A project management perspective on student's declarative commitments to goals established within asynchronous communication

Teamwork and technology, even as people are seeing their increased use in organizations, are becoming important components of problem-based learning in academic settings. Yet, fostering computer-assisted teamwork is complex and time consuming. Knowing how and when to intervene would prove useful. This study draws from the field of project management to explore how students commit to project goals using collective asynchronous text-based communication technology. Declarative commitments – goal-orientated public, voluntary, explicit and non-retractable messages comprised of a term, an objective and a focus – made by 34 teams during a four-phase 13-week project were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative results show that declarative commitments voluntarily and formally package information about project constraints into a relatively potent message about tasks, coordination and project completion. Team members' suggestions as to what should be carried out in the project and requests for help often preceded others' declarative commitments. As with persuasive communication (i.e. aimed at changing beliefs, attitudes and behaviours), declarative commitments were followed by demands for clarification, new declarative commitments, confirmations of upheld commitments and clear approvals of what was committed to. Looking at project progression from a broader perspective, quantitative analyses show that declarative commitments did partially mediate the relationship between frequencies of task issues and of task solutions. This was particularly pronounced in the mid-point of the project, but it was not the case during the initial or final phases of the project. Taken together, these results suggest that teachers can facilitate computer-assisted learning and project goal attainment by monitoring asynchronous electronic discussions, and by eliciting and structuring declarative commitments.

[1]  Allan Jeong,et al.  The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[2]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  The Functional Perspective as a Lens for Understanding Groups , 2004 .

[3]  Karen Kear,et al.  Peer learning using asynchronous discussion systems in distance education , 2004 .

[4]  William L. Gardner,et al.  Transition to self-directed work teams: implications of transition time and self-monitoring for managers' use of influence tactics , 2004 .

[5]  Paul C. Dinsmore,et al.  The AMA handbook of project management , 1993 .

[6]  E. Vance Wilson,et al.  Perceived effectiveness of interpersonal persuasion strategies in computer-mediated communication , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[7]  James Boyle,et al.  Factors influencing the success of computer mediated communication (CMC) environments in university teaching: a review and case study , 2000, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Brown,et al.  Organizational Commitment: Clarifying the Concept and Simplifying the Existing Construct Typology , 1996, Journal of vocational behavior.

[9]  Neil Selwyn,et al.  The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspective , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[10]  Peter Goodyear,et al.  How and what university students learn through online and face-to-face discussion: conceptions, intentions and approaches , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[11]  K. E. Barron,et al.  Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects in Counseling Psychology Research. , 2004 .

[12]  Maggie McPherson,et al.  Critical issues for e-learning delivery: what may seem obvious is not always put into practice , 2008, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[13]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Regulative support for collaborative scientific inquiry learning , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[14]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  The Determinants of Goal Commitment , 1988 .

[15]  Deborah Allen,et al.  The power of problem-based learning : a practical "how to" for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline , 2001 .

[16]  Maria Grigoriadou,et al.  Adapting and personalizing the communication in a synchronous communication tool , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[17]  Mark Grabe,et al.  Optional student use of online lecture resources: resource preferences, performance and lecture attendance , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[18]  C. Vandenberghe,et al.  Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes , 2004 .

[19]  Kathy Kellermann,et al.  Classifying Compliance Gaining Messages: Taxonomic Disorder and Strategic Confusion , 1994 .

[20]  L. Pelco,et al.  Teaching Research Methods to Undergraduate Psychology Students Using an Active Cooperative Learning Approach , 2006 .

[21]  Linda C. Schmidt,et al.  Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance , 2006 .

[22]  Christophe Bredillet Proposition of a systemic and dynamic model to design lifelong learning structure : the quest of the missing link between men, team, and organizational learning , 2000 .

[23]  Vincent Bourquin,et al.  Management of Global Large-Scale Projects through a Federation of Multiple Web-Based Workflow Management Systems , 2003 .

[24]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[25]  Yvonne Fung,et al.  Collaborative online learning: interaction patterns and limiting factors , 2004 .

[26]  Richard L. Weaver,et al.  Understanding interpersonal communication , 1984 .

[27]  François Chiocchio,et al.  Project Team Performance: A Study of Electronic Task and Coordination Communication , 2007 .

[28]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[29]  Cristina B. Gibson,et al.  Multinational Work Teams: A New Perspective , 2002 .

[30]  B. Schneider,et al.  The Meaning of Employee Engagement , 2008, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[31]  Andrew J. Sense,et al.  Learning Generators: Project Teams Re-Conceptualized , 2003 .

[32]  Lin Muilenburg,et al.  How Do Students Participate in Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Discussions? , 2001 .

[33]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  Interpersonal Influence Goals and Computer-Mediated Communication , 2001, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

[34]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  Metacognition and mental models in groups: An illustration with metamemory of group recognition memory. , 2004 .

[35]  Cecilia Enberg,et al.  Exploring the Dynamics of Knowledge Integration , 2006 .

[36]  John P. Meyer,et al.  Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model , 2001 .

[37]  Mats Engwall,et al.  Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings , 2006 .

[38]  Aaron J. Shenhar,et al.  One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring Classical Contingency Domains , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[39]  Peggy A. Ertmer,et al.  Using Peer Feedback to Enhance the Quality of Student Online Postings: An Exploratory Study , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[40]  C. Gersick Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development , 1988 .

[41]  Dennis S. Gouran COMMUNICATION SKILLS FOR GROUP DECISION MAKING , 2003 .

[42]  Albert L. Ingram,et al.  Cooperation and Collaboration Using Computer-Mediated Communication , 2002 .

[43]  New directions in organizational behavior , 2008 .