SOC/110 Building and Strengthening Worksheet

May/June 2008 275

n this article, we describe the devel- opment of a team-building exercise

for an online, undergraduate organi- zational behavior (OB) course in an Honors Bachelor of Commerce degree program. Our purpose in sharing these experiences is to demonstrate one case of transferring teaching techniques from the traditional classroom to the online teaching environment. The significance of the Internet for education and train- ing has been widely recognized (Hirsch, 2001; Pantazis, 2002), yet necessary supports for both instructors and learn- ers are often lacking (Teghe & Knight, 2004). In describing our experiences, we hope to support effective use of the Internet as a teaching tool and to con- tribute to the discourse on teams in man- agement education (Tonn & Milledge, 2002), virtual teams in the workplace (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001), and Web- based teaching of OB (Bigelow, 1999).

Educational researchers have dem- onstrated that a successful Web-based course depends on both course design (Huang, 2000) and student interaction and collaboration (Stacey, 1999). The lat- ter increasingly involves virtual groups. Course projects completed by virtual groups tend to enhance student learning (Carr-Chellman, Dyer, & Bremen, 2000) and perceptions of efficacy (Gabriel, 2004). The social interaction of these vir- tual groups highlights the importance of community for online students (Conrad,

2002; Lock, 2002; O’Reilly & Newton, 2002). Conrad (2005) defined commu- nity as “a sense of connection, belong- ing, and comfort that develops over time among members of a group who share a purpose or commitment to a common goal” (p. 2). In the online environment, Conrad linked community to a sense of safety, trust, and sharing. Focusing more on process, Lock linked a sense of com- munity to communication, collaboration, interaction, and participation. In contrast, the management literature has tried to understand virtual groups in terms of team-building and team life cycle (Furst, Reeves, Rosen, & Blackburn, 2004). The team perspective has the advantage of covering both the task and relationship dimensions of group work.

We offer evidence that effective expe- riential teaching practices can be trans- ferred from the physical to the virtual classroom by including adequate supports for students. As a result, our research bol- sters the position taken by some scholars that online education is not inferior to the traditional classroom (Drago, Pel- tier, Hay, & Hodgkinson, 2005; Iverson, Colky, & Cyboran, 2005).

We begin this article by describing the development of the team-building exer- cise in our online OB course. We pres- ent student perceptions of teamwork cli- mate based on qualitative data collected at the end of the course and describe student suggestions for improving

Team Building in an Online Organizational Behavior Course MAURICE GRZEDA

RANA HAQ

ROLLAND LEBRASSEUR

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY

SUDBURY, CANADA

IABSTRACT. The authors describe the development and delivery of a team-building exercise in an online organizational behav-

ior undergraduate course. Qualitative data

of student perceptions, collected at the

end of the course, revealed both positive

and negative reactions to various aspects

of the team-building exercise. Based on

these reactions, the authors discuss needed

improvements in the assignment. They con-

clude by considering how their experience

with the team-building exercise contributes

to ongoing discussions about teamwork in

management education and team building

for virtual teams.

Keywords: online, teaching, team building,

teamwork

Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

276 Journal of Education for Business

online team development. We then dis- cuss our perceptions of needed improve- ments based on these reactions. Our conclusions focus on the challenges of teamwork in management education and the validation of team building with virtual teams.

METHOD

Creating an Online Course

The team-building exercise described in this article was developed as a team assignment in an online undergraduate OB course, part of a new online hon- ors management program. The adult learners targeted by this program had acquired, through postsecondary studies and practical work experience, a wide range of competencies in the area of financial management. However, they had little or no exposure to topics usu- ally covered in an undergraduate OB course or to teaching methods such as experiential learning and team-based course projects.

The course itself was organized into 12 modules, each one consisting of assigned readings and explanatory notes covering a key OB topic (e.g., leadership), review questions for stu- dent self-assessment purposes, and one or more team assignments designed for teams of 10 students. An asynchronous communication platform was selected for the course, and teams were given at least 5 days to complete the online discussions of assigned questions. At the conclusion of the discussion, each team was required to submit a response to the assigned questions. Teams were expected to self-manage the team pro- cesses necessary for completing these weekly team assignments.

