Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Relationships among relational coordination dimensions: Impact on the

quality of education online with a structural equations model
María del Carmen Gallego Sánchez a, Carmen De-Pablos-Heredero b, Jose-Amelio Medina-
Merodio a, *, Rafael Robina-Ramírez c, Luis Fernandez-Sanz a
a
Computer Science Department, University of Alcalá, Polytechnic School, Ctra. de Madrid-Barcelona, Km. 33.600, 28871 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
b
Business Economic Department (Administration, Management and Organization), Applied Economics II and Fundamentals of Economic analysis, Universidad Rey Juan
Carlos, Madrid, Spain
c
Business and Sociology Department, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Extremadura, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Online education is quite often applied to university systems. This kind of education does not present scheduled
Online education restrictions to students and provides additional flexibility to the learning process. This together with the im­
Relational coordination provements provided by the application of information and communications technology (ICT) in higher edu­
Communication
cation online systems allows them to reach higher degrees of the coordination and integration of processes by
Quality
Higher education
improving the competitiveness and research capacity of these organizations. Relational coordination is a vali­
Relationships dated tool for measuring and analyzing the quality of communication and relationships amongst participants of
Digital transformation any process by considering functional organizational boundaries. The goal of this study is the analysis of the
relationship between the relational coordination and the quality of online education systems at universities. A
questionnaire has been built and distributed to 243 students. Data were processed by using the structural
equation modeling (SEM) technique. Results show that higher levels of relational coordination at a university
lead to higher levels of the quality of education.

1. Introduction student collaboration, especially in group or project-based learning

Online education has turned into an alternative to traditional edu­
cation for those persons that want to study, but there is some distance to
the place where they choose to study, or they need more flexibility than
traditional face-to-face education systems for different reasons (Kaplan
and Haenlein, 2016). It also implies savings in time and costs, and it can
become a complementary methodology to the traditional teaching
method used at universities and higher education centers (Gallego et al.,
2015).
The advantages of online learning can be analyzed from the per­
spectives of two groups: the students and the teaching staff. From the
student perspective, Grimes (2002) indicated that the students consider
that online learning removes geographical barriers and facilitates
continuous and almost unrestricted access to information, knowledge
and learning. For Stone and Perumean-Chaney (2011), digital materials
can be stored and shared among a learning community, either through a
direct upload to ready-made cloud storage or through distribution via a
social network of any kind (both formal and informal), thus enhancing
settings. Appana (2008) indicated that reductions in a variety of ex­
penses (travel, printing, buying books, etc.) should also be taken into
account when considering the overall implications of online learning.
Furthermore, Stone and Perumean-Chaney (2011) describe how
text-based online communication (chats, forums, etc.) may help over­
come the shyness and initial awkwardness of an exchange. The use of
e-tools largely contributes to enhancing IT, permitting different agents
to work at their own pace and on their own time. This increases student
self-confidence, especially when the application of e-learning tools
closely correlates with student success in a particular course.
Apart from this, the advantages of online education from the
perspective of teaching staff are important as well; it allows multiple
teachers from different countries and profiles to participate, providing
further enrichment of cultural and educational knowledge. In addition,
Zounek and Sudický (2013) indicated that communication tools allow
outside participants to join the education process at a specifically
scheduled time. In this way, students are provided with the chance to
interact with field experts, teachers from other institutions, successful

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mcarmen.gallego@edu.uah.es (M.C. Gallego Sánchez), josea.medina@uah.es (J.-A. Medina-Merodio).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120608
Received 3 November 2019; Received in revised form 12 January 2021; Accepted 13 January 2021
Available online 28 January 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al.
practitioners and others.
Additionally, the teaching staff can be introduced to open innovation
practices in teaching. Thanks to the use of technology, universities may
also facilitate the testing and assessment of students’ skills and compe­
tencies. Online technologies foster communication among all course
participants, both teachers and students. Apart from promoting efficient
teaching practices, online facilities may be used by teachers for their
own professional growth and development.
One of the great advantages is the possibility to use real cases and
document processes that students could not normally observe in real-life
settings in real time from different countries. Zounek and Sudický
(2013) indicated that teachers have started to benefit from various forms
of learning analytics and student monitoring, with the purpose of
observing student activity and displaying access-success correlations
that will permit the evaluation of future professionals in the class by a
given company. Such data can, among other things, serve as a basis for
further course or material development, in which learning analytics
guide concrete editing processes. Apart from this, the interaction of
teachers in environments where there are different cultures and training
provides an increase in the difficulty of teaching subjects; however, this
provides an enrichment of knowledge derived from the different cultural
points of view. Currently, most interaction is in research, and it is very
low in teaching (den Brok et al., 2010).
Unfortunately, the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe and necessary
national measures taken to tackle the spread of the virus have caused
significant disruption in the provision of education, training and
mobility opportunities for learners, teachers and educators across the
European Union (EU) (European Commission 2020). In Spain,
face-to-face classes have been suspended; they are being taught online at
all educational levels from primary education to doctoral studies start­
ing from March 14, 2020 due to the emergency decree of the Spanish
government. This fact has just confirmed that online education is no
longer just a complementary methodology. It is already an alternative
and even another differentiated methodology.
This means that the education system has experienced a radical turn
that it has never before encountered. Master classes have migrated to
blended or videoconference classes, and online learning systems and
technology have evolved from a complement to a requirement. Teaching
and learning have had to be reinvented, deploying a range of learning
methodologies and new technological tools that facilitate synchronous
and asynchronous learning, while at the same time facilitating the
motivation of students and enabling them to face new challenges.
Online education is considered the provision of educational pro­
grams and learning systems by means of electronic tools (Gallego et al.,
2015). It comprises a wide range of applications, such as web-based
learning. This allows the adaptation of the course to the level of stu­
dent knowledge. It includes several common lesson structures for
different learning occasions (Chen, 2008; Jolliffe et al., 2012; Oinas and
Harjumaa, 2018), and a variety of computing learning tools (Legris
et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2018) to adjust the type of learning required by
each student’s circumstances. For example, virtual classes improve
students’ participation by providing an environment for digital collab­
oration and knowledge creation (Albert, 2009; Asoodar et al., 2014); the
learning process itself serves as a facilitator by creating an environment
for learning through the interaction of the participants.
Online education allows constant updating through the use of in­
formation and communication technologies (ICT). This implementation
of information and communication technologies (ICT) in higher edu­
cation increases individual and institutional competitiveness (Iris and
Vikas, 2011). The strategic alignment of teaching and learning objec­
tives joined to technological opportunities can position educational in­
stitutions at higher levels of competition in a global context (Gallego
et al., 2015). From the technological perspective, online education often
takes place in open-source or pay-per-use software. In this case, it is
common to use a learning management system (LMS), such as, for
example, Moodle, Blackboard, WordPress and Canvas LMS, among
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608
others.
Among the main advantages of online learning options, the following
should be stressed according to Laeeq et al. (2018): It involves an
immense number of learners; it is a cost-effective solution; it allows
technology-enhanced learning; it implies ubiquitous learning; it is based
on the use of interfaces; it permits each student to have a very diverse
group of teachers; it does not depend on a physical place; it enables
standardization; it promotes self-paced learning; it makes on-demand
learning possible; and it enables self-directed learning and makes pull
approaches possible.
Among the most interesting characteristics that promote the success
of online systems, the following have recently been considered (Cidral
et al., 2018): It improves the quality of collaboration, the service quality,
the information quality and the system quality. A learner’s computer
anxiety has a negative influence on online education, so an instructor’s
attitude towards online education is very important and independent of
students’ satisfaction; additionally, it shows that diversity in assessment
and a learner’s perceived interaction with others are also determinants
for online education success.
A recent report from the Babson Survey Research Group (2018) de­
scribes an annual increase in terms of a growth rate of 3.9% in online
education from 2017 to 2018. According to the 2018 Online Education
trends report (BestColleges.com 2018), in 2017, 72% of students had a
clear labor short term objective, while one-third of them expected to
keep or complement their educational levels without losing their
employment. According to this last report, online education practi­
tioners stress the following as the main advantages of online education:
access to wider educational options, updates to knowledge in different
areas of expertise, the need to profit from information and communi­
cation technology opportunities and the opportunity to balance the
professional, academic and personal aspects of life in a more efficient
and comfortable way. Probably, these advantages are the main reasons
that the online education market has increased to a maintained rate over
the last few years. In 2015, the size of the industry surpassed 165 million
dollars, and the forecast for 2023 is optimistic, with a mean yearly in­
crease of 5% (Dodebo, 2016).
The latest report from Technavio (2018) states that the online edu­
cation market forecasts a sustained growth per year of 11.41%. This
report remarks on the main challenges for online education systems over
the next few years: the implementation of virtual reality, the use of
clever assistants, social learning and gaming and the development of
skills and competences oriented to improve students’ employability and
teamwork. The main expense in online education was supposed to be
4.3% of the GNP (Gross National Product) at OCDE (Economic
Co-operation and Development) in 2017 (Technavio, 2018). This figure
has allowed the decrease of the ratio of school failure. 70% of people
between 25 and 34 years old were able to reach secondary education
worldwide in 2018, while in 2016, only 29% of students at that same age
had been able to finish their primary studies worldwide. Considering the
previous scenario, online education can play an important role in
improving the quality of education in a short-term period. Therefore, a
number of factors in the design and implementation of online method­
ologies must be considered: the e-learning technology platform and
content, the students’ motivation, learning methodologies, instructional
design, etc.
At the university level, when a suitable online learning model is
implemented, three factors should be taken into account (Salinas, 2014;
De Pablos et al., 2012, 2013; De-Pablos-Heredero et al., 2014): a) edu­
cation and educational models; b) technology and technological models;
c) organization and organizational models.
A relational coordination model (Gittell, 2002) emphasizes the need
to understand the coordination in relationships and the dynamic of
communication at organizations to reach the best organizational results.
Medlin et al. (2005), Gittell (2009), López et al. (2011), De-Pa­
blos-Heredero et al., 2014) and Margalina et al. (2014, V.M. 2017) have
applied a relational coordination model to different industries, such as
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al.
airlines, health, long term services, education, etc. The model is shaped
around two types of dimensions: relational dimensions (shared objec­
tives, shared knowledge and mutual respect) and communication di­
mensions (frequent, accurate, timely and oriented to problem
resolution). The combination of both dimensions is the basis for the
relational coordination model (Bond and Gittell, 2010).
Relational coordination is the result of high-quality communication,
with the support of shared objectives, shared knowledge and mutual
respect among teamwork members. This type of coordination helps or­
ganizations to reach the best results in an environment characterized by
high levels of exigencies in terms of the need to process information,
which can be the case for online education.
The aim of this paper is to analyze whether relational coordination is
relevant in online education quality. Therefore, this research attempts to
demonstrate how relational coordination makes a difference in online
education at universities. In other words, we want to understand
whether an organization that shows high degrees of relational coordi­
nation offers a higher quality education than an organization that lacks
it.
According to previous premises, the contribution of the paper is
twofold. First, it explains the relationships among relational coordina­
tion dimensions in online learning with a structural equations model.
Second, it analyzes the impact of relational coordination on the quality
of online education systems at universities.
The research can help universities involved in online education un­
derstand the importance of working with effective communication and
relational ties in reaching the best results.
The paper has been divided as follows: Section 2 exposes the theo­
retical and conceptual background; Section 3 presents the methodology
and Section 4 shows the analysis and results. Finally, Section 5 offers a
discussion and Section 6 shows the conclusions obtained through the
research.
2. Theoretical and conceptual background
Relational aspects of professional practice that impact performance
at the organizational level have been theorized and well-documented by
Gittell (2002). She proposed a model of relational coordination that
emphasizes the importance of coordinating the relationships and dy­
namics of communication in organizations to achieve better results.
Thus, the relational coordination is defined as a process of mutual
reinforcement of the interaction between communication and relation­
ships conducted with the purpose of integrating tasks (Gittell, 2002,
2009).
Relational coordination is the coordination of work across functional
and organizational boundaries through the relationships of shared goals,
shared knowledge and mutual respect, supporting frequent, timely, ac­
curate and problem-solving communication (Gittell, 2010).
Gittell (2009) indicates that in the contexts in which relational co­
ordination has been explored, it seems to have a significant positive
impact on key performance measures, like quality and efficiency. She
has done this research in the context of airports and hospitals (Gittell,
2016).
Concretely, in the field of health services, different studies have been
carried out. Gittell et al. (2008) assessed the effect of relational coor­
dination on nurse job satisfaction and residents’ quality of life within 15
nursing homes and found a positive relationship between the level of
relational coordination and both outcomes. The higher job satisfaction
was believed to derive from the instrumental benefits of performing
tasks and from the intrinsic benefits of fostering positive relationships
with others. They showed that the presence of relational coordination
between formal and informal caregivers has also been demonstrated to
improve the capacity of the informal caregiver to provide care for dis­
charged patients.
Weinberg et al. (2007) assessed the correlation between relational
coordination within primary practices and the presence of elements of
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608
the chronic care model. Noël et al. (2013) found a positive relationship,
which might be mediated by reciprocal learning within the practice.
Otte-Trojel et al. (2017) evaluated the extent to which the application of
relational coordination can mitigate challenges caused by the lack of
organizational and technological proximity among participants in a
patient portal network, as well as the influence of the Relational Model
of Organizational Change on improving relational coordination,
although with certain limitations focused on the possibility of imple­
mentation. López et al. (2011) reported on whether service-dominant
logic and related constructs are an adequate approach to characterize
complex services. They analyzed a specific instance of healthcare
servicing, organ donation and the subsequent transplant. The results
showed that the service interaction, a key construct in service dominant
logic, emerges as the atomic unit of productivity analysis, as it is sig­
nificant at the process level and exhibits enough granularity to establish
strong cause-effect relationships, where the service interactions identify
who is responsible for what in complex services. Vinagre et al. (J.A.
2014) applied the relational coordination model to explain the best re­
sults in the process of diagnosing and offering clinical treatments for
lung cancer. The research model is, therefore, to efficiently redirect the
health expenditure incurred by the disease through proactive inter-level
and inter-professional coordinative solutions, achieving improvements
in the quality of life and survival of the patients affected. Vinagre and De
Pablos (J.A. 2017) focused on performing a situation diagnosis of the
actual care route for intra- and inter-level diagnosis and treatment of
lung cancer through the analysis of dialogical practices and relational
coordination to explore organizational factors and possibilities for the
collaborative construction of healthcare superstructures. The results
showed the lack of organizational integration/reconfiguration mediated
by the organizational factors related to relational coordination. It ex­
plains inefficiencies between the losses of value in the assistance and the
knowledge transmission flows.
The relational coordination model has also been studied in other
areas, such as cloud computing practices (De-Pablos-Heredero et al.,
2014), entrepreneurship (De Esteban Escobar, 2020) and education
(Gallego et al., 2015; Margalina et al., 2014; V.M. Margalina et al.,
2017). These last papers are the only studies focused on online educa­
tion, and they can be considered precedents to this analysis. De-Pa­
blos-Heredero et al. (2012) analyzed the application of relational
coordination mechanisms in internal work processes at universities. This
research shows how relational coordination can improve final results
and explain higher degrees of academic excellence. For this study, two
different public universities, Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid and
