Experiential Learning with Global Virtual Teams: Developing Intercultural and Virtual Competencies

This study evaluates the impact of Global Virtual Team (GVT)based experiential learning in business education. During the first semester of 2014, 2,494 university business students from 37 countries from all inhabited continents participated in the X-Culture project. Post-project surveys applied to a participating group and to a control group of Colombian students reveal significant learning in terms of perceived difficulties related to cultural differences and virtual team coordination. This study provides evidence for the usefulness of GVT-based approaches and facilitates a better understanding of the challenges and learning opportunities in using this type of experiential learning activity.


Transferencia a la práctica
Este estudio evalúa el impacto del Equipo Global Virtual (GVT) cuyo enfoque es el aprendizaje experimental en la educación de negocios.Encuestas posteriores al proyecto revelan el aprendizaje significativo obtenido en términos de dificultades percibidas relacionadas con las diferencias culturales y la coordinación del equipo virtual.La investigación proporciona evidencia sobre la utilidad de los enfoques basados en GVT y facilita una mejor comprensión de los desafíos y las oportunidades de aprendizaje en el uso de este tipo de actividad de aprendizaje experiencial.La participación en el proyecto basado en GVT permite que los estudiantes experimenten los retos y formen expectativas más realistas con respecto a la colaboración virtual intercultural e internacional.

Introduction
In an increasingly globalized world, all businesses today are to some degree internationalized and must adopt structures and strategies apt for the international context.Included in this international adaptation process is the acclimatization of human resources (Oddou, Mendenhall & Ritchie, 2000).An increasing number of employees must be at least minimally literate in international affairs and industry-specific trends in order to spot new business opportunities or threats.Amongst management personnel, international awareness beyond a minimal level is required (McCall Jr. & Hollenbeck, 2002).Management must also be culturally literate and language proficient in order to do business across national borders (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012).
Universities, and specifically business schools, are keen to educate students for their future management positions within these internationalizing firms (Jurse & Mulej, 2011;Rehg, Gundlach & Grigorian, 2012).Syllabi in traditional courses now include specific international modules, and new distinctively international courses are incorporated into the portfolio of obligatory and elective courses (Eisenberg, Lee, Brück, Brenner, Claes, Mironski & Bell, 2013).Meanwhile, foreign language certifications are shifting from a graduation requirement to an admissions condition, and there is greater emphasis beyond bilingualism toward trilingualism.
Just as firms themselves often use international assignments for developing internationally competent managers (McCall Jr. & Hollenbeck, 2002;Oddou, Mendenhall & Ritchie, 2000), business schools seek international immersion opportunities for their students.Whether they be semesters abroad, foreign summer schools, international internships, or study tours, these options are problematic.First and foremost, these require costly travel and lodging.Especially for most developing country students, the costs are unaffordable (Langlois, Barrett-Litoff & Ilacqua, 2003).Second, they require time away from home.Again, in developing countries in which many students must work full-or part-time or contribute to the family upkeep to fund their education, this time away would be prohibitive.Third, for large groups of students, the logistics may be insurmountable (Barak, Lipson & Lerman, 2006).And fourth, particularly in the case of study tours, real learning may not occur given limited time to reflect upon and internalize the experience-the difference between "deep" and "surface" level learning (Tonks, 2002).

Article description | Descripción del artículo | Description de l'article | Artigo descrição
This research article is based on the research: "Medición de impacto de participación en un equipo virtual global".This study evaluates the impact of Global Virtual Team (GVT)-based experiential learning in business education.During the first semester of 2014, 2,494 university business students from 37 countries from all inhabited continents participated in the X-Culture project.Post-project surveys applied to a participating group and to a control group of Colombian students reveal significant learning in terms of perceived difficulties related to cultural differences and virtual team coordination.This study provides evidence for the usefulness of GVT-based approaches and facilitates a better understanding of the challenges and learning opportunities in using this type of experiential learning activity.
time-effective (Chappell & Schermerhorn Jr., 1999;Clark & Gibb, 2006;Gavidia, Hernández-Mogollón & Baena, 2005).Virtual Teams (VTs) are a group of geographically dispersed individuals who collaborate on a common goal by means of technologically supported, long-distance communication or, as Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps (2000) simply entitled their text, "people working across boundaries with technology" (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000).GVTs, therefore, are VTs composed of individuals dispersed geographically across national borders.Most often, the individuals on GVTs are culturally and linguistically diverse and have not had previous direct contact with each other.
The use of GVTs in business education provides a Kolbian, cyclical experiential learning platform (D. A. Kolb, 1984), through which students actively learn about others through their joint collaboration on the project at hand (A.Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005).The explicit lesson regards the competencies involved in completing the project itself.For the purposes of this paper, the implicit lessons, the generic or meta-competences, are the focus (Arnold, Loan-Clarke, Harrington & Hart, 1999;Belton, Scott & Thornbury-Gould, 2006).By participating in GVTs, the students enter into direct contact, in a simulated business environment, with their foreign counterparts.This contact leads to learning about others, about others cultures, and about inherent difficulties in collaborating with others of distinct cultural and linguistic backgrounds.Additionally, by participating in this simulated business environment, the students learn about GVTs themselves, their coordination and administration, and their inherent complexities.
This research focused on the implicit learning opportunities involved in student participation in a Global Virtual Team-based project.Specifically, it sought to measure the impact of participating in the GVT-project on perceived difficulties arising from cultural differences in general, perceived difficulties arising from cultural differences specifically in the GVT context (the global aspects of the GVT), and perceived difficulties of administration and coordination of the GVT (the virtual aspects of the GVT).Evidence is based on survey responses from undergraduate business students in a Colombian university before, during, and after participation in the X-Culture project.Results point to significant cross-cultural learning leading to a reduction in the perception of problematic cultural differences.At the same time, results indicate an increase in the perception of difficulties arising from the GVT platform itself.
The structure of this paper will be organized as follows.The first section will discuss the theoretical basis for GVTs in business education and, specifically, their use in student-centered learning about cultures, working with others of distinct cultures, and working across national borders via virtual means.The second section will define the research context and methodology.The third section details the results of the study while the fourth section discusses the implications of these findings.The paper concludes with remarks about the generalizability of these findings, study limitations, and avenues for future research.

Theoretical Foundations
This study takes a constructivist approach to learning, with constructivism being the dominant theoretical foundation for technology-based education, given that students can explore the hypertext structure to create their own learning (Barak, Lipson & Lerman, 2006;Budd, 2002).As collaboration and interaction are central to constructivist learning, the synchronous and asynchronous technologically-enhanced communication tools employed in the virtual team provide a student-centered approach (Budd, 2002).
Recent developments in social media and online collaboration tools make the experiential learning tool of Global Virtual Teams increasingly feasible in international business education (Taras, Caprar, Rottig, Sarala, Ordeñana, Bode, Schuster, Vaiginiene, Froese, Bathula, Yajnik, Baldegger & Huang, 2013;Vogel, Greenwood-Ericksen, Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2006).The four cyclical stages of the Kolb model of experiential learning -concrete experience, observation and reflection, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (D. A. Kolb, 1984)-are considered crucial to student development and are an inherent component to the GVT-based project in that students make decisions based on previous knowledge, reflect upon those decisions once teammates have commented, compare previously formulated decision with teammate decisions, and participate in teamwork to build the next set of decisions.
Vas Taras, Dan V. Caprar, Daniel Rottig, Riikka M. Sarala, Norhayati Zakaria, Fang Zhao, Alfredo Jiménez, Erika Vaiginiene, Fabian Jintae Froese, Hanoku Bathula, Nilay Yajnik, Rico Baldegger and Victor Zengyu Huang argue that the GVT provides "an excellent opportunity for all stages of the (Kolb) cycle, but is particularly important from the perspective of experiencing and acting -the two elements of the learning cycle that are often missing in the classroom" (Taras, Caprar, Rottig, Sarala, Zakaria, Zhao, Jiménez, Wankel, Lei, Miese, Bathula, Yajnik, Baldegger & Huang, 2013).Since the context of this study -X-Culture-takes place magis PÁGINA 133 over a period of just over two months, the students have repeated opportunities to cycle through multiple times.Learning opportunities certainly occur within the business competencies required to complete the project; but, as previously stated, the focus of this study is on the implicit learning opportunities -developing cultural competencies and understanding virtual team coordination and administration.
Both of these implicit learning opportunities are inherently better addressed through the experiential learning platform.First, in recent decades, understanding of cultural intelligence has shifted from a focus on recognition of static differences, which can be textbook-memorized, to the appreciation of difference, which requires experience in collaborating with someone of the target culture (Hammer, 2011;Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006).Furthermore, recent scholarly work focuses beyond cross-cultural intelligence toward cross-cultural agility, or the ability of an individual to fluently elaborate collaboration methods in such a way as to reduce the negative effects of cultural differences and to channel the benefits (Earley & Peterson, 2004;Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1999;Matveev & Nelson, 2004;Taras, Caprar, Rottig, Sarala, Zakaria, Zhao, Froese, Bathula, Yajnik, Baldegger & Huang, 2013).Second, understanding the coordination and administration of virtual teams can only arise through actual experience in a virtual team.Students may be very comfortable and acquainted with the technical side of the on-line collaboration tools, but it is their use in practice that will cause students to question and reflect.Through the experiential exercise, students will confront challenges in the coordination of the virtual team and "practice how to deal with these challenges" (Taras, Caprar, Rottig, Sarala, Zakaria, Zhao, Jiménez, Wankel, Yajnik, Baldegger & Huang, 2013, p. 9).
In the GVT, as with any team, this experiential learning takes place in a social setting.Indeed, the social learning perspective (Bandura, 1977) would argue that the culturally distinct team members and the virtual platform itself are both cause and effect under the reciprocal determinism principle.As students gain agility in dealing with each others' cultural idiosyncrasies, the technological coordination changes; and new challenges arise (Maznevski & DiStefano, 2000).
According to the social learning theory, two conditions are necessary for modeling and, hence, learning: attention and motivation (Bandura, 1977).In the GVT-based project, motivated by grades and peer pressure, the students focus their attention on the explicit project at hand, in this case the preparation of a business proposal.By consciously focusing on successfully completing the task at hand, students must subconsciously focus on creating a collaborative, teamwork-inducing environment.
Intergroup contact theory specifically explains how this team-focused environment creates inter-cultural learning.Early research on race relations suggests that intergroup contact and collaboration reduces perceived differences and conflicts and promotes tolerance (Blanchard, Adelman & Cook, 1975;Bochner, 1982;Brameld, 1946;Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood & Sherif, 1961).More specifically, later research finds that experiential inter-cultural, international activities reduce ethnocentrism, promote knowledge about other groups, and foster development of cross-cultural competencies (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2012;Leiba-O'Sullivan, 1999;Taras, Caprar, Rottig, Sarala, Zakaria, Zhao, Jiménez, Wankel, Lei, Yajnik, Baldegger & Huang, 2013).In this theory, Gordon W. Allport postulates four conditions under which intergroup contact would be effective: equal status amongst contact members, cooperation between group representatives, common goals, and support authorities (Allport, 1954).The GVT-based project satisfies all four of these conditions: all team members, as students, are of equal status, each team member acts as a proxy to those other team members who may be unfamiliar with his or her country and culture, the required output (in this case the business proposal) constitutes a common goal, and the professors represent the support authority (Taras, Caprar, Rottig, Sarala, ter, Vaiginiene, Froese, Bathula, Yajnik, Baldegger & Huang, 2013).Under these conditions, students reduce their initial ignorance and fear of the unknown culture, overcome their own prejudices, educate others about themselves, and develop competencies in intergroup conflict resolution.

Research Design and Methodology
Building upon the perspectives of experiential learning, social learning, and intergroup contact, this study sought to measure the impact of participating in a GVT-based project on learning in two essential areas: 1) perception of difficulties in working with people of distinct cultures and nations and 2) perception of difficulties related specifically with work in GVTs.This second area can be divided into two categories: 1) the global aspect of GVTs and 2) the virtual aspect of GVTs.
The research context for the present study was student participation in the X-Culture project (www.X-Culture.org).X-Culture is an on-going educational activity in which university students participate in GVTs in order to prepare a business proposal.Dr. Vasyl Taras of the University of North Carolina founded the project in 2010 and has coordinated it every semester since.In the first semester of 2014, 2,494 students and 81 professors from universities in 37 countries from every inhabited continent participated.Students were assigned to teams of five to seven members, each member from a distinct country.In their teams, the students chose a real-life company from an approved list and developed a business plan for that company to expand into a foreign market with an existing or a new product or service.
During the approximately two months that the project lasted, students made weekly submissions.These submissions included components of the business plan -target market evaluation, entry mode, marketing plan, staffing strategy, etc.In order to prepare their submissions, teams met via virtual means which included but were not limited to emails, Facebook, WhatsApp, Google Docs, Google+, Skype, Hangout, JoinMe, and Skype.Teams checked their final business proposals for plagiarism through Turnitin and uploaded them to Dropbox.Also, for the specific purpose of collecting research data, these submissions included pre-project, weekly mid-project and post-project surveys via Qualtrics.
In Colombia, a total of 215 students from five different universities participated -one of these with two distinct campuses.These participating universities and campuses are located in Bogotá, Bucaramanga, Chía, and Medellín.All participating Colombian universities are private and with strong business schools noted for their international business focus.This study evaluated a participating group and a control group at one of these universities during the first semester of 2014.
The participating group was one class of the undergraduate business course Organizational Theory.Participation in the X-Culture project was magis PÁGINA 135 mandatory in the experimental group and accounted for twenty percent of the total semester grade.The enrolled students were a mix of International Business majors and Business Administration majors.The control group was an equally composed Organizational Theory class taught by a different instructor.Course contents, syllabus, textbook, and grading procedures were all standardized between the two instructors.Students were randomly assigned into one group or the other at the moment of semester matriculation.Once assigned to a class, university policy prohibits transfer to another group of the same course.With these controls in place, self-selection into or out of the X-Culture project was likely not a factor.However, as per usual, several students dropped the course in the first weeks of the semester, so there was potential for self-attrition; but course cancellations were approximately equal in both the experimental and the control group, and these numbers were comparable to numbers in any given semester.So, it was highly unlikely that selection bias posed any threat to the validity of research findings.
To evaluate the impact of having participated in the X-Culture project, this study relied on two sources of data: 1) X-Culture, internationally administered, pre-, mid-, and post-project surveys and 2) a study-specific, locally designed and administered post-project survey.
X-Culture coordinators administered the pre-, mid-, and post-project surveys to all participating students worldwide.The pre-project survey asked students to rate their interest in participating in the project, on a scale of 1 (definitely want to participate) to 5 (would rather not participate), and asked them to define the number of hours available to dedicate to the project.The mid-project surveys had students rate, on a scale of 0 to 100, their level of motivation in participating in the project and their level of confidence in being able to successfully complete their team's business proposal.In the post-project survey, students reported their level of satisfaction with the experience, on a scale of 1 (minimal satisfaction) to 5 (maximum satisfaction), in terms of team performance, business proposal idea, business proposal quality, other team members' efforts, and usefulness of participation in the X-Culture project.
The locally designed and administered post-project survey, applied to both the experimental group and the control group had two main objectives.The first part of this survey had the purpose of measuring the impact of participation in the project in terms of perceived difficulties of working with people of distinct cultures and nations.Foreign countries (as proxies for foreign cultures) were roughly grouped as follows: 1) United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; 2) Latin America; 3) Middle East; 4) Russia and Eastern Europe; 5) Western Europe; 6) East Asia; and 7) Africa.Students qualified their perceptions, on a range between 1 (minimal difficulty) and 5 (maximum difficulty), of collaborating with people from each region.It was expected that students would perceive lesser culturally-induced difficulties in collaborating with individuals from Latin America, given that this study took place in Colombia; and it was assumed that students would perceive greater likeness in their Latin American counterparts.The Anglo category and the Western European category were assumed to demonstrate lesser perceived cultural difficulties than the remaining categories, though higher than the Latin American category.Colombian students are highly familiarized with "western" cultures through travels and media.The other tested categories were assumed to be highly unfamiliar to the Colombian students.
Between the experimental group and the control group, it was hypothesized that the experimental group, having collaborated with their culturally diverse GVT, would perceive lesser cultural difference and difficulty across all tested categories.This section of the research had greater focus on the static perception of cultural differences and culturally-caused difficulties -cultural intelligence-rather than on the dynamic abilities in coping with cultural differences-cultural agility.
The second part of this post-project survey had the purpose of measuring the impact of participation in the project in terms of perceived difficulties related specifically with work in GVTs.First, it specifically measured perceptions of difficulty arising from the global aspect -cultural and lingual differences amongst the members of the team.Students rated their perceptions, on a scale of 1 (minimal level) to 5 (maximum level), of difficulty arising from 1) cultural differences, 2) language differences, 3) different opinions and values, and 4) stereotypes and prejudices.It was hypothesized that the experimental group, after completing the X-Culture project, would report lower levels of perceived culture-related difficulties in working in a GVT.However, it should be noted that prior research suggested that such difficulties arise in cross-cultural collaborations regardless of the level of perceived cultural difference and perceived tolerance for these differences (Butler & Zander, 2008;Hammer, 2011;Humes & Reilly, 2008;Johnson, Lenartowicz & Apud, 2006).
The data from the internationally X-Culture administered surveys were analyzed and presented with basic descriptive statistics.The data from the locally administered surveys were evaluated with t-test to find the p-value (p <.05) and thus determine the significance of difference between the experimental and the control group.A significant difference was understood to imply that learning had occurred by means of participation in the project.

Results
Prior to initiating the project, participating students rated their disposition and interest in participating.To the question, "Are you sure you would like to participate in X-Culture?",81.5% responded that they would "definitely want to participate", 11.1% responded that they "would give it a try", and 7.4% responded that they "would rather not participate in X-Culture".Table 1 compares the results of the one group under study with the general results of all X-Culture first semester 2014 participants.In the same pre-project survey, students indicated their availability to participate.To the question, "How much time do you plan to invest in X-Culture", 15.2% planned to invest 5 hours, 27.3% planned to invest 4 hours per week, 36.4% planned to invest 3 hours per week, 15.2% planned to invest 2 hours per week, and 6.0% planned to invest 1 hour per week.Each week, for the eight weeks that the project lasted, students reported on their levels of motivation and confidence.Table 3 demonstrates the students' motivation levels, as rated on a scale of 0 (no motivation) to 100 (maximum motivation).Each column shows the per-week average motivation level of the participating group.Each week over the duration of the project, students also reported their levels of confidence in their ability to complete the project, on a scale of 0 to 100.Table 4 demonstrates the groups' average level of confidence.After completing the project and turning in the final business proposal, students reported their level of satisfaction with the experience.Table 5 demonstrates the average satisfaction in terms of team performance, business proposal idea, business proposal quality, other team members' efforts, and usefulness of participation in the X-Culture project.To measure the perception of usefulness of participation, students responded to the question, "Do you feel the project helped you learn and was useful for your future career?" using a Likert scale in which 1 is "completely useless, I didn't learn anything" and 5 is "very useful, I learned a lot".Based on the responses of 25 participating Colombian students, the average response is 4.00 (SD = 1.29).Distribution is not normal: 52% chose the highest response (5); 16% and 20% chose 4 and 3, respectively; while 4% and 8% found the experience "not very useful" and "completely useless", respectively.
After completing the X-Culture project, the study-specific survey was applied to both the experimental group that had participated and to the control group that had not participated in the project.The first part of this survey had the purpose of measuring the impact of participation in the project in terms of perceived difficulties of working with people of distinct cultures and nations.Students qualified their perceptions on a range between 1 (minimal level of difficulty) and 5 (maximum level of difficulty).Table 6 compares the perceptions of the experimental and the control groups.Compared with the experimental group, the control group perceived greater difficulties in working with others from every one of the distinct geographic regions.When all perceived difficulties across regions are averaged, the control group rated national-cultural difficulties at 3.01, on the 5-point scale, versus 2.61 for the experimental group.This difference of 0.40 is statistically significant (p = .0152).
The second part of the post-project survey had the purpose of measuring the impact of participation in the project in terms of perceived difficulties related specifically with work in Global Virtual Teams.Specifically, it measured: 1) perceptions of difficulty arising from cultural and lingual differences amongst the members of the team (Table 7) and 2) perceptions of difficulty directly related with administration of virtual teams (Table 8).
Table 7 demonstrates students' perceptions of difficulties, rated on a scale of 1 to 5, related to the people participating in Global Virtual Teams, specifically to cultural and linguistic differences amongst the people who form these teams.Note that in each of the four aspects, the control group perceived a greater level of difficulty.However, with a p-value of .0551,this difference is not statistically significant.Table 8 demonstrates the perceived difficulties directly related with coordination and administration of work in virtual teams, specifically in Global Virtual Teams.In this set of questions, X-Culture participants qualified a greater degree of difficulty in each of the measured aspects.As an averaged factor, the experimental group rated a 3.03 level of difficulty, on a 5-point scale, compared with the control group rate of 2.71.This difference of 0.32 is statistically significant (p = 0.0207).

Discussion
Requisite to modeling and learning in the social learning theory are attention and motivation (Bandura, 1977).Therefore, this study began with an analysis of students' motivation to participate in the X-Culture project and their confidence in being able to successfully complete the project.Student responses to these questions provided an indication of how seriously they took the project and would be open to the learning opportunities that arose from it.
When specifically asked to rate their level of interest in participating in the X-Culture project, 92.6% of the test group responded favorably about their motivation to participate (81.5% definitely want to participate and 11.1% would give it a try).This was similar to the international results in which 95.8% responded favorably.The Colombian group had a higher percentage of those who definitely wanted to participate (81.5% versus 69.8% for the international aggregate).This may indicate that Colombian students are especially eager to participate in international and inter-cultural activities to compensate for their geographical, linguistic, and social disadvantages.
To further test motivation, students were asked how many hours per week they would have available to dedicate to the project.Again, the treatment group was comparable to the international aggregate, although the Colombian curve had shorter tails.78.9% of the treatment group compared to 71.1% of the international aggregate could allot between three and five hours per week.21.2% of the test group compared with 16.9% of the international group, with only two or fewer hours to dedicate, was cause for concern.With such little time to dedicate, their motivation to participate, ability to perform, and openness to learning was questionable.
Motivation was monitored through the eight, mid-project surveys.Over the course of the project, the test group motivation ranged between a low of 74.22 (SD = 30.36)and a high of 81.08 (SD = 19.93) on a scale of 1 to 100.This was comparable to the international range between 68.88 (SD = 25.82) and 78.80 (SD = 32.98).
Motivation scores highly corresponded with the confidence in ability to complete the X-Culture project, which was another measure included in the weekly, mid-project surveys.The test group confidence ranged between a low of 73.14 (SD = 32.73) and a high of 79.79 (SD = 18.74) compared with the international range between 67.71 (SD = 19.20)and 78.73 (SD = 21.12).Interestingly, the test group felt the lowest level of confidence in the first week of the project, and the international aggregate felt the lowest level of confidence in the last week of the project.Lack of confidence in the first week can explained by the fear of initiating a new and unknown learning approach, while lack of confidence in the last week can be explained by the surrender of the final business proposal to the grading procedure.
After teams had completed the project and submitted their final business proposal, they reported their level of satisfaction with the experience.On all five measures, the test group scores were comparable to international scores: satisfaction with team performance 3.56 vs. 3.86, satisfaction with business proposal idea 4.08 vs. 3.99, satisfaction with business proposal quality 3.92 vs. 3.96, satisfaction with the other team members' efforts 3.92 vs. 3.77, and usefulness of participation in the X-Culture project 4.00 vs. 3.81; all ranked on a scale of 1 to 5.
The response to the usefulness of participation in the project deserves particular comment.When asked "Do you feel the project helped magis PÁGINA 141 you learn and was useful for your future career?", the average response of the test group was 4.00 (SD = 1.29) on a scale of 1 to 5. The distribution is not normal: 52% chose the highest response (5); 16% and 20% chose 4 and 3, respectively; while 4% and 8% found the experience "not very useful" and "completely useless", respectively.While negative responses were minimal compared to the number of positive responses, they reveal that experiential projects of this type are not a universal remedy and that some students are unfamiliar with and uncomfortable with this method and will consider this pedagogical approach ineffective (Crittenden & Woodside, 2007).
A previous study asked instructors to rate their perceptions of the ability of the X-Culture project to enhance learning in their courses.On scale of 1-not at all to 10-very much, the average instructor rating was 7.87 (SD = 1.97), which roughly corresponds to "the project considerably enhanced learning in my course" (Taras, Caprar, Rottig, Sarala, Zakaria, Zhao, Froese, Bathula, Yajnik, Baldegger & Huang, 2013).Notably, instructor perceptions of enhancing learning were affected by class size; the perception decreases as class size increases.Converted to a 5-point scale, the instructor average would be 3.94, which is directly comparable with the student average discussed above.
At this point, the discussion turns toward the results specifically sought in this research project-impact of participating in the GVT-project on perceived difficulties arising from cultural differences in general, perceived difficulties arising from cultural differences specifically in the GVT context (the global aspects of the GVT), and perceived difficulties of administration and coordination of the GVT (the virtual aspects of the GVT).To measure the impact of participation, survey results were compared between the experimental group and the control group.A difference between the two indicates learning.No difference would indicate no learning, either because the students had a strong basis before the project and thus no room for improvement or because, despite initial limitations, students made no progress.
In the social learning (Bandura, 1977) and intergroup contact (Allport, 1954) approaches, as a result of social/intergroup interaction, people perceive reduced differences and difficulties in dealing with others.As a result of having participated in the X-Culture project, students rated a lower perception of difficulties in collaborating with others from all tested geographical regions of the world.As a factored average, the experimental group rate of 2.61 (SD = .56)contrasted with the control group rate of 3.01 (SD = .60),on a scale of 1 to 5. With a p-value of .0152,this is a statistically significant and suggests that learning has occurred through participation in the GVT-based project, thus supporting the first hypothesis.
Of particular interest is the learning that has occurred about people from Latin America, the Anglo regions, and Africa.Given that Colombia is in Latin America, it would have been reasonable to have suspected an intrinsically low perception of difficulty in dealing with other Latinos and that no learning would occur about this area.Certainly, the perceived difficulty in dealing with others from Latin America was lower than that of all other tested regions.However, the control group average rating of 1.64 and the experimental group average of 1.58 suggest that even amongst Latinos there are perceived problematic cultural differences and that regional interaction can decrease these perceptions.
Post-project rating of difficulties in dealing with people from the Anglo region -USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand-reached the same low level as Latin America, 1.58.Interestingly, the greatest learning occurred about people from Africa.The control group rated Africa as the most different and difficult at 3.78, while the experimental group rated Africa at 2.88.Also interesting to note, is that, after analyzing individual student responses, changes in perception of differences and difficulties were comparable regardless of whether or not the students' teammates were from countries in the tested groups.In other words, the GVT-based international, inter-cultural activity had the impact of lowering perceived differences among cultures in general, not only for the ones in which students had direct contact.
Since this study sought to determine impact of the GVT-based experiential activity on cultural agility, the post-project survey also asked students to rate their perceptions of cultural and linguistic difficulties specifically in the GVT setting.The experimental group reported lower perception of difficulties in all four variables: culture, language, opinions and values, and stereotypes and prejudices.A total factor average for the experimental group of 2.46 (SD = 0.67) compared with the control group average of 2.85 (SD = 0.86).While indicating some level of learning, this difference is not statistically significant; and therefore, the hypothesis is not supported.
It is interesting to note that the greatest difference between the control group and the experimental group was in the perception of language related difficulties.Through participation in the X-Culture project, students learned that English can function as the working language for a team of non-native English speakers and that on-line translators such as Google Translate can ease the process significantly.The second greatest difference between the control group and the experimental group was in the perception of difficulties caused by stereotypes and prejudices.Colombians, who suffer from a negative reputation based on the activities of prominent drug-traffickers, seemed to enter into international interactions somewhat hesitantly, fearing that they will be judged, ridiculed, or scrutinized.The X-Culture project taught students that, even if their teammates did hold this preconception, it was easily overcome and that the team goal superseded any initial prejudices.
Finally, this study sought to determine the impact of X-Culture participation on understanding of virtual team coordination and administration.Students of the digital generation generally feel comfortable with the concept of technologically-enhanced communications, so it was hypothesized that the control group would perceive a lower level of difficulty with virtual team administrative concerns.Indeed, the control group reported a lower perceived level of difficulty for each of the six tested variables: coordination of time zones, differences in personal abilities, coordination of work, electronic and virtual means of communication, lack of authority and clear leadership, and differences in motivation of team members.A total factor average for the control group was 2.71 (SD = 0.55) while the factor average for the experimental group was 3.03 (SD = 0.55).With a p-value of 0.0207, this is statistically significant, thus indicating that learning has occurred and supporting the hypothesis.Coordinating and administering the work in a virtual team (especially a Global Virtual Team) is complex, beyond what one who has not participated in a virtual team can imagine.
These results complement previous findings published in Vas Taras, Dan V. Caprar, Daniel Rottig, Riikka M. Sarala, Norhayati Zakaria, Fang Zhao, Fabian Jintae Froese, Hanoku Bathula, Nilay Yajnik, Rico Baldegger and Victor Zengyu Huang (2013).In an international, post-project survey of 5,324 participants in 2011 and 2012, 4,909 (92%) reported that they would change their behavior or handle the project differently if they had it to do over again.Most of these listed three to five areas that specifically relate to virtual team coordination and administration such as devoting more attention to the technical aspects, establishing team collaboration rules, being more proactive with respect to decision making, procrastinating less, verifying team member progress more often, communicating with teammates more frequently, creating a group in Facebook or Google+ earlier on in the process, and relying on more advanced virtual collaboration tools such as Google Docs (Taras, Caprar, Rottig, Sarala, Zakaria, Zhao, Jiménez, Wankel, Yajnik, Baldegger & Huang, 2013).

