Goal Orientation and Interpersonal Relationships as Success Factors of Group Work

Armen Mustafa; Alban Sopjani

doi:10.1515/edu-2025-0072

Article Open Access

Goal Orientation and Interpersonal Relationships as Success Factors of Group Work

Armen Mustafa and Alban Sopjani

Published/Copyright: May 20, 2025

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Education Studies Volume 7 Issue 1

Abstract

In the higher education system of Kosovo, working in groups is quite widespread, but there is very little research regarding the effectiveness of this form of cooperation. Given the ongoing reforms and challenges within Kosovo’s higher education system, understanding the factors influencing group work effectiveness is crucial for improving academic outcomes and fostering collaborative learning environments. The aim of this research is to measure the students’ perceptions of the factors that increase/decrease the effectiveness of group work in the Colleges and Universities of Kosovo. From a theoretical point of view, there are many factors that make group work effective; however, this article is oriented towards models that assume that success depends on “clear definition of the task” and “interpersonal relationships.” A quantitative approach was used, with data collected through a questionnaire that had a very high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.88). The questionnaire was distributed in electronic and physical form and was completed by 417 respondents, including students of public universities and colleges in the Prishtina region. The empirical data of this article have shown that “goal orientation” and interpersonal relationships have significant effects on group success. For example, students who reported a clear understanding of their group’s objectives were more likely to experience positive group dynamics and achieve higher satisfaction with the outcome. Similarly, students who reported strong interpersonal relationships with their peers were more likely to engage in productive discussions and collaborative problem-solving. In conclusion, the study emphasizes the importance of fostering clear task definitions and positive interpersonal dynamics to enhance group work outcomes in Kosovo’s higher education institutions. This research provides practical recommendations for educators and policymakers, suggesting that fostering a clear focus on goals and promoting effective interpersonal interactions within groups can significantly improve the quality of group work and student outcomes.

Keywords: group work; goal orientation; interpersonal relations; students; social competence

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Group work is widely applied across various spheres of life, including education, and is particularly prominent in higher education settings. It is generally believed that working in groups enhances the overall satisfaction of students and increases their motivation compared to individual work (Nerdinger, Blickle, Schaper, & Solga, 2018; Ruisz, 2018). However, while group work has its benefits, its success as a method of cooperation varies. In the context of higher education, the experience of group work has received attention, especially regarding the effectiveness and challenges it presents.

1.2 Literature Review

The concept of group work often brings with it a paradox. On the one hand, individuals aim to maintain their unique characteristics within a group, while on the other hand, they must strive to function cohesively with others (Hogg, 1996). Research on group dynamics has identified that small groups – defined as groups of up to 30 members (Ludger, 2017) – can face challenges as their size increases. Specifically, cooperation tends to decrease as the number of members grows, with larger groups experiencing increased anonymity and reduced individual accountability (Fox & Guyer, 1978; Jonas, Stroebe, & Hewstone, 2002, pp. 404–406).

Several studies have explored the benefits of group work in educational settings. Gaudet, Ramer, Nakonechny, Cragg, and Ramer (2010) found that students working in small groups tended to perform better academically. Similarly, group work is generally more effective than individual work, though challenges such as coordination difficulties and unequal task distribution must be addressed (Hansen, 2006; Metz-Göckel, 2013). Hsiung (2012) observed that while individual work may be more effective early on in studies, group work becomes more beneficial over time. Students often cite low motivation, inadequate study habits, and a reliance on rote learning as major causes of their academic struggles. These factors are commonly reported by students in various educational contexts (Saha, Islam, Akhi, & Saha, 2024). However, group work can positively influence student motivation by fostering a collaborative learning environment where clear goals and peer support enhance individual engagement and commitment to academic tasks.

Despite its advantages, group work can also be detrimental. For instance, McEwan, Ruissen, Eys, Zumbo, and Beauchamp (2017) pointed out that 70% of adverse events in medical facilities occur not due to individual errors but because of breakdowns in teamwork. Harter, Schellberg, Möltner, and Kadmon (2009) found that some students prefer more traditional, professor-led lectures, especially in subjects like biochemistry, where exam results were higher for those not engaged in group work. Diversity among group members can sometimes hinder cooperation, though Ruschin and Maassen (2018) argue that student heterogeneity, if managed well, can boost productivity. Additionally, students who resist group work often cite unclear goals, coordination difficulties, and lack of motivation (Wolfe & Gould, 2001).