Cordoba University in Cordoba, have been considered. Results showed
that the different dimensions of the relational coordination model
(mutual respect, the sharing of goals and knowledge) explain the best
results at universities. De-Pablos-Heredero et al. (2013) analyzed the
application of relational coordination at three different public univer­
sities, Rey Juan Carlos University (URJC), Complutense University
(UCM) and Carlos the Third University (UC3M). Globally speaking,
UC3M shows higher percentages on relational coordination. This uni­
versity, with a strategic plan focused on good coordination and better
academic results, is also the one in which students feel most satisfied.
Margalina et al. (2014) found a relationship between the teacher’s
attitude towards e-learning and the learner’s satisfaction, and they
conclude that job satisfaction is positively related with performance.
Besides, the results confirmed that the communication channel has an
impact on the frequency of communication. High quality relationships
increase the degree of satisfaction of a teacher with his work, and they
also increase the degree of satisfaction with the learning management
system or the online platform.
Additionally, De-Pablos-Heredero et al. (2014) indicate that ICT are
tools that facilitate the online education framework and have been
extended to practically all business areas. Lacayo and
De-Pablos-Heredero (Lacayo and De-Pablos-Heredero, 2016) analyzed
how organizations, particularly institutions of higher education, can
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al.
improve their competitive position through the use of digital social
networks and through the relational coordination model in order to
achieve better results in terms of teamwork satisfaction, relationship
marketing and educational excellence. V.M. Margalina et al. (2017, V.
M. 2018) applied relational coordination to online course learners and
instructors from Spanish universities and private companies to prove
learners’ and instructors’ high levels of satisfaction in e-learning. Ac­
cording to the results, the organizations obtain better results in terms of
satisfaction by providing shared knowledge, shared goals and mutual
respect mechanisms, supported by frequent, timely and problem-solving
communication.
3. Conceptual model and hypotheses
3.1. Relational coordination model
The relational coordination model is relatively unique; it includes
the relational coordination dimensions common goals, shared knowl­
edge and mutual respect, and it specifies how these relational ties are
mutually reinforced by communication links that allow the effective
coordination of work. The promise of a new direction for the coordi­
nation of the relational model is the deeper exploration of relational
databases, returning to social psychological theories (Gittel, 2009).
According to the model of relational coordination, the coordination
process takes place through a network of relationship and communica­
tion dimensions. Fig. 1 shows the two groups of elements that compose
relational coordination: relationships and communication.
3.1.1. Relationships
The relationships are based on the relational dimensions included in
the model: shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. They
enable students and lecturers to coordinate the work processes in which
they are engaged more effectively (Gittel, 2002).
3.1.1.1. Shared knowledge. From the pedagogical perspective, ICT rep­
resents advantages for the collaborative learning process because it al­
lows stimulating interpersonal communication and access to
information and learning content (Zerpa, 2011). Through the dynamics
of shared knowledge, all participants are aware of the consequences of
changes in the activities and roles (V.M. Margalina et al., 2017).
3.1.1.2. Mutual respect. Mutual respect means a respect for competition
between participants in an implicit sector in the process to establish a
powerful bond that can be applied comprehensively to the whole pro­
cess, generating effective coordination (Gittell, 2010) as a result.
Although it seems logical, relationships do not often encourage members
of the university in a systematic way. Instead of uniting their members,
many traditional work practices tend to divide them (Piore, 1992).
Considering the success of online education, it is suggested that the
existence of mutual respect can explain better results in this kind of
Fig. 1. Elements in relational coordination (Gittel et al., 2009).
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608
education (Sung and Mayer, 2012).
3.1.1.3. Shared goals. According to Diaz Barriga and Hernández (2002),
cooperative learning is characterized by the equality that each indi­
vidual in the learning process should practice, understood as the
connection, depth and bidirectionality of the experience. It varies
depending on the level of competitiveness, the distribution of re­
sponsibilities, joint planning and sharing of roles. The sharing of ob­
jectives plays a key role in coordinating highly interdependent tasks
(Saavedra et al., 1993; Wageman, 1995; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010).
3.1.2. Communication
3.1.2.1. Information. Instructors can teach, learn, help and share at the
same time. This implies that they will reach a better quality of life.
Working with ICT helps students to develop better skills (Marqués,
2012). Students need to wait for the instructors’ response and feedback
(Song et al., 2004), leading to uncertainty regarding their learning tasks.
3.1.2.2. Communication (frequent and timely). Online systems facilitate
communication, breaking spatial, temporary and organizational barriers
and changing the important concept of the company and its culture
(Carrion, 2004). The knowledge, shared goals and mutual respect are
supported by a common, adequate and timely communication for
troubleshooting (Gittell et al., 2011).
3.1.2.3. Solving problems. Stevenson and Gilly (1992) and Rubinstein
(2000) have explored more deeply the role that communication plays in
solving problems in the coordination of highly interdependent tasks. For
Girard and Koch (2003), a conflict or problem is a basic fact of life and a
constant opportunity to learn. Being aware of the problems and conflicts
around us is an important and crucial responsibility of all educators.
3.1.3. Quality environment
3.1.3.1. General quality of the environment and methodology. Lopez et al.
(2011) suggest that it is advisable to consider the efficiency of the
organizational process in decision-making processes. A decision can be
only ensured if the options for making decisions are coordinated to
achieve organizational goals. Proposed learning strategies require stu­
dents to take an active and interactive role in the training process
(Salinas, 2011).
3.1.3.2. Technical quality: navigation and design. The Internet has
created a demand for experts in this area. Most of the teachers who teach
via the Internet use different types of applications, such as videos,
multimedia applications, etc. These resources applied to education
produce a quicker learning process, as well as a motivation for studying
(Sánchez, 2009; Pons, 2009; Landeta, 2010).
3.1.3.3. Technical quality: multimedia resources. Technology enables
this method of education (Veletsianos, 2010). There are many types of
multimedia resources, such as videos, tablets, phones, etc. Universities
must use new teaching resources, such as hypertext and interactive
multimedia, simulations, animations, sound files, videos, journals, etc.
(Salinas, 2011).
3.4. Proposed model and hypotheses
From the previous studies, the model in Fig. 2 has been proposed,
where the section about relational coordination is based on an adapta­
tion of the original questionnaire provided by Gitell (2009). It has been
adapted by De Pablos et al. (2013; De-Pablos-Heredero et al., 2014) in
previous research, where it was applied to education and to other in­
dustries as well.
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al.
Fig. 2. Elements in relational coordination.
The following hypotheses are proposed for the three groups of di­
mensions: relationships, communication and quality of the
environment:
a) Relationships
The following relational dimensions are included in the model:
shared knowledge, mutual respect and shared goals.
ICT facilitates communication, breaking spatial, temporal and
organizational barriers and changing the concept of the company and its
culture (Carrion, 2004). These dimensions will be referred to as shared
knowledge (P5), mutual respect (P6) and shared goals (P7).
H1: The relationships between participants through shared goals,
knowledge and the practice of mutual respect will impact
communication.
H2: The relationships amongst participants, if they share goals,
knowledge and practice mutual respect, will impact the quality of the
environment.
H3: The relationships between participants, if they share goals,
knowledge and practice mutual respect, will impact the quality of
online education.
a) Communication
Communication must be timely, accurate, frequent and oriented to
solve problems. The knowledge, shared goals and mutual respect are
supported by a common, adequate, timely and troubleshooting
communication (Gittell et al., 2011). These factors will be referred to as
information (P2), communication (P3) and solving problems (P4).
H4: When the communication among participants is timely, accurate
and frequent, it improves the quality of the environment.
H5: When the communication among participants is timely, accu­
rate, frequent and oriented to the solving of problems, the quality of
online education increases.
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608
a) General quality of the environment
The online environment is characterized by the methodology, orga­
nization and technical quality, considering navigation and design and
also considering multimedia resources. Proposed learning strategies
require students to take an active and interactive role in the training
process (Salinas, 2011). These factors will be referred to as general
quality of the environment and methodology (P9), technical quality:
navigation and design (P10) and technical quality: multimedia resources
(P11).
H6: The general quality of online education depends on the envi­
ronment, methodology and technical quality of education online.
Based on the hypotheses, a questionnaire has been proposed that will
allow the evaluation of whether or not the hypotheses are accepted. The
types of questions included can be seen in Fig. 3. They have all been
focused on the following proposals:
a) The questions concerning the practices performed by the organiza­
tion are focused on the mechanisms of the methods put into practice
by the organization, the selection of lecturers, rewards, conflict
resolution, training, job design, job sharing and information sharing
systems with other universities.
b) For the questions on quality in general, the following aspects have
been considered: the attention to the online process of teaching and
learning provided, the balance between the quality of the seminar
and the economic investment, the use of divergent thinking, mech­
anisms to promote discussion and debate, the extent to which in­
structors motivate students, the way students are involved in
activities individually or in groups and the appropriateness of
communication. Some other aspects that have also been analyzed are
the following: to what extent the course provides a comprehensive
content for development with an introduction, objectives, schemes,
development of themes, activities, a summary, a glossary, sugges­
tions for work and participation in forums and expanded content; to
what extent the course presents accuracy and clarity in the content;
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al.
Fig. 3. Structural model results (baseline model).
to what extent it uses assessment tools, didactic quality, positive
activities and the evaluation of the university over the last 5 years.
c) The questions that refer to the technical quality, navigation and
design are also included: the organization of the course, the ease of
use of navigation tools in the online platform, the structure and
design of virtual links and technical and quality tools in the platform
for operation and programming.
d) The questions that refer to the technical quality and multimedia re­
sources concern the following: to what extent the course presents a
variety of integrated multimedia resources and combines different
types of information, educational multimedia adequacy, videocon­
ference sessions and other utilities online and to what extent the
applications offered to the students, and lecturers’ content and ex­
periences, are based on the real world.
4. Research method
This research is part of an education project aimed to increase and
improve the academic outcomes of students. Hence, the items measuring
each variable were found in the literature, supported by previous
studies.
4.1. Study design
For collecting data, the questionnaire technique has been applied.
The design of the questionnaire was very laborious: It is based on both
quantitative and qualitative mixed methodologies (Martinez, 2002;
Maylor and Blackmon, 2005; Bryman and Bell, 2007).
The questionnaire has been designed according to relevant criteria
for online education. Questions on the following aspects have been
included: relational coordination, general quality and teaching meth­
odology and technical quality in terms of navigation, design and
multimedia, including personal and professional data. These question­
naires were completely anonymous. The part about relational coordi­
nation is based on Gitell’s original questionnaire.
The main items that have been considered in the survey from the
relational coordination perspective are presented below:
Organizational mechanisms to assure the quality in the process (in
terms of the degree of use of the different mechanisms):
• Selection of lecturers
• Measure of lecturers’ performance
• Reward systems
• Conflict resolution mechanisms
• Training of lecturers’ programs
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608
• Design of job profiles according to objectives
• Information sharing
• Use of information systems
• Collaborations with other universities, institutions, etc.
• Job exchange
Communication ties:
• The need to communicate on time
• The need to communicate accurately
• The need to communicate frequently
• The need to provide a communication system oriented to solve
problems
Relationship ties:
• Knowledge of the rest of the employees’ work
• The degree of work respect
• The degree of sharing objectives
The relational coordination is understood as the management of task
interdependencies carried out in the context of relationships with other
group members and involves communicating and relating for the pur­
pose of task integration, becoming a powerful driver of performance
when work is interdependent, uncertain and time constrained (Skakon,
2014).
Relational coordination can be analyzed from different points of
view; this can be done by examining the connection or coordination
between singular course (intra-course) participation or by using the
university-wide approach to study broader organizational support.
Focusing on the analysis of the course, it can be seen as a pilot study,
which allows us to approach the study of relational coordination in a
structured and directed course. It will permit experiences that can
ideally be applied to other subjects, which include the coordination of
the course within the organizational unit.
On the one hand, it permits focusing on subject coordination as a tool
to include better alignment characterized by coherence between as­
sessments, teaching strategies and intended learning outcomes in an
educational program. In general, this analysis could contribute to
further development of the study. Thus, the result obtained becomes the
basis for academic and didactic discussions among academic tutors and
teachers. On the other hand, the university-wide approach allows us to
evaluate relational coordination from a more general point of view
without focusing on the particularity of the different learning environ­
ments used, and it provides a broader vision of organizational support.
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608

