View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

From We to Me: A Dual Emphasis on Social Identity and Task Autonomy Enhances Personal Learning in Student Teams

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: From We to Me: A Dual Emphasis on Social Identity and Task Autonomy Enhances Personal Learning in Student Teams
Language: English
Authors: Gerard Beenen, Shaun Pichler, Jenny Zhang
Source: Journal of Education for Business. 2024 99(3):145-154.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Self Concept, Business Administration Education, Teamwork, Personal Autonomy, Learning Processes, Prediction, Naming, Correlation, Skill Development, Communication Skills, Undergraduate Students, Group Dynamics, Introductory Courses
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2023.2278069
ISSN: 0883-2323
1940-3356
Abstract: Student teams are routine in business education, yet instructors lack research-based strategies to promote personal learning in teams. Our study's purpose therefore is to investigate how a dual emphasis on social identity and individual autonomy in teams may enhance students' personal learning. In a study of 557 business undergrads in 215 teams, team self-selection and communication predicted social identity, and communication predicted autonomy. Team naming correlated with social identity but was not predictive in our multilevel model. Social identity mediated the relationship of team self-selection and communication to personal skill development; autonomy mediated the relationship of communication to personal learning. We discuss implications for student teams in business education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1418919
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHwWnMn4Qaki837P-5N2SU4AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHdRpArwn7Gjy68PJAIBEICBmjIxYaKEFbCqSX-Pzp4pHoWZ-gH8bAUJzJgZbAGzasYemL4Ee9VhmVRNcVT_i6I1EuwLtg-ehDhk0l_cv1WYwwO8eSQJTN94IVO7XuoW8LaJWunB2ENl47ctfFgfq2l4c5Fl3R9oEcnZeyQK4CP_85xwFB6iPCYwYf5mQOaJgPfND04Mrp6RKIo_OFctfyXwUPFNQmGv56qtNNk=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176396017;jeb01apr.24;2024Apr04.08:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176396017-1">From we to me: A dual emphasis on social identity and task autonomy enhances personal learning in student teams </title> <p>Student teams are routine in business education, yet instructors lack research-based strategies to promote personal learning in teams. Our study's purpose therefore is to investigate how a dual emphasis on social identity and individual autonomy in teams may enhance students' personal learning. In a study of 557 business undergrads in 215 teams, team self-selection and communication predicted social identity, and communication predicted autonomy. Team naming correlated with social identity but was not predictive in our multilevel model. Social identity mediated the relationship of team self-selection and communication to personal skill development; autonomy mediated the relationship of communication to personal learning. We discuss implications for student teams in business education.</p> <p>Keywords: Personal skill development; social identity; social interdependence; student teams; task autonomy</p> <p>Small-group or team projects are routine in business education because of the learning these activities generate and the demand for team skills in organizations (Kalliath & Laiken, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref1">31</reflink>]). Teamwork helps students build interpersonal skills by collaborating with others (Gopinath & Saleem, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]; Lankau & Scandura, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]; Welsh & Slack, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref4">65</reflink>]). We define such learning as personal skill development, which includes acquiring skills to build relationships, communicate with and listen to others, and "enable better working relationships" (Lankau & Scandura, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref5">36</reflink>], p. 780).</p> <p>Team projects in business education also have pitfalls. Students can develop habits that contribute to "skilled incompetence" in teams (Holmer, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]) and feelings of disconnection (Jassawalla et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]). Students accustomed to "individualistic learning approaches" may struggle in "interdependent team settings" (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>], p. 37) and with team assignment practices that vary across teachers (Marks & O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref9">41</reflink>]; Welsh & Slack, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref10">65</reflink>]). Because teachers may not know how divergent practices impact students' personal skill development (Choi et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]; Holmer, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>]), it is important to explore how instructors and students can improve personal skill development outcomes.</p> <p>Small-group and cooperative learning as educational practices are rooted in social interdependence theory, which emphasizes how team and individual actions impact student learning (Johnson & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref13">28</reflink>]). Positive social interdependence entails <emph>individual</emph> actions that promote achievement of <emph>shared</emph> goals and has been called "one of the most successful ... applications of social and educational psychology to practice" (Johnson & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>], p. 365). Thus, positive social interdependence emphasizes both the "we" of social identification and the "me" of individual autonomy in teamwork. This complementary emphasis on both the team's and the individual member's role in student teams motivated our research question for this study: To what extent does a dual emphasis on social identity and individual autonomy in student teams enhance students' personal learning?</p> <p>We explore how team assignment procedures and member communication may enhance students' personal skill development through both social identity, emphasizing the collective "we" of the team, and task autonomy, emphasizing the individual "me" of being a responsible team member. We review related literature and hypothesize how three team-level antecedents (naming, assignment, communication) may predict students' social identity and task autonomy, which in turn predict personal skill development. We then present our methodology and multilevel model (MLM) analysis of 557 students in 215 teams and discuss implications for team projects in business education.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-2">Why are student teams important in business education?</hd> <p>Student teams contribute to business education in several ways. First, team skills are critical in today's decentralized organizations where managers rely on teams to do work (Batista & Romani-Dias, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; Devine et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]). Team projects help students build key team skills such as collaboration, communication, and supporting and motivating peers (Ashraf, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]; Moore & Mamiseishvili, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref19">44</reflink>]). Second, the lack of personal skill development in business curriculum highlights the importance of developing these skills (Beenen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref20">6</reflink>]). Team projects address this gap with experiential learning. Third, team projects as a form of cooperative learning facilitate student achievement and learning (Michaelsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref21">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-3">Social identification and task autonomy in student teams</hd> <p>In line with social interdependence theory (Johnson & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>]), it is important to consider how instructors can enhance both social identity and task autonomy in teams. Teams typically are self-selected or instructor assigned. Research shows better student experiences and stronger team identification with self-selected teams (Bacon et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]; Chapman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]; Kidder & Bowes-Sperry, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]; Marks & O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref26">41</reflink>]). At the same time, it is also vital to encourage task autonomy to foster individual agency (Marks & O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]). This is also consistent with the collective effort model for group effectiveness (Karau & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>]) and self-determination theory, which posits autonomy, competence, and relatedness as psychological needs to enhance intrinsic motivation and learning (Gagné & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Prior research has overlooked how facilitating both social identity <emph>and</emph> task autonomy may enhance personal skill development. Studies have investigated dysfunctional consequences of social loafing in student teams (Jassawalla et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]) and how to mitigate its effects with trait agreeableness and conscientiousness (Schippers, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref31">56</reflink>]). More recently, team assignments based on motivation level improved student satisfaction (Welsh & Slack, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref32">65</reflink>]). Social identity and self-efficacy have been proposed as ways to train social entrepreneurs (Smith & Woodworth, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref33">60</reflink>]) using case-based anecdotal support. Social identity also predicted student engagement or disengagement if learning activities activated resonant or dissonant beliefs (Dean & Jolly, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]). None of these studies investigated personal skill development in team projects. We extend prior research on business student teams by investigating how social identity (Ashforth & Mael, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]) and task autonomy (Morgeson & Humphrey, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref36">45</reflink>]) may enhance personal skill development.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-4">Hypotheses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176396017-5">The "we" of social identity</hd> <p>Social identity theory posits that people strive to differentiate their ingroup from others' outgroups (Tajfel & Turner, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref37">61</reflink>]). Members who identify with their groups experience belonging, ownership, and accountability, which direct attention and effort to learning (Lerner & Tetlock, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]). We expect three factors to predict students' social identity: team control of member selection, team development of a meaningful name, and member communication frequency.</p> <p>First, student teams may be instructor appointed or self-selected. Team self-selection allows students to work with members with whom they may already have established rapport and trust. Though this has downsides for "leftovers" in the team selection process (Chapman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]), stronger social bonds through self-selection will facilitate a greater sense of team identity.</p> <p>Second, a team name may help student teams experience stronger social identity. Subtle yet potent cues, such as a team name, should help students assign symbolic value to the team and represent their collective priorities (Ashforth & Mael, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>]). Team naming lets members share their views and cooperate toward a common goal, enabling shared purpose.</p> <p>Third, team members communicate via in-person and electronic means (email, text). Teams whose members communicate horizontally with one another more frequently should develop greater rapport with teammates and experience enhanced social connectedness among members, thereby strengthening their social identity (Postmes et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref41">50</reflink>]; Scott, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref42">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>The social cohesion and rapport that come with social identity facilitate knowledge sharing and skill transfer (Kane et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref43">32</reflink>]). We expect that social identity also will facilitate personal skill development, which entails the ability to build relationships and communicate with and listen to others to develop better working relationships (Lankau & Scandura, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]). Social identity will motivate members to consider others' perspectives, share ideas about how to improve team functioning, and have a more collectivistic experience of interpersonal relationships within the team. Team members who experience stronger social identity also should experience greater trust, respect, and liking for their teammates (Weingart et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref45">63</reflink>]), enabling them to practice interpersonal skills as they interact with one another and improve their working relationships in the team. As members experience greater belonging in their teams, their need for meaningful relationships should facilitate a more internalized, intrinsic style of motivation, further enhancing their motivation to learn from team experiences (Gagné & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref46">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-6">Hypothesis 1:</hd> <p>(a) Team naming, (b) team self-assignment, (c) face-to-face communication, and (d) electronic communication will each predict social identity, which in turn will predict personal skill development.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-7">The "me" of task autonomy</hd> <p>Task autonomy describes having "freedom, independence, and discretion to schedule work, make decisions, and choose the methods used to perform tasks" (Morgeson & Humphrey, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref47">45</reflink>], p. 1323). Task autonomy is central to motivating work and intrinsic motivation (Gagné & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]). In line with social interdependence theory (Johnson & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]), we propose that task autonomy complements social identity by enabling individual choices on team tasks. Consistent with the collective effort model (Karau & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>]), task autonomy enables individual initiative in a cohesive group. We also expect team naming, self-selection, and communication to be positively associated with task autonomy.</p> <p>First, consistent with prior research that shows a positive association between team and individual autonomy (Jønsson & Jeppesen, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref51">30</reflink>]), providing teams the autonomy to develop their own team name and identity gives members opportunities to express their individual views and opinions. The process of discussing and coming to an agreement on the team name enables individual members to voice their beliefs and opinions about the team and their individual roles. As members express their individual preferences through such a team naming process, they should experience a greater sense of ownership of their work role and stronger perceptions of task autonomy as they feel empowered to perform their part of the assignment on the team's behalf.</p> <p>Second, team selection as a student-initiated task also facilitates task autonomy. When students select their own teams, they will also experience more autonomy. We expect the experience of autonomy in team selection will transfer to perceptions of team responsibilities.</p> <p>Third, social interdependence theory (Johnson & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref52">29</reflink>]) posits that higher levels of communication will be positively related to group characteristics that are vital to task autonomy, such as group cohesion (Rico et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref53">54</reflink>]). Individual autonomy in a team may be expected to depend, at least in part, on "coordination, communication and mutual adjustment" (Langfred, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>], p. 393). Research is consistent with this link between member communication and task autonomy. Communication frequency among group members provides individual members with accurate information about one another (Eveland & Hutchens, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]), thereby enhancing their perceptions of autonomy over their own tasks. Research also has shown that communication frequency among team members predicts more effective coordination and decision making in teams (Hirokawa, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]) and has documented an empirical association between leader communication and employee job autonomy (Tummers et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref57">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Task autonomy contributes to personal learning as members decide the best way to complete their part of a team project. Task autonomy also meets the need to be self-determined (Gagné & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]), which motivates personal skill development (Liu & Fu, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref59">38</reflink>]) and helps members be more emotionally and cognitively attuned to their environment (Weinstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref60">64</reflink>]), facilitating their own subjective gains in personal skill development.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-8">Hypothesis 2:</hd> <p>(a) Team naming, (b) team self-assignment, (c) face-to-face communication, and (d) electronic communication will each predict task autonomy, which in turn will predict personal skill development.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-9">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176396017-10">Research context, participants, and design</hd> <p>We invited about 2,000 undergrads in introductory business courses with a team project at a university in the Western United States to participate in this institutional review board–approved study. Five hundred fifty-seven students (28%) in 215 teams (4–7 per team; <emph>M</emph> = 3.38, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.39) completed an online survey for our study. Participants completed the survey near the end of the semester to reflect on their entire team experience.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-11">Measures</hd> <p> <emph>Team naming</emph> was a manipulated team-level categorical variable whereby instructors were either randomly assigned or not to a team naming class. Instructors assigned to a team naming condition engaged their students in a 15-min in-person exercise developed by the authors to establish a team name that reflected their team values. About 62% of participants did the naming exercise in class. Student responses were cross-verified with instructors (0 = no name, 1 = name).</p> <p> <emph>Team self-assignment</emph> was a nonmanipulated team-level categorical variable with instructors either randomly assigning students to teams or students self-selecting their teams. About 70% of participants self-selected teams, which was cross-verified with instructors (0 = instructor-selected, 1 = student-selected).</p> <p> <emph>Team communication</emph> was measured by asking students how often they used face-to-face ("group met in person"), email ("group communicated with email"), and texting ("group communicated with text messages") to communicate with teammates (1 = <emph>very rarely</emph>, 5 = <emph>very frequently</emph>). Email and texting were averaged as an electronic communication variable. Both electronic and face-to-face communication were aggregated at the team level as the appropriate level of theory for the construct. The validity for such a measure is supported when the group average correlates with relevant criteria (Chan, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]). Table 1 shows that both forms of communication correlate with social identity, task autonomy, and personal skill development.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">8</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>Team naming</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.49</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Team assignment</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.45</td><td char=".">.13**</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Face-to-face communication</td><td>2.96</td><td>1.01</td><td char=".">.11**</td><td char=".">.18***</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Electronic communication</td><td>3.53</td><td>0.74</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.29***</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Social identity</td><td>3.58</td><td>0.84</td><td char=".">.10*</td><td char=".">.16***</td><td char=".">.28***</td><td char=".">.22***</td><td>(.95)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Task autonomy</td><td>4.01</td><td>0.71</td><td char=".">−.01</td><td char=".">.05</td><td char=".">.14**</td><td char=".">.17***</td><td char=".">.41***</td><td>(.91)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Personal skill development</td><td>3.64</td><td>0.89</td><td char=".">.07</td><td char=".">.09*</td><td char=".">.21***</td><td char=".">.16***</td><td char=".">.57***</td><td char=".">.41***</td><td>(.94)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Satisfaction with prior teams</td><td>3.59</td><td>0.97</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">−.03</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.15**</td><td char=".">.20***</td><td char=".">.22***</td><td char=".">.26***</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Sex (0 = female, 1 = male)</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.50</td><td char=".">.06</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">−.04</td><td char=".">.03</td><td char=".">−.07</td><td char=".">.01</td><td char=".">−.06</td><td char=".">.02</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note. N</emph> = 557. Reliability coefficients displayed along diagonal. For team naming, 0 = team not assigned a name, 1 = students selected a distinctive name for their team. For team assignment, 0 = instructor assigned teams and 1 = students picked teams.</p> <p>2 *<emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01. ***<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p> <emph>Social identity</emph> was assessed with 10 items that include cognitive and affective subscales (Kane et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>]) adapted for this study (α =.91). An example is "I felt strong ties to this group" (1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph> to 5 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>). This individual-level variable was nested within each team as individual respondents were referents.</p> <p> <emph>Task autonomy</emph> was assessed with nine items (Morgeson & Humphrey, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref63">45</reflink>]) adapted for this study (α =.95), nested within each team as an individual-level variable. An example is "The team allowed me to plan how I do my work" (1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph> to 5 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>).</p> <p> <emph>Personal skill development</emph> was assessed with the six-item Personal Skill Development subscale of the Personal Learning Scale (α =.94; Lankau & Scandura, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref64">36</reflink>]). An example is "I have become more sensitive to others' feelings and attitudes" (1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph> to 5 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>). This individual-level variable was nested within each team.</p> <p> <emph>Controls</emph> were gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and satisfaction with prior team experiences (1 = <emph>very dissatisfied</emph>; 5 = <emph>very satisfied</emph>) as individual-level variables nested within each team.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-12">Confirmatory factor analysis</hd> <p>A three-factor model (social identity, task autonomy, personal skill development) had good fit (root mean square error of approximation = 0.047, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.96, comparative fit index = 0.97, incremental fit index = 0.97, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib268" id="ref65">268</reflink>) = 634.64, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Adding a latent method factor to assess common method variance (Podsakoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref66">49</reflink>]) did not improve fit (root mean square error of approximation = 0.051, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.96, comparative fit index = 0.96, incremental fit index = 0.96, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib271" id="ref67">271</reflink>) = 692.18, <emph>p</emph> <.001), indicating that common method variance was not an issue.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-13">Model testing and mediation analysis</hd> <p>Because students were nested within teams, we used MLM (Aarts et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>]; Maas & Hox, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref69">39</reflink>]; Peugh, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref70">48</reflink>]). We included singletons (13% of our sample) to increase power because this does not affect model estimation when <emph>n</emph> ≥ 500 (Bell et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>]; our <emph>n</emph> = 557). To ensure that MLM was appropriate, we ran a random effects "null model" to determine ICC(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>) values for social identity and task autonomy to partition variance in these variables at individual and team levels of analysis[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>] (see Hox, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref74">25</reflink>]; Raudenbush & Bryk, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref75">53</reflink>]). Respective intraclass correlation values were 0.194 and 0.093, within guidelines for social and behavioral sciences (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref76">8</reflink>]; Peugh, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref77">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>We tested our model with the MLM procedure in Mplus with maximum likelihood estimation and robust standard errors (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref78">46</reflink>]). Level 1 variables were grand mean centered to facilitate interpretation of results, control for Level 1 effects during tests of Level 2 effects,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>] and reduce potential Level 2 multicollinearity (Hofmann & Gavin, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>We tested indirect effects with Monte Carlo (MC) 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with 50,000 simulated draws from the distributions of model pathway parameters (MacKinnon et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref81">40</reflink>]; Preacher & Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref82">51</reflink>]; Preacher & Selig, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref83">52</reflink>]). CIs that exclude zero support significant indirect effects (Shrout & Bolger, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref84">58</reflink>]). The MC method allows testing of multiple mediators, does not rely on normally distributed sampling, and increases power while reducing Type 1 error likelihood from nonnormal distributions of an indirect effect.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-14">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176396017-15">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for study variables.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-16">Test of hypotheses</hd> <p>Hypothesis 1a–1d predicted that team naming, team assignment, and face-to-face and electronic communication predict social identity, which in turn predicts personal skill development. Hypothesis 2a–2d predicted the same relationships as social identity for task autonomy. Figure 1 displays MLM results and Table 2 displays MC bootstrap results to test the indirect effect of the predictors on personal skill development through both social identity and task autonomy.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref85">3</reflink>]</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Hypothesized model of the mediating effects of social identity and task autonomy on personal skill development in student teams. Note. Predicted pathways displayed with solid and dotted lines. Supported pathways displayed with solid lines. Satisfaction with prior teams and sex were modeled as statistical controls at the within and between levels. Predictor c′ paths were estimated and were all nonsignificant (p =.05). These pathways were omitted for parsimony in presentation.</p> <p>Table 2 Monte Carlo results for indirect effects of predictor variables on personal skill development.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>95% CI</td></tr><tr><td>Predictor</td><td>Estimate</td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td>Lower</td><td>Upper</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Mediation through social identity (H1)</td></tr><tr><td> H1a Team naming</td><td char=".">.068</td><td char=".">.040</td><td char=".">−.008</td><td char=".">.150</td></tr><tr><td> H1b Team assignment</td><td char=".">.115</td><td char=".">.046</td><td char="."><bold>.028</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.209</bold></td></tr><tr><td> H1c Face-to-face communication</td><td char=".">.085</td><td char=".">.023</td><td char="."><bold>.042</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.131</bold></td></tr><tr><td> H1d Electronic communication</td><td char=".">.073</td><td char=".">.028</td><td char="."