Numerous theories seek to identify key factors contributing to successful group work. Brennan and Enns (2015) explored whether the successes attributed to group work are simply statistical effects, concluding that group work is indeed more effective than individual work. León del Barco, Mendo-Lázaro, Polo-del-Río, and Rasskin Gutman (2019) highlighted task goal determination as a key factor in group success, while others stress the importance of interpersonal relationships for effective teamwork (Becker, 2016; Bravo, Catalán, & Pina, 2019; Stranzenbach, Mütze-Niewöhner, Przybysz, & Schlick, 2016). Positive interdependence, wherein the success of each group member is linked to others, is essential for group cohesion (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2007). Kamm (2018) found that frequent group meetings can enhance cooperation, but they alone do not guarantee success without effective interpersonal relations. When expectations differ between professors and students, group work can hinder rather than help the learning process (Burdett, 2007).

1.3 Research Gap

Despite the extensive research on group work, much of it focuses on Western or more developed educational contexts. Few studies have explored how group work functions in transitional or post-conflict societies. Kosovo, as a post-war society with a newly reconstructed educational system, presents a unique context for studying group dynamics. While group work has become increasingly common in Kosovo’s schools and universities since the turn of the century, understanding how it operates within this socio-political and cultural context remains underexplored. This research seeks to address this gap by focusing on the experiences of Kosovar students and the challenges they face in group work settings.

1.4 Aim of the Study

The aim of this study is to investigate the experiences of Kosovar students with group work. Specifically, this research will examine in which cases group work has yielded positive results and when it has become an obstacle to academic success. Understanding these dynamics in Kosovo is essential for adapting educational practices to the unique challenges of this context.

To achieve the aim of this study, the following research questions are proposed:

How do Kosovar students experience group work in their academic settings?
How does the accuracy of goal setting influence the outcomes of group work in Kosovo?
In what ways do interpersonal relationships within groups affect the success of group work in Kosovo’s higher education context?

This study draws upon Kauffeld’s (2001) model of group work, which integrates Beckhard’s SGRI model (1972) and West’s group reflection model (1994). Kauffeld’s model proposes two main dimensions of group work: task structure (goal orientation and task management) and interpersonal relationships (cohesion and responsibility). These dimensions form the basis of the following hypotheses:

1.5 Hypotheses

H1: Accurate goal setting has a positive effect on the final result of teamwork.
H2: Groups with good interpersonal relationships are more successful.

2 Methods

This study employed a quantitative and exploratory design. Data were collected using both an online and a paper-based questionnaire, which were administered retrospectively and anonymized.

2.1 Participants

The sample for this study consisted of students from the University of Pristina, AAB College, UBT College, and Heimerer College. The target population included all students enrolled at the University of Pristina, as well as students from colleges in the Pristina region. A total of 492 respondents participated, of whom 417 students (aged 18–56 years, M = 26.4, SD = 6.1) were included in the analysis. Among the respondents, 6.4% were employed, and gender distribution was relatively balanced, with 53.2% female participants. The sample comprised both Bachelor’s (47%) and Master’s (53%) students across a wide range of academic disciplines and study profiles.

2.2 Data Collection

The measurement instruments used in this study included the “FAT” (Teamwork Questionnaire), developed by Kauffeld & Frieling (2001) to assess teamwork. The questionnaire consists of 22 items, which are assigned to two main dimensions: “structural orientation” (goal orientation, task management) and “personal orientation” (cohesion, responsibility). The final version of the questionnaire contained 29 items, with a selection made to ensure content validity (logical validity). Additionally, the questionnaire included eight demographic questions, which provided important background information about the participants. These demographic questions were included to better understand and control for potential factors that could influence the results of the study.

The questionnaire was administered in three phases:

Pre-Test: In the first phase, the questionnaire was distributed in paper form to 30 students from various universities and colleges. These participants were asked to evaluate the clarity and comprehensibility of the questions. Based on the feedback from this pre-test, four items that were deemed unclear by the respondents were reformulated.

