Applying multiple frameworks to establish effective virtual collaborative teams in academia: a review and recommendations

Figures & data

Table 1. A summary of key considerations for the four virtual collaboration models with practical tips in the context of group stage development

	COI	COP	OCL	PLC
Forming – The Stage of Group Goal Setting^[Citation40]
Considerations	- Is group brainstorming happening? - Do group members establish social connection via technology? - Have the group ground rules for netiquette been established?	- Do each member’s professional goals align with the group’s? - Is the domain of practice specified and shared by members?	- Is the technology easy to access and use? -Will the selected technology support the three OCL intellectual processes? - Is idea generating happening?	- Do the group goals propose feasible/tangible outcomes/products? - Does each group member have institutional support?
Tip	- Archive brainstorming in an online workspace (e.g. shared drive) - Use online technologies to build personal presence (e.g., emojis, video body language) - Establish guidelines for virtual interactions	- Early on have each member state their expectations for the group (professional practice needs and development/scholarly goals) – virtually archive (e.g. shared document space)	- Use an easily accessible virtual shared space (e.g., social media community) that supports text-based and real time discussions - Clarify when to use asynchronous virtual collaboration methods are sufficient (e.g., emails, app texting) and when synchronous methods (e.g., video) are needed	- During brainstorming, begin to link potential group goals to important overarching results- archive them (e.g., shared drive or document repository) - Clarify how each member can commit to group activities given local limitations (including local support)
Storming – The Stage of Group Negotiations for Expectations^[Citation40]
Considerations	- Has the virtual moderator role been defined and assigned (whether fixed or rotating)? - Is the virtual moderator capable of establishing a virtual moderator presence? - Are individual roles emerging or defined?	- Do group members engage each other regularly to facilitate negotiations? - Are parameters for what group activities are important to meet negotiated goals (and what activities are not important)?	- Have early challenges with using online discourse technologies been explicitly addressed? - Has the group negotiated expectations for individual contributions and are they understood?	- Will the negotiated outcomes/products of the inquiry meet the individual and institutional needs?
Tip	- Moderators should confirm his/her comfort level with engaging targeted technologies - Moderator leads the group to negotiate individual roles - Have individuals set his/her proposed contributions (timelines; participation, etc.)- virtually archive (e.g. shared drive)	- Moderator given authority for calling (or scheduling) synchronous meetings (real-time audio and/or video) - Archive online (e.g., shared drive) parameter negotiations for future reference including group milestones	- Acknowledge individual struggles with virtual technology for discussions and provide resources/help (e.g., local IT support) - Archive online (e.g., shared drive) the milestones for all group members to access the shared archives and prepare their contributions – organize fold structures for easy access	- Check-in with each member to assure groups intended outcomes/products align with developmental/scholarly/teaching needs – continually refer to online archives (e.g., shared drive or community blog)
Norming – The Stage of Group Trust and Accountability^[Citation40]
Considerations	- Has the group engaged technologies that enhance social presence?	-Are the moderator(s) and group members maintaining a safe virtual environment for individual expression? - Is the group becoming interpersonal (to enhance trust)?	- Do group members know how to best contribute to the group discourse with technology and are accountability mechanisms established? - Is there evidence of substantive contributions and idea organizing in group member’s virtual discourse?	- Is there a virtual place where each member can go to be reorient his/her tasks to the overall goals? - Does the group remain committed to the long term goals and the targeted outcomes?
Tip	- Assure technologies always build social presence to task level (e.g., engaging video for high stakes group tasks vs audio/emails only for lower stakes tasks) - Celebrates small, short term victories and show appreciation for members for their contributions (via text or video presence)	- Assure that each member has his/her virtual ‘moment’ during discourse; Positive reinforcement through virtual expressions (e.g., using text, emoji, verbal) - For complex conflicts, group uses video calls when feasible to reduce misunderstanding - Provide virtual ‘social time’ moments – (text vs real-time audio/video discourse)	- Use a task list with assignments (e.g. project management app) -Use frequent, brief check-ins to assure that virtual messages are received and understood. - Frequently check-in to assure members are using the selected discourse platform- assure platform meets needs of the task (e.g., text based apps for basic communication vs real-time technologies for deeper discourse)	- Build/revise online archives where continuously negotiated goals and targets are recorded and clarity is reinforced- date stamp and/or order them by time (building a virtual history of activities) - Moderator frequently restates what the group is trying to accomplish (end game) during specific intervals – refer to archives
Performing – The Stage of Group Productivity^[Citation40]
Considerations	- Is the knowledge generated by the group effectively converged into singular messages and expressed to all members for internal validation (cognitive presence)?	- Can the group knowledge generated be externally validated with intended results (e.g., scholarly works) - When group is stuck, does it manage the barriers effectively?	- Does the selected technology promote intellectual convergence? - Are there interaction threads/conversations between members that reflect a discourse??	- Are the outcomes/products of inquiry being valued by each member (and his/her institution) and/or external audiences?
Tip	- Utilize online tools (e.g., document archives) that allow real-time and asynchronous group knowledge syntheses - Use integrative or multiple technologies that allow analyses and critique of knowledge syntheses (e.g. real-time video calls while utilizing real-time shared editing tools)	- Check-in at intervals to assure the archived outcomes are moving towards group goals- renegotiate when necessary - When stuck, a group’s options include: reevaluate technical issues; invite new/junior members to join; reestablish timelines; reconsider overarching goals; dissolve group	- Acknowledge when virtual technologies are or are not helping with discourse- resolve with other options (i.e., more integrative approaches- e.g., social media with multiple communication abilities) - Moderator promotes an honest and critical reflection of archived products - Assure that archives have tools that are effective for organizing themes evolving from discussion threads and real-time conversations	- Maintain virtual tools and repositories that can be shared and utilized by all members to monitor progress (e.g., online research tools and databases) - Check-in occasionally to assure that the outcomes/products of the collaboration are valuable to external audiences (e.g., member home institutions; targeted audiences for scholarship, etc.) - Continuously refer and update shared archives to reflect most recent outcomes/products

Figure 1. A summary of the search and articles selected for the review (See Appendix A for full search details)

Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development. Adventure associates. [ Published 2017 Mar 20; cited 2019 Feb 15]. https://www.adventureassoc.com/tuckmans-stages-of-group-development/

 Google Scholar