><bold>.020</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.131</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Mediation through task autonomy (H2)</td></tr><tr><td> H2a Team naming</td><td char=".">−.004</td><td char=".">.018</td><td char=".">−.043</td><td char=".">.033</td></tr><tr><td> H2b Team assignment</td><td char=".">.019</td><td char=".">.021</td><td char=".">−.020</td><td char=".">.064</td></tr><tr><td> H2c Face-to-face communication</td><td char=".">.019</td><td char=".">.009</td><td char="."><bold>.003</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.040</bold></td></tr><tr><td> H2d Electronic communication</td><td char=".">.026</td><td char=".">.013</td><td char="."><bold>.004</bold></td><td char="."><bold>.055</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note. N</emph> = 557. 95% CI based on 50,000 simulated draws from the distributions for pathway parameters. 95% confidence intervals with significant indirect effect are in bold.</p> <p>Direct effect results of the MLM indicated that team assignment (<emph>a</emph><sups>2</sups> effect = 0.23, <emph>p</emph> <.01), face-to-face communication (<emph>a</emph><sups>3</sups> effect = 0.17, <emph>p</emph> <.001), and electronic communication (<emph>a</emph><sups>4</sups> effect = 0.14, <emph>p</emph> <.01) predicted social identity, but team naming did not despite a significant correlation (<emph>r</emph> =.10, <emph>p</emph> <.05). Social identity also predicted personal skill development (<emph>b</emph><sups>1</sups> effect = 0.51, <emph>p</emph> <.001). Task autonomy was predicted by face-to-face (<emph>a</emph><sups>7</sups> effect = 0.07, <emph>p</emph> <.05) and electronic (<emph>a</emph><sups>8</sups> effect = 0.10, <emph>p</emph> <.05) communication, not team naming and team assignment. Task autonomy also predicted personal skill development (<emph>b</emph><sups>2</sups> effect = 0.28, <emph>p</emph> <.001). These results controlled for satisfaction with prior teams and sex at both within- and between-team levels. These direct effects were modeled while estimating pathways between the predictors and personal skill development (i.e., <emph>c′</emph> pathways). The standardized root mean square residual for the hypothesized model was 0.049 (within) and 0.174 (between), suggesting that within-group-level parameters fit the data well, whereas between-group-level parameters can be improved (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref86">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Using conventional criteria (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>]), results suggest that indirect effects supported mediation through social identity for team assignment (indirect effect = 0.115; 95% CI<subs>,</subs> 0.028, 0.209), face-to-face (indirect effect = 0.085; 95% CI, 0.042, 0.131) and electronic (indirect effect = 0.073; 95% CI, 0.020, 0.131) communication but not team naming. For task autonomy, results supported mediation for face-to-face (indirect effect = 0.019; 95% CI, 0.003, 0.040) and electronic (indirect effect = 0.026; 95% CI, 0.004, 0.055) communication but not team naming or team assignment. Remaining direct effects of team assignment and face-to-face and electronic communication on personal skill development also were not significant, supporting full mediation. Collectively, Hypotheses 1b, 1c, 1d, 2c, and 2d were supported, whereas Hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 2b were not.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-17">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of our study was to address the extent to which a dual emphasis on social identity and individual autonomy in student teams enhances students' personal learning. The theoretical model we developed found indirect effects from team naming, team assignment, and face-to-face electronic communication with personal skill development through social identity and task autonomy. Five out of eight of our predictions were supported. Both social identity and task autonomy were related to skill development. Social identity was enhanced if students picked their own teams (vs. instructor assigned) and when they communicated more frequently with teammates. Team naming correlated with social identity as expected (<emph>r</emph> =.10, <emph>p</emph> <.05), yet it did not predict social identity and task autonomy in our MLM. It may be that in some teams, one or a few members drove the naming process, leaving others unable to express themselves, thereby dividing the team. It may be the case that once social identity is established, this could lead to higher levels of communication—a proposition that could be studied in future research.</p> <p>That team assignment and naming were unrelated to task autonomy suggests that being able to choose teammates or a team name did not translate to member autonomy on team tasks. It is possible that students compartmentalize naming and team assignments from team tasks. Uneven participation in team naming or selection also may have neutralized any relationship to task autonomy. We measured team assignment and naming as dichotomous variables. Future research may consider how the level of intra-team participation in team assignment and naming may influence team identity and task autonomy. Our results indicate that both electronic communication and in-person communication play an important role in team social identity and are indirectly related to skill development through both social identity and task autonomy. This suggests that ensuring student teams have access to and are encouraged to use multiple communication channels should improve their team experiences and personal learning. Business educators and researchers especially should consider how different types of e-communication lead to individual and team success—and those that may be less effective.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-18">Study limitations</hd> <p>We acknowledge some study limitations. First, we used a cross-sectional sample for most variables. Yet, collecting data at the end of a term ensured that students could reflect on their completed team experiences. Team assignment and naming procedures also were validated objectively by instructors and occurred at the start of the semester.</p> <p>Second, self-report measures risk common method bias. Adding a common method factor mitigated this issue (Podsakoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref88">49</reflink>]), and two predictors (team self-selection and naming) were objectively validated, further reducing the risk. Social identity and task autonomy are subjective constructs best measured with self-report. Personal skill development also can be self-assessed relatively more accurately than cognitive learning (Sitzmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref89">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, our measure of communication focused on the frequency (quantity) of communication, not the content (quality). We also did not track how communication unfolds over time in student teams. Prior research has shown that communication quality has a stronger impact on team performance than communication frequency (Marlow et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref90">42</reflink>]). We suspect that the quality of communication is also critical for social interdependence in student teams.</p> <p>Finally, though we manipulated whether students developed team names, we did not measure the process. For instance, it is possible that some members felt more included and others felt more excluded from the team naming process. Although instructors reported assigning teams either by random assignment or student self-selection, some may have varied from this procedure. Future studies should assess the scope and intensity of member involvement in any process to strengthen team identity and implement stronger control over team assignment if possible.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-19">Study contributions and future research</hd> <p>This study contributes to research on student teams in business education in several ways. First, based on the purpose of our study, we showed how complementary emphasis on both the "we" of social identity and "me" of task autonomy can help students build collaborative skills in team projects. We also provide evidence as to how each of these variables can be manipulated in the classroom by professors: Students who select their own teams are more likely to socially identify with them, which in turn predicts personal skill development. Although creating team names did not predict social identity or task autonomy in our model, it was positively correlated with social identity as expected. Future research should consider whether there are more versus less effective ways for team naming to predict social identity, as well as other strategies to facilitate social identity (e.g., team building).</p> <p>By focusing on a dual emphasis of the "me" and "we" in student teams, we demonstrate how to facilitate personal skill development by creating conditions that supported students' complementary needs to be part of a collective (team identity) and make a significant impact as an individual (task autonomy). Meeting both psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness is consistent self-determined motivation (Gagné & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref91">18</reflink>]), with a collective effort model that balances group identification with individual responsibility (Karau & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref92">33</reflink>]), and with a social interdependence model of cooperative learning in student teams. These models and our results highlight the importance of both the "we" of the group and the "me" of each student's responsibility. Because social disconnection predicts social loafing in business student teams (Jassawalla et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref93">27</reflink>]), future research may consider whether social identity and task autonomy reduce loafing.</p> <p>Third, this study extends personal skill development to student teams. The personal skill development construct was developed to assess how mentoring relationships can develop protégés' communication and collaboration skills to facilitate successful interpersonal relationships at work (Lankau & Scandura, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref94">36</reflink>]). The initial study called for research on how "teams" and "other relationships influence personal learning" (Lankau & Scandura, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref95">36</reflink>], p. 788). Prior research examined how meeting the autonomy needs of team members facilitates their personal skill development (Liu & Fu, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref96">38</reflink>]). We examined how both relational bonds and task autonomy facilitate personal skill development in a cooperative learning team setting.</p> <hd id="AN0176396017-20">Implications for the design of student team projects in business education</hd> <p>This study can help business educators improve personal skill development in team activities with tactics to build both social identity and task autonomy. Multiple group memberships compete for attention when it comes to social identity (Patton, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref97">47</reflink>]). Students participate in various teams across courses and campus groups, each competing for motivational resources. Tactics to build social identity across these cooperative learning contexts should help students develop personal skills.</p> <p>We focused on two tactics instructors can control to enhance social identity (team self-assignment and team naming). Although only team self-assignment predicted social identity, team naming correlated with social identity. We suspect that robust interventions where team members engage in a structured naming exercise should strengthen social identity, notwithstanding our results. Other effective tactics to enhance social identity include team self-assignment, team exercises to encourage frequent communication, and friendly inter-team competition (Rosol, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref98">55</reflink>]). This latter tactic also may enhance task autonomy. We acknowledge that conditions where some students know each other well and others do not make team self-selection less favorable and fair for some compared to instructor assignment (Connerley & Mael, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref99">13</reflink>]; Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref100">20</reflink>]). Team self-assignment should include tactics to reduce the risk of "leftovers" (Chapman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref101">10</reflink>]). For instance, activities can help students meet new classmates (akin to "speed dating") to facilitate team self-assignment.</p> <p>We found that team communication predicted both social identity and task autonomy, which instructors can control by including team communication training and requiring collaboration through communication as part of the team project. For instance, in-class role-plays and exercises focused on developing students' active listening and assertiveness skills before teams are formed could help each team member's voice be heard in a team naming exercise and also contribute to stronger social identity (Postmes et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref102">50</reflink>]). Building communication skills in this way also could help students learn to assert themselves and exercise task autonomy in their team assignment, providing members a greater sense of ownership and responsibility.</p> <p>In conclusion, business educators should use student teams as a context to facilitate students' personal skill development. However, how the teams are formed and how the team project is designed may impact students' personal skill development. We showed that emphasizing both "we" (social identity) and "me" (task autonomy) in teams promoted personal skill development. We hope this inspires instructors to ensure that such skills are developed through cooperative learning.</p> <ref id="AN0176396017-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref68" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aarts, E., Verhage, M., Veenvliet, J. V., Dolan, C. V., & Van Der Sluis, S. (2014). A solution to dependency: Using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nature Neuroscience, 17 (4), 491 – 496. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3648</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 20 – 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ashraf, M. (2004). A critical look at the use of group projects as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Education for Business, 79 (4), 213 – 216. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.4.213-216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref23" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Silver, W. S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make a difference. Journal of Management Education, 23 (5), 467 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299902300503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Batista, M. P., & Romani-Dias, M. (2022). AACSB international accreditation as a catalyst for soft skills in business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 97 (4), 213 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2021.1924105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref20" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beenen, G., Pichler, S., & Davoudpour, S. (2018). Interpersonal skills in MBA admissions: How are they conceptualized and assessed? Journal of Management Education, 42 (1), 34 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917703743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref71" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, B. A., Morgan, G. B., Kromrey, J. D., & Ferron, J. M. (2010). The impact of small cluster size on multilevel models: A Monte Carlo examination of two-level models with binary and continuous predictors. JSM Proceedings, Survey Research Methods Section, 1 (1), 4057 – 4067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref76" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Byrne, B. (2011). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref61" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of applied psychology, 83 (2), 234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can't we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30 (4), 557 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905284872</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3 (1), 27 – 40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.12436817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, S., Slaubaugh, M., & Tian, X. (2021). Integrating learning interpersonal skills through team-based learning (TBL) in a management course. Journal of Education for Business, 96 (8), 498 – 509. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2020.1868962</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connerley, M. L., & Mael, F. A. (2001). The importance and invasiveness of student team selection criteria. Journal of Management Education, 25 (5), 471 – 494. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290102500502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dean, K. L., & Jolly, J. P. (2012). Student identity, disengagement, and learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (2), 228 – 243. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.0081</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30 (6), 678 – 711. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000602</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12 (1), 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eveland, W. P. Jr., & Hutchens, M. J. (2013). The role of conversation in developing accurate political perceptions: A multilevel social network approach. Human Communication Research, 39 (4), 422 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), 331 – 362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gopinath, C., & Saleem, F. (2020). Effect of structuring on team behavior and learning. Journal of Education for Business, 95 (6), 359 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1664373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82 (1), 11 – 19. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67 (3), 451–470.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirokawa, R. Y. (1980). A comparative analysis of communication patterns within effective and ineffective decision‐making groups. Communication Monographs, 47 (4), 312 – 321. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758009376040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of management, 24 (5), 623–641.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmer, L. L. (2001). Will we teach leadership or skilled incompetence? The challenge of student project teams. Journal of Management Education, 25 (5), 590 – 605. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290102500509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jassawalla, A., Sashittal, H., & Sashittal, A. (2009). Students' perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8 (1), 42 – 54. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.37012178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 365 – 379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jønsson, T., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2013). Under the influence of the team? An investigation of the relationships between team autonomy, individual autonomy and social influence within teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (1), 78 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.672448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalliath, T., & Laiken, M. (2006). Use of teams in management education. Journal of Management Education, 30 (6), 747 – 750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906287282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane, A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96 (1), 56 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. P. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (4), 681 – 706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kidder, D. L., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2012). Examining the influence of team project design decisions on student perceptions and evaluations of instructors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (1), 69 – 81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (3), 385 – 399. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159588</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (4), 779 – 790. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2), 255 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, D., & Fu, P. P. (2011). Motivating proteges' personal learning in teams: A multilevel investigation of autonomy support and autonomy orientation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (6), 1195 – 1208. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024716</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2004). The influence of violations of assumptions on multilevel parameter estimates and their standard errors. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 46 (3), 427 – 440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2003.08.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39 (1), 99 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks, M. B., & O'Connor, A. H. (2013). Understanding students' attitudes about group work: What does this suggest for instructors of business? Journal of Education for Business, 88 (3), 147 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.664579</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144 (1), 145 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2002). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups. Praeger Publisher.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, A., & Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). Examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and group cohesion. Journal of Education for Business, 87 (5), 296 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.623197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (6), 1321 – 1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent variables. Version, 6 (12).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, E. (2010). When social identities collide: Commentary on "Gender in the management education classroom". Journal of Management Education, 34 (6), 874 – 881. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562910379147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48 (1), 85 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879 – 903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Postmes, T., Tanis, M., & De Wit, B. (2001). Communication and commitment in organizations: A social identity approach. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4 (3), 227 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004003004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879 – 891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6 (2), 77 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679848</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Application and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management, 33 (1), 111 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306295307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosol, S. B. (2013). Adding constructive competition to enhance a cooperative learning experience: A quest for kudos. Journal of Management Education, 37 (4), 562 – 591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912451738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13 (1), 62 – 81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, C. R. (2007). Communication and social identity theory: Existing and potential connections in organizational identification research. Communication Studies, 58 (2), 123 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970701341063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7 (4), 422 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). The construct validity of self-assessment of learning: Meta-analytic evidence. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9 (2), 169 – 191. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.9.2.zqr169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, I. H., & Woodworth, W. P. (2012). Developing social entrepreneurs and social innovators: A social identity and self-efficacy approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (3), 390 – 407. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7 – 24). Nelson-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tummers, L., Steijn, B., Nevicka, B., & Heerema, M. (2018). The effects of leadership and job autonomy on vitality: Survey and experimental evidence. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38 (3), 355 – 377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16671980</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weingart, L. R., Cronin, M. A., Houser, С. J. S., Cagan, J., & Vogel, С. M. (2005). Functional diversity and conflict in cross- functional product development teams: Considering representational gap and task characteristics. In L. L. Neider & С. Schreishman, (Eds.), Research in management (Vol. 4, pp. 89 – 110). CT: IAR.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weinstein, N., Hodgins, H., & Ryan, R. (2010). Autonomy and control in dyads: Effects on interaction quality and joint creative performance. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (12), 1603 – 1617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386385</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Welsh, E. T., & Slack, M. E. (2022). A tale of two team formation methods: Innovative ways to form student teams. Journal of Education for Business, 2022, 1 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2022.2031087</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0176396017-22"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> These are variables measured at the individual level, Level 1, predicted by variables at the team level, Level 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In the current study, this is relevant for predicting out ultimate outcome variable, personal skill development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> To test mediation, we examined model direct effects and 95% CIs of the indirect effects of the predictors on personal skill development. To support mediation, predictor pathways must be related to social identity (pathways <emph>a</emph><sups>1</sups>–<emph>a</emph><sups>4</sups> for H1) and task autonomy (pathways <emph>a</emph><sups>5</sups>–<emph>a</emph><sups>8</sups> for H2), and social identity (pathway <emph>b</emph><sups>1</sups> for H1) and task autonomy (pathway <emph>b</emph><sups>2</sups> for H2) must be related to personal skill development when controlling for the predictors; the effect of the predictors (<emph>c</emph>′ pathways) on the dependent variable should be reduced to support partial mediation or be nonsignificant to support full mediation. Finally, the 95% CI for indirect effects must exclude zero to support mediation (Edwards & Lambert, [16]; Hayes & Preacher, [21]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gerard Beenen; Shaun Pichler and Jenny Zhang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib268" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib271" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref100"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1418919
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: From We to Me: A Dual Emphasis on Social Identity and Task Autonomy Enhances Personal Learning in Student Teams
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gerard+Beenen%22">Gerard Beenen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shaun+Pichler%22">Shaun Pichler</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jenny+Zhang%22">Jenny Zhang</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Education+for+Business%22"><i>Journal of Education for Business</i></searchLink>. 2024 99(3):145-154.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+Administration+Education%22">Business Administration Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personal+Autonomy%22">Personal Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prediction%22">Prediction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Naming%22">Naming</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+Skills%22">Communication Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Dynamics%22">Group Dynamics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Introductory+Courses%22">Introductory Courses</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/08832323.2023.2278069
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0883-2323<br />1940-3356
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Student teams are routine in business education, yet instructors lack research-based strategies to promote personal learning in teams. Our study's purpose therefore is to investigate how a dual emphasis on social identity and individual autonomy in teams may enhance students' personal learning. In a study of 557 business undergrads in 215 teams, team self-selection and communication predicted social identity, and communication predicted autonomy. Team naming correlated with social identity but was not predictive in our multilevel model. Social identity mediated the relationship of team self-selection and communication to personal skill development; autonomy mediated the relationship of communication to personal learning. We discuss implications for student teams in business education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1418919
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1418919
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/08832323.2023.2278069
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 145
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Business Administration Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prediction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Naming
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Dynamics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Introductory Courses
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: From We to Me: A Dual Emphasis on Social Identity and Task Autonomy Enhances Personal Learning in Student Teams
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gerard Beenen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shaun Pichler
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jenny Zhang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0883-2323
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-3356
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 99
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Education for Business
              Type: main
ResultId 1