Conclusions
This research focused on the implicit learning opportunities involved in student participation in a Global Virtual Team-based project.Specifically, it sought to measure the impact of participating in the GVT-project on perceived difficulties arising from cultural differences in general, perceived difficulties arising from cultural differences specifically in the GVT context (the global aspects of the GVT), and perceived difficulties of administration and coordination of the GVT (the virtual aspects of the GVT).
Results were based on pre-, during-and post-survey responses from the 2,494 students from 37 countries around the world and on post-survey responses from a treatment group in one of the Colombian universities participating in the X-Culture project during the first semester of 2014 and were analyzed under the theoretical approaches of constructivism, experiential learning, social learning and inter-group contact.
After participating in an approximately two-month-long GVT-based experiential learning project, students perceived significantly lesser cultural-related difficulties in dealing with others from other countries.This suggests that learning had occurred by means of GVT participation.By working on a common goal with others from distinct nationalities and cultural backgrounds, students gain cultural intelligence, thus reducing stereotyping and biases.These lowered perceptions of differences and difficulties were comparable regardless of whether or not the students' teammates were from tested countries.In other words, the GVT-based activity had the impact of lowering perceived differences among cultures in general, not only for the ones in which students had direct contact.
In addition to reduced perceptions of cultural differences and difficulties in dealing with people from other countries in general, students' perceptions of difficulties arising from cultural and linguistic differences specifically in the GVT context also declined, however less significantly.This does not imply that learning did not occur.It may be that students did learn (significantly) that the global aspects of the GVT are indeed difficult even after the stereotyping and biases are removed.
Certainly, students did learn that the virtual aspects of the GVT are complex.Post-project survey respondents rated a significantly higher perception of difficulties related to the administration and coordination of the GVT.Students of the digital generation generally feel confident with the use of technologically-enhanced communications, but participation in the GVT-based project taught them that coordination and administration of the virtual team (especially a Global Virtual Team) is complex beyond what one who has not participated in a virtual team can imagine.Insights from this study provide evidence for the usefulness of GVT-based approaches and facilitate a better understanding of the challenges and learning opportunities in using this type of experiential learning in business education.While GVTs are undoubtedly beneficial in regards to the explicit learning opportunities involved in developing the competencies required to complete the project itself, this study focused on the implicit learning opportunities.By participating in GVTs, the students entered into direct contact, in a simulated business environment, with their foreign counterparts.This contact led to learning about others, about others' cultures, and about inherent difficulties in collaborating with others distinct cultural and linguistic backgrounds.Additionally, by participating in this simulated business environment, the students learned about GVTs themselves, their coordination and administration, and their inherent complexities.
Recent developments in social media and online collaboration tools make the GVT-based project increasingly feasible, thus providing universities and business schools with a formidable option in their international immersion arsenal.Given that GVTs provide direct international-intercultural interactions while remaining cost-and time-effective, they circumvent the disadvantages associated with semesters abroad, foreign summer schools, international internships, and study tours.
International, intercultural academic experiences provide students with a preview to the real-world, globally interconnected workplace.Participation in the GVT-based project allows students to experience the challenges of collaborating cross-culturally and virtually and aids them in forming more realistic expectations with respect to what it takes to successfully collaborate across cultural and national borders via virtual means.These skills will prove essential in the student's future professional life.In an increasingly globalized world, all businesses today are to some degree internationalized.Employers respond accordingly by expecting their employees to be acclimatized to this new reality.

Limitations and Future Research
As with all research, this study does have its limitations.The most salient limitation is that the experimental group and the control group were comprised of two different groups of class with two different instructors.While the participating instructors and researchers took steps to avoid bias, the risk exists.It is certainly feasible that the experimental group instructor had a teaching style that promoted the skills and competencies being attributed to the GVT project.Future research would benefit from more internal design controls.
Student perception surveys serve as the basis of this study.While perception-based surveys are an accepted method in social sciences; the authors recognize that in this particular research, students in the experimental group may have been responded as they thought they should, not as they actually perceived.Future research may include observation of student, post-project behavior rather than or in addition to the perception surveys.
Since this research advocates the use of GVTs as an experiential learning alternative which promotes deep, reflective, and internalized experience (as opposed to in-class activities or short study tours); future research could certainly test whether the suggested impact of GVT participation is long-term.In this study, students completed the post-project survey within weeks of having completed the project.Future study could retest students at various time periods after the project, as well as test mediating and moderating factors in the interval between project completion and later-date surveys.
Avenues for future research also include delving into the specificities of each variable rather than the treatment of factors, as was the treatment in this research.Additionally, future research may identify the many mediating and moderating factors correlated with each variable.Team size, national/cultural composition, media usage, time dedication, and motivational level (amongst others) may influence in the learning process and in competency development.

Table 1
Interest in Participating in the X-Culture Project Table 2 compares the results of the study group with the general results of all X-Culture first semester 2014 participants.

Table 3
Motivation to Participate in X-Culture Project

Table 4
Confidence in Ability to Complete X-Culture Project

Table 5
Satisfaction with the X-Culture Experience Source: Author's calculations based on group surveysExperiential Learning with Global Virtual Teams: Developing Intercultural and Virtual Competencies magis PÁGINA 139

Table 7
Perceived Cultural and Linguistic Difficulties amongst Members of Global Virtual Teams

Table 8
Perceived Difficulties in Virtual Team Administration Experiential Learning with Global Virtual Teams: Developing Intercultural and Virtual Competencies