Vertical versus shared e-leadership approach in online project-based learning: a comparison of self-regulated learning skills, motivation and group collaboration processes
- 10 Downloads
The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of vertical and shared e-leadership approaches on self-regulated learning skills, motivation and group collaboration processes (group cohesion, group atmosphere, and group transactive memory system) in online project-based learning. The study was carried out according to a factorial experimental design (2 × 2) and mixed methods approach was used. The study was conducted on 41 teacher candidates randomly assigned to vertical and shared e-leadership groups. As a data collection tool; Self-Regulated Learning Scale, Motivation Scale, Transactive Memory Scale, Group Atmosphere Scale, Group Cohesion Scale, and a semi-structured interview form were used. Research findings indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between vertical and shared e-leadership groups in terms of self-regulated learning skills, motivation and group collaboration processes. In other words, both leadership approaches were found to be useful in the management of groups in online project-based learning. The qualitative findings of the research reveal that there are some advantages and disadvantages in both approaches. In this context, the shared e-leadership approach is determined to be useful especially in terms of fostering the sense of belonging to the group by sharing the leadership role within the group, ensuring a fair distribution of responsibility and workload among the group members. The vertical e-leadership approach was found to be useful in providing communication, cooperation and coordination among the group members thanks to the group leader, ensuring the planned progress of the group works.
KeywordsOnline project-based learning Vertical and shared e-leadership Self-regulated learning skills Motivation Group collaboration processes
The preliminary version of this study was presented at 7th International Conference on Education (IC-ED-2018), BAU International Berlin University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany, 28–30 June 2018.
The authors declare that they have no funding of this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Alsancak, D. (2010). The investigation of the relationship between transactive memory with group cohesion, group atmosphere and performance in computer supported collaboration learning environments (Doctoral Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey).Google Scholar
- Alsancak, D., & Altun, A. (2011). The relationship between transactive memory and group cohesion, group atmosphere and performance in computer supported collaboration learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology Theory and Practice,1(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Buyukozturk, S., Akgun, O. E., Ozkahveci, O., & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,4(2), 231e237.Google Scholar
- Chamakiotis, P., & Panteli, N. (2011). e-Leadership styles for global virtual teams. In P. Yoong (Ed.), Leadership in the digital enterprise: issues and challenges (pp. 143–162). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Chen, C. C., Wu, J., Yang, S. C., & Tsou, H. Y. (2008). Importance of diversified leadership roles in improving team effectiveness in a virtual collaboration learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,11(1), 304–321.Google Scholar
- Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Dubrin, A. J. (2004). Leadership (4th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Eisenberg, J., Gibbs, J. L., & Erhardt, N. (2016). The role of vertical and shared leadership in virtual team collaboration. In Strategic management and leadership for systems development in virtual spaces (pp. 22–42). IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,8(4), 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow’s leaders. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Haslaman, T. (2011). Effect of an online learning environment on teachers’ and students’ self-regulated learning skills (Doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey).Google Scholar
- Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Huang, I. (2012). A project-based digital storytelling approach for improving students' learning motivation, problem-solving competence and learning achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 368–379.Google Scholar
- Jameson, J., Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S., & Ryan, M. (2006). Building trust and shared knowledge in communities of e-learning practice: collaborative leadership in the JISC eLISA and CAMEL lifelong learning projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(6), 949–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 785–811). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Kabatas, S., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2018). Evaluation of teachers’ lifelong learning attitudes in terms of self-efficacy towards the standards of educational technology. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education,7(2), 588–608.Google Scholar
- Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive awareness and online information searching strategies. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction,6(4), 447–468.Google Scholar
- Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
- Leeuwen, R. (2013). The effect of vertical versus shared leadership on team success. The leadership game. Retrieved June 23, 2018 from https://www.slideshare.net/RicovLeeuwen/leadership-presentation-acn.
- Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Executive,18(1), 47–57.Google Scholar
- Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,6(2), 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
- Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
- Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Thornton, K. (2010). The nature of distributed leadership and its development in online environments. In P. Yoong (Ed.), Leadership in the digital enterprise: issues and challenges (pp. 143–162). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Wassenaar, C., Pearce, C., Hoch, J., & Wegge, J. (2010). Shared leadership meets virtual teams: A match made in cyberspace. In P. Yoong (Ed.), Leadership in the digital enterprise: issues and challenges (pp. 143–162). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Weinberger, A. (2011). Principles of transactive computer-supported collaboration scripts. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy,6(03), 189–202.Google Scholar
- World Economic Forum (2016). What are the 21st-century skills every student needs?. Retrieved June 23, 2018 from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/21st-century-skills-future-jobs-students/.
- Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Keser, H. (2018). The effect of shared e-leadership approach on students’ motivation, self-regulation skills and group collaboration processes in online project based learning [Çevrimiçi proje tabanli öğrenmede paylaşilan e-liderlik yaklaşiminin öğrencilerin motivasyonuna, öz-düzenleme becerilerine ve grup işbirliği süreçlerine etkisi]. In 7th International Conference on Education (IC-ED-2018), BAU International Berlin University of Applied Sciences Berlin – Germany 28 – 30 June 2018.Google Scholar