This link has been bookmarked by 19 people . It was first bookmarked on 08 Aug 2006, by Christopher Sessums.
-
21 Feb 14
-
Therefore, Brooks and Ammons (2003) developed recommendations for assessments that include early implementation, multiple evaluation points, and specific evaluative criteria. By including multiple evaluation points, group members are aware that their contributions are salient and being observed by others.
-
The overall idea of multiple evaluation points is to allow all group members an opportunity to identify and improve upon individual weaknesses throughout the project rather than be surprised at the end by negative peer evaluations.
-
When considering how large groups should be, research studies suggest that unless the group is brainstorming, there is no significant gain in small groups larger than six. Hare (1981) suggests that an optimal small group size may be five. His research indicates that group satisfaction becomes an issue for even numbered groups due to the development of subgroups. For groups larger than five, group members may have fewer opportunities to contribute. In addition, Hare suggests that groups should be no larger than required to accomplish the group goals
-
• Clarify roles and responsibilities
• Make tasks more meaningful for individuals
• Emphasize the importance of teamwork
• Ensure individuals feel they are contributing to the end goal
• Establish an “open door” policy
• Do not punish individuals for reporting team member's poor performance
• Utilize combination grades
• Group project
• Participation
• i. Attending group meetings
• ii. Discussion board
• iii. Chats
• Meeting group schedules/deadlines
• Require high levels of accountability
• Alternate group roles (i.e., leader, recorder, editor)
• Balance group members' skills and knowledge
• Encourage group discussions
• Ensure individuals/groups receive meaningful and immediate feedback
• Provide performance data for comparison with other groups
• Make provisions for social validation
• Required reading on group cohesion, cooperation techniques, and effective collaboration techniques
• Provide opportunities to increase collaborative efforts and publicize results
• Avoid even numbered groups and limit small groups to five members
• Limit group numbers to the minimum number required to accomplish group goals
• Consider group member schedules and time zones when establishing groups
• Ensure a strong instructor presence
-
-
17 Aug 13
-
Creating a high level of task interdependence among group members is crucial to the success of any online group. Unfortunately, as an individual's work becomes more interdependent with another individual or group of individuals' work, students may find it more difficult to determine a sense of personal achievement. Karau and Williams (1993) suggest that individuals will be unlikely to exert extraordinary effort unless they view their individual task as meaningful. Research has also demonstrated a significant correlation between goal difficulty, group goal commitment, and group performance (Mulvey & Klein, 1998). Individuals will withhold effort, achieve rewards, and calculate greater benefits as long as they perceive that doing so will not affect their outcomes (Liden et al, 2004). Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that online group effectiveness will increase when members work on tasks that are mutually important to the group; each member believes that he or she is contributing to the end goal and all group members are cooperating.
-
-
22 Jul 13
-
Simply providing technology
to faculty is insufficient. Training and workshops must be provided by administration on how these technologies can be implemented to facilitatecollaboration and cooperative learning.
-
-
22 Feb 13
-
instructors should emphasize that group members must share an understanding that teamwork is a prerequisite for accomplishing the end goals of the team
-
. Research has suggested that with the exception of brainstorming, computer-based groups are not more productive than face-to-face groups (Parks & Sanna, 1999).
-
When determining an appropriate group size for online learning, instructors should consider the group goals and purpose (i.e., brainstorming, decision making, problem solving)
-
or instance, research in brainstorming groups has demonstrated that productivity is positively correlated to group size. A larger group size produces a more productive brain storming session (Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Valacich, Dennis, & Connolly, 1994). However, most other cases studies have suggested that increasing group size can have detrimental effects on student perceptions and group goal achievem
-
addition, increased group size makes it more difficult to assess each individual's contribution to the group (Jones, 1984; Kerr & Bruun, 1981)
-
In larger groups, individuals generally believe they make less of a difference, are less effective, and their individual contributions are less visible (Kerr, 1989; Kerr & Bruun, 1983
-
Another detrimental effect of large groups is that cooperation tends to decline as groups grow (Kerr & Bruun, 1983; Komorita, Parks, & Hulbert, 1992) and feelings of self-efficacy decline (Kerr, 1989
-
Studies suggest that in smaller group sizes, individuals may feel their contributions are more crucial to the success of the process than when they work in larger groups (Kidwell & Bennett, 1993; Hindriks & Pancs, 2001)
-
. Studies manipulating the visibility of group members suggest that the propensity to hide in the crowd can be reduced by making tasks more identifiable with each group member (Williams & Karau, 1991
-
It is important to realize that group size does not work in isolation, but rather in association with other factors such as feelings of enjoyment or feeling that one is making a difference (Parks & Sanna, 1999).
-
are (1981) suggests that an optimal small group size may be fiv
-
hen considering how large groups should be, research studies suggest that unless the group is brainstorming, there is no significant gain in small groups larger than six
-
oups larger than five, group members may have fewer opportunities to contribute. In addition, Hare suggests that groups should be no larger than required to accomplish the group goals.