4.2. Participants and data collection
The questionnaires were distributed to representative samples of
students at Rey Juan Carlos University (URJC) by following a simple
random sampling. Rey Juan Carlos University is the last public univer­
sity created in the Madrid area (in 1998). It promotes very innovative
programs where education online has been a priority for the last 8 years.
It is the first university in Madrid to offer completely online graduate
and postgraduate studies.
To test our hypotheses, data were collected from students with a
questionnaire designed using a 5-point Likert scale to elicit responses
(Likert, 1932), adopting the usual method to measure variables that are
not directly quantifiable (Hair et al., 2013). A response Likert scale from
1 to 5 was used, where 1 is never, 2 is rarely, 3 is occasionally, 4 is often
and 5 is constantly. This scale has been considered the most suitable for
this research (Hair et al., 2013).
Data were collected from students by means of a voluntary online
survey at the end of the term. The full sample obtained comprised 246
questionnaires, from which those with incomplete or unclear responses
were omitted, thus yielding a final sample of 243 questionnaires.
The project was introduced as an innovative initiative to diagnose
the quality of online education in order to have a more realistic view of
potential solutions to problems and improvements. The investigation
was performed on a sample of 246 students from the Department of
Social and Legal Sciences at Rey Juan Carlos University from October to
November 2014. Table 1 shows the demographic variables, such as
gender, age, geographic region, instrument used for data collection, date
and data processing.
4.3. Data analysis
This study employed a regression analysis of latent variables, based
on the optimization technique of partial least squares (PLS), to elaborate
the model. This study draws on SmartPLS 3.2.6. PLS is a multivariate
technique for testing structural models and estimates the model pa­
rameters that minimize the residual variance of the dependent variables
of the whole model (Hair et al., 2013). It does not require any parametric
conditions and is recommended for small sample sizes (Hulland, 1999).
4.3.1. Justification of the number of cases
Roldán et al. (J.L. 2012, p. 198) indicated that the sample size issue
has been one of the main characteristics of PLS. Due to the segmentation
process followed by the PLS algorithm that allows the dividing of
complex models into subsets, it permits us to calculate the sample size of
the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular dependent
latent variable.
Although there are different criteria that are much less restrictive,
Reinartz et al. (2009) suggest increasing the sample size to 100 cases to
achieve acceptable levels of statistical power. Although it has been a
widely used criterion, Roldán and Cepeda (2016) advised not using the
Table 1
Geographical setting and the age of the students.
Attributes N = 243 Percentage
Gender
old heuristic rule of 10 cases per predictor, suggested by (Barclay et al.,
1995). They propose a more accurate assessment: specify the effect size
for each existing regression while consulting the power tables developed
by Cohen (1992); Cohen (1994).
Apart from this, Hair et al. (2014) suggest using programs such as G *
Power G * Power 3.0 (Institut für Experimentelle Psychologie, 2007) to
specific a power analysis according to model specifications (Borenstein
et al., 2001; Faul et al., 2007). Applying the a priori analysis shows that
the result is N = 119 subjects. As the sample available to carry out this
analysis consists of 243 valid cases, it exceeds any requirement
demanded by any of the criteria to carry out the analysis of the mea­
surement models and the structural model.
4.4. Measurement model evaluation
Hair et al. (2014) explains that skewness assesses the extent to which
a variable’s distribution is symmetrical and kurtosis is a measure of
whether the distribution is too peaked, what means that it is a very
narrow distribution with most of the responses located at the center
(Hair et al., 2014, 54).
According to the results, the measurement model is satisfactory.
Thus, the kurtosis and skewness values of the indicators are within the
− 1 and +1 acceptable range, except various values which exhibit a
slight degree of nonnormality. However, as the degree of skewness is not
severe and because there is one of two indicators measuring the
(reflective) construct, this deviation from normality is not considered an
issue and the indicator is retained.
After this, all standardized loadings (λ) are greater than 0.707.
Consequently, the individual item reliability is adequate (Carmines and
Zeller, 1979). The simple reliability of the measurement scales used was
calculated considering the Cronbach’s alpha values, all of which were
above 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
The composite reliability means that all of indicator values are
shown to be greater than 0.7 (Werts et al., 1974), so high levels of in­
ternal consistency reliability have been demonstrated among latent
variables.
In the analysis of variance, all the values for the average variance
extracted (AVE) were above 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), exceeding
the minimum acceptable values for validity (Table 2).
Additionally, Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest that the square root
of AVE in each latent variable can be used to establish discriminant
validity; to confirm discriminant validity among the constructs, the
square root of the AVE must be superior to the correlation between the
constructs. As the square roots of the AVE on the diagonal and the
correlations among the constructs are larger than other correlation
values among the latent variables, the values indicate adequate
discriminant validity of the measurements.
On the other hand, the discriminant validity can be measured using
the heterotrait-multitrait (HTMT) method (Henseler et al., 2015), which
indicated the mean of the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations relative
to the geometric mean of the average monotrait-heteromethod corre­
lation of both variables. Thus, a conservative criterion of 0.85 is used,
which is associated with sensitivity levels of 95% or better. With
construct correlations of 0.70, the specificity rates for HTMT 0.85 are
near 100%. The HTMT ratio for quality environment and quality online

Female 85 34,97%
Male 158 65,02% Table 2
Total 100% Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, Rho_A, construct reliability and average variance
Age extracted (AVE).
18 a 21 46 18,93%
Cronbach’s rho_A Composite Average
22 a 32 169 69,54%
Alpha Reliability Variance
33 a 42 28 11,523%
Extracted (AVE)
Total 100%
Geografhic Regions Madrid Relations 0,78 0,79 0,85 0,53
Instrument used for data collection Survey and Web survey communication 0,73 0,74 0,83 0,55
Date Octuber and Noviember 2014 quality_env 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,65
Data processing Smartpls 3.2.6 quality_online_edu 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

7
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608

education, at 0.81, was below the 0.85 cutoff, and substantially below
the 0.95 cutoff recommended for conceptually close constructs (Hens­
eler et al., 2015). This provides good support for our claims of
discriminant validity between the measures of quality of the environ­
ment and quality of online education measures (Henseler et al., 2015).
environment, communication and above all, the quality of online edu­
cation. Indeed, the perceived environment explains 13.2%, 23% and
63% of the variables, respectively.
5. Discussion

The results of this analysis show that relational coordination is

4.5. Structural model analysis
important to reach better performance and efficiency in an online edu­
cation system, since it leads to higher quality. Higher levels of relational
A PLS program can generate T-statistics for significance testing of
coordination produce higher levels of efficiency and quality in online
both the inner and outer model, using a procedure called bootstrapping
higher education.
(Chin, 1998b). In this procedure, a large number of subsamples (5000)
According to the results, the measurement model is completely
are taken from the original sample with replacement to give bootstrap
satisfactory. The reliability of every individual item and the values of the
standard errors, which in turn gives approximate T-values for signifi­
sample and composite reliability are adequate. The independent
cance testing of the structural path.
explanatory variables are satisfactory. Furthermore, high levels of in­
After the bootstrapping procedure was completed, the results were
ternal consistency and reliability have been demonstrated among latent
the following.
variables. The values for validity and the discriminant validity of the
All of the R-squared values range from 0 to 1. The higher the value,
measurements are adequate.
the more predictive capacity the model has for that variable, because R-
The hypotheses were checked and validated, and the relationships
squared should be high enough for the model to reach a minimum level
were positive, mostly with high significance. In the model, factors
of explanatory power. The R-squared values are greater than 0.10 with a
influencing communication, relationships, the quality of the environ­
significance of t > 1.64 (Fralk and Miller, 1992).
ment and the quality of online education have been identified.
Fig. 4 and Table 3 show the variance explained (R2) in the dependent
As can be seen in Table 5, the use of relationships explains 23% of the
constructs and the path coefficients for the model. They are not less than
communication. It is congruent with the relationships between partici­
0.10, indicating that the independent explanatory variables are
pants through shared goals, knowledge and the practice of mutual
adequate.
respect and how they impact communication (H1).
The standardized coefficients of the regression show the estimates of
The relationships between participants, if they share goals, knowl­
the relationships of the structural model, that is, the hypothesized re­
edge and practice mutual respect, improve the quality of the environ­
lationships between constructs.
ment, which is explained by relations in a 2.6% (H2). When the
The algebraic sign has been analyzed. If there is a change of sign, the
communication among participants is timely, accurate and frequent, the
magnitude and statistical significance is greater than the T-statistic of (t
quality of the environment is explained in a 10.5% (H4).
(4999), one-tailed test) 1.64 . After this, the hypotheses were checked
Additionally, the general online education quality is given by the
and validated, and the relationships were positive, mostly with high
environment, methodology, technical quality and the quality of educa­
significance (Table 4).
tion online. 60.59% (H6) of the quality is explained in an indirect way,
However, when percentile bootstrap is applied in order to generate a
but significantly by the relationships between participants if they share
95% confidence interval using 5000 resamples, all hypotheses are
goals, knowledge and practice mutual respect. It also involves the
accepted (Table 4). All of these results complete a basic analysis of PLS-
quality in online education at university, which is explained by relations
SEM in our research. The PLS-SEM result is shown in Fig. 4.
in a 0.6% (H3), and (H5) timely, accurate, frequent and oriented to solve
The values of R2 are outstanding (Table 5) for almost all values,
problems communications explain quality of online education at a
greater than 0.23, although there is also one value below what is
1.65%.
considered an acceptable level. Thus, cross-validated redundancy mea­
Therefore, in light of the results, it is observed that the dimensions of
sures show that the theoretical/structural model has a predictive rele­
the relationships impact the components of the communication, and that
vance (Q2 > 0). Finally, Table 5 shows the amount of variance that each
the relational coordination has a significant influence on the quality of
antecedent variable explains on each endogenous construct.
online education through the quality of the environment, and although
In addition, according to Table 5, the perceived environment now
it is significant, it directly impacts the quality to a lesser extent.
plays a key role in the explanation of both the quality of the

Fig. 4. Results of testing the model significance ***p < 0.001.

8
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608

Table 3
Structural model results.
R2 Sample Mean (M) Standard Deviation (STDEV) T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) P Values Q2

Communication 0,23 0,24 0,06 4,14 0,00 0,11

quality_env 0,13 0,15 0,05 2,42 0,01 0,09
quality_online_edu 0,63 0,63 0,03 19,15 0,00 0,66

Table 4
Structural model results. Path significance using percentile bootstrap 95% confidence interval (n = 5.000 subsamples).
Hypothesis Results Influence SPC Sample Mean Standard Deviation T Statistics |O/ P Cambio
M) STDEV) STDEV|) Values signo

H1 Accepted Relations -> communication 0,48 0,49 0,06 8,24 0,00 No

(***)
H2 Accepted Relations -> quality_env 0,25 0,26 0,08 3,30 0,00 No
(***)
H3 Accepted Relations -> quality_online_edu 0,24 0,25 0,06 3,90 0,00 No
(***)
H4 Accepted communication -> quality_env 0,30 0,30 0,08 3,61 0,00 No
(***)
H5 Accepted communication -> 0,28 0,28 0,06 4,41 0,00 No
(***) quality_online_edu
H6 Accepted quality_env -> quality_online_edu 0,77 0,77 0,03 26,01 0,00 No
(***)

Note: t (0.05, 4999) = 1.645158499, t (0.01. 4999) = 2.327094067, t (0.001, 4999) = 3.091863446* P <0.05.** P <0.01.*** P <0.001.
ns. No significant based on t (4999), one-tailed test.

