skip to main content
10.1145/3551708.3551776acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicemtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Study on Teamwork in Online Courses at Vietnamese Public Universities

Published:18 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

In higher education institutions, teamwork has become an indispensable requirement and is becoming increasingly important for the effectiveness of courses. Teamwork skills were mentioned as a training goal which must be achieved after graduation by the students. Employers also express that they often have a favorable view of candidates possessing good teamwork skills. However, understanding the importance of teamwork does not mean it will get enough care for development. The current 4.0 technology era has gradually changed the way higher education develop in a new direction. Typically, the involvement of information technology in higher education and the emergence of online courses is becoming more common. Teamwork, which was considered limited at Vietnam's public universities, today seems to face a number of other challenges. The author's research focuses on the issue of teamwork in online courses at Vietnamese public universities.

References

  1. Dede, C. 2010. “Comparing Frameworks for 21st Century Skills.” In 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn, edited by James Bellanca and Ron Brandt, 51–76. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Hart Research Associates. 2010. “Raising the Bar: Employers’ View on College Learning in the Wake of the Economic Downturn.” Association of American Colleges and Universities. Accessed June 15, 2015Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Riebe, L., D. Roepen, B. Santarelli, and G. Marchioro. 2010. “Teamwork: Effectively Teaching an Employability Skill.” Education + Training 52 (6/7): 528–539Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Hughes, R. L., and S. K. Jones. 2011. “Developing and Assessing College Student Teamwork Skills.” New Directions for Institutional Research 2011 (149): 53–64Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. West, M. A. (2004). Effective teamwork, practical lessons from organizational research. Wiley-Blackwell.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Editorial Board. (Nov. 2008). Why our education is falling behind; lazy students. Minnesota Daily. Retrieved on June 12, 2009Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, S., Comer, D., & Martinak, M. (2008). All I'm askin' is for a little respect: How can we promote civility in our classrooms? Organization Management Journal, 5(2): 65-80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Armstrong, D. A. (2011). Students’ perceptions of online learning and instructional tools: A qualitative study of undergraduate students use of online tools. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 222-226Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinowsky, P. S., & Rojas, E. M. (2003). Virtual teams: Guide to successful implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering,19,98-106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. DeRosa, D., & Lepsinger, R. (2010). Virtual team success: A practical guide for working and leading from a distance. San Francisco, CAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, A. (2011). Group work: How to use groups effectively. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 11 (2), 87-95Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Goold, A., Craig, A., Coldwell, J., Goold, A., Craig, A. & Coldwell, J. (2008). The student experience of working in teams online. In Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2008 (pp. 343-352). Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonk, C. J., Lee, S. H., Liu, X., & Su, B. (2007). Awareness design in online collaborative learning: A pedagogical perspective. In F. M. M. Neto & F. V. Brasileiro (Eds.), Advances in computer-supported learning (pp. 251–273). Hershey, PA: Information Science PublishingGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, IncGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham, C. R. (2002). Factors effective learning groups in face-to-face and virtual environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Dede, C. (2005). Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles. Educause Quarterly, 28 (1), 7­14Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Anh. Lan Ngo, Duc Minh Hoang. (2020). Online training in universities in Vietnam today: Situation and solutions to improve quality. Journal of Industry and Trade - Results of scientific research and technology application, No. 23, September 2020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 355–395). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., PublishersGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Dempsey, J. V., & Van Eck, R. N. (2002). Instructional design online: Evolving expectations. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 281– 294). Merrill Prentice HallGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Tony Bates Associates Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2018). Technology matters – The impact of transactional distance on satisfaction in online distance learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289–306Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Littlefield, J. (2018). The difference between synchronous and asynchronous distance learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Basilaia, G., Dgebuadze, M., Kantaria, M., & Chokhonelidze, G. (2020). Replacing the classic learning form at universities as an immediate response to the COVID-19 virus infection in Georgia. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology, 8(III)Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Murphy, M. P. A. (2020). COVID-19 and emergency eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy, 1-14Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. John Demuyakor. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Online Learning in Higher Institutions of Education: A Survey of the Perceptions of Ghanaian International Students in China. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 2020, 10(3), e202018Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Procter S. & Currie G. (2004) Target-based teamworking: groups, work and interdependence in the UK civil service. Human Relations 57(12), 1547–1572Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Salas E., Sims D.E. & Burke C.S. (2005) Is there a ‘big five’ in teamwork? Small Group Research 36(5), 555–599Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Heywood J.S. & Jirjahn U. (2004) Teams, teamwork and absence. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 106(4), 765–782Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Borrill C., West M., Shapiro D. & Rees A. (2000) Team working and effectiveness in health care. British Journal of Health Care Management 6(8), 364–37Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kozlowski, S., and Ilgen, D. R. “Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams.” Psychological Science, 2006, 7, 77–12Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Morgeson, F. P., Lindoerfer, D., and Loring, D. J. “Developing Team Leadership Capability.” In E. Van Velsor, C. McCauley, and M. Ruderman (eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development (3rd ed.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sewell G. (2005) Doing what comes naturally? Why we need a practical ethics of teamwork. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16(2), 202–218Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Levin P. (2005) Successful Teamwork. Open University Press, Maidenhead.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A conceptual framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356 –376Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Ingram, H. (2000). Linking teamwork with performance. Journal of Team Performance Management, 2(4), 5-10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Parks, C. & Sanna, L. (1999). Group performance and interaction. Boulder, CO: Westview.Robyn, E. (2000). Creating tribes. College Teaching, 48(2), 65-68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Levi, D. (2007). Group dynamics for teams. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69-95Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2003). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & BaconGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. He, J., & Glenda, G. (2015). Examining factors that affect students’ knowledge sharing within virtual teams. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26(2), 169–187Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Woerner, S. L., Orlikowski, W. J. & Yates, J. (2004). The media toolbox: Combining media in organizational communication.Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Academy of Management, Orlando, FL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Mason, R. (1998). Globalising education: Trends and applications. London, UK: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Driver, M. (2002). Exploring student perceptions of group interaction and class satisfaction in the web-enhanced classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 5(1), 35–45Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A Study on Teamwork in Online Courses at Vietnamese Public Universities

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICEMT '22: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology
      July 2022
      482 pages
      ISBN:9781450396455
      DOI:10.1145/3551708

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 November 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format