GROUP WORK IN THE CONTEXT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

A Theoretical Framework Presented to the

Faculty of Mass Communication Department

Ateneo de Davao University

Davao City

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements in COMM 2131

Submitted by: Stephanie Rhea Niña Sabio

Submitted to: Dr. Christine Faith Avila

October 2021
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Title Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Background of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The effectiveness of group decision-making can be affected by a variety of

factors. Thus, it is not possible to suggest that "group decision-making is always better"

or "group decision-making is always worse" than individual decision-making.

Decision-making in group settings is often done in the field of academe. However, the

world’s education system has faced an unprecedented health crisis. As the world battles

to halt the relentless spread of the virus, most schools and other learning places were

forced to migrate to an online mode of learning. A learning environment that leverages

the internet and other technical devices and resources for synchronous and

asynchronous instructional delivery and academic program management is referred to

as online learning. To break it down, asynchronous online learning occurs without a tight

schedule for different students, whereas synchronous online learning incorporates

real-time interactions between the teacher and the students. Within the context of the

COVID-19 epidemic, online learning has assumed the position of interim distant

teaching that acts as a rudimentary substitute.

The sudden shift gave rise to online group works. Online group work is defined

as students working together as a small group, "executing simultaneous, collaborative

work processes through electronic media without regard to geographic location"

(Chinowsky & Rojas, 2003). Students in a small group may also work with other
students to complete a group project, such as writing a paper or developing a product

through discussion, negotiation, and feedback in an online learning environment. While

educators have widely acknowledged the proliferation of online learning at all levels of

educational institutions, some quality issues were pointed out. One of which is the lack

of effective administration of students' learning as well as the lack of learners' social

interaction during the learning process (Muilenburg & Berge, 2001). Communicators are

challenged to change the modality of interaction. Having that said, the lack of shared

context and numerous discontinuities hamper the objectives of the decision-making

process, which in turn may bring conflicts or confusion among group members. Online

learning has indeed taken the role of emergent remote teaching as a crisis or

emergency. Principally, the transition to a new learning environment has been fraught

with issues relating to policy, pedagogy, technology, and psychosocial effects. Hence,

the inability of virtual team members to watch each other's actual effort leads to a

greater reliance on perceptions and assumptions that may be skewed and incorrect. In

aspects where disengagement is apparent, students’ reliance on technology to

communicate allows them to disengage due to the decreased social impact. Isolation

can also have an effect when students become more isolated as their contributions and

participation with the team decrease.

Now, several schools and universities adopted the use of technologies, prepared

set systems and infrastructure, established new teaching protocols, and adjusted their

curricula. Then again, the transition was smooth for some but rough for others,

particularly those from developing countries with limited infrastructure (Pham &
Nguyen, 2020). Online learning is conceived as more complicated and demanding than

a traditional classroom-based course because of the need to incorporate various

technological demands, leading to the lack of physical presence and difficulty to elicit

attention (Morrison, 2003).

Studies have confirmed that online learning affects the group communication

pattern. Baltes (2002) found that computer-mediated group works achieved equal

participation since group members felt freer to express their opinions. The use of

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has provided both advantages and

disadvantages for information sharing in technology-supported groups. In particular,

virtually-connected people can facilitate information sharing by increasing the

accessibility to diverse team members and their information. On the other hand, a virtual

team’s geographic, temporal, organizational, and cultural discontinuities may create

problems that can hinder information sharing among team members that are hard to

overcome with ICT (Watson et al., 2002). Virtual teams or students tasked to collaborate

with their classmates tend to face various challenges of bringing multiple perspectives

from team members together, resulting in a weak exchange of information. Online

collaborative groups may also go through delayed group developmental stages, taking

longer to develop social relationships (Fung, 2004).

Although there is an exchange of information like face-to-face set-ups, online

group decision-making often leads to poor decisions because members in virtual teams

disregard the unique or important information they receive from other members, which
results in poor choices and exacerbates weak performance in the group. It rings true

that academic success can be positively impacted by students’ level of engagement

with the content, their peers, and faculty (Astin, 1999). Instructional activities and

assignments that allow students to engage with the course have a direct impact on

their academic performance. Moreover, the multiple communication channels, including

‘student-student’ and ‘instructor-student’ communication tools also positively impact

levels of student engagement (Dixson, 2010).

