Advertisement

Predictors for students’ self-efficacy in online collaborative groupwork

  • Jianxia Du
  • Xitao Fan
  • Jianzhong Xu
  • Chuang WangEmail author
  • Li Sun
  • Fangtong Liu
Research Article

Abstract

This study examines factors related to student self-efficacy beliefs in on-line groupwork. Participants in this study were 204 graduate students taking an online graduate-level course from a public university in the Southeast United States of America. Two-level hierarchical linear models were used to examine predictors of the students’ self-efficacy. Three student-level variables were found to be related to groupwork self-efficacy: individual’s willingness to handle groupwork challenge, trust relationship, and leadership influence. At the group level, the group’s willingness to handle groupwork challenge was positively related to individual student’s groupwork self-efficacy. Discussions of the findings suggest that leadership is important for groupwork. Instructors of online courses are recommended to design high-quality group projects that are purposeful, meaningful, challenging, and engaging. Communications between group members are also recommended to build trust. Implications of the findings to online learning and instruction as well as directions for future research are presented.

Keywords

On-line groupwork Self-efficacy Technology and media use Willingness to handle challenges Leadership Trust relationship 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L., & Wolman, S. D. (2007). Determinants and validity of self-estimates of abilities and self-concept measures. Journal of Psychology: Applied, 13, 57–78.Google Scholar
  2. Amhag, L., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Collaborative learning as a collective competence when students use the potential of meaning in asynchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 52(3), 656–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. An, H., Kim, S., & Kim, B. (2008). Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning: Factors perceived as facilitating and impeding successful online group work. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 65–83.Google Scholar
  4. Aubert, B., & Kelsey, B. (2003). Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 34(5), 575–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). A Social Cognitive Theory, Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman & Company.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett, E., & Lally, V. (1999). Gender differences in an on-line learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bar-Tal, D. (1989). Group beliefs: A conception for analyzing group structure, processes, and behavior. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Bimber, B. (2000). The gender gap on the internet. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 868–876.Google Scholar
  11. Bostock, S., & Lizhi, W. (2005). Gender in student online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(1), 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bressler, L., & Bressler, M. (2007). The relationship of self-esteem and self-efficacy among distance learning students in accounting information systems on-line classes. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 4, 274–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brindley, J., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks, C. M., & Ammons, J. L. (2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 268–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bunn, M. D. (2001). Timeless and timely issues in distance education planning. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26, 673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A Review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. (2003). Task- and relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Denis, A., & Ollivier, M. (2002). How wired are canadian women? The intersection of gender, class and language with the use of new information technologies. In A. Martinez & M. Stuart (Eds.), Out of the ivory tower: Taking feminist research to the community (pp. 251–269). Toronto, CA: Sumach Press.Google Scholar
  22. DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting student success in online distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diseth, A. (2011). Self-efficacy, goal orientation and learning strategies as mediators between preceding and subsequent academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.Google Scholar
  25. Du, J. X., Durrington, V. A., & Mathews, J. G. (2007). Collaborative discussion: Myth or valuable learning tool. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT), 3(2), 94–104.Google Scholar
  26. Du, J., Ge, X., & Zhang, K. (2012). Graduate students’ experiences of online collaborative learning in Web-based learning environments. International Journal of Information Communication and Technology Education, 8(4), 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Du, J., & Xu, J. (2010). The quality of online discussion reported by graduate Students. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(1), 13–24.Google Scholar
  28. Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dykman, C. A., & Davis, C. K. (2008). Online education forum-Part three: A quality online education experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19, 281–289.Google Scholar
  30. Fan, X., & Thompson, B. (2001). Confidence intervals for effect sizes: Confidence intervals about score reliability coefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(4), 517–531.Google Scholar
  31. Fermoso, A. M., Mateos, M., Beato, M. E., & Berjón, R. (2015). Open linked data and mobile devices as e-tourism tools. A practical approach to collaborative e-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 618–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gibbons, D. E., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Can I do it? Will I try? Personal efficacy, assigned goals, and performance norms as motivators of individual performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 624–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gibson, C. B. (2003). The efficacy advantage: Factors related to the formation of group efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2153–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hahnel, C., & Jackson, O. (2012). Learning denied: The case for equitable access to effective teaching in California’s largest school district. Oakland, CA: The Education Trust-West.Google Scholar
  38. Harris, D., & Sass, T. (2007). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 798–812.Google Scholar
  39. Havard, B., Du, J., & Xu, J. (2008). Online collaborative learning and communication media. Journal of Interactive Learning Research., 19(1), 37–50.Google Scholar
  40. Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. (2013). Mobile computer-supported collaborative learning: A review of experimental research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, E111–E114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Isaac, J. D., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Other people as a source of interest in an activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jin, S. H. (2005). Analyzing student–student and student–instructor interaction through multiple communication tools in web-based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 59–67.Google Scholar
  43. Jones, P., Naugle, K., & Kolloff, M. (2008). Teacher presence: Using introductory videos in hybrid and online courses. Learning Solutions. Retrieved from learningsolutionsmag.com.Google Scholar
  44. Kirkpatick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(2), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus In-class courses: An examination of differences in learning outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 103–116.Google Scholar
  46. Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introduction to multilevel modeling. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kukulu, K., Korukcu, O., Ozdemir, Y., Bezci, A., & Calik, C. (2013). Self-confidence, gender and academic achievement of undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 20, 330–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kuljis, J., & Lees, D. Y. (2003). Supporting organizational e-learning with a distributed, virtual, collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 25(1), 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. LaPointe, D. K., Greysen, K. R. B., & Barrett, K. A. (2004). Speak2Me: Using synchronous audio for ESL teaching in Taiwan. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lent, R. W., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Little, B. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work. Small Group Research, 28, 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liu, S., Joy, M., & Griffiths, N. (2010). Students’ perceptions of the factors leading to unsuccessful group collaboration. Paper presented at 2010 IEEE 10th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Sousse, Tunisia.Google Scholar
  56. Locke, E. A. (1991). The essence of leadership: The four keys to leading successfully. New York, NY: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  57. López-Bonilla, J. M., & López-Bonilla, L. M. (2013). Exploring the relationship between social networks and collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, E139–E142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Magogwe, J. M., & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System, 35, 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mittleman, D. D., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (2000). Best practice in facilitating virtual meetings: Some notes from initial experience. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 2, 5–14.Google Scholar
  60. Moore, M. G. (2002). Editorial, what does research say about the learners using computer-mediated communication in distance learning? American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 62–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nummenmaa, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008). University students’ emotions, interest and activities in a web-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online of face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS quarterly, 30, 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. Prussia, G. E., Anderson, J. S., & Manz, C. C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. The America Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  73. Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. Strategic Information Systems, 11, 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rossetto, K. R., Lannutti, P. J., & Smith, R. A. (2014). Investigating self-efficacy and emotional challenge as contributors to willingness to provide emotional support. Southern Communication Journal, 79(1), 41–58.Google Scholar
  75. Ryan, A. M., Gheen, M. H., & Midgley, C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’ social-emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith, R. (2008). The paradox of trust in online collaborative groups. Distance Education, 29, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 479–500). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stanford-Bowers, D. E. (2008). Persistence in online classes: A study of perceptions among community college stakeholders. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4, 37–50.Google Scholar
  82. Stevens, T., Olivarez, A., Jr., Lan, W. Y., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2004). Role of mathematics self-efficacy and motivation in mathematics performance across ethnicity. The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Thompson, L., & Ku, H.-Y. (2006). A case study of online collaborative learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7, 361–375.Google Scholar
  84. Thompson, D., & McGregor, I. (2009). Online self- and peer assessment for groupwork. Education Training, 51, 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ting, Y.-L. (2012). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions An intuitive design and its evaluation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Torrisi-Steele, G., & Davis, G. (2000). ‘A website for my subject’: The experiences of some academics’ engagement with educational designers in a team based approach to developing online learning materials. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16, 283–301.Google Scholar
  87. Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 438–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tuparova, D., & Tuparov, G. (2010). Management of students’ participation in e-learning collaborative activities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4757–4762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Von Secker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Wang, C., Hu, J., Zhang, G., Chang, Y., & Xu, Y. (2012). Chinese college students’ self-regulated learning strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in learning English as a foreign language. Journal of Research in Education, 22(2), 103–135.Google Scholar
  93. Wang, C., Kim, D. H., Bong, M., & Ahn, H. S. (2013). Examining measurement properties of an English self-efficacy scale for English language learners in Korea. International Journal of Educational Research, 59, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Xu, J. (2008). Models of secondary school students’ interest in homework: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1180–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. P. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency model of leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 374–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhang, K., & Ge, X. (2006). Dynamic contexts of online collaborative learning. In A. D. de Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual settings: The role of the context (pp. 97–115). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  99. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility belief. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zuo, H., & Wang, C. (2016). Understanding Sources of Self-Efficacy of Chinese Students Learning English in an American Institution. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 83–112.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.School of Humanities and Social ScienceChinese University of Hong KongShenzhenChina
  3. 3.Mississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA
  4. 4.Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina
  5. 5.University of MacauMacauChina

Personalised recommendations