Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Grup Çalışmalarında Sosyal Kaytarma Davranışlarına İlişkin Görüşleri: Nedenler ve Olası Çözümler

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 172 - 187, 01.08.2018

Hilal Büyükgöze Nihan Demirkasımoğlu

Öz

Grup çalışmaları, birçok bakış açısından ve yönelimden yararlanarak inovatif çözümler üretmeye ve çok yönlü bir anlayış kazanmaya yardımcı olması nedeniyle üniversite öğrencileri için oldukça elverişli bir öğrenme ve gelişme ortamı sunabilmektedir. Buna karşın grup büyüklüğü, görevin anlamlılığı, grup üyesinin gruba katkı sunmada yetersiz kalabileceği düşüncesi, grup üyelerinin farklı özgeçmiş ya da deneyimlere sahip olması gibi nedenler, grup üyelerinin daha az bedensel ya da bilişsel çaba sergilemesine ve/veya görevini ihmal etmesine zemin hazırlayabilmektedir. Davranış bilimleri alanyazınında 'sosyal kaytarma' olarak nitelendirilen ve iş yavaşlatma, kayıtsızlık, kasıtlı olarak düşük performans sergileme, görevi ihmal, geri çekilme, savsaklama ve kendi kendini sınırlama gibi biçimlerde ortaya çıkan davranışlar, grubun ve grup üyelerinin performansı üzerinde doğrudan etkiye sahip olabilmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, bu araştırmanın amacı üniversite öğrencilerinin grup çalışmalarında gözledikleri ve deneyimledikleri sosyal kaytarma davranışlarına ilişkin görüşlerinin belirlenmesidir. Veri toplama aracı olarak Jassawalla, Malshe ve Sashittal (2008) tarafından geliştirilen, üç ölçek ve üç anket olmak üzere altı bölümden oluşan Grup Çalışmalarında Sosyal Kaytarma Anketi Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılarak kullanılmıştır. Araştırmaya, bir devlet üniversitesinden yedi fakültede 26 farklı programdan 374 üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, grup üyesinin sessiz kalması ve gerektiği şekilde katkı sunmamasının en sık karşılaşılan kaytarma davranışı olduğunu; bu davranışların sonucunda diğer grup üyelerinin zaman kaybettiğini ve daha çok çalışmak zorunda kaldığını; grup üyelerinin çoğunlukla kaytaran kişiye ima yoluyla tepki gösterdiğini ve öğretim üyelerinden ise bireysel çabaları farklı yollarla değerlendirip 'kimin ne yaptığına ilişkin' dönem ortası raporu sunma gibi beklentilerinin olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Grup çalışması, sosyal kaytarma, takım çalışması, üniversite öğrencileri

Social loafing behaviors of university students in group works: The reasons and possible solutions

Öz

Group works provide a highly convenient learning and development setting for university students as it helps them to develop innovative solutions by utilizing multiple perspectives and orientations, and deriving integrated insights. However, some reasons such as group size, task meaningfulness, the belief that one's contribution will not make much of a difference, and group members with diverse backgrounds/experiences may lead group members to lower their physical or cognitive effort and/or trigger them to loaf. The behaviors, identified as 'social loafing' in behavioral sciences literature and arise in the forms of slowdowns, carelessness, putting forth less effort, neglecting, withdrawal, inattention and self-limiting, may have direct effect on the group and its members' performance. Regarding this, the aim of the current study was to investigate the opinions of university students on social loafing behaviors observed and experienced in group works. The Survey of Social Loafing in Classroom Teams of Jassawalla, Malshe and Sashittal (2008), consisting of three scales and three questionnaires, was utilized as the data collection tool after Turkish validity and reliability studies were conducted. A total of 374 university students from seven faculties and 26 different programs of a public university participated to the study. Results of the study indicated that being mostly silent during group meetings and not participating in group's final presentation were the most disruptive loafing behaviors; those behaviors mostly wasted other group members' time and caused them to do more than their share of work; group members mostly tried indirect ways of letting social loafer that they did not approve of his/her behavior, and university students wished faculty members to evaluate individual effort on groups in more ways like making the group report mid-semester on 'who is doing what'.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Group work, social loafing, team work, university students

Kaynakça

• Aggarwal, P., and O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255–264.
• Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., and Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dis- persion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspec- tive on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230.
• Asmus, C. L., and James, K. (2010). Nominal group technique, social loaf- ing and group creative quality. Creativity Research Journal, 17(4), 349–354.
• Bailey, J., Sass, M., Swierez, P. M., Seal, C., and Kayes, D. C. (2005). Teaching with and through teams. Journal of Management Education, 29, 39–59.
• Baumgartner, H., and Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equa- tion modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161.
• Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. F. (1986). International justice: Communication fairness of communication. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Shepard, and M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research in negotiations in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich: JAI Press.
• Brooks, C. M., and Ammons, J. L. (2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assess- ments. Journal of Education for Business, 78(5), 268–272.
• Büyüköztürk. Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Chidambaram, L., and Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149–168.
• Cioffi, D., and Garner, R. (1996). On doing the decision: Effects of active versus passive choice on commitment and self-perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 133–147.
• Comrey, A. L., and Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., and Ramsey, R. P. (2002). Enriching our understanding of student team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 114–124.
• Doğan, A., Bozkurt, S. ve Demir, R. (2012). Sosyal kaytarma davranışı ile algılanan görev görünürlüğü arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(24), 53–80.
• Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets, west meets mid-east: Further explorations of collectivist and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319–348.
• Ægisdóttir, S., Gerstein, L. H., and Çınarbaş, D. C. (2008). Methodological issues in cross-cultural counseling research: Equivalence, bias, and translations. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(2), 188–219.
• Forman, J., and Katsky, P. (1986). The group report: A problem in small group or writing processes? The Journal of Business Communication, 23(4), 23–35.
• Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. In H. T. Reis, and S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Gagné, M., and Zuckerman, M. (1999). Performance and learning goal ori- entations as moderators of social loafing and social facilitation. Small Group Research, 30(5), 524–541.
• George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loaf- ing in organizations. Academy of Management, 35(1), 191–202.
• Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Hall, D., and Buzwell, S. (2012). The problem of free-riding in group proj- ects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 37–49.
• Harkins, S. G., and Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in elimi- nating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 457–465.
• Harkins, S. G., and Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evalua- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(6), 934–941.
• Ilgın, B. (2013). Toplumsal bir hastalık: Sosyal kaytarma. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(3), 238–270.
• Jackson, J. M., and Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1199–1206.
• Jackson, J. M., and Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 937–942.
• Jassawalla, A. R., Malshe, A., and Sashittal, H. (2008). Student perceptions of social loafing in undergraduate business classroom teams. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(2), 403–426.
• Jassawalla, A. R., Sashittal, H., and Malshe, A. (2009). Students’ perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 42–54.
• Karau, S. J., and Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integrations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.
• Kidwell, R. E., and Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of Management Review, 18, 429–456.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Kugihara, N. (1999). Gender and social loafing in Japan. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(4), 516–526.
• Latane, B., Williams, K., and Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 823–832.
• Liden, R., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., and Bennett, N. (2004). Social loaf- ing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30, 285–311.
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., and Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311–360.
• Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldham, B. M., and Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair pro- cedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748.
• Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., and Williams, K. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81–92.
• Pfaff, E., and Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37–45.
• Pieterse, V., and Thompson, L. (2010). Academic alignment to reduce the presence of ‘social loafers’ and ‘diligent isolates’ in student teams. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(4), 355–367.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
• Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., and Gavin, J. H. (2006). Withholding inputs in team contexts: Member composition, interaction processes, evalua- tion structure, and social loafing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1375.
• Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
• Sheppard, J. A., and Taylor, K. M. (1999). Social loafing and expectancy- value theory. Personality and Social Pscyhology Bulletin, 25, 1147–58.
• Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 27–60). London: Academic Press.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
• Williams, K., Harkins, S. G., and Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 303.