In the Philippine context, most educational systems have migrated to remote

learning modalities as a measure against the spread of the Corona-Virus Disease 2019

(COVID-19). This phenomenon is causing difficulties since online learning reveals a

digital divide among Filipino students. In fact, the current situation exacerbates existing

inequalities and further translates to barriers. Rotas & Cahapay (2020) conducted a

cross-sectional study and reported that thirty-two percent (32 %) and twenty-two

percent (22%) out of 3, 670 Filipino students surveyed have difficulties adjusting to new

learning styles and do not have reliable internet access, respectively. Despite the efforts

to make education accessible for all, group works are undeniably daunting in an online

format.

A study by Sobejana (2015) reveals that media choice is crucial for establishing

effective communication. Sobejana also determined the use of online learning strategies

and their relationship on students’ academic performances in University of Mindanao

Digos College, South Philippines Adventist College, Southern Philippines Agri-Business

and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology, and Holy Cross of Bansalan College in
Davao region. It also came to light that communication channels will be regarded as

effective if they can carry out and fulfill the aim of delivering a message or information.

There are shreds of evidence that online learning has now become an essential

component in the delivery of many higher education courses and has been instrumental

in supporting and facilitating teaching and learning.

Theoretical Framework

It is evident that the traditional face-to-face (FTF) is no longer the primary or

preferred mode of communication. Cooperation and collaboration may be available due

to technology, but these tools bring challenges to group decision-making processes.

Substantially, online learning has changed the way students share, collect and

exchange information.

This study is anchored on the Functional Group Decision Making Theory by

Dennis Gouran, professor Emeritus of Communication at Pennsylvania State University,

and Randy Hirokawa, a Communication professor at the University of Hawaii. Hirokawa

and Gouran are persuaded that group interaction influences the final decision. Similarly,

both see group decision-making as a participatory process requiring four requirements

to obtain a high-quality answer. The said theory involves analyzing the problem,

identifying goals for judging solutions, generating a relevant set of alternatives, and

evaluating the positive and negative characteristics. Hirokawa and Gouran further claim

that small groups are like living systems—having parallels between the four functional

requisites of task groups and the body’s need for respiration, circulation, digestion, and

elimination.
 In this study, the Functional Group Decision Making Theory is used by the

researcher to understand how group decision-making influences group work in a virtual

scene. It was also argued that group decision-making is not an independent event but

rather involves a series of activities and choices. Group work involves group

decision-making in which multiple members collectively participate. In order to examine

the nature of decision-making, it is necessary to understand that group interactions

have a positive effect on the final decision.

The four key task functions ultimately lead to the goal of a high-quality group

decision. The requisite functions are the requirements for positive group outcomes;

problem analysis, goal setting, identification of alternatives, and evaluation. The

proponents further revealed that there is no suggested order or single blueprint for how

a group should arrive at a decision. Hence, in the context of group decision-making via

online, group members with no physical interconnectedness must correctly understand

the issue or problem to be resolved. Problems may be made up of conjectures and

questions. The first requisite function of effective decision-making requires a certain

group to be careful in terms of differentiating between problems and the symptoms of

the problems.

Goal setting must also be applied in order to identify what the solution should be.

A possible goal may come up with as many ideas as possible. The group, in turn,

decides what elements are necessary and what elements are ideal but not necessary.

Moving on, the third requisite function is called the ‘alternatives’ in light of the criterion.

The purpose of this concept is for the sake of selecting the alternative that best meets

the desired characteristics. This is when the group wants to brainstorm needed
solutions. Questions to be raised may include: ‘How well do groups discuss and

evaluate their alternative choices in light of the criteria that influence group

decision-making performance? The last concept of the four essential functions is the

evaluation of negative and positive aspects. Looking back on the case of group works

within online pacing, these requisites pave the way for students to evaluate each

alternative and use the established goals. When the mentioned requisites fail to be

incorporated, wrong decisions will arise. Before reaching a productive or successful

conclusion, it is possible for groups to discuss and undergo a debate. Thus, framing a

decision provides a thorough analysis of all issues, options, and available information

that can contribute to smart decisions. Generally, it follows that group communication is

best when individuals fulfill the requisites.

