IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10444-d461815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Teamwork Different Online Versus Face-to-Face? A Case in Engineering Education

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Goñi

    (DILAB School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile)

  • Catalina Cortázar

    (DILAB School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile)

  • Danilo Alvares

    (Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile)

  • Uranía Donoso

    (DILAB School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile)

  • Constanza Miranda

    (DILAB School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile)

Abstract

Teamwork has been systematically studied in engineering education as an educational method and a learning outcome. Based on the recent advances in socially-shared regulation as a framework for teamwork processes, this study explores the impact of the transition to online learning. The purpose of this study is to understand if face-to-face and online team dynamics differ concerning the prevalence of personal goals, team challenges, and individual/social strategies. The Adaptive Instrument for Regulation of Emotions (AIRE) Questionnaire was used to compare two semesters in project-based learning engineering courses that were face-to-face (2019) and then converted to an online modality (2020) due to the COVID-19 crisis. Our results show that both modalities report mostly the same prevalence of goals, challenges, and strategies. However, online students tend to manifest a significantly lower prevalence of specific challenges and strategies, suggesting that online teamwork may have involved less group deliberation. These results provide evidence for the "equivalency theory" between online and face-to-face learning in a context where all systemic levels transitioned to a digital modality. These findings raise the question of whether online teaching encourages the emergence of team conflict and deliberation needed for creative thinking.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Goñi & Catalina Cortázar & Danilo Alvares & Uranía Donoso & Constanza Miranda, 2020. "Is Teamwork Different Online Versus Face-to-Face? A Case in Engineering Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10444-:d:461815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10444/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10444/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samantha R. Brunhaver & Russell F. Korte & Stephen R. Barley & Sheri D. Sheppard, 2018. "Bridging the Gaps between Engineering Education and Practice," NBER Chapters, in: US Engineering in a Global Economy, pages 129-163, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Harinck, Fieke & De Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Van Vianen, Annelies E. M., 2000. "The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed-Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 329-358, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonathan R. White, 2024. "Language Learning Through Zoom: The Need for Pedagogical-Technological Knowledge," International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD), IGI Global, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Eva Blondeel & Patricia Everaert & Evelien Opdecam, 2021. "And Then There Was COVID-19: Do the Benefits of Cooperative Learning Disappear When Switching to Online Education?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Merlone, Ugo & Lupano, Matteo, 2022. "Third party funding: The minimum claim value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(2), pages 738-747.
    2. Marc Buelens & Mieke Woestyne & Steven Mestdagh & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2008. "Methodological Issues in Negotiation Research: A State-of-the-Art-Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 321-345, July.
    3. Greer, Lindred L. & Caruso, Heather M. & Jehn, Karen A., 2011. "The bigger they are, the harder they fall: Linking team power, team conflict, and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 116-128, September.
    4. M. Buelens & M. Van De Woestyne & S. Mestdagh & D. Bouckenooghe, 2007. "Research Methods in Negotiation: 1965-2004," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 07/449, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    5. Hart, Einav & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2020. "Getting to less: When negotiating harms post-agreement performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 155-175.
    6. Luhgiatno Luhgiatno & Christantius Dwiatmadja, 2020. "Developing Optimal Distinctive Open Innovation in Private Universities: Antecedents and Consequences on Innovative Work Behavior and Employee Performance," International Journal of Higher Education, Sciedu Press, vol. 9(5), pages 1-19, October.
    7. Ghada A. Altarawneh & Ahmad B. Hassanat & Ahmad S. Tarawneh & David Carfì & Abdullah Almuhaimeed, 2022. "Fuzzy Win-Win: A Novel Approach to Quantify Win-Win Using Fuzzy Logic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Fieke Harinck & Daniel Druckman, 2017. "Do Negotiation Interventions Matter? Resolving Conflicting Interests and Values," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(1), pages 29-55, January.
    9. Gerben A. Kleef & Eric Dijk & Wolfgang Steinel & Fieke Harinck & Ilja Beest, 2008. "Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 13-30, January.
    10. Gabriel Szulanski & Dimo Ringov & Robert J. Jensen, 2016. "Overcoming Stickiness: How the Timing of Knowledge Transfer Methods Affects Transfer Difficulty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 304-322, April.
    11. Zhuo-Jia Zhao & Hung-Hsin Chen & Kevin W. Li, 2020. "Management of Interpersonal Conflict in Negotiation with Chinese: A Perceived Face Threat Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 75-102, February.
    12. Carsten K. W. Dreu & Tim R. W. Wilde & Femke S. Velden, 2021. "Intergroup Competition Mitigates Effects of Reward Structure on Preference-Consistency Bias and Group Decision Failure," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 885-902, August.
    13. Parent-Rocheleau, Xavier & Bentein, Kathleen & Simard, Gilles, 2020. "Positive together? The effects of leader-follower (dis)similarity in psychological capital," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 435-444.
    14. Claude Alavoine, 2014. "Understanding the balance of power and ethics in a bank-customer negotiation," Working Papers 2014-221, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    15. Christoph Laubert & Ingmar Geiger, 2018. "Disentangling complexity: how negotiators identify and handle issue-based complexity in business-to-business negotiation," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 88(9), pages 1061-1103, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10444-:d:461815. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.