Reformulation: The revised questionnaire was then redistributed to the same institutions, where it was completed by 13 randomly selected students. This phase served as an additional validation step before the final distribution.

Main Data Collection: In the third phase, the questionnaire was distributed electronically and in paper form over a 5-month period. A total of 183 respondents completed the questionnaire electronically, while 234 respondents completed the paper version.

2.3 Data Analysis

Given that the questionnaire underwent modifications from its original form, construct validity was initially tested using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The EFA was performed using the “Principal Component Analysis” method, with Varimax rotation applied for easier interpretation of the extracted factors.

The EFA revealed that 16 out of the 29 items did not exhibit clear differentiation. Consequently, further calculations were based on the remaining 13 items that met statistical criteria. The analysis indicated that the two-factor model (structural and interpersonal aspects) was more suitable and interpretable than the four-factor model. Factor 1 explained 42.63% of the variance, while Factor 2 accounted for 9.43%, meaning that more than 52% of the total variance was explained by these two factors. These results align with Kauffeld’s (2001) findings.

2.4 Internal Consistency

The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed by analyzing item-total correlations and calculating Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire was found to be α = 0.88, indicating good reliability of the instrument.

Ethics: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of AAB College. All participants provided informed consent, ensuring their anonymity and confidentiality throughout the research process.

3 Results

The results of this study are presented in this section, which is structured to first provide descriptive statistics of participants’ preferences for group versus individual work, and their preferred group sizes. Following this, the findings from hypothesis testing are presented, with a detailed analysis of the regression models used to assess the relationships between goal setting, interpersonal relationships, and the success of teamwork. Statistical analyses are presented in the form of regression coefficients, variance explained, and confidence intervals, providing a comprehensive understanding of the relationships investigated.

3.1 Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive data from the survey reveal that a majority of the respondents (approximately 60%) expressed a preference for working in groups, in contrast to 40% who preferred individual work. Furthermore, a notable proportion (58%) of participants indicated that they prefer to work in groups of 3 or 4 individuals. No statistically significant differences were observed in the responses between those who completed the questionnaire online versus in physical form, suggesting consistency in the data collection method.

3.2 Testing Hypotheses

H1: Accurate goal setting has a positive effect on the final result of teamwork.

Figure 1 graphically presents the trajectories for the different regression models. Based on this graph and tabular analyses, testing of H1 was done by means of linear regression (Tables 1 and 2).

Figure 1

Trajectories for different H1 regression models. Note. In the illustration, the variable v10 stands for “goal orientation” and v34 for the success of the group.

Table 1

Variance explained by the predictor “setting goals at the beginning”

Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimate	Durbin–Watson
1	0.567	0.322	0.319	1.041	1.990

Note. In Table 1, it can be seen that R ² = 0.322 which shows that about 32% of the variance is explained by the independent variable “setting goals at the beginning,” which affects the dependent variable “success in group work.”

Table 2

H1 regression coefficients

		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardizd coefficients	t	Sig.	95.0% confidence interval for B
Model		B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.	Lower bound	Upper bound
1	(Constant)	2.808	0.207		13.549	0.000	2.399	3.216
1	V10	0.453	0.044	0.567	10.194	0.000	0.365	0.541

Note. Table 2 shows the simple linear regression coefficients for the independent variable “setting goals at the beginning” that affects the dependent variable “success in group work.”

H2: Groups with good interpersonal relationships are more successful.

Similar to the first hypothesis in this case, it was first tested which model is suitable for the analysis of the hypothesis. Based on the obtained results, the second hypothesis was tested by means of linear regression (Table 3).

Table 3

Variance explained by the predictor “good interpersonal relationships”

Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimate	Durbin–Watson
1	0.618	0.382	0.379	0.994	1.890

Note. In Table 3, it can be seen that R ² = 0.382 which shows that about 38% of the variance is explained by the independent variable “good interpersonal relationships,” which affects the dependent variable “success in group work.”

Table 4 shows the simple linear regression coefficients for testing H2, which turns out to be significant.

