The textbook Social Applied Psychology encompasses a recent review of literature on virtual teams. Gilson, Maynard, Jones Young, Vartiainen, and Hakonen (2014) suggested that virtual teams create delays in information exchange, more misunderstanding, and less information seeking. (Gruman et al., p. 283, 2017) I found my online team experience was related to the research finding and simultaneously reminded me of working as a face-to-face group. The primitive three distinguished facets of online virtue team in contrast with the in-person team I intend to address are communication, the efficiency of work, and interpersonal relationship.
The in-person team could be deemed a direct way to communicate without utilizing any medium to exchange information. Communicating with the corresponding team members might be more suitable with a prompt response. During transferring messages, they are more susceptible to comprehending the concept that the sender is trying to convey and nonverbal communication. It refers to all information obtained by a sender, apart from the words themselves, that plays a role in the transmission of meaning. (Gruman et al., p.275, 2017) Nonverbal behavior indicates vital signals such as attitude, emotions, and possibly disposition. I attended a summer program with accomplishing research online with assigned group members. The faculty in the program was spending more time explaining the course content since some students were having a hard time comprehending the materials. Our one lecture will usually extend 20 minutes to answer the students’ questions or express their ideas about the course. One of the reasons the system will slow down is the unstable internet; it affects both the teachers and students on regular teaching. One of the students did not present their final project within the required limited time due to internet issues.
Work efficacy would also be impacted from working as an online group compared with the face-to-face group. I remembered that the art course formed 3 to 4 students to work on a vast canvas. We worked at a fast pace with relatively fairish quality painting under the supervision and assistance of the art professors. The professor would usually take a look a couple of times to check our progress on the work. Suppose we are unsure about how to apply specific skills on the canvas. In that case, the professor could demonstrate in front of us, which increases our productivity based on the problem solved. After one assigned project was done; there was a critique section for students to comment on each work; the exhibition in public would motivate the group from dedicating themselves to creating art owing to receiving positive feedback. Students will usually put on the results the wall, which possibly stresses the group members to accomplish each person’s part to the greatest extent. My online group experience with working towards a collective goal was less satisfying than the in-person group. The delayed communication discouraged group members from fulfilling the task early before the due time, which does not provide extra time for group members to evaluate and modify together. It decreased the quality of the assignment, which negatively impacted everyone’s grades. Another issue with the online virtue team was that the role was not clarified in the beginning. It leads to a problem that two different members wrote repetitive points at the same time.
For the interpersonal relationship, the online virtue team provides both benefits but also disadvantages. The individual might feel less stressed since the online meeting will only show part of us instead of the full image. At the same time, the non-uncontrollable factors reduce, such as going into a new environment, being unsure about where to sit, and how to start the conversation. Nonetheless, the lack of social interaction still exists; the online virtue team did not have many opportunities to get along with each other compared with the in-person group. In a real-life setting, the students could choose to sit next to one another and start a conversation. The online environment limits the communication among students since the professors will possibly spend most of their time teaching the course materials. Even the zoom has the breakout room function; the professor’s time distributed to the group discussion is restricted.
In general, working with the online virtue team is more challenging than the in-person team. For this reason, we gain more experience with dealing with difficulties in this time by choosing an alternative way. The attribution theory stated that if we tend to attribute positively, even though the outcome is the same, we might feel more motivated to improve later in life. It takes effort to build teamwork regardless of it is a virtue or in person. As long as we learn lessons from it, it is worthy.
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE.
Hi, I am also interested in the difference between online and face to face group work. There is no denying that online group study can reduce social pressure, but I think online group study will reduce learning efficiency. There are three reasons. The first is jet lag. In my experience last semester, when the group held a meeting, each member of the group was in a different time zone. Some of them might be very sleepy and could not achieve a good efficiency of group work. The second reason is that the network is unstable and the efficiency of communication is very slow. In a one-hour meeting, 20 minutes may be spent on solving network problems. Thirdly, group leaders’ proficiency in software may have an impact on group work efficiency. If a person is skilled in network technology, then his study efficiency, the efficiency of online office will be higher (Tseng et al., 2019).
Reference:
Tseng, H., Yi, X., & Yeh, H.-T. (2019). Learning-related soft skills among online business students in Higher Education: Grade level and managerial role differences in self-regulation, motivation, and Social Skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.035