Exploring Online Group Work Interaction Using the Social Cognitive Theory

This research explores the students’ perceptions of online group work applying Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory as a framework, focusing on the inter-relationship between personal factors, behavioural factors, and environmental factors. Respondents participating in this study were 250 undergraduates from two Malaysian universities, responding to a 23-item Likert scale survey adapted from Aderibigbe (2021), with good reliability (α = .891). Results depict that students reported high cognitive presence in terms of disseminating and using new information, strong social presence in collaborative chances, and high teaching presence in instructional clarity and resources. From the correlation analyses, it is revealed that all three factors showed moderate positive relationships, indicating mutual inter-dependencies that influence online group work dynamics. The findings on the importance of trust, clarity, and active engagement resonate with past studies in collaborative learning. The study also provides insights on how group work can be enhanced by adapting cognitive, social and teaching presence.

Online group work, Social Cognitive Theory

1. Aderibigbe, S.A. (2021) Can Online Discussions Facilitate deep learning for students in General Education? Heliyon, Vol 7(3) , pp 1-6. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06414 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17. https://auspace.athabascau.ca/handle/2149/725 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anyau, E., Abd Aziz, A., Abd Rahman, A. L., Abd Aziz, A., Xue, F. Y., & Rahmat, N. H. (2023). Exploring types of presence in online group work: A case study. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(8), 1253–1269. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i8/17738 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bach, A., & Thiel, C. (2024). Collaborative online learning in higher education—Quality of digital interaction and associations with individual and group related factors. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1356271. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1356271 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bandura, A. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 349–373). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n18 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Barberà, E., Virgili, M. E. T., & Guasch, T. (2011). Cognitive attainment in online learning environments: matching cognitive and technological presence. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(5), 467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2010.531026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bentley, K. J., Secret, M., & Cummings, C. (2015). The Centrality of Social Presence in Online Teaching and Learning in Social Work. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(3), 494. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1043199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V.I. et al. Emergency remote teaching in higher education: mapping the first global online semester. Int J Educ Technol High duc 18, 50 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Borup, J., West, R. E., Lowenthal, P., & Archambault, L. (2025). A framework for establishing social presence through the combination of AI-generated text with human-created video. Open Praxis, 17(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.1.769 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bozkurt, A. (2022). A retro perspective on blended/hybrid learning: Systematic review, mapping and visualization of the scholarly landscape. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Donelan, H., & Kear, K. (2023). Online group projects in higher education: persistent challenges and implications for practice. Journal of computing in higher education, 1–34. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-023-09360-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What Do We Mean by Blended Learning? Tech Trends, 63, 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Jackson, S. L. (2015) Research methods and Statistics-A Critical Thinking Approach (5tH Edition) Boston, USA: Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kear, K. L., Cunningham, J., & Donelan, H. (2014). Enhancing social presence in online forums through personalisation: Experimental findings from The Open University. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29(1), 2–17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2014.897695 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Mimiaga, M. J., Reisner, S. L., Reilly, L., Soroudi, N., & Safren, S. A. (2009). Individual interventions. In K. H. Mayer & H. F. Pizer (Eds.), HIV prevention (pp. 203–239). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374235-3.00008-X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Presley, A., Hixon, E., & Staub, D. (2023). The impact of modality on social and cognitive presence in online learning environments. Online Learning, 27(2), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3415 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Rahmat, N. H. (2020) Conflict Resolution Strategies in Class Discussions. International Journal of Education, 12(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ije.v12i3.16914 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Rahmat, N. H.., Sukimin, I. S.., Sim, M. S.., Anuar, M.., & Mohandas, E. S. (2021). Online Learning Motivation and Satisfaction: A Case Study of Undergraduates vs Postgraduates. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 11(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1.2021.112.88.97 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Robinson, H., & Held, F. (2024). Psychological safety in online interdisciplinary student teams: What teachers can do to promote an effective climate for knowledge sharing, collaboration and problem-solving. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14697874241275346. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of Communities of Inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Singh, J., Singh, L., & Matthees, B. J. (2022). Establishing Social, Cognitive, and Teaching Presence in Online Learning—A Panacea in COVID-19 Pandemic, Post Vaccine and Post Pandemic Times. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 51(1), 28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395221095169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Thomas, G., & Thorpe, S. J. (2018). Enhancing the facilitation of online groups in higher education: a review of the literature on face-to-face and online group-facilitation [Review of Enhancing the facilitation of online groups in higher education: a review of the literature on face-to-face and online group-facilitation]. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(1), 62. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1451897 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Van der Toorn, J., Van der Wijst, P. J., & Damen, T. G. (2015). Online versus face-to-face negotiations: Effects on interpersonal trust. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24(3), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9408-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Wang, T., Wu, T., Liu, H., Brown, C., & Chen, Y. (2025). Generative Co-Learners: Enhancing Cognitive and Social Presence of Students in Asynchronous Learning with Generative AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3701198 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Watson, S., Sullivan, D. P., & Watson, K. (2023). Teaching Presence in Asynchronous Online Classes: It’s Not Just a Façade. Online Learning, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3231 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study