Table 4

Regression coefficients for H2

		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Sig.
Model		B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.
1	(Constant)	2.591	0.201		12.874	0.000
1	V33	0.510	0.044	0.618	11.623	0.000

Note. Table 4 shows the simple linear regression coefficients for testing H2, which turns out to be significant.

Both hypotheses were tested using linear regression, and the results support the proposed relationships. The analysis of “goal orientation” (v10) and “group success” (v34) demonstrated a moderate positive relationship, with R ² = 0.322, indicating that 32% of the variance in group success can be explained by goal setting. Similarly, the analysis of “good interpersonal relationships” (v33) and “group success” (v34) showed a stronger relationship, with R ² = 0.382, suggesting that 38% of the variance in group success can be attributed to positive interpersonal dynamics.

4 Discussion

Group work is a central component of contemporary educational curricula, encompassing both primary and higher education levels. Its primary objective is to enhance students’ “social competence,” equipping them with collaborative skills that are essential for their professional success. Despite the widespread implementation of group work, its underlying dynamics remain complex and are subject to various theoretical perspectives and empirical debates. In particular, the factors that drive group success, and the ways in which these factors interact, continue to be a prominent area of research in social sciences, particularly in the fields of psychology and organizational behavior (Hackman, 2002; Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

In the context of Kosovo, there is a notable lack of standardized instruments to measure group dynamics in academic settings. As such, the FAT measurement instrument was selected and adapted for this study. While this research did not aim to develop a standardized questionnaire, it adhered to the “Test Adaptation Guidelines” for instrument modification, ensuring the tool’s relevance and applicability to the local student population. The instrument underwent rigorous validation through EFA, initially including 22 items. Post-validation, some items were excluded due to insufficient factor loadings, resulting in a final 13-item scale. This revision yielded a two-factor model that distinguished between “structure (work orientation)” and “interpersonal relations” – key dimensions that have been emphasized in group work literature (Beckhard, 1972; Kauffeld, 2001).

The findings related to goal setting support the GRPI model (Beckhard, 1972) and the model of Kauffeld (2001), both of which highlight the importance of clarity and structure in enhancing group performance. Specifically, 30% of the variance in group success was explained by the “setting goals” factor, underscoring the significance of clear initial direction in fostering effective collaboration. This corroborates earlier studies which have demonstrated that explicit goal-setting facilitates greater alignment and coordination within groups, leading to higher levels of performance and satisfaction (Locke & Latham, 2002).

Similarly, the second hypothesis, which examined the impact of interpersonal relationships on group success, yielded a significant result. Approximately 38% of the variance in group success was explained by interpersonal dynamics. This finding is consistent with a wealth of research indicating that interpersonal relationships – characterized by trust, communication, and cooperation – are fundamental to group cohesion and productivity (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). The moderate R ² value, while not exceptionally high, suggests that while interpersonal relations are a strong predictor, they are not the sole determinant of group success. However, the statistical significance of the result (p < 0.01) affirms the robustness of this factor in predicting group outcomes.

An interesting aspect of the current study was the lack of significant differences in group dynamics across academic disciplines. This contrasts with some prior studies which suggest that group composition and field-specific factors may influence group performance (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). The absence of such differences in this study could reflect the standardized approach to group formation in academic settings in Kosovo, where students are often grouped without regard to their specific disciplinary backgrounds. Despite this, the preference for smaller groups (three–four members) is consistent with previous studies (Fox & Guyer, 1978), which suggest that smaller groups are more manageable and facilitate better communication, particularly in the context of higher education where the volume of academic work is high and time constraints are often a limiting factor.

This study also contributes to the growing body of literature on the importance of structuring group work in higher education. The data highlight the necessity of integrating structured group work opportunities into university curricula, with clear goals and an emphasis on fostering positive interpersonal relations. Such an approach not only enhances the immediate success of group projects but also equips students with essential skills for the workplace, where teamwork is increasingly valued (Salas et al., 2015).

5 Conclusion

This research underscores the critical role of goal setting and interpersonal relationships in determining the success of group work in higher education settings. The study’s findings suggest that students’ collaborative outcomes can be significantly enhanced when clear goals are established early and when positive interpersonal dynamics are fostered. These results contribute to the growing understanding of group work in academic environments, highlighting factors that are crucial for improving both student experiences and academic success.

5.1 Implications

The findings of this study have important implications for both higher education institutions and educators. First, universities should consider integrating more structured team-building exercises and goal-setting frameworks into their curricula. By providing students with clear objectives and fostering an environment conducive to positive interpersonal interactions, institutions can enhance group performance and student satisfaction. Additionally, faculty members may benefit from incorporating more explicit guidelines for group work, ensuring that students understand the importance of communication, collaboration, and conflict resolution within their teams.

Furthermore, the role of group work in developing students’ social competencies, which are highly valued by employers, cannot be understated. Given the growing trend of collaborative work in professional settings, universities must prioritize the development of teamwork skills to better prepare students for the demands of the labor market. This aligns with educational policies in Kosovo, where there is a need for an increased focus on enhancing students’ social and collaborative abilities.

5.2 Limitations

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations. The sample was confined to students from universities in Kosovo, and as such, the findings may not be fully generalizable to other cultural contexts or educational systems. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported data introduces the potential for response bias, as students may overestimate their group work experiences or underreport negative aspects of collaboration. Future studies could address these limitations by employing more diverse samples and using alternative data collection methods, such as peer evaluations or direct observation, to triangulate the findings.

5.3 Future Research Directions

Future research could benefit from exploring the long-term impact of group work experiences on students’ professional success. Longitudinal studies that track students’ development of collaboration skills over time would provide valuable insights into the lasting effects of group work on career outcomes. Additionally, comparative studies across different cultural contexts could reveal how cultural values influence group dynamics and success. Another promising area for future research is the exploration of how different types of group work – such as collaborative versus competitive group structures – affect student performance and group cohesion. Finally, investigating the role of technology in facilitating or hindering group collaboration, especially in virtual or hybrid learning environments, would be a valuable avenue for further exploration.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the students who, with their sincere participation in the research, enabled us to realize and finalize our research idea.

Funding information: The authors state no funding involved.
Author contributions: Armen Mustafa: methodology, visualization, conceptualization, writing – original draft preparation. Alban Sopjani: investigation, validation, resources, supervision, writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Becker, F. (2016). Teamarbeit, Teampsychologie, Teamentwicklung: So führen Sie Teams! (1st ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer. Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-49427-1_1Search in Google Scholar

Beckhard, R. (1972). Optimizing team building efforts. Journal of Contemporary Business, 1, 23–32.Search in Google Scholar

Bravo, R., Catalán, S., & Pina, J. M. (2019). Analysing teamwork in higher education: An empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of team cohesiveness. Studies in Higher Education, 44(7), 1153–1165. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1420049.Search in Google Scholar

Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015). When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 1076–1086. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1409334.Search in Google Scholar

Burdett, J. (2007). Degrees of separation – balancing intervention and independence in group work assignments. Australian Educational Researcher, 34, 55–71. doi: 10.1007/BF03216850.Search in Google Scholar

Fox, J., & Guyer, M. (1978). Public choice and cooperation in n-person prisoner’s dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22(3), 469–481.10.1177/002200277802200307Search in Google Scholar

Gaudet, A. D., Ramer, L. M., Nakonechny, J., Cragg, J. J., & Ramer, M. S. (2010). Small-group learning in an upper-level university biology class enhances academic performance and student attitudes toward group work. PLoS ONE, 5, e15821. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015821.Search in Google Scholar

Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 11–19. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.82.1.11-19.Search in Google Scholar

Harter, C., Schellberg, D., Möltner, A., & Kadmon, M. (2009). Frontalunterricht oder interaktive Gruppenarbeit? Ein Vergleich des Lernerfolgs und der studentischen Evaluation für das Fach Biochemie. GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung, 26(2). doi: 10.3205/zma000615.Search in Google Scholar

Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small group. In E. H. Witte & J. Davis (Eds.), Understanding-group behavior: Vol. 2. Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 227–253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781315789293-10Search in Google Scholar

Hsiung, C. M. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 119–137. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00044.x.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1999). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8Search in Google Scholar

Jonas, K., Stroebe, M., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Sozialpsychologie. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-08008-5Search in Google Scholar

Kamm, C. (2018). Gestaltungsformen effektiver Zusammenarbeit in längerfristigen studentischen Arbeitsgruppen. die hochschullehre, 4, 605–630. doi: 10.5167/uzh-162806.Search in Google Scholar

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. New York: HarperBusiness.Search in Google Scholar

Kauffeld, S. (2001). Teamentwicklung und Teamarbeit: Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen. In H. R. Lauer, & A. A. Schmitt (Eds.), Psychologie der Arbeit und der Organisationen (pp. 245–263). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar

Kauffeld, S., & Frieling, E. (2001). Der Fragebogen zur Arbeit im Team (FAT). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 45(1), 26–33.10.1026//0932-4089.45.1.26Search in Google Scholar

León del Barco, B., Mendo-Lázaro, S., Polo-del-Río, M. I., & Rasskin Gutman, I. (2019). University students’ academic goals when working in teams: Questionnaire on academic goals in teamwork, 3 × 2 model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2434. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02434.Search in Google Scholar

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.Search in Google Scholar

Ludger, J. (2017). Gruppen und Institutionen: Eine Ontologie des Sozialen. Wiesbaden: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Eys, M. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2017). The effectiveness of teamwork training on teamwork behaviors and team performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled interventions. PLoS ONE, 12(1), e0169604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.Search in Google Scholar

Metz-Göckel, H. (2013). Gruppenarbeit und ihre Gefahren. Journal Hochschuldidaktik, 2013, 11–14. https://eldorado.tu-dortmund.de/bitstream/2003/33715/3/journal_HD_1-2_2013_artikel_metz-goeckel.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Nerdinger, F. W., Blickle, G., Schaper, N., & Solga, M. (2018). Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie. Wiesbaden: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-56666-4Search in Google Scholar

Ruisz, B. (2018). Zufriedenheit im Studium: Wie viel Anteil haben persönliche Stärken? Forschungsforum der Österreichischen Fachhochschulen. Salzburg.Search in Google Scholar

Ruschin, S., & Maassen, K. (2018). Diversitätsorientierte Lernumgebung: Heterogene Lernvoraussetzungen für Gruppenarbeit nutzen. Ein wirtschaftsingenieurwissenschaftliches Lehrprojekt an der Universität Duisburg-Essen. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 13(4), 443–458.Search in Google Scholar

Saha, M., Islam, S., Akhi, A. A., & Saha, G. (2024). Factors affecting success and failure in higher education mathematics: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives. Heliyon, 10(7), e29173.10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29173Search in Google Scholar

Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599–622. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21628.Search in Google Scholar

Stranzenbach, R. A., Mütze-Niewöhner, S., Przybysz, P. M., & Schlick, C. (2016). Study on the effectiveness of group work in the production system of an automobile manufacturer. In Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft (Ed.), Arbeit in komplexen Systemen – digital, vernetzt, human?! GfA Press. https://www.mec.ed.tum.de/fileadmin/w00cbp/iwb/Institut/Dissertationen/275_Aull_F.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

West, M. A. (1994). Effective teamwork. London: BPC Wheaton Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Wolfe, K., & Gould, R. (2001). Insights on team-based learning. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 13, 87–96.10.1080/10963758.2001.10696703Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-10-13

Revised: 2025-03-05

Accepted: 2025-03-21

Published Online: 2025-05-20

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Supplementary material

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2025-0072

Keywords for this article

group work; goal orientation; interpersonal relations; students; social competence

Creative Commons

BY 4.0

Goal Orientation and Interpersonal Relationships as Success Factors of Group Work

Article

Abstract

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Literature Review

1.3 Research Gap

1.4 Aim of the Study

1.5 Hypotheses

2 Methods

2.1 Participants

2.2 Data Collection

2.3 Data Analysis

2.4 Internal Consistency

3 Results

3.1 Descriptive Statistics

3.2 Testing Hypotheses

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

5.1 Implications

5.2 Limitations

5.3 Future Research Directions

Acknowledgments

References

Supplementary Material

Articles in the same Issue

Articles in the same Issue

Articles in the same Issue