Abstract:

The models of efficacy of work groups propose two mechanisms of action regarding the results of groups: direct effects of work groups’ resources (inputs) and indirect effects of these resources, acting on the results of groups through group processes. These models also highlight the mediator/moderator role of some variables of the organizational context, as for example the use of technologies to support the work of the group, namely groupware, among others. Results of groups include the perception of members about them (satisfaction with both the results and the group performance). As part of a teaching innovation project, two objectives were established. First, an intervention aimed to increase the use of groupware in practical exercises of work groups was designed, expecting its influence on the perception of results. This intervention provided information about the groupware and different resources to easily access to these types of technologies. Second, this work was aimed to analyse the role of different inputs and group processes on the perception of results achieved by work groups in practical exercises. The sample included 293 Psychology students from the University of Jaén (Spain). Participants completed several assessment instruments in two different moments (time 1 and time 2): before and after the implementation of the program and the fulfilment of practical exercises (10 weeks spacing). The final sample consisted of 247 students, who completed the two assessments. Regarding the first aim, along with the information about the use and frequency of groupware, it was also included the perception of the group members about the results of work group, which was assessed by self-report measures. By using different variance analyses, results showed that, after the intervention program, participants increased the length of use of groupware, although they did not increased the frequency of use. Otherwise, no significant data were found regarding the perception of results of the work group. With respect to the first objective, results indicate that the simple use of informative strategies could be enough to increase the use of technologies to support the work in groups, although this is not enough to explain the variations in the perception of results of groups. Regarding the second objective, and by using self-report measures, information about the inputs used and group processes (tasks design, group design, tasks development, individual attention and conflicts management) was evaluated. Given that the intervention designed did not influence the perception of results, the variable groupware was not included in the following analyses. Different multiple linear regression analyses were performed, including as criterion variables the perception of results achieved by the groups in time 2. Furthermore, as predictor variables were included the perception of results obtained by the groups in time 1 (in the first step), the inputs and group processes in time 1 (in the second step), and the inputs and group processes in time 2 (in the third step). Results revealed that the inputs and groups processes in time 2 added an additional percentage of variance to explain the results perceived in time 2, in addition to the contribution of results perceived, inputs and group processes in time 1. These data highlight the importance of models of efficacy of work groups to understand the functioning and results of work groups within educational contexts.

Keywords:

Inputs, group processes, groupware, work groups.