Han, S. L. & Son, H. S. (2020).

Effects on cooperative
learning on the improvement of interpersonal
competence among students in classroom
environments. International Online Journal of
Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(1). 17-28.
http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/717

Received: 22.08.2019
Received in revised form: 11.12.2019
Accepted: 02.01.2020

EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF

INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE AMONG STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM
ENVIRONMENTS
Research Article

Shin-Il Han
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
[email protected]

Hyesook Son
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
[email protected]

Shin-Il Han works currently as a full professor at the Department of Education,

Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.

Hyesook Son works currently as a full professor at the Department of English,

Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.

Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published

elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET.
 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(1), 17-28.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE

IN CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS
Shin-Il Han
[email protected]
Hyesook Son
[email protected]

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between interpersonal
competence and classroom cooperation activities. This study selected and evaluated sixteen
university students in problem-based learning (PBL) course. The students answered the
same questionnaire before and after the cooperative learning of PBL, and the changes in
their interpersonal competence were measured. The statistical analysis involved a paired
samples t-test. The results suggest that the cooperative learning of PBL develops students’
interpersonal competence in a statistically significant way. A qualitative analysis of the
students’ responses to the questionnaire also reveals the students’ changing attitudes toward
cooperative learning in the classroom environment.
Keywords: cooperative learning, problem-based learning, interpersonal competence,
agreeableness, extraversion

1. Introduction
Interpersonal competence is crucial in the process of human growth. The importance of
interaction with others begins with family members at an early age and continues with friends
and teachers in schools and later with members of professional workplaces. Interpersonal
competence is, therefore, an essential part of relationships with others and in social activities
as well.
Interpersonal competence is often defined as a particular communication ability in
interacting with others in a manner intended to achieve certain results or objectives
(McConnell, 2018). It is usually related to teamwork or leadership and very often called forth
in cooperative works or collaborative student learning.
Research on effective leadership or teamwork very often concludes that interpersonal
competence is one of the factors essential to the achievement of shared organizational goals
in a corporate setting or in society in general (Britton, Simper, Leger, & Stephenson, 2017;
Fought & Misawa, 2016). Fought and Misawa (2016) conducted in-depth interviews of
library directors and discovered that interpersonal competencies, such as communication
skills and the ability to foster strong relationships, are the most important factors for their
success. The Teamwork KSA Test developed by Stevens and Campion (1994, 1999), a
measurement of teamwork competencies for the effectiveness of groups and work teams,
designates three of five interpersonal competencies: conflict resolution, collaborative
problem solving, and communication.
Interpersonal competence is also a personality trait. Dumont defines personality traits as
descriptive schemas, the product of human reason and imagination (Dumont, 2010), leaving

17
Han & Son

room for regarding interpersonal competence as belonging to a realm of conceptualization.

McCrae and Costa (1999) identify four presuppositions of the concept of personality traits:
(a) human nature is knowable; (b) humans are capable of making an objective judgment of
their own and others’ characters; (c) people differ widely in their numerous personality traits;
and (d) there are spontaneous elements in much of human behavior in spite of pre-determined
factors. The conception of interpersonal competence as a personality trait, therefore, is
vulnerable to the long-lasting “nature versus nurture” controversy.
Since interpersonal competence is recognized as an important driver of achievement in
society, schools have begun to provide students with various opportunities for cooperative
learning in classroom environments. Socratous (2014) emphasizes the importance of
interpersonal skills. He quotes Dewey (1940), who argued that schools are responsible for the
development of students’ interests in many areas of learning. Dewey also proposes that all
students should be encouraged to expand their horizons in an appropriate manner and to
equip themselves with interpersonal/communication skills in multiple student group
interactions. Following Dewey, most educational institutions from elementary schools to
universities have opened many collaboration-based courses and curriculum subjects. Colleges
and universities have been especially committed to providing larger numbers of courses
about interpersonal skills because they believe the near-future employers of their students
will require the students’ interpersonal skills in various professional environments.
Here, we need to think about the student’s resistance to the changes the cooperative
learning program intends to bring about; this resistance mostly derives from the deep-rooted
personality traits. Personality traits are known as relatively permanent characteristics of an
individual, which are mostly inherited and hardly changed by behavioral practice (Helmreich,
1984; Kichuk & Wiesner, 1997). The attributes of personality permanence were mentioned
earlier by Allport (1937), who stated that a person’s personality trait is a generalized and
focalized neuropsychic system that works specifically in guiding his or her behaviors. Then,
can any educational effort to improve students’ interpersonal competence affect their
consistent behavior pattern and really change the student’s personality traits?
We may not be able to fundamentally change students’ personality traits, but we can find
an improvement in their behavior pattern within the specific period of our education program.
Our research focuses on examining whether students’ class activity utilizing cooperation
strategies and techniques can work to improve their interpersonal competency enough to
produce measurable differences in their learning in a classroom environment. Skinner, Hyde,
McPherson, and Simpson (2016) once compared two different groups of students; one group
was a collaboration-oriented cohort, while the other was a traditional ordinary peer group.
The results of their study reveal that the collaboration-oriented cohort achieved significantly
higher scores in interpersonal skills compared with the other group. By comparing two
different learning conditions and groups, this study proves the effectiveness of cooperative
learning.
Our research shares the same educational goal as Skinner et al. (2016), but we focus more
on the individual student’s change before and after cooperative learning of PBL. Though here
we concentrate on an individual student’s change in interpersonal competence, it will be
possible to test our premise on a bigger scale by studying large classroom environments.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Interpersonal competence as one of the personality traits
Traits are a way of thinking about an individual’s personality (Dumont, 2010). Following
Gordon Allport, theoreticians such as Raymond B. Cattell and Hans Eysenck developed

18
 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(1), 17-28.

categories to understand the traits of an individual in a general sense. Allport’s three trait
levels (cardinal, central, secondary), Cattell’s sixteen personality factors (16PF), and
Eysenck’s three personality factors (PEN: psychoticism, extraversion, & neuroticism) are
some examples of their conceptualizations and categorizations. Later studies of personality
traits by both Fiske (1949) and Digman and Takemoto-Chock (1981) based their studies on
Cattell’s data and theorized human personality in their Five-Factor Model; five factors of
personality traits are neuroticism (i.e., degree of emotional stability), extraversion (i.e.,
assertiveness, sociability, sense of energy, excitement), openness to experience (i.e.,
imagination), agreeableness (i.e., good-nature, cooperation), and conscientiousness (i.e.,
dependability, responsibility) (Jensen, 2005). Malco, Gordesli, Arslan, Cekici, and Sunbul
(2019) explain how interpersonal competence helps students to initiate and sustain
interpersonal relationships, to overcome adverse experiences, to receive and provide social
support, and to derive satisfaction from social relationships. Costa and McCrae (1992) focus
on the factors of agreeableness and extraversion and define them as follows:
Extraverts are, of course, sociable, but sociability is only one of the traits that comprise the
domain of Extraversion. In addition to liking people and preferring large groups and
gatherings, extraverts are also assertive, active, and talkative. They like excitement and
stimulation and tend to be cheerful in disposition. They are upbeat, energetic, and
optimistic…Like Extraversion, Agreeableness is primarily a dimension of interpersonal
tendencies. The agreeable person is fundamentally altruistic. He or she is sympathetic to
others and eager to help them, and believes that others will be equally helpful in return. (p.
15).
As we can see from the quotation, extraversion and agreeableness have positive effects on
cooperative learning. Our research chooses these two as representative factors of
interpersonal competence and concentrates on them.
2.2. Problem-based learning (PBL) as a way of cooperative learning
Cooperative learning is a learning model in which students collaborate toward a common
goal (Roger & Johnson, 1994; Siegel, 2005; Slavin, 1983; Socratous, 2014). Socratous (2014)
argues that cooperative learning consists of five factors: positive interdependence, social
skills, face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, and equal participation/opportunity.
Any well-organized program of cooperative learning tries to cover all of these five factors,
but it is not always successfully realized in a classroom situation.
PBL can be one of the methods to achieve the educational goal of cooperative learning, for
PBL is based on cooperative activities and students’ collaborative participation. PBL is a
constructivist learning method, in which students study in groups by addressing or solving
authentic and complex problems (Elder, 2009). In the 1960s, the McMaster University of
Canada applied PBL theory to medical schools and found that various activities of PBL
stimulated students to develop and learn skills of problem-solving, collaboration, and self-
directed learning in addition to adaptive knowledge and higher motivation (Hmelo-Silver,
2004). It was also found that a close tie among students is an important component of the
implementation of PBL. PBL can be an effective tool for cooperative learning, for it provides
a scientific methodology and practical curriculum to realize the educational goal of
cooperative learning.
2.3. Previous studies on interpersonal competence associated with cooperative
learning
In the past, the education studies of interpersonal competence mostly focused on students’
academic achievement (Huitt, Killins, & Brooks, 2015; Prixten, De Fraine, Van Damme, &

19
Han & Son

D’Haenens, 2010). There were only a few studies of interpersonal competence focusing on
students’ social skills. A study on the improvement of interpersonal competence by PBL
activity (Skinner et al., 2016) was one of those few. Skinner and other researchers examined
the social skills of the undergraduate students who experienced small group PBL tutorial
sessions and compared them with those enrolled in traditional courses. They report that the
PBL students’ scores of interpersonal skills are significantly higher than those of other
students in traditional courses, and there is a positive relationship between group-based
learning and individual students’ social skills. However, another study of interpersonal
competence in a cooperative learning environment shows the opposite result. Lara (2013)
analyzed the game performance of university students who played an educational game
collaboratively, and she evaluated the students’ personality traits. She found that extraversion
and agreeableness were negatively affecting the students’ game performance. Therefore,
there is so far no agreement on the effect of cooperative learning on individual students’
interpersonal competence.
3. Methods
3.1. Procedure and participants
This study examined sixteen participants from a general education course at S university,
Seoul, Korea. The study required the selected students to fill out the same questionnaire twice,
right before the cooperative learning of PBL and after the completion of the course. The
questionnaire includes a measure of interpersonal competence. Students are informed that the
study will use their questionnaires for improving teaching methodology. However, they do
not know that the study will observe their interpersonal competencies, because that
knowledge would provoke a biased response. The majority of the participants were female
students (n=10, 63%), and mostly juniors and seniors (n=13, 81%). The second questionnaire
included an extra descriptive question to obtain a deeper understanding of the change in the
students’ interpersonal competence by the end of the semester.
3.2. Measures
The study measured students’ interpersonal competency with the instrument developed by
a 10-item test of Halfhill and Nielsen (2007). Halfhill and Nielsen made five items for
measuring the “agreeableness” category and another five items for the “extraversion”
category. Their items were modifications of the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory Short Form
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Costa and McCrae made questionnaires for measuring personality
traits, and the questionnaires led to their revised NEO personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and
NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Their inventory divides personality traits into five
categories: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness. Later, Halfhill and Nielsen chose three categories for their teamwork
study: agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness. However, they narrowed them
down again and ended up with two categories, agreeableness and extraversion. Here, we
accept their final version of the test and integrate their questionnaires on agreeableness and
extraversion into our examination of the students’ interpersonal competence.
Our questionnaire expects students to answer ten questions in a five-choice format ranging
from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A Cronbach’s α was 0.74 for “agreeableness”
and 0.84 for “extraversion.” The questionnaire also included a descriptive question (“what
was the best part of your PBL activity?”) and an additional question about class satisfaction
with options ranging from 1 (strongly dissatisfied) to 10 (strongly satisfied).

20
 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(1), 17-28.

3.3. Analyses
In our research, the paired samples t-test examined the students’ interpersonal competence.
Tests occurred before the cooperative learning (BCL) and after the cooperative learning
(ACL). The paired samples t-test compares two means of the same individual in order to
decide whether the mean difference between paired observations on a particular outcome
shows statistically significant differences (Paired samples t-test, n. d.).
Our study quantitatively analyzed the students’ written responses to the descriptive
question, which helped us to refine the established categorization. The principal researcher
analyzed students’ written responses and sorted them into two categories, agreeableness and
extraversion. We used “The Adjective Check List Correlates of NEO-PI-R Facet Scale”
(Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 49) (table 1). Our study excluded other responses that were not
relevant to personality traits. After analyzing the students’ responses, the principal researcher
delivered the initial findings to an educational specialist, who reviewed and evaluated them.
This triangulation was performed to validate the data, and it is a necessary step in qualitative
research to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the outcome (Carter, Bryant-Lukosius,
DiCenso, Blythe, & Neville, 2014; Patton, 1999). After the triangulation, we reexamined the
initial findings, modified our conclusions, and completed the finalized report on the
qualitative research.

Table 1. Adjective Check List for the analysis of the students’ responses to the descriptive
question
Agreeableness facets Adjective items Extraversion facets Adjective items
A1: Trust trusting E1: Warmth friendly
A2: Straightforwardness demanding E2: Gregariousness sociable, talkative
A3: Altruism generous E3: Assertiveness aggressive
A4: Compliance intolerant E4: Activity energetic, active
A5: Modesty show-off, clever E5: Excitement-Seeking pleasure-seeking
A6: Tender- enthusiastic,praising,
sympathetic E6: Positive Emotions
Mindedness jolly

Note. Adapted from Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) by P.T. Costa and R.R. McCrae, 1992, p. 49. Copyright 1992 by
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

4. Results
Table 2 presents the statistics of all measured variables in the paired samples t-text. The
average score of the students’ class satisfaction was 9.19 out of 10; it means that average
students were strongly satisfied with the cooperative learning of PBL. Table 3 presents the
corresponding correlational coefficients.

21
Han & Son

Table 2. Variables of paired samples t-test

Variables BCL/ACL Mean N Std. Deviation
Class
- 9.19 16 1.167
satisfaction
BCL 21 16 2.757
Agreeableness
ACL 23.38 16 1.784
BCL 18.81 16 3.563
Extraversion
ACL 20.25 16 3.173

Table 3. Correlations between variables

1 2 3 4 5
1. Class satisfaction -
2. Agreeableness-BCL -.062 -
3. Agreeableness-ACL -.183 -0.095 -
4. Extraversion-BCL 0.156 .542* 0.085 -
5. Extraversion-ACL -.158 -0.046 .706* .442 -

*p<0.05

The goal of this analysis is to examine the effect of cooperative learning of PBL in
improving interpersonal competence. As shown from the results presented in table 4,
cooperative learning of PBL increased the students’ “agreeableness” up to an average of 2.38.
There was a 95% confidence interval for this variable, and the difference was (-3.619, -
1.131). This result implies that the effect of cooperative learning of PBL on “agreeableness”
is statistically significant (p<0.001). Furthermore, cooperative learning of PBL also increased
the students’ “extraversion” up to an average of 1.44. In this case, the 95% confidence
interval for the difference was (-0.048, -2.206). The increased interpersonal scores of the
students’ on the items “agreeableness” and “extraversion” statistically prove the importance
of cooperative learning of PBL.

22
 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(1), 17-28.

Table 4. Statistic results of paired samples t-test

95%Cofidence
Std. Sig.
Variab BCL- Std. Interval of the
Mean Error Difference t df (2-
les ACL Deviation
Mean tailed)

Lower Upper
Agre BCL-
eable -2.375 2.335 0.584 -3.619 -1.131 -4.069 15 0.001
ness ACL

Extra
BCL-
versi -1.437 2.607 0.652 -0.048 -2.206 -2.206 15 0.043
ACL
on

The qualitative analysis of the responses to the descriptive question shows that all the
students are positive about their experience of cooperative learning of PBL. 94% of the
students gave positive comments on the item, “extraversion,” 38% of them on the item,
“agreeableness,” and 31% of them on both items. Figure 1 shows the frequencies of the sub-
domains of interpersonal competence. “Gregariousness (E2)” in the domain of “extraversion”
is the sub-domain to which the largest number of students (11 of 16 students) showed a
favorable response.

12

10
n of Students

0
A1 A3 A6 E1 E2 E4 E5 E6
Facets of Interpersonal Competence

Figure 1. Frequencies of sub-domains of Interpersonal Competence

23
Han & Son

Table 5. Students’ responses to a descriptive question

Domains (n of Students’ Responses
Students)

Agreeableness (1) Student a: We could get along with new friends…. I loved sharing opinions with
different persons. (A6)