Team-Building Exercise

By integrating a team-building exer- cise, we intended to help students devel- op team process skills in support of effective execution of the team-based course requirements. We drew on vari- ous management education and prac- tice sources to guide the development of the team-building exercise. In par- ticular, questions about the quality of team learning experiences (Thacker & Yost, 2002) and the impact of student

performance assessments on team pro- cesses (McKendall, 2000) were most compelling. We believe that the online environment offered an opportunity to emphasize team-process skill develop- ment (Holmer, 2001).

The team-building exercise relied on OB concepts such as team dynam- ics covered in the course readings, the team effectiveness model (TEM) shown in Figure 1, and the Process Thermom- eter Questionnaire (PTQ; Cohen, Fink, Gadon, & Josefowitz, 2001), a tool used to stimulate reflection on team processes. (Copies of the Instructions to Students and the PTQ are available on request from the first author.) Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (1993) provide a more detailed description of the TEM and its applica- tions. The OB text adopted for this course (McShane, 2001) dealt extensively with the TEM in the chapter devoted to team dynamics. By applying the TEM as the conceptual framework for the assignment, we expected the relevance of the text material to increase for students.

In our adaptation of the model two categories, team environment and team design, corresponded to structural parameters over which students had no control. Team environment comprised the academic setting, the orientation to the assignment, and the technology plat- form (see Figure 1 for definitions). Team design included team size and compo- sition, which were predetermined with the intent of maximizing student learn- ing. According to the TEM, these inputs influence the team processes described

by Tuckman’s (1965) stages of group development (forming, storming, norm- ing, and performing). The team process- es parameter was captured by the first 11 dimensions of the PTQ, and team effec- tiveness outcomes (i.e., goal achieve- ment, member satisfaction, and learning) were covered by the 12th dimension.

Steps in the Team-Building Exercise

We expected students to complete the team-building exercise steps in the first half of the course. The second course module introduced students to the team- building exercise, giving them a detailed outline that included the assignment pur- pose and objectives, assignment weight, and a schedule of team-building activities, deliverables, and due dates. By the end of Module 2, teams drafted a team contract including team goals and commitments (Cohen et al., 2001) and completed the PTQ. In Module 6, halfway through the course, students prepared a final report covering teamwork climate and an action plan for improving team effectiveness, submitting it to the instructor by e-mail. At the conclusion of the course, students again completed the PTQ, but with addi- tional open-ended questions tapping per- ceptions of the team’s effectiveness and the team-building exercise.

Assessing Student Performance

The team-building exercise sought to emphasize both the process of team- building and team outputs consisting of

FIGURE 1. Team Effectiveness Model. Adapted from Hughes et al. (1993).

Team environment

• Academic setting—online course delivery and framework • Orientation— instructions provided to complete the assignment • Technology— technology used in assignments and course

Team design

• Team size (7–10 students) • Team composition (students are assigned to teams randomly)

Team processes

• Creating and modifying the team contract (development of team norms and roles) • Monitoring team development with the process thermometer

Team effectiveness

Three outcomes of team processes • Achieved team goals • Satisfied member needs • Facilitated learning and development

May/June 2008 277

the project reports. The course authors designed the assessment framework to shape effective individual participation in the teamwork process. The first part of the course shaped participation. Stu- dents received participation marks for their contribution to the discussion based on the instructor’s assessment of indi- vidual contributions to the online dis- cussions of assigned questions or short cases. The role of initiator/recorder (IR), whose responsibilities included initiat- ing the team discussion and drafting and submitting a written discussion summary in response to the assignment, was rotat- ed among team members. In addition to grades, students whose performance did not meet expectations received feed- back and coaching from the instructor to improve their contribution to teamwork.

The team-building exercise culminated in a team report evaluating teamwork pro- cess during the first half of the course and the team’s consensus about need- ed improvements for the last half of the course. The team-building report required students to analyze their own team’s pro- cess; thus, students realized that the path to a satisfactory grade in this assignment was a good understanding of process and a sound application of team-process skills. The report grade earned by the team was an indicator of how aware the team was of its process strengths and weaknesses and how well the team understood what improvements were needed. The second half of the course did not include a team- building component and followed a more traditional grading approach in which teamwork outputs, consisting of case reports, were assessed with no reflection on the team processes.

