Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Comparison of group cohesion, class participation, and exam performance in live and online classes

  • Published:
Social Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Though class participation and group cohesion have shown some potential to promote student performance in conventional classrooms, their efficacy has not yet been demonstrated in an online-class setting. Group cohesion, defined as member attraction to and self-identification with a group, is thought to promote positive interdependence and the success of the group’s members. The current study sought to determine if group cohesion is significantly affected by the change of course setting from a live classroom to an asynchronous online-hybrid class in which students met in person only for course exams and otherwise interacted with each other through an online discussion board. Because peer interaction appears vital for the development of cohesion, we examined the relationship between participation in class discussion and students’ self-reported group cohesion and exam performance. With one exception, course requirements and materials were identical between the two class sections: students in the online-hybrid course completed homework assignments, whereas students in the live section were simply encouraged to do the same. Despite the advantage conferred by mandatory homework assignments, the findings heavily favored the conventional live classroom with respect to exam performance and self-reported group cohesion. Participation in class discussion was high in both class sections. The results indicated that both student performance and group cohesion were significantly lower in the hybrid classes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamopoulos, P. (2013). What makes a great MOOC? An interdisciplinary analysis of student retention in online courses. Paper presented at the 34th International Conference on Information Systems, Milan.

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Sloan Consortium: PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.

  • Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., & Rubalcava, B. R. D. (2002). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21, 260–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education, 32, 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. M. (2012). Online learning: A comparison of web-based and land-based courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13, 39–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D. (1968). The Nature of Group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (3rd ed., pp. 91–109). Harper & Row: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassady, J. C. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT scores. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED458216).

  • Cornell, L. P., & Odafe, V. U. (2008). The effect of grading homework on student performance in college chemistry classes. AURCO Journal, 14, 143–149. http://aurco.net/Journals/AURCO_JOUR_2008_preliminaries_vol_14.pdf

  • Dion, K. R. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drescher, S., Burlingame, G., & Fuhriman, A. (2012). Cohesion: An odyssey in empirical understanding. Small Group Research, 43, 662–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N. J., & Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and reevaluation. Small Group Behavior, 11, 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students’ and professors’ contributions to students’ silence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66, 82–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, L. N., Krohn, K. R., McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Nalls, M. L., Quillivan, C. C., et al. (2009). Increasing low-responding students’ participation in class discussion. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galyon, C. E. (2013). Analysis of the role of homework in predicting and improving exam performance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from TRACE.

  • Galyon, C. E., Blondin, C. A., Forbes, B. E., & Williams, R. L. (2013). Does homework matter? A comparison of homework with established predictors of exam performance in large college classes. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24(4), 77–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galyon, C. E., Voils, K. L., Blondin, C. A., & Williams, R. L. (2014). The effect of randomized homework contingencies on college students’ daily homework and unit exam performance. Innovative Higher Education,. doi:10.1007/s10755-014-9296-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group Research, 20, 70–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, L. L. (2012). Group cohesion: Then and now. Small Group Research, 43, 655–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gütl, C., Rizzardini, R. H., Chang, V., & Morales, M. (2014). Attrition in MOOC: Lessons learned from drop-out students. In L. Uden, J. Sinclair, Y. H. Tao & D. Liberona (Eds.), Learning Technology for Education in Cloud. MOOC and Big Data (pp. 37–48). Santiago: Springer.

  • Harton, H. C., Richardson, D. S., Barreras, R. E., Rockloff, M. J., & Latane, B. (2002). Focused interactive learning: A tool for active class discussion. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive online open courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education, 15(1), 133–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 715–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (1985). Interactions and performance in small groups: A descriptive report. International Journal of Small Group Research, 1, 182–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kizilcec, R. F., & Halawa, S. (2015). Attrition and achievement gaps in online learning. Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 57–66), ACM.