Consistent with the mentioned requisites for functional perspective on group

decision-making, Gouran and Hirokawa (1996) outline three types of communication in

decision-making groups. These are 1.) Promotive, which refers to the interaction that

moves the group toward the goal path by calling attention to one of the four requisite

functions in group decision-making. 2.) Disruptive, which refers to the interaction that

diverts, hinders, or frustrates group members’ ability to achieve the four task functions.

Lastly, 3.). Counteractive, which refers to the interaction that members use to get the

group back on track.

By virtue of its applicative nature, the chosen theory is relevant in giving concepts

that will further give a broader explanation of the purpose and requirements of effective

group decision-making.
Statement of the Problem

Furthermore, the following research questions were developed to address the

research purpose.

1. What are the experiences of students engaging with group work amid online

learning?

2. How do these experiences help students in following the four requisites of

Functional Perspective on Group Decision-Making?

Objectives of the Study

a. To determine the communication dynamics of students in making group decisions

online.

b. To determine the effects of online learning on the outcome of group

decision-making processes.

Significance of the Study

Across the globe, it is vital to gain an understanding of students’ mechanisms in

making decisions. With the goal of shedding light on the level of obstacles that

students face in a fully online learning environment, particularly in the context of the

pandemic, the following may also benefit from this research:

STUDENTS. This study provides an in-depth understanding in terms of the

communicative dynamics in decision-making processes. This study will also assess

them in enhancing student-to-student engagements and creating successful group

works.

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS. This study provides relevant information in facilitating

students’ group work as well as supporting the online learning challenges of students.

FUTURE RESEARCHERS. This study will be utilized as a supplemental reference in

future studies pertaining to the Functional Perspective on Group Decision-Making

Theory.

References

Online Articles

Baltes, B. (2002), Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A

meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior, and Human Decision Processes, 87,

issue 1, p. 156-179. Retrieved from

https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:87:y:2002:i:1:p:156-179

Chinowsky, P. S., & Rojas, E. M. (2003). Virtual teams: Guide to successful

implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 19(3), 98-106.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Virtual-Teams%3A-Guide-to-Successful-I

mplementation-Chinowsky-Rojas/6c960869027ac6aad7c387d01082c84d8ec286
 b2

Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: a factor

analytic study. Distance Education. 29-48. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247662298_Student_Barriers_to_Onlin

e_Learning_A_Factor_Analytic_Study

Pham, T., & Nguyen, H. (2020). Vietnam-COVID19: challenges and opportunities

for Vietnamese higher education. Monash University.

https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/vietnam-covid19-challenges-and-op

portunities-for-vietnamese-highe

Online PDFs

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher

education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529. Retrieved from

https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/ace/downloads/astininv.pdf

Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in the Scholarship of

Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890707.pdf
Fung, Y. H. (2004). Collaborative online learning: Interaction patterns and limiting

factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135-149. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/24015007/Collaborative_online_learning_interaction_

patterns_and_limiting_factors

Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in

decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In R. Y.

Hirokawa, ed. & M. S. Poole. Retrieved from

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-98657-002

Morrison, D. (2003). E-learning strategies: How to get implementation and delivery

right the first time. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504834.pdf

Rotas, E., & Cahapay, M. (2020). Difficulties in Remote Learning: Voices of Philippine

University Students in the Wake of COVID-19 Crisis. 147-158. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1285295.pdf

Sobejana, N. (2021). Educational technology and students’ academic performance in

basic English in selected higher education institutions in Davao del Sur.

 University of Mindanao International Multidisciplinary Research

Journal. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/

Watson, M. B. (2002). Discontinuities and continuities: A new way to understand

virtual work. Information technology & people. Retrieved from

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09593840210444746/full/ht

ml