RESULTS

We consider the effectiveness of the team-building exercise based on quali- tative data collected from students who completed the first offering of the under- graduate OB course. The qualitative data were collected at the end of the course and consisted of students’ comments on and reactions to the overall effectiveness of the team-building exercise (i.e., its experien- tial value in learning about team function- ing, team member roles, and actions that result in improved team performance). Although all students participated in the

team-building exercise and completed the PTQ questionnaire at the conclusion of the course, the open-ended questions elic- iting the qualitative data on the exercise and its effectiveness were optional. Use of this qualitative data for research purposes also required the student’s written consent. After discarding cases in which the final questionnaire was not returned or written consent was not provided, we were left with 89 participants (i.e., a response rate of 68%).

Student Performance on Team- Building Exercise

The responses to the open-ended ques- tions were coded using the NUDIST sup- ported Nvivo software. The analysis iden- tified five keywords/nodes corresponding to five dimensions of the TEM shown in Figure 1: academic setting, orientation, technology, team processes, and team effectiveness. Each node received a posi- tive or negative attribute to reflect the tone of student responses to the item. A total of 423 comments were coded, giving an average of 4.8 comments per participant. Of these 423 comments, 59% were posi- tive and 41% were negative. The results of the content analysis in Table 1 were organized to correspond to the dimensions of the TEM in Figure 1. Team environ- ment, including academic setting, orienta- tion, and technology, received a total of 73 comments, of which only 16% were positive. Participants did not control the team environment, which was entirely determined by the course designers. Team process received 190 comments, of which 59% were positive; it appears that the majority of participants experienced some success as a team member. Similarly, team effectiveness accounted for 159 comments, of which 78% were positive. This statis- tic suggests that most of the participants appreciated what they had learned about team-building in a virtual environment.

We learned that there were significant challenges in team development given the time constraints created as a result of the 12-week course duration. The virtual teams in this course appeared to require additional time to interact through many more message posts before team mem- bers knew each other well enough to begin developing positive work synergies and adequate structure for weekly task

accomplishment. Virtual teams typically require more structure to perform their work; they benefit from more explicit identification of member roles, expecta- tions, and primary task objectives (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). A team’s interac- tion style is one of the most important predictors of effectiveness (Balthazard, Potter, & Warren, 2004) and needs time to become established.

Most students were accustomed to working independently and were new to online teamwork. Comments sug- gested that the technical aspects of the communication platform were largely foreign to many students. Not having skills or experience with the technol- ogy can affect both perceptions and performance of teamwork. According to Ocker and Fjermestad (2000), there is a high correlation between team per- formance and ability to adapt to the technological medium. Students in our course reverted to the familiar and easy channel of e-mail, a technology that was better known to them in comparison to the online discussion board used in the course. The tendency of our students to rely on more familiar technology was consistent with previously documented patterns (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001). Therefore, we concluded that students involved in virtual teamwork should be advised that they are expected to have a certain level of computer skills (e.g., keyboarding, posting messages, using e-mail) along with realistic expectations of discussion board functionality.

The qualitative results suggest a turbu- lent team-development process where ini- tial dissatisfaction led to greater structure (e.g., adopting schedules and team discus- sion leader roles). Students appeared to hold the belief that such changes would lead to improved team performance. Team assessment is pointless unless members are motivated to resolve problems (Van Aken, Groesbeck, & Coleman, 2001). In our course, students were graded on both awareness and understanding of process and team outputs consisting of projects. This provided the needed motivation to resolve problems.

Student Performance Profiles

The content analysis summarized in Table 1 was helpful in identifying

278 Journal of Education for Business

patterns across participants. In this sec- tion, we provide three performance pro- files in which students describe their

experiences with their team and the team-building exercise. These descrip- tions illustrate the team process learning

that was taking place. The themes of adequate task structure, clear roles, and group cohesion are notable.