-
His research indicates that group satisfaction becomes an issue for even numbered groups due to the development of subgroups. F
-
Research suggests that individuals may exert less effort when working collectively because they feel their input is not essential to a high-quality group product (Kerr, 1983; Weldon, Blair, & Huebsch, 2000).
-
e more cohesive the group, the more likely it is to accomplish its goals.
-
ccording to the social exchange theory, when individuals perceive they are participating in a high-quality relationship, they will engage in reciprocal behavior (Murphy et al, 2003).
-
If group members do not feel like they are close-knit they may be more inclined to engage in social loafing.
-
However, if the group has a feeling of cohesiveness, the members may interpret social loafing as letting their fellow group members down (Liden et al, 2004).
-
lack (2002) suggests that team building strategies should be incorporated into team tasks and assignment
-
Online teams need to consciously strive to create an atmosphere in which the values and contributions of all members are encouraged and valued.
-
everal methods that have been suggested to increase group cohesiveness are: (a) require high levels of individual accountability, (b) encourage group discussions, (c) ensure individuals receive meaningful and immediate feedback, (d) provide rewards for group performance, (e) provide performance data for comparison with other groups, and (f) make provisions for social validation (Michaelsen, Fink, & Knight, 1997). In addition, when online groups maintain the same members for a semester, group roles (i.e., leader, recorder, editor) can be rotated for each assignment. This provides all group members an opportunity to experience the unique requirements and contributions of each role.
-
roup members will base their actions on the perceived actions of their fellow group members whether or not the actions are actually occurring (Mulvey & Klein, 1998).
-
Perceived coworker loafing refers to the extent that group members believe other group members are engaging in social loafing (
-
Comer, 1995)
-
There are numerous references in the social psychological literature to support the notion that individuals tailor their personal behavior in light of their personal interactions and individual perceptions (Plaks & Higgins, 2000).
-
ct, research into stereotyping has revealed that group members may adjust individual behaviors in response to perceived stereotypes of fellow group members (Plaks & Higgins, 2000)
-
Due to the physical separation, social isolation, and temporal distance associated with distance education courses, online group activities are much more difficult to organize and operate on a high-efficiency level.
-
-
21 Aug 12
-
09 Apr 12
-
25 Mar 12
-
-
psycho-social aspects of social loafing and free riding in a traditional and distance learning environment
-
As work tasks become too complex for individual organizations or branches to manage, organizations are increasingly turning to virtual work groups to bridge the gap (Black, 2002)
-
Working in groups is thought to significantly increase learning perceptions, problem solving skills, and help students achieve a higher level of learning than individual learning alone (Hiltz, Coppola, Rotter & Turoff, 1999)
-
theory of social facilitation
-
people often perform better in the presence of others than alone
-
positive and negative aspects of groups
-
Group work requires increased time and dependence on others which is often in direct conflict with student perceptions of distance education and online learning as being an environment for independent learning. In fact, group work presents a set of problems for students that include, but are not limited to, non-contributing group members, unequal workload, scheduling, and personal/social conflicts between group members (Becker & Dwyer, 1998). These problems occur in both the face-to-face and online environment.
-
Free riding occurs when an individual does not bear a proportional amount of the work and yet shares the benefits of the group (Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985; Jones, 1984). Kidwell and Bennett (1993) argued that social loafing and free riding actually shared a similar characteristic, in that each describes a person who is not providing the maximum effort due to either motivation or circumstance. They further claim that the significant difference between the two is the actual reason for the drop or lack of group participation.
-
Social loafing is the tendency to reduce individual effort when working in groups compared to the individual effort expended when working alone (Williams & Karau, 1991)
-
Creating a high level of task interdependence among group members is crucial to the success of any online group
-
it is reasonable to infer that online group effectiveness will increase when members work on tasks that are mutually important to the group; each member believes that he or she is contributing to the end goal and all group members are cooperating.
-
Clarifying roles, responsibilities, and closely tracking/publicizing individual contribution to team efforts will allow online group members to gain a sense of personal achievement.
-
Task visibility is simply an individual's belief that his or her effort is being observed by the supervisor
-
Ensuring that distance learning group members establish performance targets, communication procedures, and methods for solving problems are methods used to increase task visibility and the individual's perception that others are pulling their fair share of the workload.
-
Therefore, Brooks and Ammons (2003) developed recommendations for assessments that include early implementation, multiple evaluation points, and specific evaluative criteria.
-
Distributive justice is the perception of a fair distribution of rewards and compensations (i.e., money, grades) among group members.
-
(a) utilizing a combined grading system of group, peer assessment and individual grades, (b) adding individual milestones that constitute a portion of an individual's grade, and (c) including group participation as a portion of an individual's grade
-
One possible means in which procedural justice could be addressed in the distance learning environment is assigning individual grades to group members.
-
consider the group goals and purpose (i.e., brainstorming, decision making, problem solving).
-
how group size may impact group outcomes
-
smaller group sizes, individuals may feel their contributions are more crucial to the success of the process than when they work in larger groups
-
His research indicates that group satisfaction becomes an issue for even numbered groups due to the development of subgroups.
-
Group cohesiveness refers to the ability of the group to bond as a whole.
-
when individuals perceive they are participating in a high-quality relationship, they will engage in reciprocal behavior (Murphy et al, 2003).
-
if the group has a feeling of cohesiveness, the members may interpret social loafing as letting their fellow group members down (Liden et al, 2004). Black (2002) suggests that team building strategies should be incorporated into team tasks and assignments.
-
the values and contributions of all members are encouraged and valued.
-
(a) require high levels of individual accountability, (b) encourage group discussions, (c) ensure individuals receive meaningful and immediate feedback, (d) provide rewards for group performance, (e) provide performance data for comparison with other groups, and (f) make provisions for social validation (Michaelsen, Fink, & Knight, 1997)
-
Research findings suggest that, regardless of whether a task is interpersonal or individual, individuals seek to optimize their effort by accounting for contextual factors, whether perceived or actual
-
Due to the physical separation, social isolation, and temporal distance associated with distance education courses, online group activities are much more difficult to organize and operate on a high-efficiency level.
-
Understanding the phenomenon of social loafing and free riding, its antecedents, and ways to mitigate the behavior is the first step to providing a positive learning experience.
-
-
-
Social loafing is the tendency to reduce individual effort when working in groups compared to the individual effort expended when working alone (Williams & Karau, 1991). Free riding occurs when an individual does not bear a proportional amount of the work and yet shares the benefits of the group (Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985; Jones, 1984). Kidwell and Bennett (1993) argued that social loafing and free riding actually shared a similar characteristic, in that each describes a person who is not providing the maximum effort due to either motivation or circumstance. They further claim that the significant difference between the two is the actual reason for the drop or lack of group participation.
-
Creating a high level of task interdependence among group members is crucial to the success of any online group.
-
Task visibility is simply an individual's belief that his or her effort is being observed by the supervisor (Kidwell & Bennett, 1993). Mullen (1983) proposes that individuals working on a collective task will lead to a decrease in self-awareness. He suggests that this lack of self-awareness will result in an individual's disregard of performance standards and engagement in less self-regulation. Black (2002)
-
Peer evaluations can be utilized as a method of increasing self-awareness and awareness of performance standards
-
ask visibility can be further addressed through the establishment of group discussion boards where members are required to post scheduled personal contributions
-
maintain a weekly log that outlines milestones, group/individual progress, and completion dates
-
Individuals will choose to withhold effort because they believe that the benefits of social loafing outweigh the cost of their lack of participation
-
In fact, noticing and reinforcing desirable behaviors was found to be much more effective in deterring social loafing. However, when group members are physically separated from the supervisor, it is difficult to observe individual contributions.
-
In the academic setting, possible methods for increasing a student's perception of distributive justice are: (a) utilizing a combined grading system of group, peer assessment and individual grades, (b) adding individual milestones that constitute a portion of an individual's grade, and (c) including group participation as a portion of an individual's grade.
-
The act of group members carrying a free rider or social loafer has been termed playing the sucker role
-
This paper includes several recommendations that may be applied in the online environment to mitigate the occurrence of social loafing and free riding. Those recommendations include:
• Clarify roles and responsibilities
• Make tasks more meaningful for individuals
• Emphasize the importance of teamwork
• Ensure individuals feel they are contributing to the end goal
• Establish an “open door” policy
• Do not punish individuals for reporting team member's poor performance
• Utilize combination grades
• Group project
• Participation
• i. Attending group meetings
• ii. Discussion board
• iii. Chats
• Meeting group schedules/deadlines
• Require high levels of accountability
• Alternate group roles (i.e., leader, recorder, editor)
• Balance group members' skills and knowledge
• Encourage group discussions
• Ensure individuals/groups receive meaningful and immediate feedback
• Provide performance data for comparison with other groups
• Make provisions for social validation
• Required reading on group cohesion, cooperation techniques, and effective collaboration techniques
• Provide opportunities to increase collaborative efforts and publicize results
• Avoid even numbered groups and limit small groups to five members
• Limit group numbers to the minimum number required to accomplish group goals
• Consider group member schedules and time zones when establishing groups
• Ensure a strong instructor presence
-
-
13 Mar 12
-
13 May 10
ryersonltoBy Sherry L. Piezon and Robin L. Donaldson. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Vol. 8(4). 2005.
This paper presents an overview of the psycho-social aspects of social loafing and free riding in a traditional and distance learning environlto ltolisted:no category:learning_strategies format:journal journal:online_journal_of_distance_learning_administration date_published:2005 author:piezon_sherry_l author:donaldson_robin_l online_discussion group_work collaborative_learning
-
04 May 09
-
25 Feb 08
-
28 Nov 06
-
08 Aug 06
-
25 Feb 06
-
This paper presents an overview of the psycho-social aspects of social loafing and free riding in a traditional and distance learning environment. A brief literature review and summaries of frequently cited antecedents and their mitigating factors are reviewed for application by instructors, designers, and administrators in distance education. Distance learning administrative issues related to providing support to instructors to address the cited antecedents are discussed.
-
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.