Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 615–633 | Cite as

The importance of trust for satisfaction, motivation, and academic performance in student learning groups

Article

Abstract

Educators are continuing to investigate ways to improve student learning through collaboration. This study examined one avenue of increasing student group effectiveness: trust. A model of trust in student workgroups was proposed, where trust mediates the relationships between perceived similarity and individual outcomes (grades and satisfaction). Participants in this study included 252 psychology students at a Midwestern university who participated in semester-long group work in the classroom. The findings indicated that students who perceived themselves as similar to their group members were more likely to trust the group. For the outcome measures, trust was positively related to grades; students who had higher levels of trust towards their group members received higher grades than those with lower levels of trust. In addition, trust was strongly and positively related to satisfaction with one’s group and motivation to work in groups in the future. Additionally, trust emerged as a mediator between perceived similarity and satisfaction, but trust did not mediate links between perceived similarity and academic performance. Finally, an exploratory analysis comparing group environments indicated that face-to-face groups may have higher levels of trust than virtual groups. This study adds to current literature by examining an antecedent of trust (i.e., perceived similarity), by linking trust to a performance-based outcome in student groups (i.e., grades), and by supporting previous lab-based findings linking trust to satisfaction and motivation using actual student learning groups.

Keywords

Trust Collaborative learning Perceived similarity Student groups Grades Satisfaction 

References

  1. Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of team potency in software development projects. Information & Management, 44, 646–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2012). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Report of the Babson Survey Research Group.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Report of the Babson Survey Research Group.Google Scholar
  4. Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 332–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1969). Rewards others provide: Similarity. Interpersonal Attraction (pp. 69–91). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, H. M. (2009). Students’ trust building in a collaborative learning team. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3449630).Google Scholar
  9. Clark, M. A. (2001). Perceived relational diversity: A fit conceptualization. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3031447).Google Scholar
  10. Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, R. S., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costa, A. C., & Anderson, N. (2011). Measuring trust in teams: Development and validation of a multifaceted measure of formative and reflective indicators of team trust. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 119–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Hoyos Guevara, M. (2004). Assessment of teamwork in higher education collaborative learning teams: A validation study. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 3150570).Google Scholar
  13. Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaudet, A. D., Ramer, L. M., Nakonechny, J., Cragg, J. J., & Ramer, M. S. (2010). Small-group learning in an upper-level university biology class enhances academic performance and student attitudes toward group work. Plos One, 5(12), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman, R. A., & Goodman, L. P. (1976). Some management issues in temporary systems: A study of professional development and manpower—The theatre case. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 494–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graves, L. M., & Elsass, P. M. (2005). Sex and sex dissimilarity effects in ongoing teams: Some surprising findings. Human Relations, 58, 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halphen, T. L. (2005). You must be just like me! Effects of perceived similarity on trust in dispersed teams. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Mankato, MN: Minnesota State University- Mankato.Google Scholar
  18. Harney, O., Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. J. (2012). Collaborative learning: The effects of trust and open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), 517–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsiung, C. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huff, L. C., Cooper, J., & Jones, W. (2002). The development and consequences of trust in student project groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.Google Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Roderick M. Kramer & Tom R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Newman, C. J. (2006). Exploring categorical information and influences on perceived similarity and trust. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Mankato, MN: Minnesota State University-Mankato.Google Scholar
  26. Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (2000). Face-to-face: Making network organizations work. In D. Preece, I. McLoughlin, & P. Dawsom (Eds.), Technology, organizations and innovation: Critical perspectives on business and management (pp. 1659–1681). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and team decision-making effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 824–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterson, S. E., & Miller, J. A. (2004). Comparing the quality of students’ experiences during cooperative learning and large-group instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robert, L., Dennis, A., & Hung, Y. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 241–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1120–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (1992). Group processes in the classroom (6th ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  32. Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2004). The effects of trustworthiness perceptions on the formation of initial trust: Implications for MIS student teams. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 383–395.Google Scholar
  33. Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woller, A. H. (2007). Trust formation across multiple levels of virtuality. Journal of Undergraduate Research, 7. Retrieved from http://www.mnsu.edu/urc/journal/2007/woller.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole L. Ennen
    • 1
  • Emily Stark
    • 1
  • Andrea Lassiter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMinnesota State University, MankatoMankatoUSA

Personalised recommendations