TABLE 1. Summary of Students’ Positive and Negative Comments About the Course

No. of % of positive and Dimension comments negative comments Examples of student comments

Note. CGA = certified general accountant.

Academic setting

269 Positive: 35 The midterm project was highly effective in giving us direct experience on the issues affecting virtual teams. The teacher being available in answering and clarifying the question was very help- ful in speeding the requirements of the project.

Negative: 65 I didn’t see anyone really play their role properly because of the pressure to have the assignments done plus the midterm assignment done every week. I believe that being under that pressure makes the ones with more time available to log in have an advantage over others with more restricted time due to long work week hours and family to take care of. One person in our group did not participate on the team project but received a grade. I think this is not fair.

Orientation 13 Positive: 8 I think that the project layout was fine.

Negative: 92 Personally the steps were not clearly tied together. To me, each step seemed to have its own separate objective, so when it came time to write the report I was not sure what should have or should not be included. And of course fearing evaluation apprehension, I did not want to ask my teammates or you. I think our team did not benefit to the fullest potential that would occur if we understood the full process prior to completing each step.

Technology 35 Positive: 9 After exploring other communications available to our virtual team, I realized that the paging feature was operational and we all started using it. It surprised me that you could get a real feel for a person’s personality through doing this online without ever meeting face-to-face or speaking to each other.

Negative: 91 The use of the WebBoard threaded discussions made it extremely difficult to have a discussion on planning the midterm project. In the very beginning I was not very familiar with online study format and was suffering from information overload due to the fact that the volume of postings exceeded my processing capacity.

Team process 190 Positive: 59 Our different strengths, perspectives, and ideas added value and dimension to our report. During this project we saw emerging creators, leaders, writers, organizers, helpers, and advisors collaborate to allow nine individuals to function as a cohesive team. . . . At the end of the project, all members felt a sense of ownership and pride in the final product. I believe the midterm project helped me in some ways to determine the function of our team. By filling out the process thermometer, we say everyone else’s thoughts about our group and where we needed to improve.

Negative: 41 Clearly it was difficult to put together a team of people who were from all over the country and had never worked like this before. I found the experience frustrating . . . I feel our team is dysfunctional, and I feel that there are a few of us trying to keep it alive. The design of this course is extremely different from the usual CGA courses (at least when I studied in the mid-80s), so there is some learning curve involved.

Team effectiveness

159 Positive: 78 It helped me evaluate the strengths and weaknesses that were applicable to my team and reminded me to be supportive, to listen and share information, etc. Basically, it helped me adjust to the team setting, as it is something we are not used to through the CGA courses. These things will be invaluable in my life and can be applied to my job.

Negative: 22 But as the course was half over already and the group was probably suffering from postproject burnout, there was not enough time to implement all the courses of action completely. It seems that many members join the group periodically, participate intelligently, and then disappear for weeks.

May/June 2008 279

The following remarks from one of the respondents illustrate a negative reaction to the exercise.

I would like to say that we were not an effective team during our midterm proj- ect. Getting our group to work effectively was very frustrating and caused our group a lot of unnecessary anxiety. Some of us tried to get member participation started early on in the project by designating a discussion initiator who would keep us on track and delegate responsibilities. However, the initiator we chose did not have the leadership skills necessary to keep us focused. The project was valuable in helping me learn about the role that I played. I acted more as the harmonizer. I assisted our discussion initiator and tried to organize the group. As time went on, it became quite clear what roles my fel- low team members played. We quickly learned the strengths and weaknesses of all group members. The project taught me a lot about improving future team per- formance. Some of our group members implemented our action plan and others did not. This is a big reason why our team is still not very cohesive and why my results on the process thermometer are so low. We could still use some improve- ment. I found that a lot of the time was spent trying to get organized. Our group lacked an effective leader.

The following remarks illustrate a posi- tive experience.

