Team Learning in Technology-Mediated Distributed Teams

1. INTRODUCTION Technology-mediated learning (TML) has been defined as a learning process (i.e., information exchange, interpretation, and encoding into a mental model) among peers and/or instructors that are mediated through the use of advanced information and communications technologies (ICT) (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). ICT has been used to support core teaching and learning activities in universities implementing distance learning (Chang, 2004; Saw et al. 2008) and organizations conducting projects via geographically dispersed teams (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Nunamaker, Reinig & Briggs, 2009). In both contexts, technology-mediated teams engage in team learning that gives rise to knowledge that is then subsequently used in task execution. Realizing the role of learning in collaborative team work, Wilson, Goodman, and Cronin (2007) called for a process analysis approach (i.e., assessment of discourse and behavior) in investigating team learning. By directly observing team learning behaviors, one could identify exactly how the team learning process is either enhanced or constrained. The purpose of this study is to extend current research on technology-mediated team performance by examining the effects of collaboration mode (collocated or technology-mediated non-collocated) on team interactions during project-based teamwork. The following research questions are addressed in this study: (1) How does technology-mediated collaboration impact team learning behaviors? (2) Does team learning involve both technical and social process? To answer these questions, an empirical interpretive research approach using direct observation (Bakeman, 2000) is used to interpret, evaluate and rate observable manifested behaviors and qualitative content (i.e. discussions) associated with team learning. Direct observation can provide more accurate descriptions of actual behavior at the time and place of its natural occurrence. In addition, direct observation can provide measures of responses that most subjects cannot accurately describe or recall, such as behavior rates, intensity of behavioral responses, and some thoughts that subjects may be unwilling to report or may distort. Ratings of task-related and affect-related communication exchanges by three trained observers are used. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a review of the relevant literature on team learning and potential influences on team member behavior. This is followed with a discussion of the research model and hypotheses in section 3. Section 4 and section 5 follow with a discussion of the methodology and results, respectively. Next, section 6 presents key findings, theoretical and methodological contributions, and implications. Concluding remarks follow in section 7. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Execution of project-based tasks requires information exchange, team learning and collaborative interactions to identify and assess the problem domain and to generate alternative solutions. In addition, team learning is a key factor and is essential to improved problem-solving, decision making and task performance. Kirschner et al. (2004) adaptation of Gibson's (1977) theory of affordance for the learning context along with social impact theory (Latane, 1981) provide a framework that can be used to explain how facilitative and motivational aspects of collaboration mode (collocated versus technology-mediated non-collocated) can either constrain or enhance team learning behaviors and the social context in which team learning and problem solving take place. 2.1 Affordances for Technology-Mediated Learning Using Gibson's (1977) theory of affordances, Kirschner et al. (2004) suggested that the effectiveness of a collaborative learning process is contingent upon the technological, educational (or learning), and social affordances present in the task environment. According to Kirschner et al. …

[1]  Weiguo Fan,et al.  Examining the Success of Websites beyond E-Commerce: An Extension of the is Success Model , 2009, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[2]  C. Cramton The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[3]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Principles for effective virtual teamwork , 2009, CACM.

[4]  France Bélanger,et al.  Collaborative technologies in knowledge telework: an exploratory study , 2008, Inf. Syst. J..

[5]  Neil M. A. Hauenstein,et al.  Interrater Agreement Reconsidered: An Alternative to the rwg Indices , 2005 .

[6]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  Virtual teams in and out of synchronicity , 2006, Inf. Technol. People.

[7]  V. Ramesh,et al.  Cognitive fit between conceptual schemas and internal problem representations: the case of geospatio-temporal conceptual schema comprehension , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[8]  A OkhuysenGerardo,et al.  Integrating Knowledge in Groups , 2002 .

[9]  Hans-Georg Gemünden,et al.  Interteam Coordination, Project Commitment, and Teamwork in Multiteam R&D Projects: A Longitudinal Study , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[10]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment , 2007 .

[11]  Hayward P. Andres The Impact of Communication Medium on Virtual Team Group Process , 2006, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[12]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Designing electronic collaborative learning environments , 2004 .

[13]  Leon Mann,et al.  The Innovation Imperative , 2001 .

[14]  C. Dreu Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. , 2007 .

[15]  Noraida Abdul Ghani,et al.  The videoconferencing learning environment: Technology, interaction and learning intersect , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[16]  Wynne W. Chin Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling by , 2009 .

[17]  Jennifer L. Gibbs,et al.  Unpacking the Concept of Virtuality: The Effects of , 2022 .

[18]  B. Latané The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[19]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  Measuring Team Knowledge: A Window to the Cognitive Underpinnings of Team Performance , 2003 .

[20]  C. D. De Dreu Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. , 2007, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  A. Hollingshead Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Media and Group Cohesion: Relative Influences on Social Presence, Task Participation, and Group Consensus , 2001, MIS Q..

[23]  Marcus Sanchez Svensson,et al.  Configuring Awareness , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[24]  HoeglMartin,et al.  Interteam Coordination, Project Commitment, and Teamwork in Multiteam R&D Projects , 2004 .

[25]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Media, Tasks, and Communication Processes: A Theory of Media Synchronicity , 2008, MIS Q..

[27]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[28]  T. Mitchell,et al.  Building Better Theory: Time and The Specification of When Things Happen , 2001 .

[29]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares , 1999 .

[30]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effect of Relationship Encoding, Task Type, and Complexity on Information Representation: An Empirical Evaluation of 2D and 3D Line Graphs , 2004, MIS Q..

[31]  R. Slavin Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. , 1996 .

[32]  Jennifer Blaskovich,et al.  Exploring the Effect of Distance: An Experimental Investigation of Virtual Collaboration, Social Loafing, and Group Decisions , 2008, J. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Narda R. Quigley,et al.  Comparing Consensus- and Aggregation-Based Methods of Measuring Team-Level Variables , 2007 .

[34]  Carol Stoak Saunders,et al.  The Social Construction of Meaning: An Alternative Perspective on Information Sharing , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[35]  A. Edmondson Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams , 1999 .

[36]  Kimberly A. Furumo The Impact of Conflict and Conflict Management Style on Deadbeats and Deserters  in Virtual Teams , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[37]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  A Practical Guide To Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial And Annotated Example , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[38]  三嶋 博之 The theory of affordances , 2008 .

[39]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Integrating Knowledge in Groups: How Formal Interventions Enable Flexibility , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[40]  Venugopal Balijepally,et al.  Are Two Heads Better than One for Software Development? The Productivity Paradox of Pair Programming , 2009, MIS Q..

[41]  E. Vance Wilson,et al.  Context Counts: Effects of Work versus Non-Work Context on Participants' Perceptions of Fit in E-mail versus Face-to-Face Communication , 2008, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[42]  S. Green,et al.  The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process , 1980 .

[43]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication , 2005 .

[44]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Managing Client Dialogues During Information Systems Design to Facilitate Client Learning , 2005, MIS Q..

[45]  Joseph A. Bonito,et al.  Shared Cognition and Participation in Small Groups , 2004, Commun. Res..

[46]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Research Commentary: Technology-Mediated Learning - A Call for Greater Depth and Breadth of Research , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[47]  C. Gibson,et al.  Team Implicit Coordination Processes: A Team Knowledge–Based Approach , 2008 .

[48]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Conflict and Performance in Global Virtual Teams , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[49]  Michel Tenenhaus,et al.  PLS path modeling , 2005, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[50]  Gaby Odekerken-Schröder,et al.  Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchial construct models: guidelines and impirical illustration , 2009 .

[51]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[52]  Chen Shao-mi,et al.  On Group- learning , 2005 .