GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

Correlations Between Methods of Group Communication and Satisfaction Levels

Taylor Gigl, Ethan Marse, Kylee Summers, and Traci Van Ooyen
Carroll University

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

2

There are multiple channels of communication available to groups collaborating on joint

projects. These include face-to-face, virtual group contact, and a combination of the two. There
has been research into these channels of communication and correlating effects on various
factors such as project assessment (Manion and Selfe, 2012), quantity of participation (Jaesik
and Shin, 2014), and intercultural communication (Bazaronova and Yuan, 2013), but there has
not been a research study that specifically seeks to find a correlation between the channel of
communication used and the satisfaction level of members within the group. In this proposed
study satisfaction is defined as the level to which a participant feels that their own needs and
desires have been satisfied. Once the relationship between communication channels and
satisfaction is understood, groups could select a communication channel with the highest
probability of satisfaction.
Collaboration, as it is used here, refers to projects where two or more persons are
required to produce an assigned output together, and individuals do not have the option of
completing the project on their own. The significance of finding ways to improve satisfaction
range from practical to personal. Increased satisfaction could have a direct impact on the
efficiency and effectiveness of group dynamics. Increased satisfaction could also increase the
quality and quantity of output. These improvements to collaborative experiences could result in
higher levels of course engagement by students, increased comprehension and retention of the
material covered in the project, and possibly higher grades. In turn, all of these factors can have a
lifelong impact on career goals.
Literature Review

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

3

Electronic communication is popular among college students and is often used by

collaborative groups. Manion and Selfe (2012) studied the use of wikis and determined that there
was a positive correlation between the use of wikis and project assessment. In a later study Jaesik
and Shin (2014) discovered that there was an overwhelming majority of students who had
positive reactions towards professors emailing the students and answering questions through
email. The results of these two studies indicate increased positive responses when education is
combined with social media. Jaesik and Shin hypothesized that with increased interaction
through social media and email, there would be an increase in positive responses towards
student-teacher interaction.
Social media has added another layer of tools to electronic communication. Bazaronova
and Yuan (2013) studied the difference in influence between face-to-face- communication and
electronic communication in group settings.. The participation rate and perceived confidence of
the participants was significantly higher while using communication media such as Facebook.
This shows the strong influence that social media is starting to have on communication in todays
culture. The focus of this study was intercultural communication and researchers did not measure
satisfaction levels of participants.
There are conflicting results about the effects on collaboration when electronic
communication methods are used. For example, Eastman and Swift (2002) found that electronic
discussion boards and chatrooms enhanced collaboration and increased accountability of group
members. However Johnson et al. (2009) found that individuals who used greater levels of
virtual communication reported lower levels of positive affect. Virtual communication also was
found to negatively affect individual commitment to the group (Johnson et al., 2009).

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

4

Electronic communication appears to have cross-cultural cohesion significance as well,

and this significance could increase satisfaction levels within intercultural collaborative groups.
Krebs et al. (2006) found that demographics play a huge role in the groups cohesion in a face-toface group. However, demographics did not play a part in group cohesion when the
communication method was strictly digital. These results signal a possible positive relationship
between digital communication use in diverse collaborative groups and satisfaction.
Group performance studies by Waither et al. (2005) and Penley (1978) focused on the
rules governing the collaboration process and found positive correlations between structure and
satisfaction, indicating an interest in the field of communication satisfaction. Penleys study was
limited by the lack of digital communication methods commonly available at the time, so this
study compared two separate face-to-face methods. Waither et al. (2005) focused on the rules of
virtual communication that would positively affect the groups performance. The study found
that satisfaction increased when the collaborative project had clear defined rules combined with
virtual communication. The significance to this study of Waither et al.s findings is that structure
or a lack thereof could be possible confounding variables and should be controlled in the
proposed research study.
All of these studies offer valuable insight into the effects of electronic communication
within a collaborative setting. However, none of the previous studies have measured participant
satisfaction, and without those results, it is unclear whether or not a relationship exists between
communication methods and participant satisfaction. The studies by Manion and Selfe (2012)
and Jaesik and Shin (2014) were limited in their scope of electronic communication studied.
Neither study measured satisfaction levels between group members, only between educators and
students. The data collected by Bazaronova and Yuan (2013) is further limited because the focus

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

5

was intercultural communication patterns of a limited group. One weakness of the study by
Johnson et al. (2009) was that the researchers did not collect data from every member of the
teams, and other team members may have have reported differently. One weakness of the Krebs
et al. study is that the researchers only looked at dissimilarity; the study did not include the
relationships between dissimilarity and group performance or between communication methods
and satisfaction (2006). All of the past literature leaves room for the study of academic
collaboration to examine and identify any correlations between communication methods and
satisfaction levels. Upon examining the available research, we asked the following research
questions:
RQ1:

How does the method of communication used in group collaboration affect the
level of personal satisfaction of the group members?

RQ2:

Is there a measurable difference in personal satisfaction between groups that

communicate face-to-face, digitally, or through a combination of the two?

Method
Participants
The participants in this study will be four-year university students from a cross-section of
schools throughout the U.S. We would randomly select the universities and participants as part of
a Cluster Sample. Three universities would be selected from each of six regions of the United
States: northeast, southeast, north central, south central, northwest, and southwest. The three
universities from each region will consist of at least: one state university, one private university,
one large university (in relation to other universities in that region) and one small university (in

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

6

relation to other universities in that region). Participants will vary in age and socio-economic
background based on enrollments of the selected schools and voluntary participation of the
students. Participants will be required to have taken part in at least one collaborative group
during their university experience in order to qualify for the study.
Materials
Data will be collected through a cross-sectional survey administered through the online
service Survey Monkey. The researchers will contact universities in advance to confirm
organizational participation in the survey. Students will be provided with a link to the survey
through a blanket email from their schools. The survey will contain both Likert-scale and rankorder questions. Participation in the survey will require a 5-10 minute time commitment from the
students.
Survey participation is limited to students who have participated in a collaborative group
project during their college experience. Questions that pertain to similar factors are grouped
together and each section of the survey contains clearly identifiable instructions. Questions
pertaining to face-to-face contact and other contact are separated to help prevent confusion on
the part of participants which could result in incorrect responses. The survey also includes a
qualitative response question.
A cross sectional survey is the best method to collect data for this research study based on
the scope of the data to be collected and in order to draw accurate generalizations from a vast
population. Participants will provide data one time only which requires the least commitment
from participants while also providing a complete picture of their experiences to date. Likert
scales and rankings are easy to assign numerical values which will be necessary for the ANOVA
Test.

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

7

Procedure
The instrument we selected is a valid choice because the survey will be accessible to all
students from each university that elects to participate by emailing the survey to students. We
chose to do an Internet Sampling since there will be a higher chance of students willing to
participate in the survey when it can be done anywhere and anytime.
The survey-creation site we have chosen, Survey Monkey, can only be opened once
and only by the user that the survey was emailed to. This site also stores the data securely which
saves the research team from having to create safe shared storage files and prevents the loss of
data that may have occurred had the data been transferred to another location before analysis.
The best method for analyzing the data would be doing an ANOVA Test. This was chosen
because we have more than two categories in our independent variable (level of communication
in groups with using technology, using without technology, have used technology before and
stopped using it, and have not used technology before then started to use it in the group) that we
are comparing on the same continuous dependent variable (Likert scale). The ANOVA Test will
identify any significant correlations that exist between usage of technology and levels of
satisfaction in the group. There may also be confounding variables such as year in school, GPA,
etc., which will require analysis using the ANOVA Test in order for us to make generalizations
from the sample to the whole population. After the ANOVA Test is completed, we will isolate
certain independent variables with a Pearson r test which include class ranking and G.P.A.and
compare the data and see if there is any correlation between G.P.A., class rank along with
communication styles and satisfaction levels.
Conclusion

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

8

The results of this study could have massive implications for future research, but the
success of that possibility rests on the level of participation from the population sample. If this
study reveals a correlation between communication methods and satisfaction, then it is plausible
that this study lays the foundation for future research that seeks to find correlations between
satisfaction and results. From that point, experimentational research could be designed to find
causation between communication methods, satisfaction, and results. The findings of those
experiments would be valuable to any organization that requires collaboration in one form or
another, from universities to businesses to social units. However, in this original study, the level
to which generalizations can be pulled from the data is limited by participation levels because
participation is voluntary.

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

9

References
Bazaronova, N.N. & Yuan, Y.C. (2013). Expertise and influence in intercultural groups:
Difference between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 437-453. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12018
Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. (2002). Enhancing collaborative learning: Discussion boards and
chat rooms as project communication tools. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(3),
29-41.
Jaesik, H, & Shin, D.H., (2014). Facebook in a standard college class: An alternative conduit for
promoting teacher-student interaction. American Communication Journal, 16(1). 36-52.
Johnson, S. K., Bettenhausen, K., & Gibbons, E. (2009). Realities of working in virtual teams:
Affective and attitudinal outcomes of using computer-mediated communication. Small
Group Research, 40(6), 623-649. doi:10.1177/1046496409346448
Krebs, S. A., Hobman, E. V., & Bordia, P. (2006). Virtual teams and group member
dissimilarity. Small Group Research, 37(6), 721-741.
Manion, C. E., & Selfe, R. (2012). Sharing an assessment ecology: Digital media, wikis, and the
social work of knowledge. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 25-45.
doi:10.1080/10572252.2012.626756
Penley, L. E. (1978). Structuring a groups communication for improved problem-solving.
Journal Of Business Communication, 16(1), 25-37.
Walther, J. B.,& Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in
computer-mediated communication. Journal Of Communication, 55(4), 828-846

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

10

Appendix
Group Communication and Satisfaction Level Survey
This survey is to measure the satisfaction that group members experience through different
communication methods. Participants are required to have worked in a collaborative group prior
to taking this survey. Persons who have never worked in a collaborative group should not
complete this survey.

Rank this list by the frequency in which you use these methods for collaboration within group
communication, 1 being you use it the most and 8 being you use it the least.
____ face-to-face communication
____ online video applications
____ online file sharing
____ online file editors
____ email
____ social media
____ phone
____ instant messaging

For the next question, rate your level of group satisfaction from your top 3 ranked methods of
communication from the question above.
1- Not at all satisfied 2- Slightly satisfied 3- Moderately satisfied 4- Very satisfied 5- Extremely
satisfied
1.____ Number one ranked channel.

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

11

2.____ Number two ranked channel.

3.____ Number three ranked channel.
Please explain why you chose the levels of satisfaction you did for your top 3 ranked methods:

For the following questions, please select one response that best reflects your experience and
participation levels.
What percentage of your group collaboration is done face to face?
______ 0-10
______ 11-20
______ 21-30
______ 31-40
______ 41-50

______ 51-60
______ 61-70
______ 71-80
______ 81-90
______ 91-100

What percentage do you feel best describes your contribution level when collaborating face-toface during a group project?
______ 0-10
______ 11-20
______ 21-30
______ 31-40
______ 41-50

______ 51-60
______ 61-70
______ 71-80
______ 81-90
______ 91-100

What percentage of your group collaboration is done through online methods.

______ 0-10
______ 11-20
______ 21-30
______ 31-40
______ 41-50

______ 51-60
______ 61-70
______ 71-80
______ 81-90
______ 91-100

What percentage do you feel best describes your contribution level when collaborating online
during a group project?

GROUP COMMUNICATION AND SATISFACTION LEVELS

12

______ 0-10
______ 11-20
______ 21-30
______ 31-40
______ 41-50

______ 51-60
______ 61-70
______ 71-80
______ 81-90
______ 91-100

Please indicate the following:

I am:
_____ Male

_____ Female _____ Transgender _____ Other(please explain)

My age is: ______

I am a:
_____Freshman

_____Sophomore

_____Junior

_____Senior

_____Other

My area of study: ______________________________

My approximate GPA (grade point average) is:__________

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your input is very valuable.