IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

“What Motivates Me?”: A Qualitative Perspective on Student
Collaboration in Small Groups
Priyadharshini Ahrumugam
Sunway University, Malaysia
Yesuselvi Manickam
Sunway University, Malaysia

75

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Abstract
Collaborative learning, social interdependence and computer mediated communication (CMC)
have been broadly studied in higher education research. Collaborative learning has often been
associated with a social interdependence understanding. However, this study explores therelationship from an exclusively student motivation perspective in order to gain insight overthe factors that encourage students’ positive interdependence in small peer groups. Moreover,due to the COVID-19 pandemic which, has shifted student learning to online platforms learners
have found themselves engaging in computer mediated communication more than ever.
Therefore, the study aims to explore CMC’s influence over student motivations towards
achieving mutual-interest in their small groups. Besides that, past studies concerning theseareas have been mostly quantitative in nature, thus, this study used a qualitative approach by
conducting semi-structured interviews with 9 participants from the Communications
programme of a private higher educational institution in Klang Valley, Malaysia. The interview
findings identified few factors that transformed their self-interest motivation to mutual-interest
motivation. These being: accountability, quality of work outcome, type of coursework & groupsize. Additionally, CMC was not directly influential in encouraging students to grow mutualinterest in their small group. Besides that, there were no significant difference between the rolesof synchronous or asynchronous communication in specifically motivating students towards
achieving positive social interdependence. The findings prove beneficial for educators andeducational administrators when designing collaborative tasks and relevant policies or
guidelines.
Keywords: collaborative learning, computer mediated communication, higher learning, small
group, social interdependence, student motivation

76

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

This paper looks at the higher education context, focusing on Year 1 undergraduate students’
involvement in small peer groups (4 members per group). The study has observed specificallystudents from a private higher educational institution in Malaysia who are enrolled in theCommunications programme. Often, a large part of the coursework undertaken centres oncollaborative tasks involving peer learning in small groups. The coursework in the study
programme have been mainly structured for group learning due to alignment with the work
nature in the Communications discipline especially careers in public relations or organisational
communication, which, will largely be centred around collaborative workplace environments.
Moreover, as the world has become exponentially digital so has human communication.
Computer mediated communication (CMC) has also been extensively used in the workplace
for some time, among its advantage acting as a tool to communicate with others from different
time zones or remote areas. Particularly in recent pandemic times, the students have had to
adapt and rely solely on CMC for their learning and group working, thus, changing the
dynamics of their day-to-day communication especially with their peers in the programme.
As the learning environment in the 21st century has seen extensive growth of a diverse student
demography, tertiary education preferences and learner (dis)abilities; thus, to be on par
educational institutions require pedagogical approaches and assessment methods that are
equally varied, dynamic and improved. On that account, higher educational institutions havegravitated rapidly towards active learning approaches or what is, student-centred learning andsince have been moving away from the traditional teaching practice of giving lectures andinducing rote-memorisation, lately seen even in scientific disciplines such as the naturalsciences and formal sciences. For instance, the engineering academia has chosen to incorporate
collaborative learning into its curricula whereby, students have exceeded in successfullyacquiring skills related to communication, teamwork and design (Apte & Bhave-Gudipudi,
2020; Felder & Brent, 2007). Thus, group learning has grown in importance and lately used as
pedagogy in higher education. Nevertheless, as a pedagogical approach collaborative learning
method does pose its own challenges, yet has shown proven efficacy among students inlearning settings that practise them. Students in collaborative learning settings learned tocommunicate better with their peers, encouraged to think critically and laterally, to have respectfor diversity, develop learning communities and cooperative attitude plus, feel motivated (Laal& Ghodsi, 2012; Tsay & Brady, 2010). Additionally, technology use in active learning has
noticeably been beneficial. The ECAR survey done in 2016 reported student participation was
higher in technology-integrated classrooms (Elaine Gioiosa & Kinkela, 2019). Hence,suggesting that students participate a great deal in CMC these days. As such, this has
encouraged more Malaysian higher education academics to pursue collaborative learning intheir classroom activities and assessments.
Vygotsky’s theorising on the social dimensions of learning led to the belief “that learners
construct their own meanings within social environments” through the zone of proximal
development which referred to “each person’s range of potential for learning, where thatlearning is culturally shaped by the social environment in which learning takes place” and inwhich, based on this fundament collaborative learning has become an area well researched(McInerney, 2005). Therefore, collaborative learning is an educational approach thatencourages interaction and transactive communication, knowledge/skill building throughproblem solving, product creation or task completion by groups of learners (Laal & Ghodsi,
2012; Schnaubert & Bodemer, 2018). The core of collaboration and cause of interdependence(Bonito, 2002; Cress, 2008 as cited in Schnaubert & Bodemer, 2018) has been due to“reciprocal influence” that signifies the supposed active interaction among learners who in time77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

influence each other in terms of “cognitions, motivation, and behavior, which may lead to both
greater differences between groups and convergence within the groups.” (p.2).
Collaborative learning has developed itself into many different methods to facilitate grouplearning with some being more established than others, namely: Cooperative learning,
Problem-based learning and Team-based learning. However, compared to the rest collaborative
learning and cooperative learning often are thought to be the same as both have a constructivist
epistemological background. Hence, an assertion made is that this study focuses oncollaborative learning, which is defined as a personal philosophy on consensus building wheregroup members respect and work towards enhancing each other’s abilities throughcontributions, sharing of authority besides being responsible for group actions in a cooperative
manner (Panitz, 1999). In comparison, cooperative learning is more teacher-centred inapproach, directive and based on a set of fundamental principles to facilitate group learners(p.5). In addition, Johnson, Johnson and Holubec’s (1991) 5 basic elements (positive
interdependence, individual accountability, group processing, face-to-face promotive
interaction, interpersonal & small group skills) (pp. 8–9) have been broadly adopted into thepractise of cooperative learning.
Terms of Reference
To address some of the terms that are used in this study, “social interdependence” in accordance
to Deutsch (1962) and Johnson and Johnson (1989), “exists when individuals share common
goals and each individual’s outcomes are affected by the actions of the others” (as cited inJohnson & Johnson, 2001). As for the term “motivation”, it is described as “the wants or needs
that direct behavior toward a goal.” (Lumen, 2022). A considerable part of this study’s inquiry
is aimed at student motivations structured around “self-interest” and “mutual-interest”. On that
note, “self-interest” is defined by actions performed for “the sole purpose of achieving apersonal benefit or benefits.” (Cropanzano, Goldman & Folger, 2005, p.985). Hence, “mutualinterest” has been defined in this study as any action that benefit or benefits another, whereby
above all the intended beneficiary is to be other than the self.
Purpose & Significance of Study
Albeit social interdependence theory and collaborative learning both have been researchedrather widely in the past, however, it is still an on-going inquiry and piques much interest on
what actually drives students to do well or poorly in collaborative work. Therefore, through theconcept lens of social interdependence, the study’s purpose is to garner a student-centred
perspective focusing exclusively on their motives in shifting gears from self-interest to mutualinterest in groupwork, factoring in a CMC setting. In effect, this would be an added observationin understanding the relationship between synchronous and asynchronous CMC with student
learners’ motivation, who currently in higher learning are made up of Millennials and Gen Z.
Thus, significantly informing educators and educational administrators or others in similar
positions to consider the motivating factors for students when designing group-based tasks or
related policies. This paper provides some highlighted findings that have successfully boosted
students’ interest towards peer collaboration for a mutual benefit rather than individual gain;
while adding knowledge whether the role of synchronous and asynchronous CMC enables acollaborative spirit.

78

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Literature Review
Social Interdependence Theory
Social interdependence theory’s (SIT) premise is that the type of structure in a group
determines individual members interaction, such, determining the outcomes of the group(Johnson & Johnson, 2002). SIT’s historical roots can be trailed back to the early 1900s withthe emerging school of gestalt psychology at the University of Berlin. Accordingly, “[t]hey
posited that humans develop organized and meaningful views of their world by perceiving
events as integrated wholes rather than as a summation of parts or properties.” (Johnson &Johnson, 2009, p. 366). In other words, the human mind and human behaviour is looked upon
as a whole. This understanding lies directly from the German “gestalt” which closely means“form” or “shape” when translated; however, the word is often interpreted as “pattern” or“configuration” in psychology (Brittanica, 2020). Hence, the understanding is human minds
tend to sense events as part of a greater whole and as components of wider complexed systems.
According to Kurt Lewin (1935, 1948) it was proposed that a group’s essence is theinterdependence among members due to common goals, resulting in that group being a
dynamic whole whereby changes to the state of any member/subgroup in turn changes the stateof any other member/ subgroup; thus, drives them to accomplish the common goals (as citedin Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Johnson & Johnson, 2005).
Lewin’s contribution was extended further by his student Morton Deutsch, who in 1949 firstly
noted that there are a few types of social interdependence structures: positive (cooperation),negative (competition), or non-existent (individualistic efforts) (Deutsch, 1949, 1962 as citedin Johnson & Johnson, 2002). Accordingly, a positive social interdependence is achieved when“individuals’ goal achievements are positively correlated; individuals perceive that they canreach their goals if and only if the others in the group also reach their goals” while a negativesocial interdependence “typically results in oppositional interaction as individuals discourage
and obstruct each other’s efforts to achieve” whereas a non-existent social interdependence
occurs “[w]hen a situation is structured individualistically, there is no correlation among
participants’ goal attainments; each individual perceives that he or she can reach his or her goal
regardless of whether other individuals attain or do not attain their goals.” (p.120)
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)
Metz (1994) defined computer mediated communication (CMC), which presence had existed
since 1969, as “any communication patterns mediated through the computer” (as cited in
Laghos & Nicolaides, 2016, p.15). However, a more known definition was described by
December (1997) who had outlined it as “a process of human communication via computers,
involving people, situated in particular contexts, engaging in processes to shape media for avariety of purposes.” (p.1). Thus, when simplified to mean that CMC involves human- tohuman communication mediated by computers while also encompassing any form of digital
media or video telecommunication technology from the modern day. CMC’s advantage lies in
its availability anywhere and anytime through multi-platforms such as emails, social media
platforms, instant messaging, discussion forums, online distance learning programmes andmassive open online courses (MOOC). Furthermore, CMC’s other appeal is themultidimensional communication such as: one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, many-tomany and even one alone (Chew & Ng, 2021, p.27).

79

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

CMC is characterised by its synchronous and asynchronous communication means. Succinctly,
synchronous communication in a CMC context, applies to a face-to-face discourse with theintervention of technology or other tools in circumstances usually involving distance, whereas
asynchronous communication does not happen in real-time in which the person(s) involved caninteract with the message at a later time (Lim, 2017). CMC has the ability to encourage online
collaborative learning where students have shown to perform well since online discussions
potentially have the ability to improve learner-learner relationship due to the teacher’s nonpresence in the online collaborative space (Chew & Ng, 2021). Thus, giving the freedom forstudents to interact and share opinions as peers. However, its success possible provided if only
there is mutual respect and peer engagement.
MethodFor this exploratory and descriptive study, a qualitative approach was undertaken by employing
a semi-structured interview method. Characteristically, a benefit of the semi-structured
interview method is that even though “[t]he interviewer follows the guide, but is able to follow
topical trajectories in the conversation that may stray from the guide when he or she feels thisis appropriate.” (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). However, such a method can be challenging due to
its labour intensiveness and time-consumption in conducting the interviews and analysing data,
while in need of interviewers who are knowledgeable, competent and adaptable (Adams, 2015).
Nevertheless, semi-structured interviews enable deeper probing on the topic or matter in
discussion and thus, provides in-depth perspectives to understand the circumstances
surrounding it and of personal experiences.
Research Questions
Therefore, it is the study’s aim to explore whether students from the communications field are
driven by personal interest or incentivised by fellowship in groupwork. Whereas, the other aim
is to focus on CMC’s contributing role in shaping social interdependence in groupwork. Thus,
the research questions (RQs) investigated are:
RQ1: What encourages Communications students to participate cooperatively in theirgroupwork?
a) Are the students motivated by self-interest or mutual-interest?
b) What are the factors behind their motivation?
RQ2: What role does CMC play in students’ motivation in small group learning?
a) Which CMC modes assist mostly in transforming the communications programme
students’ self-interest to mutual interest in a group learning environment?
b) Does synchronous CMC or asynchronous CMC effect most in transforming thecommunications programme students’ self-interest to mutual interest in a grouplearning environment?
Interview Participants & Interview Process
The following describes the study’s targeted participants and how the interview sessions werecarried out. The group of individuals chosen through purposive sampling represented Year 1
students (19-25 years) from the Communications programme in a private higher educational80

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

institution in Malaysia. They were invited to participate as they took a core course in the samesemester. The students had to produce a podcast segment (large assignment) as a group of 4
members within a 4-week duration.
To highlight, students were initially asked to fill in a survey questionnaire disclosing theirabilities and skills in producing a podcast segment by the course instructor. This was mainly tofacilitate grouping of students based on their present skillsets towards the completion of the
project. Indirectly, it was to ensure each small group had an advantage and fairness observed
from the beginning of their assigned task with one delegated member identified as the Podcast
Editor. The rest of the members were given the opportunity to take on more fluid roles in the
project such as being the Group Leader (GL), Assistant Group Leader (AGL), Researcher and
Scriptwriter. In retrospect, the course instructor was careful to ensure that there was a balance
maintained between: students having been assigned to a group and students’ involvement at
freewill in the group as it was to preserve the spirit of collaboration and engagement within thegroupwork. Additionally, peer reviews were administered to ensure students worked towards
enhancing their group dynamics as they will be evaluated on their collaborative skills by themembers.
As for the interview process, a total of 34 invitations to participate were sent out to students
that were either the designated GL or AGL for this project. This was mainly because every
group had a student assigned as the GL and/or AGL. Hence, as a rationale, it was determined
to include these students as to some degree the participants experiences would appear
comparable as they had played similar roles in their respective groups. Moreover, it wasobserved being in Year 1, students were collaborating for the first time with peers who wererelatively new to them. Therefore, it was anticipated that they would be more objective whenassessing their motivation in a group with a lesser membership familiarity.
In the final outcome, a total of 9 participants from 7 different small groups had agreed to beinterviewed for this study. The interviews were conducted only upon the submission of the
project task so as to ensure participants did not feel obligated or bound to their small group, as
they were meant to be comfortable and unrestrained when sharing their experiences wheninterviewed. Each in-depth single interview session lasted an average between 60-70 minutes,
wherein “[a]bout one hour is considered a reasonable maximum length for [semi-structured
interviews] in order to minimize fatigue for both interviewer and respondent.” (p.493). All
participants had been interviewed via the online Zoom meeting software.
Preceding to that, relevant documents were sent in for institutional review and had attained
approval for ethics clearance. Before the interview session, all participants were provided witha participant information sheet that was sent via email for participant consent. A set of coreinterview questions were attached together for participants to know the scope of the interview
discussion. All participants had consented to their session being video recorded for this study’s
purpose.
Data collection & Analysis
The semi-structured interviews that were video recorded were transcribed for analysis andreporting purposes. In order to preserve the ethical code, each participant feedback wasanonymised using a codename (e.g.: P1, P2). Besides that, a copy of the recorded interview
session was sent to the participants for reviewing and for omission purposes, if any. Every one

81IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022of the participants had reverted with no corrections or omissions to be made, therefore all datacollected was transcribed in verbatim.
Subsequently, the data was thematically analysed. The researcher had applied a latent level ofanalysis as distinguished by Braun and Clarke (2006) which focuses “to identify or examine
the underlying ideas, assumptions, and conceptualisations – and ideologies – that are theorised
as shaping or informing the semantic content of the data” (p.84). Thus, the emergent themes
conceptualised from the 9 participants from the Communications programme concerning
reasons contributing to students’ social interdependence motivation in small group peer
learning (RQ1b) are: accountability (self & others), quality of task outcome, and type ofcoursework task & group size.
Findings and Discussion
This section discusses the findings on student social interdependence motivation in small groupcollaborative learning and the influence of CMC in harnessing their motivation.
Student Social Interdependence Motivation: Perspectives & Factors
One of the most significant aspect of social interdependence is the transformation of one’s
motivation from self-interest to mutual-interest (Shimizu et, al., 2020) in collaborative learning.
Therefore, the findings for RQ1 of the study discovered that the Communications programme
students had started out the project motivated by self-interest but for many of them in due
course it had transformed into mutual-interest motivation. There were mainly 4 themes that
surfaced from the interview findings in terms of factors that contributed to students’ keenness
in shifting their intent to do well for group benefit rather than personal benefit. These were:
accountability, quality of work outcome, type of coursework & group size. In terms of selfinterest motivation, participants are ostensibly prompted by individual task preference and also
personal grade achievements.
To restate, a positive social interdependence happens “when the actions of individuals promote
the achievement of joint goals” whereas a negative social interdependence occurs “when theactions of individuals obstruct the achievement of each other’s goals” (p.366). Therefore,
indicating positive social interdependence would advance the transformation of self-interest
motivation to that of mutual-interest in groupwork. Interestingly, the interview findings
reiterated these concepts with most participants expressing a positive social interdependence
experience in their small groups. Conversely, students who did not seem to work on a mutual
benefit spirit even until the project’s end had experienced a non-existent social interdependence(members mostly worked independently) compared to a negative social interdependence intheir groupwork. In this aspect, there was no progression in students’ motivation towards
achieving mutual-interest in the group.
The following are evinced descriptive responses (Table 1) by participants that had encounteredpositive social interdependence experience when collaborating in their small groups. In
summation, these participants found their motivation turn into mutual-interest when all
members in their small group stepped up and played equal roles towards achieving an optimal
outcome for the given task. The responses suggest that the participants were becoming
intrinsically motivated to deliver their best for the project when other members equallydisplayed similar behaviour, thus setting up an ad hoc support system within the small group.
This finding supports the literature that a positive social interdependent cooperation not only82

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

“tend[s] to result in more frequent use of higher-level reasoning and more intrinsic motivation,
but also promotes more positive interpersonal relationships and greater social support.”(Shimizu et.al., 2020).
Table 1
Responses to Positive Social Interdependence in Small Group Learning
Participant
P1

P3

P5

P7

P9

Interview Response…it started off as personal interest. I really wanted to learn how to produce a
podcast but after that, because it takes a lot of effort, […] I really needed
support from other group members […] It was very helpful when they werealways willing, […] So yeah, yeah, like they were very cooperative for thisassignment […] Everyone was really trying their best, so I was also putting it
as much effort as I could […] because I really think that everyone deserves to
do well for that one. […] Yeah, that kind of like made you feel that you wanted
everybody else to do well because everybody was pitching in to sort of help
each other out, perhaps.
I think it’s a mixture of both. I can’t say it’s entirely like self-interest…
because it’s a group assignment. But in starting stages... yeah, it’s selfinterest. But when during we are discussing about the script, right? It’s more
like towards mutual interest. […] Because mainly it’s a group project and how
others perform will...will influence others. And so, if at the same time,
everyone’s thinking about self-interest, I don’t think that everyone is going to
get benefit because everyone is too self-centered. Everyone wants the best forthem. […] But you also must want the best for others because you are a group.
Yeah, basically, you are one body.
I think that depends on the assignment. If it’s interesting […], I will give myall for this assignment…it’s my own interest; but mutual interest, probably
comes from the team members, the other team members if they are themselvesinterested and, like encouraging. For example, the podcast assignment, […]They were all very, very interested. We set deadlines and everything […] wewere all in it! So, I would say mutual interest, it was more mutual interest forthis assignment.
In relation to this assignment, I’d say both. […] as a student, […] there’s alsoa personal motivation but at the same time as a group leader it is also my role
to make sure that everyone in the group participates, knows what they’re
doing. We are all equally wanting, you know, for each other to do well in theassignment. So, I guess it’s both personal motivation but… at the same timeit’s also a cooperative one.
I think I’m more of a personal interest person when it comes to assignment.
Yeah. Especially like this assignment… because grades are very important tome. So, I tend to focus more on my interests. However, for the assignment theteam mates are good and hardworking… it tends to also be mutual interest as
well. It gets like self-interest and then becomes mutual interest. Yeah,[be]cause I know they put in effort to get good marks so I will try my best to
help them out as well. So, we all can get good marks together.

Nevertheless, there were 2 participants that had reported experiencing non-existent social
interdependence in their small groups. In a nutshell, their responses (Table 2) have shown that
there was lack of cooperation by members towards a “joint goal” which, in this instance, was83

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

the completion of the project. Such, these members felt discouraged until the project’s end tofeel motivated by any mutual-interest.
Table 2
Responses to Non-Existent Social Interdependence in Small Group Learning
Participant
P2

P4

Interview Response
I think it’s more of self-interest because … I found out that after the groupassigned, I noticed one group mate and I was like, oh my God, it’s this person
again! […] and I didn’t know about the other two. So, I was like, okay, youknow what? Maybe it won’t be so bad, I kept like a positive mental attitude
and then when the assignments started, I was like, oh my God… Okay, youknow what? They are not responding on time, […] I’ll just do it myself andjust get it done. […] So, it was more self-interest at that point. It was mutualat first and then slowly slipped to like self-interest.
Actually, for me it’s based on what kind of assignment it is. […] So, I will bevery motivated… own interest, I can say. […] my group they were not very
motivated. […] So, in the end, my marks were important for me to do well.

Furthermore, an underlying supposition from P2 and P3 responses respectively has been
indicative that students who enter groupwork tasks are aware of mutual-interest motivations,though superficially only. Apart from that, the interview findings revealed that the participants(P1, P4, P5 responses) may be more inclined towards self-interest motivation when involving
a course task that they enjoyed working a lot at a personal level. Another reason attributed itself
to maintaining student grades in the enrolled programme (P4, P9 responses). Nevertheless, forthis study, the highlighted reasons were considered as peripheral factors since participants had
only managed to gloss over these discussions during the interview.
Largely, from the interviews it can be understood that participants proved willingness to workwith group members on a mutual (benefit) platform when members showed personal“accountability” in the given group task. Accountability, be it involving the self or others, wasconstantly a recurring emphasis among the interview participants. Thus, it can be identified asa factor related to the transformation of one’s self-interest to mutual-interest in collaborative
learning. Accountability is when every student takes individual responsibility to achieve a joint
goal and bears ownership of the outcomes. During the interview, participants were candid topoint out that their motivations had changed when they had observed accountability by groupmembers who were showing commitment, reliability and competence over their delegatedtasks (refer to Table 1). Besides that, group member familiarity encourages self-accountability,
as P6 claimed “let’s say if I’m in a group with my friends… that I know, that means it’s mutualinterest. I want them to do well and I want myself to do well as well”. As for P8, who also
experienced positive social interdependence in the recent groupwork, opined that specificdesignated roles within the group encourages the accountability level of members stating that
“I think something that would create a mutual-interest is if…everyone has a specific role thatthey are good at. That only they can execute. So those kinds of settings, they really make methink about the group working… on a mutual-interest way, where I want everyone to do well.”Such, in relation, the presence of accountability (self and others) in a group nurtures
camaraderie that encourages a member’s motivation to grow from self-interest into mutualinterest.

84

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

From the interview discussions, participants have also identified “quality of task outcome” asbeing a relevant factor in informing their motivations to a mutually interested one. Participants
were keen to work on a common benefit basis when group members were committedly
producing high quality work based on their assigned roles while consistently trying to enhancethe overall outcome of the given task. For instance, P8 shared experiences that “when themembers do a lot more of good work, I can’t help it, that… I want to step it up, than expected,
for the group”. P9 additionally exemplifies, “when we delegate tasks, each one of the groupmembers will have their own parts. So, you know, like because you’re going through the
document as well. So, you see how their performances are. So, when you know the work
performances, like how well they elaborate the points, how well they can do and find theirpoints. Even the mistakes they do is very low. And, they do it like quick. It’s quick but the quality
is good, […] That becomes like the mutual interest.” On the other hand, P2 highlighted thatpoor work quality has been instrumental in hindering the transformation of the individual
mindset to a group mindset. In the interview discussion, P2 stated, “if it’s in a group, yes, thatshould be high quality results. But I think that if, if everyone else doesn’t have the same energy
as you to put it in the effort, then there’s no point in being a group. To like, not give any highquality work. And that’s when I started thinking that maybe I should just do it alone. I probably
can do it better alone.” Therefore, the stress on work quality put in by individual groupmembers has been pivotal to the transitioning of self-interest encouraged motivation to amutual-interest motivation for the participants in these small groups.
The third and final common factor given emphasised “type of coursework task and group size”.
A number of participants interviewed pointed out that the nature of the course task would
influence the way they would want to approach the task, either individually or as a group. For
the recent project, generally participants felt that the podcast segment required members toapproach it from a mutual-interest standpoint due to the many production levels involved in
the task such as researching, scriptwriting, podcast segment conceptualisation, production,role-playing and editing. Yet, more of the participants’ responses drew attention to small groupsize in boosting group closeness that embodies mutual-interest motivations. P2 had stated that,“I think it is possible and you can actually get to know them like personally too, in like a smallergroup. Whereas if it’s in a bigger group … you can feel left out sometimes because the groupis too big and then everyone’s like talking and often your kind of, like, should I join in, but it’salready so many people here.” According to P3, “I’ve been in groups with 13 people, that one,
I felt was more self-centered. Smaller groups, tend to have better dynamics, lesser personalities
to deal with and more connection in the group.” P7 agrees strongly that the sizing of the group,
whether small or large, matters by expressing that “there is a difference, because the moregroup mates you have, you will have to receive more different opinions, it gets tougher andmaybe, sometimes, one of them might not respond since everyone else is responding.[…] To behonest, I think the podcast assignment, 4 people is just nice, perfectly fine… because usually
the more people, the more conflict there’ll be” Hence, in brief small group settings offer its
members closer proximity. Such, members commonly find themselves able to deal with lesser
disputes since there’s lesser communication lines crossed among them. Also, member
involvement in the group task is higher, bringing about latent circumstances such as groupbonding and positive social interdependence.
CMC: Preference of Mode & Role in Encouraging Student Motivation
The other aspect of this study explored was the role of computer mediated communication(CMC) in encouraging students’ motivation. The interview responses had answered RQ2 ofthe study by imparting students’ perspective of their preferred tools of communication for85

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

groupwork which, were mainly (in sequence of preference): the multiplatform messaging app– WhatsApp, online word processor – Google Docs and video teleconferencing software –Zoom. Hence, their preferred CMC mode was mainly textual based while supplemented byaudio, image and/or video information. Furthermore, the students did not find disparity
between synchronous CMC or asynchronous CMC in transforming their self-interest to mutualinterest in the small groups, though generally they predominantly agreed CMC was able tofoster positive social interdependence due to reciprocal influence by members. However, it was
discovered from the interviews that the asynchronous communication was preferred and that it
did not dissuade students from feeling lesser of a member in their small group.
The Internet has become the most common source of information today and happens to be aplatform where social media presence is thriving, thus, much of the communication amongusers are engaged online. In recent times, due to the Covid-19 pandemic the Communications
programme students have been participating in their coursework tasks fully online. Thus,
students have found various CMC tools to stay connected and to complete given tasks,
particularly when involving groupwork. P9 iterated that CMC, “definitely does help, because,even though it is online, we are still working to complete the assignment together” but, since
CMC is technology-based P6 asserts that “it has its challenges, there are some with poorinternet…or simply low bandwidth to connect for our discussions. Then, it becomes a problem
for the group”. Subsequently from this study, all participants strongly claimed that they
preferred communicating using the multiplatform app WhatsApp with their group members.
The primary reason being its accessibility since it is a free application. Another reason
highlighted by participants was due to its convenience since students were able to text message,
record voice or video messages, upload files and check unread message and/or reply them attheir disposal. This is further evinced by the participants responses; for instance, P5 who stated,“[w]e used three platforms. First… we created WhatsApp group for casual texting andupdating everything on that script, […] Why? Because everyone has it, so that’s the first thing
we thought of,” whereas P7 shared, “WhatsApp. It’s friendly. Fairly informal. Anytime. As longas you have access to internet data, whatever place you are you can check messages.”
Subsequently, Google Docs was also highly regarded as a productive cooperative work space
as group members could compile work that were delegated to them, leave comments and even
improve on each other’s work. In P8’s response, it was mentioned that “working on Google
Docs was great. Sometimes, when I was checking on the script …requested by members, I could
make the changes there and then. […] They understood the changes made, when they read thechanges…[be]cause they trusted my judgment …that I was wanting to improve the script for
us all.”Hence, the text-based feature in WhatsApp and Google Docs was substantially useful toparticipants and treated akin to progress(ion) records on their project work. To add, mediatedcommunication is rarely impersonal (Walther, 1995 as cited in Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter,
2007). Therefore, WhatsApp and Google Docs’ writing-texting as well as direct editing
features can be seen as useful in tracing the development of each individual’s contribution,
timeliness and efficiency in the groupwork. P6 shares that “Yeah, it plays a part in our groupmates feeling. Like, yes, I think they are a good team player because they’re responsive andthey’re able to convey the information to the group well, and on time and effectively.”
Consequently, this has helped form certain opinions and feelings for specific members that are
more affirmative and optimistic, in consequence expanding on group members interactivity
levels in a positive manner leading to positive interdependence. Thus, CMC used forgroupwork has capabilities to rouse happiness and trustworthiness, correlating with one’s“emotivation”. In short, the portmanteau “emotivation” has been conceived to explain our86

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

distinct emotions which motivate behaviour (Beall & Tracy, 2017). Accordingly, the feelingof happiness may have coevolved with “a fundamental motivational system geared toward
promoting affiliation with peers” (Kenrick et al., 2010 cited in Beall & Tracy, 2017, p.4). In
this regard, CMC shows capability to promote peer affiliation which, by nature is inherently
motivated by mutual-interest and a sense to avoid solitariness.
As for the roles played by synchronous or asynchronous CMC, participants were quick to report
there were no differences between the two sets of communication pattern in influencing theirmotivations. However, the discussion findings prove intriguing when participants initiallyhighlighted their general preference for face-to-face communication, yet found synchronous
communication rather uncomfortable from their experiences. As mentioned by P1, “we were
all feeling shy with the video call,” and further to that, P3 who illustrates in-depth, “with faceto-face meetings, it’s different […] there’s body language and just something about… theinteraction level, better connection is fostered […] but on our Zoom call, it wasn’t the same.
Some did not turn on the video, […] one participant was directly staring at the member
speaking […] also, on screen people, just show you what parts they want you to see ofthem…it’s easier to filter”. Therefore, to these participants synchronous communication could
not replace face-to-face communication, even though both had similar characteristics in termsof being communication done in real-time. This finding can be supported by Chen and Wang’s
study (2009) who found that an obvious difference between synchronous online and face-toface communication discussions is the direct interaction that incurs in the latter whereby
learners chatter noisily and laugh together whereas members in online discussions appear silent
as they are more engaged in typing on the keyboard.
By comparison, the interview responses had leaned towards participants being partial overasynchronous communication in this project. Though the finding was unclear whether theirmotivations had changed when engaging in CMC, but almost all participants claimed that they
still felt group affiliation in CMC caused by member reciprocal influence. This was clearlyseen in P6’s response, “because usually, WhatsApp feature, you can like send multiple things…
like links, documents, and pictures and you can even record your audio if you… don’t want tohave an awkward call with your group mates, you can just voice record it and send it to thegroup. So, everyone can listen to it at the same time. […] so, we get a sense of belonging. […]We feel connected as part of that group,”. As a bid to answer why CMC did not affectparticipants social interdependence motivation, this could be linked to one’s communicationcompetency and length of that active communication when using computer mediatedtechnology (Wrench & Punyanunt-Carter, 2007). For the recent podcast group project, most of
the participants cited that the 4-week timeline was insufficient to get to know their memberssocially or personally as communication was mainly reserved for work-related matters. Besides
that, some members online communication had proven poor causing unnecessary
miscommunication as highlighted by P2, “I was surprised at the way he replied in the group,
it was… somewhat like rude, […] then in the video meeting a week later, actually he was okay”.
As a conclusion, the likely online communication incompetency among some members may
have demotivated others from nurturing a positive social interdependence in their small groups.
Conclusion
As an overview, the study’s qualitative inclined findings through both RQs inquiries haverevealed that students showed motivation towards a mutual-interest in circumstances where thesmall group working experiences have been such that: members show accountability, members
produce good quality of task outcome, the nature or type of coursework given and the allottedgroup size. Thus, in general 7 interviewed participants from the Communications programme87

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

were able to have experienced positive social interdependence in their podcast segment project.
As for the remaining 2 participants, they were unable to achieve social interdependence in theirgroup due to lack of member accountability, thus, stayed motivated by self-interest until thecompletion of their group project. As for CMC’s role in transforming motivation in small peergroups, students generally appeared in consensus that CMC assisted with the reciprocal
influence, such, enhanced the overall groupwork experience and group affiliation. It still
remains unclear on the direct influence of CMC on mutual-interest motivation sinceparticipants stressed member accountability as being most important to their groupmembership. Moreover, to the participants neither synchronous nor asynchronous
communication particularly heightened their recent collaborative experience. Yet, the indicatednotion has been that the participants preferred asynchronous communication for its nonrestrictive nature in checking/replying messages to the rest of the group members.
The study’s limitation is set in the fact that all participants wore a leadership hat in the small
peer groups as either a Group Leader or Assistant Group Leader. Therefore, the study was notable to explore the power-distribution paradigm to have gained a fuller insight into theinterpersonal interaction between leader-member relationships and its relationship to social
interdependence motivations. It is recommended that perhaps future research work could
explore these dynamics.

Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the support of academic staff on the Doctoral Programme in Higher
Education Research, Evaluation and Enhancement at Lancaster University from which thispublication has arisen. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/educational-research/study/phd/phd-inhigher-education-research,-evaluation-and-enhancement/

88

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

References
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In Wholey, J. & Hatry, K.H.
(Eds), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (4th ed., pp. 492 - 505). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
Apte, M., & Bhave-Gudipudi, A. (2020). Cooperative learning techniques to bridge gaps inacademia and corporate. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 289295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.046
Beall, A. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2017). Emotivational psychology: How distinct emotions facilitate
fundamental motives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(2),e12303. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12303
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2020, May 26). Gestalt psychology. Encyclopedia
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Gestalt-psychology
Chen, F., & Wang, T. C. (2009). Social conversation and effective discussion in online grouplearning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 587-612.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9121-1
Chew, S. Y., & Ng, L. L. (2021). Interpersonal interactions and language learning: Face-toface vs. computer-mediated communication. Palgrave
McMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67425-0
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Semi-structured interviews. Qualitative Research
Guidelines Project. https://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html
Course hero. (2022). Lumen Learning – Simple Book Production. Retrieved March 2022,
from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/introduction-tomotivation/
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2005). Self-interest: Defining and understanding ahuman motive. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8), 985–991.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.353
December, J. (1997, January). CMC magazine: Notes on defining of computer-mediatedcommunication. December Communications, Inc. John December
johndecember.com. https://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/jan/december.html
Elaine Gioiosa, M., & Kinkela, K. (2019). Active learning in accounting classes with technology
and communication skills: A two-semester study of student perceptions. Journal of
Education for Business, 94(8), 561–568.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1583161
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Cooperative learning. In P.A. Mabrouk. (Ed.), Active
Learning: Models from the Analytical Sciences (pp.35-53). American Chemical Society:
Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2007-0970.ch004
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2001). Cooperation and competition, psychology of. In
Smelser, N.J. & Baltes, P.B. (Eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social &Behavioral Sciences (pp. 2747–2751). Pergamon.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01798-8

89

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 10 – Issue 3 – 2022

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Social interdependence theory and university
instruction - Theory into practice. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 119–129.
https://doi.org/10.1024//1421-0185.61.3.119
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence
theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.
https://doi.org/10.3200/mono.131.4.285-358
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
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091
Laghos, A., & Nicolaides, C. (2016). Internet support communities, online peer support, social
networks/social media & internet use by hospitalized patients. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 6(4), 1520. https://ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_6_No_4_April_2016/3.pdf
Lim, F. P. (2017). An analysis of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in elearning. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 143, 230–234.
https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2017.143.46
McInerney, D. M. (2005). Educational psychology – Theory, research, and teaching: A 25‐year
retrospective. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 585-599.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500344670
Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts
which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning (Ed448443).
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448443
Shimizu, I., Kikukawa, M., Tada, T., Kimura, T., Duvivier, R., & Van der Vleuten, C. (2020).
Measuring social interdependence in collaborative learning: Instrument development andvalidation. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-02002088-3
Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2018). What interdependence can tell us about collaborative
learning: A statistical and psychological perspective. Research and Practice inTechnology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-018-0084-x
Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication
pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ890724
Wrench, J. S., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2007). The relationship between computer-mediatedCommunication competence, apprehension, self-efficacy, perceived confidence, andsocial presence. Southern Communication Journal, 72(4), 355–378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940701667696
Corresponding author: Priyadharshini Ahrumugam
Email: priyaa@sunway.edu.my90