Selecting Synchronous Learning Platforms in Infrastructure-Constrained Libyan Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams Using the Task–Technology Fit (TTF) Framework
Keywords:
Virtual education, task–technology fit, video conferencing, higher education, infrastructure constraints.Abstract
The widespread adoption of synchronous virtual learning has transformed video-conferencing platforms into essential components of higher education. Nevertheless, selecting an appropriate platform remains a significant challenge for universities operating under infrastructure constraints, where decisions are frequently driven by software availability or financial considerations rather than by instructional requirements and technological suitability. This paper proposes a Task–Technology Fit (TTF)-based evaluation framework for selecting synchronous learning platforms in infrastructure-constrained higher-education environments. The framework is demonstrated through a comprehensive comparative analysis of Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams, considering their communication architectures, bandwidth adaptation mechanisms, instructional affordances, learning management system integration, deployment requirements, and operational suitability under unstable network conditions. The analysis incorporates the infrastructural realities of Libyan universities, including irregular electricity supply, inconsistent mobile-network performance, limited institutional licensing, and widespread dependence on mobile Internet access. The findings indicate that Zoom provides the strongest support for interactive and collaborative learning, Google Meet offers superior accessibility and bandwidth efficiency for large-scale teaching, and Microsoft Teams delivers the most comprehensive institutional integration through the Microsoft 365 ecosystem. A practical decision framework is proposed to assist universities in selecting virtual-learning platforms according to instructional objectives, available infrastructure, and institutional priorities.
References
García-Morales, V. J., Garrido-Moreno, A., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2021). The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: Emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 616059.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 182–216.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis: Matching technologies with learner requirements. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15.
Grynyshyna, M., Boiko, T., Boklan, M., Husakova, N., & Pozniak, A. (2023). Comparative analysis of ways to integrate Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Google Meet into the educational process of higher education institutions of Ukraine. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 23(2), 1–12.
Kenan, T., Pislaru, C., & Elzawi, A. (2014). Trends, opportunities and challenges of e-learning in Libyan higher education. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 4(1), 121–131.
Masuwd, M. (2025). Development of digital education in Libya: Progress, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of Educational Digital Learning, 3(5), 211–219.
Ulfa, S., Surahman, E., Fatawi, I., & Hirashima, T. (2024). Task-technology fit analysis: Measuring the factors that influence behavioural intention to use the online summary-with automated feedback in a MOOCs platform. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 22(1), 1–15.
Elemam, R. F., El Swiah, J. M., Durda, A. O., & Hegazy, N. N. (2024). Cross-sectional study of attitudes toward online continuing dental education in Libya during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE, 19(1), Article e0296783.
Masoud, F. (2023). Visual Basic platform to evaluate Libyana Almadar performance. Bani Waleed University Journal of Humanities and Applied Sciences, 8(3), 93–98.
Hewson, E. R. F., & Chung, G. W. (2021). Beyond the VLE: Transforming online discussion and collaboration through Microsoft Teams. The International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 7(3), 37–45.
Alshref, H. H. M., Al-Sanjary, O. I., & Johar, M. G. M. (2024). A model for the adoption of e-learning in Libyan higher education institutions. International Journal of Business Society, 8(6), 941–951.
Chang, H., Varvello, M., Hao, F., & Mukherjee, S. (2021). Can you see me now? A measurement study of Zoom, Webex, and Meet. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (pp. 216–228). ACM.
MacMillan, K., Mangla, T., Saxon, J., & Feamster, N. (2021). Measuring the performance and network utilization of popular video conferencing applications. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) (pp. 229–244). ACM.
Avcı, H., Yıldırım, E., & Akdağ, E. S. (2025). Ensuring video conferencing applications security: Security, privacy, challenges and risks. Current Trends in Computing, 3(1), 28–43.
Kumar, R., Nagpal, D., Naik, V., & Chakraborty, D. (2022). Comparison of popular video conferencing apps using client-side measurements on different backhaul networks. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.09651
Microsoft. (2024). Security guide for Microsoft Teams. Microsoft Learn. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/teams-security-guide
Khairy, S., Yan, F. Y., Inglis, S., Mittag, G., Niu, Z., Golestaneh, M., Gopal, V., Ameri, E., & Cutler, R. (2024). ACM MMSys 2024 bandwidth estimation in real-time communications challenge. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference (MMSys '24) (pp. 1–7). ACM.
Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2022). Facilitating synchronous online language learning through Zoom. RELC Journal, 53(1), 296–301.
Microsoft. (n.d.). Teams desktop client features. Microsoft Learn. Retrieved August 24, 2026, from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/teams-desktop-client-features
Alturki, U. T., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2022). Adoption of Google Meet by postgraduate students: The role of task technology fit and the TAM model. Sustainability, 14(23), Article 15765.