The midterm project was valuable in helping me learn about several areas. I have never worked as part of a virtual team before this. The weekly work forced me to learn how the team functioned, my role, the role others were willing to take, and how to motivate others a little. The project expedited this process for those of us that really worked hard to pull things together. Unfortunately, a couple of team members did not seem to place much importance on this project, and this lack of participation cost us in the end when we only received a grade of 75 even though we agreed to achieve a mini- mum of 80 as a team. One thing worth mentioning is that most virtual teams get the opportunity to meet face-to-face from time to time. During the short life of our 100% virtual team, this cannot happen. I equate this to the task-based nature of a short-term contract position versus the more emotional and supportive basis of a longer term relationship. One mistake I made was to want the team relationship to develop to a more personal level. Some more regulation and direction (from the course instructor), reducing the project closer to a task basis, would hold members more accountable. For me, the project has been a tremendous learning experience about group process. The new knowledge

I have out of my effort has already been useful in practical situations.

The following respondent remarks are illustrative of a very positive experi- ence with the team-building exercise.

The midterm project was effective in that it exposed my team members and I to working in a virtual environment and demonstrated that it is possible to work together toward a common objec- tive without meeting face to face. Each member’s participation was instrumental in completing the project. The need for careful and proper planning was empha- sized by the instructions. Through such tool as the process thermometer, I was able to get a better understanding of each member’s thought processes. As a team member, I realized that my participation was as critical as the other team members in ensuring that we presented a quality report. I realized that I needed to provide feedback and engage in discussions in order to benefit the team. There was the feeling of not wanting to let the team down, and as one of the recorders I had to provide a timely draft of the report so that team members could provide their comments. On a project of this magni- tude, the role of team members is very critical in the quality of material and the timely completion of the report. We were all required to research articles for this project, and each member of the team was able to contribute. In addition, the feed- back by team members to the discussion process was invaluable. I learned from this project that participation is the key to the success of any team. Back bench- ers rarely help a team, each member has to engage in the discussion process by presenting his or her viewpoint regardless of popularity.

DISCUSSION

One immediate conclusion from the findings was that an additional step to monitor the implementation of the action plan should be added. The domi- nant role of structure in online courses (Lurey & Raisinghani, 2001) means that participants rely on instructions to guide their efforts. Students were not asked to reflect on their implementation efforts and did not do so spontaneously. Inter- estingly, students’ comments indicated that they would like to see an exten- sion of the project until the end of the course by including follow-up reflec- tion and discussion on their action plan strategies right up to the last course module. We have since added a step

that requires students to reflect on the impact the action plan has had on team effectiveness. This added step is now completed just prior the conclusion of the course, after students have received extensive feedback and grades for team case assignments.

We also recognized that the short duration of this course may create addi- tional challenges. Changes in a team’s style take time to implement and bear fruit (Van Aken et al., 2001), but the more critical issue is whether the group task has been accomplished (Miller, 2003). For courses of short duration (4 months), graduate online learners concentrate their efforts on task and knowledge mastery and less so on social presence (Duncan, 2005). Three months may seem too short a period for a team to form, establish and assess itself, develop and implement a plan to improve team-development process, and achieve the desired results. Because the current program structure does not permit changes to the course duration, the focus for these students must remain on accomplishing their assigned tasks within the time allocated, supported by the exercises and experiences that are built into the course to enhance team- work skills.

We recognize that other complemen- tary data should be collected. Ahuja and Carley (1999) noted that a virtual team’s perception of its performance is unlikely to be a good proxy for actual performance. We only measured the team’s self-reported perceptions of team interaction and performance; additional dimensions could be monitoring the e-mail and other electronic media used by the students and the team grade received for assignments. These mea- sures would cover both the team process and the consequences.

This course is in a constant state of improvement, as feedback from each delivery is assessed and determinations are made regarding needed changes that can be integrated immediately, oth- ers that form part of a more extensive course revision, and those left for the major revision that occurs every 3 to 4 years. The addition of follow-up activi- ties subsequent to the action plan and more detailed instructions throughout the team-building exercise was an immediate

280 Journal of Education for Business

change that we expected would give stu- dents a more positive experience.