Agreeableness & Student b: We enjoyed sharing our thoughts and encouraged each other’s
Extraversion (5) opinions… We were able to keep a bond among us… This is my first experience of
team project. … Our team members are all kind… They always made me smile
during our meetings. (A1, A3, A6, E6)
Student c: The best part of our PBL activity was the teamwork. I was so thankful
for the members’ active engagement. The members were all kind and very
supportive. (A3, A6, E4)
Student d: I loved the mood of our team. It was always friendly and cheerful. We
all knew every member’s ability and tried to assign the right work to the right
person. …we had many conversations… I tried to help team members. I found
pleasure in understanding my team members. (A3, A6, E1, E2, E5, E6)
Student e: The group members were very friendly, so we all enjoyed our meeting.
We could get along well. (A6, E2, E6)
Student f: I was pleased to experience this PBL activity... I was happy to
communicate well...We were able to complete PBL without too much difficulty
because we helped each other and shared our opinions so well. (A6, E2, E6)

Extraversion (10) Student g: This PBL activity created really friendly and cheerful atmosphere. (E1,
E6)
Student h: There was no difficulty in our discussions. All the members talked a lot.
(E2)
Student i: I was able to get closer to my group members. (E2)
Student j: We could talk and persuade others with different opinions and positions.
(E2)
Student k: All the team members were helping each other and tried to make a good
team. (E2)
Student l: First team work was very stressful, but I could learn how to deal with it.
Now, I am very content with my communication ability. (E2, E4)
Student m: Everyone was quite active in expressing his or her opinions… No one
was quiet during the meeting… Everyone was very enthusiastic and came up with
creative ideas. (E2, E4)
Student n: The first adjustment was not easy, but a lot of meeting and talk helped us
to work harmoniously together on the project. Sometimes our chatting delayed our
discussion time, but our team project went well. We could learn how to respect
each other. (E2, E6)
Student o: Everyone took an active part in the project. No one was missed at all. It
was the most rewarding and satisfying group activity for two years… We came to
know each other and were able to have a lot of fun. (E2, E4, E5)
Student p: I was very impressed by the members’ passion and dedication for the
project. (E5)

24
 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(1), 17-28.

5. Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to observe how the students engaged in cooperative learning
improve their interpersonal competence with the help of cooperative learning techniques.
This study measured the changes in the students’ interpersonal competence before and after
the co-operative learning sessions of PBL. The study also analyzed the students’ responses to
the descriptive question. The results of the study reveal the students’ meaningful
development in interpersonal competence (“agreeableness” and “extraversion”) through the
cooperative learning activities of PBL. Recent studies on cooperative learning since the
1970s have focused only on its academic and social outcomes (Gillies & Ashman, 2003).
They usually conclude that cooperative learning leads to successful academic and social
achievements (Gillies & Ashman, 1996; Gillies, 2006). This study, however, focuses more on
the process of the students’ development in interpersonal competence, and explains the
relationship between cooperative learning and interpersonal competence in terms of the
personality traits.
The analysis of the students’ response to the descriptive question on cooperative learning
proves that their interpersonal competence and social skills improve through their
participation in cooperative learning activities. Students turn out to be more assertive, active,
and expressive after the co-operative learning sessions of PBL. One of the students’
comments sums up their learning: “Everyone took an active part in the project. No one was
missed at all. It was the most rewarding and satisfying group activity for two years… We
came to know each other and were able to have a lot of fun.”
Figure 2 delineates the effects of cooperative learning of PBL on interpersonal competence.
It explains how interpersonal competence develops with the help of the cooperative learning
of PBL: the more students engage in cooperative learning, the higher the level of their
interpersonal competence rises. Figure 2 also shows that the positive effects of cooperative
learning on the development of the interpersonal skills naturally lead to the students’ higher
satisfaction with the class.

Increase in personal traits

toward Interpersonal
competence Post- PBL

Level Agreeableness
2
High Class Satisfaction
Extraversion
N th
3rd
PBL
sessi
PBL
on
sessi
2nd on
PBL
1st sessi
Pre- PBL PBL on
sessi
on
Agreeableness
Level
1 Extraversion

Period of
cooperative
Time A Time B learning

Figure 2. Schematic picture of the effects of cooperative learning on interpersonal

competence

25
Han & Son

Our research proposes that students achieve significant growth in their interpersonal
competence through the application of cooperative learning of PBL. However, we have to
confine the relevance of our findings to a short-term educational period. Personality traits are
relatively permanent characteristics, which are mostly inherited and hardly changed by any
type of behavioral practice (Helmreich, 1984; Kichuk & Wiesner, 1997). However, our study
suggests that Hemreich’s and Kichuk and Wiesner’s ideas about the relative permanence of
personality traits may be wrong. Therefore, future research needs to expand the period of
time and observe how cooperative learning develops students’ interpersonal competence and
improves their personality traits, making the most of the statistical significance revealed in
our case study.