Table 5
Effects on endogenous variables (extended model).
Dependent Variable R2 Q2 Antecedents Path Coefficients Correlations Explained variance (%)

communication 0,23 0,11 23,0

H1: Relations 0,480 0,48 23,0
quality_env 0,132 0,09 13,2
H2: Relations 0,104 0,25 2,6
H4: Communication 0,301 0,35 10,5
quality_online_edu 0,630 0,66 63,0
H3: Relations 0,026 0,24 0,6
H5: communication 0,050 0,33 1,65
H6: quality_env 0,767 0,79 60,59

This analysis is aligned with other published research on the impact
of relational coordination in online systems in higher education (V.M.
Margalina et al., 2017) and other studies on traditional higher education
(De-Pablos-Heredero et al., 2014; De-Pablos-Heredero et al., 2015;
Lacayo-Mendoza, et al., 2016), services cloud computing (De-Pa­
blos-Heredero et al., 2014) and health (Haider et al., 2013; J.A. Vinagre
et al., 2014; J.A. Vinagre and De Pablos, 2017). Haider and De-Pa­
blos-Heredero (2012) and Haider (2013) point out that mutual adjust­
ment occurs by improving the coordination mechanisms of the
organization, such as routines, schedules, advance planning and stan­
dardization of tasks. The results are also aligned with Torres-Salinas
et al. (2012); in other words, although communication mechanisms are
not an important problem at the university level, the lack of common
goals and mutual respect can be a barrier in the search for excellence.
In addition, the coronavirus pandemic has driven not only the digital
transformation of society but has meant a change in the way study and
work have taken place during the months of confinement and social
estrangement. In the case of the education system, this was a radical
shift, where master classes have become blended classes or videocon­
ferences and online learning technology and systems have become
essential tools. In most cases, an adaptation of the teaching processes
and learning styles, thanks to the support of different training tools such
as gamification, educational social networks, m-learning, etc., has been
done.
This was coupled with important input from companies such as
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. that have updated tools such as Teams,
Blackboard Collaborate, Zoom, Classroom, etc., that until now were not
prepared to face COVID-19 restrictions. This improvement of techno­
logical tools has been key for the correct teaching of classes. In addition,
the growth experienced by free online training platforms such as edX,
Miriadax and Coursera must be considered, as they will condition the
evolution of a face-to-face teaching model to a blended university
training.
Therefore, the results obtained in this work may be transferable to
blended learning environments, making use of the advantages of online
training and enhancing the advantages of mixed systems, such as the
development of case studies and networking in face-to-face sessions,
which will increase the levels of relational coordination through its
communication and relationship dimensions. In addition, the results of
this research will help educators and education managers to redefine
learning and work environments.
6. Conclusion
This research demonstrates that relational coordination leads to
quality and efficiency in online education. The efficiency and quality are
improved with relational coordination at the university level. Some
organizations present a more consolidated situation in terms of rela­
tional coordination than others; this can be seen through the distribution
of the previously developed quantitative study by obtaining the key
information from the questionnaires distributed to the participants of
the organizations and developing a quantitative study with the

