Social Tasks in Online Groups

This study examines student perceptions of the social tasks involved in online group projects and characteristics they thought were important (285). Data was gathered through a survey of 125 undergraduate students in six online classes. Questions were focused on behavior identification, such as what the students did to develop an identity, how they got to know other group members, what kind of characteristics they desired in group members, and how they contributed to developing supportive relationships, trust and etiquette (287-88). I thought the questions were worded in somewhat leading way, assuming positive motives and behaviors. In addition, some of the questions contained terms that were open to interpretation. For example, what exactly is meant by “etiquette” or “develop a specific identity”? The response rate was only 47%, and the students were enrolled through one department. The questions were based on the students’ own perspectives of themselves and, while this can be informative, we all have an inherent bias in how we view our own actions. Nevertheless, I’m looking for ideas to explore in developing a learning community as well as facilitating face-to-face group projects, and this article sheds light on a potential disconnect between student perspectives of effective groups and the characteristics that are actually needed to perform successfully.

The themes derived from the survey responses were showing respect, being nice, adhering to rules/direction, the importance of effective communication, defining roles and expectations, and determining desired characteristics of group members (288). The authors acknowledge that when students used terms such as “respect” quite liberally, they did not describe what they meant. Behaviors considered “nice” were detailed, however, these boiled down to the students’ efforts to be polite in order to avoid conflict; they weren’t willing to challenge group behaviors (288). If no one challenges group behaviors, ideas are held back, groupthink can occur, and more dominating group members can pull the group in directions that do not have consensus or support. A similar finding has to do with adhering to rules and following leader directions. The students did not feel it was important for students themselves to set their rules about such things as when and how to communicate (289). This is important to explore further to validate, as it can lead to misaligned expectations, role confusion and frustration if the teacher gives autonomy to the groups to establish their norms, and the students believe that is the teacher’s role. The students also preferred that roles emerge naturally in the course of interacting as opposed to assigning roles. This, too, could lead to uncertainty and dysfunction of the team. I agree with the authors’ conclusion that these results may indicate that students need more assistance to create effective groups (290). Perhaps this is a case for the use of process scripts. So although the study itself may be flimsy, it does highlight areas that may need more research and attention.



Morgan, Kari, Bruce A. Cameron, and Karen C. Williams. “Student perceptions of social task development in online group project work. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10.3 (2009): 285-294. Web. EBSCO. 23 May 2010.