26
 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2020, 7(1), 17-28.

References

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.

Britton, E., Simper, N., Leger, A., & Stephenson, J. (2017). Assessing teamwork in
undergraduate education: a measurement tool to evaluate individual teamwork skills.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 378-397.
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of
triangularation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545-547.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and
NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manual. Luts, FL: psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Dewey, J. (1940). Freedom and culture. London: Allen & Unwin.
Digman, J. M. & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of
personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149-170.
Dumont, F. (2010). A history of personality psychology: theory, science, and research from
Hellenism to the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elder, A. (2009). Using a brief form of problem-based learning in a research methods class:
Perspectives of instructor and students. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice. 12(1), 1-12.
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factual structures of personality ratings from
different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344.
Fought, R. L. & Misawa, M. (2016). Effective leadership in academic health sciences
libraries: A qualitative phenomenological study. Journal of Library Administration,
56(8), 974-989.
Gensen, M. (2005). Personality traits, Learning and Academic Achievements. Journal of
Education and Learning, 4(4), 91-118.
Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and
small-group learning. British Journal of Education Psychology, 76(2), 271-287.
Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. F. (2003). A historical review of the use of groups to promote
socialization and learning. In R. M. Gillies & A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Cooperative
learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, 1-18. New York:
Routledge Falmer.
Gillies, R. M. & Ashman, A. F. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school
children in classroom-based work groups. Learning and Instruction, 6(3), 187-200.
Halfhill, T. R. & Nielsen, T. M. (2007). Quantifying the “softer side” of management
education: An example using teamwork competencies. Journal of Management
Education, 31(1), 64-80.
Helmreich, R. L. (1984). Cockpit management attitudes. Human Factors, 26(5), 583-589.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychological Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Huitt, T. W., Killins, A., & Brooks, W. S. (2015). Team-based learning in the gross anatomy
laboratory improves academic performance and students’ attitudes toward teamwork.
Anatomical Sciences Education, 8(2), 95-103.
Kichuk, S. L. & Wiesner, W. H. (1997). The big five personality factors and team
performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 14(3, 4), 195-221.
Malco, A., Gordesli, M. A., Arslan, R., Cekici, F., & Sunbul, Z. A. (2019). The relationship
between interpersonal emotion regulation and interpersonal competence controlled for
emotion dysregulation. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 69-76.

27
Han & Son

McConnell, C. R. (2018). Interpersonal competence in the management of people. The

Health Care Manager, 37(4), 358-367.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O.
P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 139-153. New York:
Guilford Press.
Lara, M. A. (2013). Personality traits and performance in online game-based learning:
Collaborative versus individual settings. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana
University, Bloomington, USA.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis, Health
Science Research, 34, 1189-1208.
Paired samples t test. (n.d.). In SPSS tutorials. Retrieved from https://libguides .library.
kent.edu/SPSS/PairedSamplestTest.
Prixten, M., DeFraine, van Damme, J., & D’ Haenens, E. (2010). Causal ordering of
academic self-concept and achievement: Effects on type of achievement measure.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 689-710.
Roger, T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In Thousand, J.
S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I (Eds.), Creativity and Collaborative Learning (pp. 1-
21). Baltimore: Brookes Press.
Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research based model of cooperative learning. The Journal
of Educational Research, 98(6), 1-15.
Skinner, K. L., Hyde, S. J., McPherson, K. B., & Simpson, M. D. (2016). Improving students’
interpersonal skills through experiential small group learning. Journal of Learning
Design, 9(1), 21-36.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). An introduction to cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Socratous, M. E. (2014). The effects of cooperative learning arrangements on the social skills
of pupils identified as having severe learning difficulties, who attend special primary
schools. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Exeter, Devon, United
Kingdom.
Stevens, M. A. & Campion, M. J. (1994). The Knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for
teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management,
20, 503-530.
Stevens, M. A. & Campion, M. J. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation
of selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25, 207-228.

28