Technology Use Factoring into Virtual Group Performance

References

• Abarca V, Palos-Sanchez P, Rus-Arias E. Working in virtual teams: a systematic literature review and a bibliometric analysis. IEEE Access. 2020;8:168923–168940. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3023546.
   Google Scholar
• Aggarwal R. Globalization of the world economy: implications for the business school. Am J Bus. 2008;23:5–12.
   Google Scholar
• Maruping LM, Agarwal R. Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: a task–technology fit perspective. J Appl Phychol. 2004;89(6):975–990. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.975.
   Google Scholar
• Suchan J, Hayzak G. The communication characteristics of virtual teams: a case study. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2001;44(3):174–187. doi:10.1109/47.946463.
   Google Scholar
• Mandviwalla M, Dinger M, Anderson B. The IBIT report: information systems job index 2022. Temple University, Fox School of Business, Institute for Business and Information Technology; 2022. https://online.fliphtml5.com/kvhwi/lmnr/#p=1.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). 2022–2023 NACE career services compensation report & dashboard. n.d. https://www.naceweb.org/research/reports/.
   Google Scholar
• Busteed B. 9 ways to improve college grad work readiness. 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonbusteed/2022/07/27/9-ways-to-improve-college-grad-work-readiness/.
   Google Scholar
• Dulebohn J, Hoch J. Virtual teams in organizations. Hum Resource Manag Rev. 2017;27(4):569–574. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Smith S, Ruiz J. Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review. SN Appl Sci. 2020;2(6):1–33. doi:10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch J, Kozlowski S. Leading virtual teams: hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. J Appl Phychol. 2014;99(3):390–403. doi:10.1037/a0030264.
   Google Scholar
• Kramer W, Shuffler M, Feitosa J. The world is not flat: examining the interactive multidimensionality of culture and virtuality in teams. Hum Resource Manag Rev. 2017;27(4):604–620. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.007.
   Google Scholar
• Han H, Hiltz S, Fjermestad J, Wang Y. Does medium matter? A comparison of initial meeting modes for virtual teams. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2011;54(4):376–391. doi:10.1109/TPC.2011.2175759.
   Google Scholar
• Karayaz G, Keating C. Virtual team effectiveness using dyadic teams. Proc Portland Int Conf Manage Eng Technol (PICMET). 2007:593–2603. doi:10.1109/PICMET.2007.4349593.
   Google Scholar
• Furst S, Blackburn R, Rosen B. Virtual team effectiveness: a proposed research agenda. Inf Syst J. 1999;9(4):249–269. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.1999.00064.x.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson C, Cohen S, editors. Virtual teams that work: creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Clark D, Marnewick A, Marnewick C. Virtual team performance factors: a systematic literature review. Paper presented at IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM); 2019. p. 40–44. doi:10.1109/IEEM44572.2019.8978809.
   Google Scholar
• Saafein O, Shaykhian G. Factors affecting virtual team performance in telecommunication support environment. Telemat Inform. 2014;31(3):459–462. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2013.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dube S, Marnewick C. A conceptual model to improve performance in virtual teams. S Afr J Inf Manag. 2016;18(1):1–10. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC196503.
   Google Scholar
• Gallouj F, Djellal F. The handbook of innovation and services: a multi disciplinary perspective. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkman B, Mathieu J. The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. J Manag. 2007;3(5):700–718. doi:10.1177/0149206305279113.
   Google Scholar
• Ludden P, Ledwith A. A typology framework for virtual project teams: an empirical investigation. In: Messikomer C, editor. PMI Research and Education Conference Portland (OR): Project Management Institute; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Schaubroeck J, Yu A. When does virtuality help or hinder teams? Core team characteristics as contingency factors. Hum Resource Manag Rev. 2017;27(4):635–647. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidtke J, Cummings A. The effects of virtualness on teamwork behavioral components: the role of shared mental models. Hum Resource Manag Rev. 2017;27(4):660–677. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertel G, Geister S, Konradt U. Managing virtual teams: a review of current empirical research. Hum Resource Manag Rev. 2005;15(1):69–95. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2005.01.002.
   Google Scholar
• Gilson L, Maynard M, Young N, Vartiainen M, Hakonen M. Virtual teams research 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. J Manag. 2015;41(5):1313–1337. doi:10.1177/0149206314559946.
   Google Scholar
• Purvanova R. Face-to-face versus virtual teams: what have we really learned? Psychol Manag J. 2014;17(4):2–29. doi:10.1037/mgr0000009.
   Google Scholar
• Mikkola J, Maclaran P, Wright S. Virtual teams a literature review. RD Manag. 2005;35:104–109.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson A, Mcewan R, Bal J, Carletta J. Virtual team meetings: an analysis of communication and context. Comput In Hum Behav. 2007;23:2558–2580. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dekker D, Rutte C, van den Berg P. Cultural differences in the perception of critical interaction behaviors in global virtual teams. Int J Intercult Relat. 2008;32(5):441–452. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.06.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch K. Development and validation of an instrument to measure social constructivism in a virtual classroom. PUPIL. 2021;5(1):23–39. doi:10.20319/pijtel.2021.51.2339.
   Google Scholar
• Rannikmäe M, Holbrook J, Soobard R. Social constructivism—Jerome Bruner. In: Science education in theory and practice: an introductory guide to learning theory. 2020; 259–275.
   Google Scholar
• Khanal P. Making virtual learning interactive and meaningful: implications of constructivism for adult students. Int J Res Stud In Educ. 2014;3(1):91–102.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley SA, McConnell D. Virtual groups in learning environments: collaboration, cooperation or (self) centred individualism. Context. 2002;70:24–31.
   Google Scholar
• Dincă M, Luştrea A, Craşovan M, Oniţiu A, Berge T. Students’ perspectives on team dynamics in project-based virtual learning. Sage Open. 2023;13(1):215824402211472. doi:10.1177/21582440221147269.
   Google Scholar
• Yılmaz Y, Açıkgül Fırat E. Investigation of the factors affecting the secondary school students’ project based virtual learning qualifications by structural equation modelling. Malays Online J Educ Technol. 2023;11(1):1–13. doi:10.52380/mojet.2023.11.1.394.
   Google Scholar
• Feyzi Behnagh R, Yasrebi S. An examination of constructivist educational technologies: key affordances and conditions. Brit J Educ Tech. 2020;51(6):1907–1919. doi:10.1111/bjet.13036.
   Google Scholar
• Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar