Advertisement

Making Online Teams Work

  • Helen KayeEmail author
  • Jane Barrett
Chapter

Abstract

Contemporary graduates are expected to be adept at working collaboratively; however, enabling students to acquire the necessary skills is particularly challenging in an online context. This study uses empirical research involving tutor and tutor perspectives to investigate barriers to successful online team work. Poor group dynamics are frequently an area of concern for students and this study analysed written communication between group members when solving puzzles. The results led us to propose that, in the online environment, tutors and students need time, opportunity and motivation to adopt the social constructionist approach, rather than relying on the information transmission model. We conclude by emphasizing that, in any teaching model, strategic planning should include resources to nurture collaborative skills for students and their tutors.

Keywords

Collaboration Online teamworking Online teams Social constructionism Online teaching Online learning 

References

  1. An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers and Education, 53(3), 749–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: Success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology and Society, 12(1), 249–258.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). Introduction to e-learning research. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The sage handbook of E-learning research (pp. 1–52). Los Angeles/London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop, J. (2007). Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for human-computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1881–1893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. British Psychological Society. (2015). Standards for the accreditation of undergraduate, conversion and integrated Masters programmes in psychology. http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/PaCT/Undergraduate%20Accreditation%202016_WEB.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
  7. Brown, R. (2000). Group processes: Dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Calvani, A., Fini, A., Molino, M., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Visualizing and monitoring effective interactions in online collaborative groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  11. Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fung, Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin, C., Graham, M., & Scarborough, H. (2001). Developing an asynchronous learning network. Educational Technology and Society, 4(4), 39–47.Google Scholar
  14. Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki, P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first-century learning practices. (PREP 21): A framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hiltz, S. R., & Meinke, R. (1989). Teaching sociology in a virtual classroom. Teaching Sociology, 17(4), 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Harasim, L. (2007). Development and philosophy of the field of asynchronous learning networks. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The sage handbook of E-learning research. Los Angeles/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaye, H., Barrett, J. P., & Knightley, W. M. (2013). Student preference for residential or online project work in psychology. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 196–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kear, K. (2010). Collaboration via online discussion forums: Issues and approaches. In H. Donelan, K. Kear, & M. Ramage (Eds.), Online communication and collaboration. Abingdon/Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. www.jstor.org/stable/27558571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. MacDonald, J. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring: A good practice guide. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  23. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  24. Murphy, E. (2004). Recognising and promoting collaboration in an online asynchronous discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oliver, M., & Shaw, G. P. (2003). Asynchronous discussion in support of medical education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 56–67.Google Scholar
  26. Piezon, S. L., & Donaldson, R. L. (2005). Online groups and social loafing: Understanding student-group interactions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(4). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/piezon84.htm. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.
  27. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. QAA. (2016). Subject benchmark statement: Psychology. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/SBS-Psychology-16.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.
  29. Reddy, P., Lantz, C., & Hulme, J. (2013). Employability in psychology: A guide for departments. York: Higher Education Academy. tinyurl.com/kthejrs. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
  30. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vuopala, E., Hyvönen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2016). Interaction forms in successful collaborative learning in virtual learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations