Exploring Interactionism in Group Work through PLS-SEM Analysis

This study explores interactionism in group work by examining the relationships between behaviour, environmental factors, and personal characteristics using a Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) approach. Grounded in Lewin’s (1947) interactionism theory, the study conceptualizes behaviour as a function of personal characteristics and environmental influences. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire adapted from established instruments measuring group work behaviour, satisfaction and self-confidence in learning, and individual attributes such as passion, commitment, and skills. The findings reveal that behaviour has significant relationships with both environmental factors and personal characteristics, with both paths demonstrating strong statistical significance and large effect sizes. The model also demonstrates substantial predictive relevance, indicating its robustness in explaining interaction dynamics. These results align with previous studies showing that environmental factors, such as learning context and task structure, shape group interaction experiences, while personal characteristics, including motivation and prior engagement, influence participation patterns. The study highlights that effective group work is driven by the dynamic interplay between internal and external factors rather than isolated variables. The findings provide important implications for educators to design structured, supportive learning environments and to foster positive learner attributes that enhance collaboration. Overall, this study contributes to the literature by offering a comprehensive interactionist model of group work dynamics and demonstrating the applicability of PLS-SEM in understanding complex relationships in collaborative learning contexts.

interactionism, group work, behaviour, environmental factors, personal characteristics

1. Fornell, C. and Bookstein. F.L. (1982) Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440-452. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151718 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anna, G., & Spyros, V. (2025). Group dynamics in collaborative learning: Impact of emergent and scripted roles in tangible mobile augmented reality games. Computers and Education: X Reality, 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2025.100102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bateman, B., Colin Wilson, F., & Bingham, D. (2002). Team effectiveness: development of an audit questionnaire. Journal of Management Development, 21(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210420282 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bussberg, N. W., & Taylor, L. L. (2026). Student Perceptions of Group Work and Group Formation Strategies. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 34(2), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2025.2507765 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Deutsch, M. (1949). A Theory of Cooperation and Competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two Structural Equation Models:LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378201900406 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Goodman, S. N. (1999). Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Academia and Clinic, 130(12). https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hair, J. F., Mathews, L., M., Mathews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hauff, S., Richter, N. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2024). Importance and performance in PLS-SEM and NCA: Introducing the combined importance-performance map analysis (cIPMA). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 78, 103723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103723 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lintner, T., Diviák, T., & Nekardová, B. (2024). Interaction dynamics in classroom group work. Social Networks, 79, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2024.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. McKay, J., & Sridharan, B. (2024). Student perceptions of collaborative group work (CGW) in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2227677 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ramayah, T., Cheak, F., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2018). Partial least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using Smart PLS 3.0: An Updated Guide and practical guide to statistical analysis (2nd ed). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis. Industrial management & data systems, 116(9), 1865-1886. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2015-0449 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Using importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA) in PLS-SEM: Using SmartPLS 3. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3169–3177. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Studnicka, K., Zarzycka, D., & Zalewski, J. (2023). Student satisfaction and self confidence in learning scale (SSCL)—reliability and validity test of the Polish version. Signa Vitae, 19(5), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.22514/sv.2023.069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Easterday, C. A., Dinh, J. M., JaKa, M. M., Kottke, T. E., & Canterbury, M. (2021). Impact of demographic survey questions on response rate and measurement: A randomized experiment. Survey Practice, 14(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.29115/sp-2021-0010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests