mix of video and audio is useful for remote real-time design work? Retrieved from http://www.sigchi.org/chi95/proceedings/papers/jso_bdy.htm Google Scholar | |
|
Piezon, S. L., Ferree, W. D. (2008). Perceptions of social loafing in online learning groups: A study of public university and U.S. Naval War College students. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2), 65-69. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Pfaff, E., Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if the instructor hates teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 37-45. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Phillips, G. M., Santoro, G. M. (1989). Teaching group discussion via computer-mediated communication. Communication Education, 38, 151-161. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Piccoli, G., Powell, A., Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: Team control structure, work processes, and team effectiveness. Information Technology & People, 17, 359-379. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Pride, W. M., Ferrell, O. C. (2013). Marketing (17th ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar | |
|
Schmidt, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M., Massey, A. (2001). New product development decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 32, 575-601. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar | |
|
Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London, England: Wiley. Google Scholar | |
|
Smolensky, M. W., Carmody, M. A., Halcomb, C. G. (1990). The influence of task type, group structure and extraversion on uninhibited speech in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 6, 261-272. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Spink, K. S., Carron, A. V. (1994). Group cohesion effects in exercise classes. Small Group Research, 25, 26-42. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Summers, I., Coffelt, T., Horton, R. E. (1988). Work-group cohesion. Psychological Reports, 63, 627-636. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G., Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Google Scholar | |
|
Tan, B. C., Wei, K. K., Watson, R. T., Clapper, D. L., McLean, E. R. (1998). Computer-mediated communication and majority influence: Assessing the impact in an individualistic and collectivistic culture. Management Science, 44, 1263-1278. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-439. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 237-252. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186-203. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28, 975-996. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352-380. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Williams, E. A., Duray, R., Reddy, V. (2006). Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: A study of the use in teams of online distance education. Journal of Management Education, 30, 592-616. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Wolfe, J., Box, T. M. (1988). Team cohesion effects on business game performance. Simulation & Games, 19, 82-98. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Yoo, Y., Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25, 371-390. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