9
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al.
information obtained.
In view of the results, we can affirm that the quality of online edu­
cation is directly impacted by communication, relationships and the
quality of the environment. In addition, it is indirectly impacted by
relational coordination through the quality of the environment.
The results of this research agree with previous empirical analyses
done with the relational coordination model in cloud computing prac­
tices (De-Pablos-Heredero et al., 2014), health systems (Gittell, 2009;
López et al., 2011), education systems (De Pablos et al., 2012) and on­
line education systems (Margalina et al., 2014; V.M. 2017; V.M. 2018).
The improvement of the university education system is a key concept
in the creation of value in modern societies, and policy makers world­
wide have paid considerable attention to this specific issue over the last
decade. As shown, the application of coordination mechanisms on the
work processes at universities in online systems can lead to improved
performance and can provide insight into greater degrees of academic
results.
From the institutional perspective, online teaching and learning
processes are service activities that demand clear objectives based on a
shared vision. The effectiveness of these processes depends on the ability
to properly coordinate different agents in the sharing of ideas, knowl­
edge and objectives. Therefore, improvement in the process of education
must also involve more efficient coordination of human resources,
routines and learning objectives.
The findings reported in this article provide powerful evidence-based
justification to better understand the process of online learning, which
permits us to make a series of proposals for the improvement of rela­
tional coordination for universities and students and teachers.
Therefore, to improve relational coordination, we propose an effort
to engage educational community members in education initiatives
through the redefinition of processes; consideration of curricula,
learning activities and assessment; and defining learning outcomes,
taking into account national accreditation standards
The organizational structures can be designed to provide institu­
tional support for facilitating teamwork and mutual respect, measuring
team performance, resolving conflicts proactively, promoting and being
aware of each other’s work and also increasing the level of shared
knowledge between students and the different persons that are working
in faculty departments and at the institution.
Besides the use of tools that enable and promote the dimensions of
relational coordination, such as shared information systems must be
proposed. The quality of relationships and communication among pro­
fessors and students and among the students themselves must be
improved, with the end result being the improvement of the quality of
education and the direct enrichment of the reputation of the institution.
This study also contains inherent limitations. First, the research
design is cross-sectional in nature. Second, the study has been carried
out on a group of students from a university, which raises issues of
generalization to other types of students; this could be mitigated in the
future by including major samples and extending the study to other
universities that utilize online systems. Finally, the results of this
research constitute a starting point in the development of models that
can explain the interactions that exist, as well as the analysis of the in­
terrelations that take place as a function of different educational sur­
roundings, such as active learning, collaborative learning, learning
based on projects and learning based on problems, since the analysis can
take a very different form depending on if it is an intra-course or
university-wide approach.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
María del Carmen Gallego Sánchez: Conceptualization, Investi­
gation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Carmen De-
Pablos-Heredero: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Inves­
tigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervi­
sion. Jose-Amelio Medina-Merodio: Conceptualization, Methodology,
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608
Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing, Supervision. Rafael Robina-Ramírez: Methodology, Vali­
dation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Luis Fernandez-Sanz: Validation, Investigation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
References
Albert, S., 2009. Networked Communities: Strategies for Digital Collaboration: Strategies
for Digital Collaboration. IGI Global.
Appana, S., 2008. A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of
the student, the instructor and the tenured faculty. Int. J. e-Learn. 7 (1), 5–22.
Asoodar, M., Atai, M.R., Vaezi, S., Marandi, S.S., 2014. Examining effectiveness of
communities of practice in online English for academic purposes (EAP) assessment in
virtual classes. Comput. Educ. 70, 291–300.
Babson Survey Research Group, 2018. Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in
the United States, Report. https://babson.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_djbTFM
IjZGYDNVb. accessed, 17th October 2018.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., Thompson, R., 1995. The partial least squares (pls) approach to
casual modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology
Studies 2 (2), 285.
BestColleges.com, 2018. 2018 Online Education Trends Report. https://www.bestcollege
s.com/perspectives/annual-trends-in-online-education/. accessed, 17th October
2018.
Bond, B., Gitell, J., 2010. Cross-agency coordination of offender reentry. testing
collaboration outcomes. J. Crim. Justice 38 (2), 118–129.
Borenstein, M., Rothstein, H. Cohen, J., 2001. Power and precision. Retrieved May 2,
2017 from http://power-analysis.com.
Bryman, A., Bell, E., 2007. Business Research Method, 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Carmines, E.G., Zeller, R.A., 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Carrión, J., 2004. La Teoría De Recursos y Capacidades y La Gestión Del Conocimiento.
http://www.gestiopolis.com/recursos2/documentos/fulldocs/ger/jcm1.htm.
accessed, 10th July 2019.
Chen, C.M., 2008. Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path
guidance. Comput. Educ. 51 (2), 787–814.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling.
Marcoulides, Modern methods For Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 295–336. G. A. (Ed.).
Cidral, W.A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., Aparicio, M., 2018. E-learning success
determinants: brazilian empirical study. Comput. Educ. 122, 273–290.
Cohen, J., 1992. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112 (1), 155–159.
Cohen, J., 1994. The earth is round (p< 0.05). Am. Psychol. 49, 997–1003.
De Esteban Escobar, D., 2020. Relational coordination in the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Esic Market Econ. Bus. J. 51 (1), 135–157. January-April 2020.
De Pablos Heredero, C., Montes Botella, J.L., Soret Los Santos, I., Damm, R., García
Martinez, A., 2012. The importance of relational coordination in final teaching and
learning results at universities. In: EDULEARN12 Proceedings, pp. 2835–2843, 2012.
De Pablos Heredero, C., Ramos Gómez, L., García Martínez, A., 2013. In: How Students
Value a Good Coordination at Universities. ICERI Conference (18-20/11/2013)
Sevilla, Spain.
Den Brok, P., van Eerde, D., Hajer, M., 2010. Classroom interaction studies as a source for
teacher competencies: the use of case studies with multiple instruments for studying
teacher competencies in multicultural classes. Teach. Teach. 16 (6), 717–733.
De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Haider, S., Garcia, A., 2015. Relational Coordination as an
Indicator of Teamwork Quality: Potential Application to the Success of e-Learning at
Universities. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 10
(2), 4–8.
De-Pablos-Heredero, C., López-Hermoso Agius, J.J., Martín-Romo Romero, S., Medina
Salgado, S., 2012. Organization and Transformation of Information Systems in the
Enterprise. ESIC, Madrid.
De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Montes, J., Soret, I., 2014. Relational coordination and business
outcomes: application to the practices of cloud computing. Interciencia 39 (2),
76–84.
Díaz, F., Hernández, G., 2002. Estrategias Docentes Para Un Aprendizaje Significativo.
McGraw-Hill, Méjico. Una interpretación constructivista.
Dodebo, 2016. Elearning market trends and forecast 2017-2021, https://eclass.teicrete.
gr/modules/document/file.php/TP271/Additional%20material/docebo-elearning-t
rends-report-2017.pdf [accessed, 2nd May 2018].
European Commission, 2020. Coronavirus: online learning resources. https://ec.europa.
eu/education/resources-and-tools/coronavirus-online-learning-resources_en
[accessed, 23rd April 2020].
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G., Buchner, A., 2007. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav.
Res. Methods 39, 175–191.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Fralk, F.R., Miller, N.B., 1992. A Primer For Soft Modelling. University, Akron, OH, US.
Gallego Sánchez, M.C., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Medina Merodio, J.A., 2015. Relational
coordination in online education. Interciencia 40 (12), 869–875.
Girard, K., Koch, S., 2003. Resolución De Conflictos en Las Escuelas. Manual para
Educadores. Gránica. Barcelona.
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al.
Gittel, J.H., 2009. High Performance Healthcare, Using The Power of Relationships to
Achieve Quality, Efficiency and Resilience. Mc Graw Hill, Nueva York, EEUU.
Gittell, J.H., 2002. Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: relational
coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance
effects. Manag. Sci. 48, 1408–1426.
Gittell J.H., 2010. Relational Coordination: guidelines for theory, measurement and
analysis. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.
6354&rep=rep1&type=pdf [accessed, 22nd December 2020].
Gittell, J.H., Weinberg, D., Pfefferle, S., Bishop, C., 2008. Impact of relational
coordination on job satisfaction and quality outcomes: a study of nursing homes.
Human Res. Manag. J. 18 (2), 154–170.
Gittell, J.H., 2016. Transforming Relationships for High Performance: The Power of
Relational Coordination. Stanford University Press.
Gittell, J.H., Edmonson, A., Schein, E., 2011. Learning to Coordinate: A Relational Model
of Organizational Change. Academy of Management, San Antonio, TX.
Grimes, E.B., 2002. Student perceptions of an online dental terminology course. J. Dent.
Educ. 66 (1), 100–107.
Haider, S., 2013. An Organizational Framework for the Implementation of Evidence
Based Practices to Reduce Door to Balloon Time in Patients Undergoing Primary
angioplasty. Doctoral Dissertation. University Publishing Services, Universidad Rey
Juan Carlos.
Haider, S., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., 2012. Determinants of R&D cooperation: an
institutional perspective. Revista Economía Mundial 32, 239–257.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2013. Partial least squares structural equation
modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range
Plann. 46 (1–2), 1–12.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135.
Hulland, J., 1999. Use of partial least squares PLS in strategic management research: a
review of four recent. Strat. Manag. J. 20, 195.
*Institut für experimentelle psychologie G*Power 3.1., 2007. https://www.psychologie.
hhu.de/arbeitsgruppen/allgemeine-psychologie-und-arbeitspsychologie/gpower.
html [accessed, 22nd December 2020].
Iris, R., Vikas, A., 2011. E-Learning technologies: a key to dynamic capabilities. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 27 (5), 1868–1874.
Jolliffe, A., Ritter, J., Stevens, D., 2012. The Online Learning Handbook: Developing and
Using Web-Based Learning. Routledge.
Kaplan, A., Haenlein, M., 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social media. Bus. Horiz. 53 (1), 59–68.
Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M., 2016. Higher education and the digital revolution: about
MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Bus. Horiz. 59 (4), 441–450.
Lacayo, A., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., 2016. Managing relationships and communications
efficiently through digital social networks in Higher Education: application of
Relational Coordination model. Dyna (Medellin) 83 (195), 138–146.
Laeeq, K., Memon, Z.A., Memon, J., 2018. The SNS-based e-learning model to provide
smart solution for e-learning. IJERI (10), 141–152.
Landeta, A., 2010. Nuevas Tendencias De E-Learning y Actividades Didácticas
Innovadoras. Centros de Estudios Financieros, Madrid.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P., 2003. Why do people use information technology? A
critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manage. 40 (3), 191–204.
Likert, R., 1932. A Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1–55.
López, D., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., De la Puerta, E., Fernández, C., 2011. Productivity in
service systems: towards a managerial framework. Serv. Sci. 3, 223–238.
Margalina, V., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Montes, J., Garcia, A., 2014. The role of relational
coordination in final teacher satisfaction in e-learning. Proc. Technol. 16, 365–375.
Margalina, V.M., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Botella, J.L.M., 2018. Achieving job
satisfaction for instructors in e-learning: the relational coordination role. Social
Issues in the Workplace: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. IGI Global,
pp. 521–537.
Margalina, V.M., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Montes-Botella, J.L., 2017. Achieving quality
in e-learning through relational coordination. Stud. Higher Educ. 42 (9), 1655–1670.
Marqués, P., 2012 ¿Por qué las TIC en Educación? ¿Qué debería hacer la Administración
Educativa? http://peremarques.blogspot.com.es/2012/10/por-que-las-tic-en-e
ducacion-que.html [accessed, 22nd December 2020].
Martínez, F., 2002. El cuestionario. Un instrumento Para La Investigación En Las Ciencias
Sociales. Laertes Psicopedagogía, Barcelona.
Maylor, H., Blackmon, K., 2005. Researching Business and Management. Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
Medlin, C., Pascal, J., Questera, G., 2005. A collaborative interest model of relational
coordination and empirical results. J. Bus. Res. 58 (2), 214–222.
Noël, P.H., Lanham, H.J., Palmer, R.F., Leykum, L.K., Parchman, M.L., 2013. The
importance of relational coordination and reciprocal learning for chronic illness care
within primary care teams. Health Care Manag. Rev. 38 (1), 20–28.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I., 1994. Psychometric theory. Rdsepiucsforg 3, 701.
Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M., 2018. Persuasive systems design: key issues, process
model and system features. Routledge Handbook of Policy Design. Routledge,
pp. 105–123.
Otte-Trojel, T., Rundall, T.G., de Bont, A., Van de Klundert, J., 2017. Can relational
coordination help inter-organizational networks overcome challenges to
coordination in patient portals? Int. J. Healthc. Manag. 10 (2), 75–83.
Piore, M., 1992. Obra, trabajo y acción: experiencia de trabajo en un sistema de
producción flexible. In: Pyke, F., Becattini, G., Sengenberger, W. (Eds.), Los Distritos
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608
Industriales y Las Pequeñas Empresas (vol. I). Distritos Industriales y Cooperación
Interempresarial En Italia. Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, Madrid.
Pons, J., 2009. Tecnología educativa. La formación Del Profesorado En La Era De
Internet. Aljibe, Málaga.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., Henseler, J., 2009. An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Int. J. Res. Mark. 26 (4), 332–344.
Roldán, J.L., Sánchez-Franco, M.J., 2012. Variance-based structural equation modeling:
guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. In:
Mora, M., Gelman, O., Steenkamp, A., Raisinghani, M. (Eds.), Research
Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and
Information Systems. IGI Global, pp. 193–221.
Roldán, J., Cepeda, G., 2016. Modelos De Ecuaciones Estructurales Basados En La
varianza: Partial least Squares (PLS) Para Investigadores En Ciencias Sociales.
Universidad De Sevilla, España.
Rubinstein, S., 2000. The impact of co-management on quality performance: the case of
the saturn corporation. Ind. Labor. Relat. Rev. 53 (1), 197–220.
Saavedra, R., Early, P.C., Van Dyne, L., 1993. Complex Interdependence in task-
performing groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 78 (1), 61–72.
Salinas, J., 2014. Teaching innovation and use of ICT in university education. J. College
Knowl. Soc. (RUSC). UOC. Vol. 1, 1. http://rusc.uoc.edu/rusc/ca/index.php/rusc/a
rticle/view/v1n1-salinas/v1n1-salinas.html. accessed 2nd February 2020.
Salinas, M., 2011. Entornos Virtuales De Aprendizaje En La escuela: tipos, Modelo
Didáctico y Rol Del docente. Programa de Servicios Educativos (PROSED) Del
Departamento de Educación (UCA). Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina,
Argentina from. http://eduteka.icesi.edu.co/gp/upload/Educación%20EVA.pdf.
accessed 3rd February 2020.
Sánchez, J., 2009. Plataformas de enseñanza virtual para entornos educativos. Pixel-Bit.
Revista de Medios y Educación 34 (1), 217–233.
Skakon, J., 2014. Relational and Course Coordination At the University - Can the
Principles of Relational Coordination Incorporated Into the Course Coordinator Role
Strengthen Constructive Alignment? IEA Press. Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, USA, pp. 625–630.
Song, L., Singleton, E.S., Hill, J.R., Koh, M.H., 2004. Improving online learning: student
perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Int. Higher Educ. 7, 59–70.
Stevenson, W.B., Gilly, M.C., 1992. Problem solving networks in organizations:
intentional design and emergent structure. Soc. Sci. Res. 22, 92–113.
Stone, M.T., Perumean-Chaney, S.E., 2011, The benefits of online teaching for traditional
classroom pedagogy: a case study for improving face-to-face instruction, 7, (3),
393–400.
Sung, E., Mayer, R.R., 2012. Five facets of social presence in online distance education.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 1738–1747.
Technavio, 2018. Online education market. https://www.technavio.com/index.php?rou
te=product/search&search=elearning&category_id=1235 [accessed 2nd May
2018].
Torres-Salinas, D., Moreno-Torres, J., Robinson, N., Delgado, E., Herrera, F., 2012.
Spanish university rankings according to different scientific areas. http://rankinguni
-versidades.es (Cons. 04/30/2013).
Veletsianos, G., 2010. Emerging Technologies in Distance Education. AU Press,
Athabasca University, EdmontonCanada.
Vinagre Romero, J.A., Del Llano Señarís, J., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Nuitjen, M., 2014.
Relational coordination and healthcare management in lung cancer. World J. Clin.
Cases 2 (12), 757–768.
Vinagre-Romero, J.A., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., 2017. Considerations on Lung cancer
reengineering. MOJ Clin. Med. Case Reports 7 (3), 249–256.
Wageman, R., 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 40, 145–180.
Weinberg, D.B., Lusenhop, R.W., Gittell, J.H., Kautz, C.M., 2007. Coordination between
formal providers and informal caregivers. Health Care Manag. Rev. 32 (2), 140–149.
Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L., Jöreskog, K.G., 1974. Intraclass reliability estimates: testing
structural assumptions. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 34 (1), 25–33.
Zerpa, N., 2011. Construcción colaborativa del conocimiento en un entorno virtual. htt
p://www.monografias.com/trabajos94/construccion-colaborativa-del-conocimiento
-entorno-virtual/construccion-colaborativa-del-conocimiento-entorno-virtual.shtml
[accessed 2nd December 2019].
Zhang, Q., Yang, L.T., Chen, Z., Li, P., Deen, M.J., 2018. Privacy-preserving double-
projection deep computation model with crowdsourcing on cloud for big data
feature learning. IEEE Int. Things J. 5 (4), 2896–2903.
Zounek, J., Sudický, P., 2013. Heads in the cloud: pros and cons of online learning. In:
International Conference DisCo 2013: New technologies and media literacy
education, Prague.
MARÍA DEL CARMEN GALLEGO SNCHEZ after graduating from Alcalá University in
Technical Engineering in Telecommunications. She studied for an Master`s degree in
Master’s Degree in Software Engineering for the Web in 2012–13. She is currently working
as Manager from different projects and areas. She earned a Ph.D. in Engineering Infor­
mation and Knowledge, Polytechnic School, Universidad de Alcalá, in 2016.
CARMEN DE-PABLOS-HEREDERO is PhD in Economics and Business Administration. She
is Full Time Professor of Information Systems and Business Organization at the Rey Juan
Carlos University, Spain. She is the Head of the Master’s Degree in Business Organization
and the Master’s Degree in Logistic Processes Management SAP ERP. She has presented
papers in international venues and published books and articles in impact indexed journals
as Agriculture Systems, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technol­
ogy, Studies in Higher Education, Sustainability, Cities, Health Systems, Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, El Profesional de la Información, Italian Journal of Animal
Science, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
M.C. Gallego Sánchez et al.
Transformations in Business & Economics, Journal of Entrepreneurship Management,
Revista de Economía Mundial, Dyna, Interciencia, Medical Economics, REIS, etc. http://or
cid.org/0000–0003–0457–3730
JOSÉ AMELIO MEDINA-MERODIO graduated in marketing and market research from
Rey Juan Carlos University. He received the degree in telecommunications engineering
from the University of Alcalá, and the Official Master’s degree in company management
and the Ph.D. degree in administration and business management from Rey Juan Carlos
University. He is currently an Associate Professor with the Computer Science Department,
University of Alcalá. He acted as a Technical Management (Systems and Information
Technology) Member with the Health Service of Castille-Mancha, as a Computer Techni­
cian with the ADAC Association, and as the Head of quality, environment and computer
services with Tecnivial, SA Company. https://orcid.org/0000–0003–3359–4952
RAFAEL ROBINA-RAMÍREZ PhD in Business and Sociology in 2002. Assistant Professor in
the University of Extremadura (Spain). He is currently teaching Environmental ethics and
Management at Extremadura University (Spain). He is authors of several books and
12
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 166 (2021) 120608
articles. Nowadays the author is leading an Innovation Teaching Project at Tourism Fac­
ulty in which are involved 35 academics from the University. The project´s main aim is to
teach Business ethic in a cross-sectional way including empirical cases. He is researching
about business and environmental ethics in its relation to teaching and learning meth­
odologies. https://orcid.org/0000–0002–7117–8645
LUIS FERNANDEZ-SANZ is an associate professor at Dept. of Computer Science of Uni­
versity of Alcalá (UAH). He earned a degree in Computing in 1989 at Polytechnic Uni­
versity of Madrid (UPM) and his Ph.D. in Computing with a special award at University of
the Basque Country in 1997. With more than 20 years of research and teaching experience
(at UPM, Universidad Europea de Madrid and UAH), he has also been engaged in the
management of the main Spanish Computing Professionals association (ATI: www.ati.es)
as vicepresident and he is chairman of ATI Software Quality group. He has held the po­
sition of vicepresident of CEPIS (Council of European Professional Informatics Societies:
www.cepis.org) from 2011–2013 and from 2016 to the present. His-general research in­
terests are software quality and engineering, accessibility and ICT professionalism and
education. https://orcid.org/0000–0003–0778–0073