CONCLUSION

Several conclusions can be drawn from the results of the initial delivery of the online OB course and the team- building exercise. First, our experience and findings contribute to the ongoing discussions in the literature about the Internet as an educational tool; more precisely, team-based learning in online management courses. Some educators have displayed reticence in embracing online teaching due to concerns about the “validity of the internet as an educa- tional tool” (Parnell & Carraher, 2003, p. 435). In designing the online version of the OB course, we set out to include, at a minimum, the same level of emphasis on teamwork as found in the face-to-face course on campus. Based on our experi- ence and the reactions of students to the team-building exercise described in this article, our conclusion is that the Inter- net can be a valid educational tool. To maximize its effectiveness, this virtual tool needs adequate support to enhance the learning experience for students and compensate for the absence of face-to- face interaction. With the improvements discussed earlier, we intend to continue including the team-building exercise as the focal team development activity in our online OB course.

A second theme in the literature con- cerns the overall approach to teamwork in management education. Although teamwork skills are highly valued by employers (Chowdhury, Endres, & Lanis, 2002; Thacker & Yost, 2002), employer dissatisfaction with the level of teamwork skills of management graduates points to potential weak- nesses in the way teamwork skills are developed. One critique of particular interest centers on the emphasis given to output at the expense of process in teamwork skill development (McKen- dall, 2000). Student project teams are prone to domination by task-centered members, which results in virtually no emphasis on team process skill develop- ment (Holmer, 2001). The online format of our OB course created an opportunity to monitor team process skill develop- ment and reward students accordingly,

thus creating a better balance between grades based on process and outcomes. Positive student reactions to the team development processes of the exercise outnumbered negative reactions. Our experience with the team-building exer- cise suggests that it can be effective in emphasizing the importance of process, thus overcoming some of the concerns expressed by Holmer, among others.

Our findings and experiences also relate to a third theme in the litera- ture: team building for virtual teams in the workplace. Workplace team per- formance is frequently dependent on the development of effective group pro- cesses (McFadzean, 2001) and positive intragroup communication styles (Pot- ter & Balthazard, 2002a, 2002b; Potter, Balthazard & Cooke, 2000). The results of our team-building exercise support the importance of these processes and styles; they provide additional evidence that students in an online course can be experientially engaged to become more aware of the importance of these dynamics.

Trends in global Internet access and deregulation in global education have strengthened the interest in online edu- cation among universities everywhere (St. Amant, 2007). The use of digital technologies has provided greater access to educational content and changed the way students learn (Sridhar, 2005). In this context, developing effective skills to maximize student learning becomes paramount. Our overall conclusion, after evaluation of the first course offering, is that the team-building exercise was a valuable learning experience for the students despite the challenges posed by the online environment and the rela- tively short time period. Teamwork can be an effective learning activity in the online environment, both in manage- ment education and in the workplace. As our results suggest, a team-building exercise is useful in teaching the impor- tance of team process and developing team process skills and can be a valu- able resource for online OB courses.

NOTE

Dr. Maurice Grzeda is an associate professor of management at Laurentian University, where he teaches organizational behavior and human resources management and conducts research

in management development and education and spirituality in management and careers.

Rana Haq, lecturer in the School of Commerce and Administration at Laurentian University, teach- es organizational behavior and human resources management and conducts research on workforce diversity, cross-cultural communications, training, and development.

Rolland LeBrasseur, full professor of orga- nizational behavior at Laurentian University, is an accomplished researcher in organizational and community development and teaches organiza- tional behavior both on campus and online.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Maurice Grzeda, Faculty of Management, Laurentian University, Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, P3E 2C6, Canada.

E-mail: [email protected]

REFERENCES

Ahuja, M., & Carley, K. (1999). Network struc- ture in virtual organizations. Organization Sci- ence, 10, 741–757.

Balthazard, P., Potter, R., & Warren, J. (2004). Expertise, extraversion and group interaction styles as performance indicators in virtual teams. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 41–65.

Bigelow, J. D. (1999). The web as an organiza- tional behavior learning medium. Journal of Management Education, 23, 635–650.

Carr-Chellman, A., Dyer, D., & Bremen, J. (2000). Burrowing through the network wires: Does distance detract from collaborative authentic learning? Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 39–62.

Chowdhury, S., Endres, M., & Lanis, T. W. (2002). Preparing students for success in team work environments: The importance of build- ing confidence. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14, 346–359.

Cohen, A., Fink, S., Gadon, H., & Josefowitz, N. (2001). Effective behavior in organizations (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Conrad, D. (2002). Deep in the hearts of learners: Insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 1–19.

Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1–20.

Drago, W., Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Hodgkinson, M. (2005). Dispelling the myths of online educa- tion: Learning via the information superhighway. Management Research News, 28(7), 1–17.

Duncan, H. (2005). Online education for prac- ticing professionals: A case study. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 874–896.

Furst, S., Reeves, M., Rosen, B., & Blackburn, R. (2004). Managing the life cycle of vir- tual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 6–20.

Gabriel, M. (2004). Learning together: exploring group interactions online. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 54–72.

Hirsch, D (2001). Prepare for the global e-cam- pus. OECD Observer, 229, 57–58.

Holmer, L. L. (2001). Will we teach leadership or skilled incompetence? The challenge of student project teams. Journal of Management Educa- tion, 25, 590–605.

Huang, H. (2000). Instructional technologies facilitating online courses. Educational Tech- nology, 40(4), 41–46.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (1993). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

May/June 2008 281

Iverson, K. M., Colky, D. L., & Cyboran, V. (2005). E-learning takes the lead: An empirical investigation of learner differences in online and classroom delivery. Performance Improve- ment Quarterly, 18(4), 5–18.

Lock, J. (2002). Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 295–308.

Lurey, J. S., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2001). An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Information & Management, 38, 523–544.

McFadzean, E. (2001). Supporting virtual learn- ing groups: Part 1. A pedagogical perspec- tive. Team Performance Management, 7(3/4), 53–63.

McKendall, M. (2000). Teaching groups to become teams. Journal of Education for Busi- ness, 75, 277–282.

McShane, S. L. (2001). Canadian organizational behaviour (4th ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Miller, D. (2003). The stages of group develop- ment: A retrospective study of dynamic team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121–134.

Ocker, R. J., & Fjermestad, J. (2000). High versus low performance virtual design teams: A pre- liminary analysis of communication. Proceed-

ings of the 33rd Hawaii International Confer- ence on System Sciences, 1019–1028.

O’Reilly, M., & Newton, D. (2002). Interaction online: Above and beyond requirements of assessment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 57–70.

Pantazis, C. (2002). Maximizing e-learning to train the 21st century workforce. Public Per- sonnel Management, 31(1). 21–26.

Parnell, J. A., & Carraher, S. (2003). The manage- ment education by internet readiness (MEBIR) scale: Developing a scale to assess personal readiness for internet-mediated management education. Journal of Management Education, 27, 431–446.

Potter, R., & Balthazard, P. (2002a). Understand- ing human interactions and performance in the virtual team. Journal of Information Technol- ogy Theory and Application, 4(1), 1–25.

Potter, R., & Balthazard, P. (2002b). Virtual team interaction styles: Assessment and effects. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 1–21.

Potter, R., Balthazard, P., & Cooke, R. (2000). Virtual team interaction: Assessment, conse- quences, and management. Team Performance Management, 6(7–8), 131–137.

Sridhar, S. (2005). E-government: A proactive participant for e-learning in higher education.

Journal of the American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 7, 258–268.

Stacey, E. (1999). Collaborative learning in an online environment. Journal of Distance Edu- cation, 14(2), 14–33.

St. Amant, K. (2007). Online education in an age of globalization: Foundational perspectives and practices for technical communication instruc- tors and trainers. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 13–30.

Teghe, D., & Knight, B. A. (2004). Neo-liberal higher education policy and its effects on the development of online courses. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 21(4), 151–156.

Thacker, R. A., & Yost, C. A. (2002). Training stu- dents to become effective workplace team leaders. Team Performance Management, 8(3–4), 89–94.

Tonn, J. C., & Milledge, V. V. (2002). Team building in an MBA gateway course: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 26, 415–428.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.

Van Aken, E. M., Groesbeck, R. L., & Cole- man, G. D. (2001). Integrated organizational assessment process and tools: Application in an engineer-to-order company. Engineering Man- agement Journal, 13(4), 17–26.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.