  • Klein, H. J., & Mulvey, P. W. (1995). Two investigations of the relationships among group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 61, 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konstan, J. A., Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., Brown, K., & Ekstrand, M. D. (2015). Teaching recommender systems at large scale: Evaluation and lessons learned from a hybrid MOOC. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22, 10:1–10:23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, K. R., Aspiranti, K. B., Foster, L. N., McCleary, D. F., Taylor, C. M., Nalls, M. L., & Williams, R. L. (2010). Effects of self-recording and contingent credit on balancing participation across students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 134–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, K. R., Foster, L. N., McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Nalls, M. L., Quillivan, C. C., et al. (2011). Reliability of students’ self-recorded participation in class discussion. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 43–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance. Small Group Research, 29, 124–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Foster, L. N., Blondin, C. A., Galyon, C. E., Yaw, J. S., et al. (2011). Balancing participation across students in large college classes via randomized participation credit. The Journal of General Education, 60, 194–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities: An update of Tateyama-Sniezek’s review. Learning Disabilities Reasearch & Practice, 17, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, L. V., Finnegan, C., & Wu, S. S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC research. Science, 347, 34–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutor’s explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, C. S., & Hemmes, N. S. (2005). Effects of the contingency for homework submission on homework submission and quiz performance in a college course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(79–88), 2005. doi:10.1901/jaba.123-03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuelke, L. D. (1972). Subject matter relevance in interpersonal communication, skills, and instructional accountability: A consensus model. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED073489).

  • Shin, Y., & Song, K. (2011). Role of face-to-face and computer-mediated communication time in the cohesion and performance of mixed-mode groups. Asia Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stashevsky, S., & Koslowsky, M. (2006). Leadership team cohesiveness and team performance. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockdale, S. L., & Williams, R. L. (2004). Cooperative learning groups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(1), 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. M., Galyon, C. E., Forbes, B. E., Blondin, C. A., & Williams, R. L. (2014). Individual and group credit for class participation. Teaching of Psychology, 41(2), 148–154. doi:10.1177/0098628314530348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (1975). Drop out from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, H. C., Bliss, S. L., Hautau, B., Carroll, E., Jaspers, K. E., & Williams, R. L. (2006). Brief daily writing activities and performance on major multiple-choice exams. Journal of General Education, 55, 221–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, M. A., & Williams, R. L. (2003). Multiple-choice exams: Explanations for student choices. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 136–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, G. B., & Glaser, E. M. (1994). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal Form S manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, D. (2008). Academic and student use of a learning management system: Implications for quality. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkowski, J., Deutsch, A., & Russell, D. M. (2014). Student skill and goal achievement in the mapping with Google MOOC. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 3–10). ACM.

  • Williams, R. L., Oliver, R., & Stockdale, S. (2004). Psychological versus generic critical thinking as predictors and outcome measures in a large undergraduate human development course. The Journal of General Education, 53, 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. L., & Worth, S. L. (2002). Thinking skills and work habits: Contributors to course performance. The Journal of General Education, 51(3), 200–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rose, C. P. (2013, December). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 2013 NIPS Data-Driven Education Workshop (Vol. 11, p. 14).

  • Zander, A. (1979). The psychology of group processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 417–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    Charles E. Galyon, Eleanore C. T. Heaton, Tiffany L. Best & Robert L. Williams

Authors
  1. Charles E. Galyon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleanore C. T. Heaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tiffany L. Best
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert L. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles E. Galyon.

Appendix 1: Group cohesion self-rating form

Appendix 1: Group cohesion self-rating form

Instructions: For each of the questions, think back on your experience in the EP210 course this semester. Your responses are totally anonymous and will not affect your grade in any way. The purpose of this survey is simply to get an idea of how to improve students’ experience within the course. Your participation is greatly valued and appreciated!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galyon, C.E., Heaton, E.C.T., Best, T.L. et al. Comparison of group cohesion, class participation, and exam performance in live and online classes. Soc Psychol Educ 19, 61–76 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9321-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9321-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation