Strategies for Managing the Challenges of Student Virtual Teams in Higher Education: A Case Study

Students developing virtual team skills and acquiring experience working in virtual teams have been increasingly important as many educational institutions, businesses, and organizations had to transition from face-to-face to completely remote work during the pandemic. While the popularity of remote work and virtual learning has risen throughout the years as technological advancements and developments have been made, teaching and learning during the pandemic were still challenging for educators and students. Despite its challenges, many businesses have realized the benefits of remote and hybrid work that occurred during the pandemic, and as a result, have continued to find ways to give employees the option of working remotely, moving into what has now been referred to as a new normal way of working (Brown, 2020; Dans, 2020; McKnight, 2021). Teaching students to work effectively in virtual teams is crucial to preparing students for their future careers. Research exploring the specific challenges of virtual teams and strategies used to meet those challenges in education is imperative to provide educators and students with the knowledge to make virtual team experiences within higher education effective while also helping students learn valuable skills that will transfer into the workforce. Thus, the current paper attempts to answer the following questions:

1. What does the current literature reveal about the challenges faced by student virtual teams in higher education?

2. How can faculty design their courses to assist students in dealing with these challenges?

3. What strategies do students authentically develop and use to deal with these challenges?

4. What recommendations do students have for future students who will be required to work in virtual teams to meet these challenges?

Although online learning in higher education substantially increased during COVID-19, distance or online education, defined as “a method of teaching where the student and teacher are physically separated” (Kentnor, 2015, p. 22), has existed for some time. Distance education has been delivered over the years through correspondence education, educational radio and television programming, and, more recently, the creation of online programs offered through the internet. Today, online learning is “no longer a trend, but mainstream”(Kentnor, 2015, p. 22). As the world is becoming more dependent on the internet for essential tasks such as learning and working, students in higher education must learn how to adapt to the challenges of online learning and remote work. Some of the most commonly reported challenges experienced by students working in virtual teams are reviewed in the following sections.

Despite technological advancements and communication tool developments, communication remains a challenge for students engaging in virtual teamwork in their courses. Recent research continues to validate that communication is a substantial issue for student virtual teams. Rauer et al. (2021) investigated cross-university virtual teamwork, where students from technical and economic fields and different universities and countries were asked to work on a global virtual team project together. The students from universities worldwide were assembled in mixed teams of four people to solve a parameterized, real- world case study and present their solutions to a remote evaluator. Students were also asked to rank their performance as well as their teammates. Mandatory student feedback was collected and anonymized, and the most important results from the feedback were summarized. Regarding previous international experience, only 40% indicated they had such experience, and only 8% gained the experience from their jobs. In contrast, 80% of the students said that this study's global virtual team project enhanced their international experience. Still, the most commonly reported challenge (mentioned by 21% of participants) was communication.

Challenges regarding communication between team members may arise even more so in an environment where students have no in-person or synchronous communication exchanges, for example, in a totally asynchronous course. In a study of the factors that inhibit and enhance creativity in asynchronous virtual teams, Ocker (2005) analyzed the communication transcripts over 6 months for 10 virtual teams composed of 47 MBA and MSIS graduate students who interacted solely via an asynchronous, computer conferencing system and were required to develop a new innovative product. Qualitative analysis of the transcripts revealed several challenges faced by the asynchronous teams that inhibited team creativity. These inhibiting factors included elements related to negative team dynamics, such as team member dominance (when one team member dominates, influences, and controls the design of the team’s work), domain knowledge (where there was an imbalance of knowledge of systems and related technologies among the members on the team); and downward norm-setting (where team members reduce their work performance to match the level of the least productive member on the team). In addition, teams low in creativity lacked a shared understanding of the project. As a result, these teams needed help reaching an agreement on a single cohesive design to move the work forward. Problems related to time pressure that impacted the team’s ability to complete the work by the assigned due date and technical difficulties in terms of accessing the conferencing system were also inhibiting factors to creativity in these asynchronous teams. While these challenges were inhibitors specific to creativity, they also offer insight into problems asynchronous virtual teams face concerning communication and information exchange, both critical to team creativity (Nemiro, 2004; Nemiro, in press).

More recently, O’Connor et al. (2021) explored the challenges of large-class online education and experiential learning. Students completing a cross-cultural communication project were dispersed in two countries (the United States and Ireland). While communication issues in virtual teams are usually thought to occur between the team members, in this study, communication challenges between the instructor and students also surfaced, specifically the need for more precise and detailed instructions from instructors. The authors suggested that while this can also be a challenge in face-to-face student teams, it is even more so in asynchronous courses due to the lack of real-time engagement and the ability to ask questions during class.

Even when virtual teams have opportunities for synchronous online interactions, communication challenges still arise, for example, during synchronous virtual team meetings. Bailey-Hughes (2021) reported that faculty have witnessed that students on virtual teams often “lack accurate self-awareness of their communicative behaviors and their collective team dynamics during meetings” (p. 298). Bailey-Hughes (2021) discussed the challenge in communication in which information processing bias occurs and how information processing bias can result in poor decisionmaking. In these instances, team members discuss and share knowledge that everyone on the team already has rather than unique information that each specific team member may offer to the team. Having opportunities within virtual team meetings to have each member take the time to speak (referred to as go-arounds) may be a solution for information processing bias. It may equalize sharing and contributions within the team. However, Bailey-Hughes noted that in analyzing the recordings of student virtual team meetings, the students involved in those meetings rarely used that technique.

Communication challenges in virtual teams can also arise from teams comprised of members from differing cultural backgrounds. Having teams with diverse team members is encouraged as it leads to higher levels of creativity and critical thinking (Nemiro, in press); however, this same diversity can also create communication barriers. Especially for virtual teams that rely heavily on flat forms of communication (e.g., text, chat, email, or other written forms of communication exchange), the inability to have rich information exchanged in the message, for example, the absence of being able to read body language, may lead to conflict, confusion, and misunderstandings (Furamo & Pearson, 2006; Watson- Manheim & Belanger, 2002). In addition, some cultures may prefer direct, straightforward communication, while others favor more indirect forms of communication (Stoian, 2020). As a result of these differences in communication styles, conflict may arise between team members of differing cultural backgrounds. That conflict may be more challenging to resolve in virtual teams because of the lack of rich forms of communication (Flammia et al., 2016).

Along with communication issues is the need for more trust in student virtual teams. Research in organizational settings has found that trust may be more challenging to establish and develop more slowly in virtual teams as opposed to in-person teams due to communication being less rich, more impersonal, and less predictable (Nemiro, 2000). Students in virtual teams find similar challenges concerning the development of team trust. For example, Grinnell et al. (2012) conducted a qualitative study on 30 students from eight online upper division Management and Marketing courses to analyze team behaviors and processes in virtual teams. One of the most common negative comments was on trust; for every positive comment relating to trust, there were seven negative comments.

A more recent study conducted by Mayfield and Valenti (2022) on virtual teams exploring team satisfaction, identity, and trust yielded the recurring theme of the challenge of trust. The study was assigned to 320 (304 after attrition) students pursuing an MBA degree taking a required teamwork and leadership course, in which eight courses were taught online and six face to face. The team evaluation survey, part of multiple self-assessments throughout the semester, was used for the study’s research. Although team trust was lower midsemester in virtual teams compared to face-to-face teams, it did increase at the end of the semester, yet results were still lower than in face-to-face teams. Mayfield and Valenti (2022) suggested that trust is essential in virtual teams because work is completed online unobserved. The challenge of trust in virtual teams may be due to the lack of nonverbal signals (Flammia et al., 2016).

Another challenge that continues today, despite technological advances that allow for richer communication exchanges (Daft &Engel, 1986), is that it may be easier for team members to feel detached or isolated from other team members while working virtually. The challenge of establishing interpersonal connections and social bonding is greater when students need to become more familiar with each other and without face-to-face meetings (Bailey-Hughes, 2021; O’Connor et al., 2021).

Kulturel-Konak et al. (2010) observed the issue of isolation and exclusion between teams with other subteams where they had been instructed to work together. In this study, teams were combined from two branch campuses of Pennsylvania State University in which different instructors taught students the same course. Four virtual teams of seven students were formed with students combined from both universities. Additional subteams were formed at each campus and asked to work with other subteams. Initially, all students were given an entrance survey to assess what they thought of virtual teams and if they had any prior experience with virtual teams. Results from the entrance survey indicated that while all students had face-to-face experience working in teams, none had prior virtual teamwork experience. Documents were then provided to help the teams establish team communication and operating norms and build trust. The virtual teams worked nine weeks to create a business report for a growing company’s technology problems. An exit survey was then given to the teams. While the results indicated that more than 75% of students were enthusiastic and felt prepared for working in virtual teams in the future, a challenge was found in which subteams that felt connected and comfortable with one another excluded other subteams from communication about their work, which resulted in wasted effort and the duplication of assignments between subteams.

Results from Goold et al. (2006) illustrated how incorporating early activities to build connections between team members increased satisfaction with virtual teamwork, but that satisfaction faded as time passed. The authors held a 13-week online course in project management, in which students worked in virtual teams to complete a series of three project management topics. Topic 1, to be completed by week 4, asked students to get to know their virtual team members by having each team member complete a personality test, list their individual technical skills, and post an individual biography about themselves on a team discussion board. The second topic, due by week 8, required students to explore and post discussion board messages on the four core functions of project management-scope, time, cost, and quality (PMI Institute, 2000). The third topic, due by week 13 (the end of the semester), asked students to develop a project plan for a company. After each topic assignment, students were asked to complete anonymous surveys on their experiences working in virtual teams.

Survey results after Topic 1 (in week 4) indicated that students were generally positive about working on virtual teams and optimistic about the exercise requiring them to create and post individual biographies to the team’s discussion board. Students felt the activity helped them get to know their team members and made the team more cohesive and trusting. However, subsequent survey results (after Topics 2 and 3, in weeks 8 and 13) showed that students’ opinions of working in virtual teams declined, moving from being generally positive after Topic 1 to being marginally positive, with an increase in dissatisfaction after Topic 2, and only slightly more positive after Topic 3. Further, after Topic 3 (week 13), 15% of the students reported not liking working in their virtual team. Goold et al. (2006) concluded that while students may benefit from participating in activities to build connections, these exercises should be required throughout the semester, not just at the beginning. While personal connection and a social bond can be built in virtual teams, it may take longer and require a more concerted effort.

Logemann et al. (2022) studied how virtual collaboration and communication in a project (Project X) was used to build emotional connection and compassion among team members and offer emotional support during the COVID-19 health crisis, which required people to suddenly socially distance and isolate at home. Project X is a collaborative online international learning (COIL) program that helps students develop virtual intelligence, digital communication, and intercultural competency skills. COIL projects, such as Project X, involve students from across the globe working on assignments virtually through collaborative technologies. In 2020, Project X involved 530 students from 16 institutions in seven countries (Finland, France, Germany, India, Lithuania, Spain, and the United States). Students were assigned to virtual teams of five to six members, with each team member coming from a different location and university. The virtual teams collaborated for 6 weeks through team collaboration platforms and video conferencing tools (e.g., Slack and Zoom) to research and write a report on a business case. Three weeks into the 6-week project, the COVID-19 pandemic hit. At that time, all the participating universities shut their campuses and sent students and faculty home to work and learn remotely. Project X faculty members were then uniquely positioned to develop a study on how global virtual collaboration in a crisis could be used to build connections in virtual teams. To explore this, a postproject survey was given to all students, and 440 (out of the 530) students completed the survey. Questions on the survey asked students about the degree of emotional investment or connection and team-belonging they had in their teams. Based on the survey responses, teams were classified as either low- belonging, medium-belonging, or high-belonging. The survey data revealed that the members of high-belonging teams felt more at ease speaking up and asking for help, felt more valued, and felt like they had more support for their ideas (referred to as inclusion). High-belonging teams also reported that they enjoyed their virtual experiences and found them interesting and fun (copresence). Open-ended comments from the teams suggested more overall positivity in high-belonging teams compared to the medium or low-belonging teams. Logemann et al.’s (2022) findings revealed that virtual teams could build an emotional and personal connection by ensuring inclusion and copresence through technology but achieving that personal bond may remain a challenge for some teams (e.g., low- and medium-belonging teams) even during a crisis.

Mayfield and Valenti (2022) explored team identity in virtual teams. Team identity has been referred to as a team member’s sense of connectedness to the other members of their team and the value they derive from being a team member (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ellemers et al., 2013). Mayfield and Valenti hypothesized that initial levels of team identity would be higher for face-to-face student teams than for virtual student teams but that the difference would dissipate over time. The study involved 320 MBA students in 63 teams, with 120 taking the course face to face and 200 engaging in online coursework. The teams worked together for a 15-week semester, and students were given a survey assessing their attitudes toward their team at the middle and end of the semester. The study also explored team satisfaction and trust (previously discussed).

Interestingly, the researchers found that while ratings of team trust and team satisfaction were higher initially in face-to-face teams versus online teams, those differences diminished over time. However, ratings of team identity continued to be higher in face-to-face teams than in online teams, and that difference was held through the end of the semester. The authors suggested that using less rich communication channels (methods that lack nonverbal cues and can hide feelings or emotions) may necessitate that more time than 15 weeks in a semester for virtual teams to form team identity.

Accountability within student teams has long been a complaint of students in teams, whether in-person or virtual. However,accountability is an even more significant challenge for virtual teams, where there can be a tendency to drop out of the interaction virtually. Team members may need regular in-person or synchronous meetings to reach or connect with team members.

In a study that investigated the experience of students learning in virtual teams (Goold et al., 2006), students were enrolled in an online Project Management and Information Systems course. Twenty-one virtual teams of seven students each were asked to complete online learning activities and solve project management tasks for a telecommunications company. The project included three topic modules, and students completed a survey following each module asking about their experiences working within a virtual team and their preferred technology tools. Survey results showed that while students enjoyed the experience of working in virtual teams, face to face was still favored. Because virtual teams and online learning generally require self-motivation, some students became frustrated when they felt some of their team members did not participate or procrastinated. Results from the first survey, in which students were asked to write what the best and worst things were about online group work, yielded several issues relating to motivation and accountability, such as discussion response time delay, lack of team members’ timely participation, and team members waiting until the last minute to submit their work. The second survey results also mentioned team members not participating or joining discussions right before deadlines. In addition, student comments indicated dissatisfaction with unreachable team members, leaving other team members to do all the work.

Other challenges relevant to joint commitment and accountability emerged in a study by Cleary and Slattery (2009). Over three semesters, technical communication students from the University of Limerick in Ireland and the University of Florida in the United States joined student teams to complete three projects. The projects asked student teams to first design websites and brochures on intercultural communication and then write a report about the collaborative technologies they used. Across the three projects, teams experienced challenges with joint commitment and accountability due to uncooperative and nonparticipating team members, differences in life and work experience between younger and older team members, and the differences in time zones between where the team members resided.

Research has begun to explore strategies that can be used to help students overcome these challenges (Davis & Zigurs, 2008; Flammia et al., 2016; He et al., 2008; Kohut, 2012; Kulturel-Konak et al., 2010; Logemann et al., 2022; O’Connor et al., 2021; Sanders et al., 2015). This case study extends that research. The following sections will first describe the course and then outline a series of instructional and student-generated strategies and recommendations from the course. These strategies may be useful across other disciplines and in other courses as well.

Virtual teamwork was part of a course on organizational psychology taught at Cal Poly Pomona (CPP) in the Spring of 2022 during a 16-week semester. The course content included topics on (a) individuals in organizations (e.g., workplace happiness, culture, and diversity, decision-making processes, emotions at work, motivation and job design, personality, skills and abilities, and values); (b) work groups and teams, team effectiveness and team building; and (c) organizational strategy and structure.

The course was designed and delivered as a fully asynchronous or online, meaning all class requirements were completed online. Students did not need to come to campus for any portion of this course and were not required to be online during a specified class time. However, students were assigned to virtual teams and required to regularly meet synchronously in a virtual format at a time of their choosing to complete the virtual team assignments in the course.

The course material was delivered through CPP’s Canvas Learning Management System. Modules on Canvas included prerecorded lectures, assigned readings, relevant Ted Talks and other videos, individual activity assignments, quizzes, and a series of assignments to be completed by students in virtual teams. To ensure clarity, students were provided with written guidelines, a video explanation recorded by the course instructor, and a sample paper for each virtual team assignment in the course.

The instructor formed virtual teams of three to five members, matched based on students’ self-reported availability to virtually meet synchronously. Through CPP’s Zoom technology, virtual teams were encouraged to meet weekly (at their common self-reported available time). Topics and agenda items for suggested discussion at these meetings were listed in the course syllabus.

Although students were required in the course to do other individual-based assignments (e.g., individual application activities, discussion board posts, and quizzes), the virtual teams in the course were required to complete a virtual team project, which included the following elements: a team charter, team proposal, three virtual team activities, and a team final paper. In these assignments, each team could apply course content to real-world problems in organizations of their choice. Each team selected a topic within the field of organizational psychology to explore and then created an interview protocol to gather information about that topic from real-world managers. Each team member then independently explored that topic and used the team interview protocol to interview a manager of their choice. Then, the entire team came together to discuss the findings (confidentially) and make recommendations for further action based on the theories discussed in the course. The assignments had two main goals—to explore a specific area within the field of organizational psychology in more depth and through the eyes of real-world managers and to help students develop and practice virtual teamwork skills necessary for their professional lives. Each of the virtual team assignments is described in further detail.

In the team charter assignment, each team outlined their agreed-upon communication and project and task management norms they would follow for working together. For communication norms, the team was to list each communication method they would use to communicate with one another and then outline the norms around when members would be expected to be available to participate in or check communication from each method and describe any other protocols the team established for the use of each communication tool. Teams were encouraged to have asynchronous (such as group chat or text, email, or Google Docs) and synchronous methods (e.g., Zoom or FaceTime team meetings) in their communication plan. The charter was the first virtual team assignment in the course, due at the end of week four.

Also, in the team charter assignment, teams drafted project and task management norms around the following areas: (a) proposed deadlines for subsequent elements in the virtual team project and under what circumstances the team might adjust these deadlines; (b) accountability norms, including both positive actions to keep all members on task and responsible (e.g., suggested meetings, check-ins, reminders), and consequences for team members who miss deadlines, do not complete their assigned tasks, or do not contribute equitably; (c) tool(s) through which the team would create, edit, and revise the team proposal and final paper assignments (all team members needed to have access to the tools); (d) the method used to ensure all team members had approved the final revision of an assignment before it was uploaded to Canvas, and the plan for turning in assignments (e.g., Who will turn it in? Who will verify it has been turned in?)

In the team proposal assignment, each team included a brief description of the topic they chose to explore, followed by the proposed interview protocol the team developed for the interviews with their managers. All team members used the same interview questions for each interview, and protocols had to be approved by the course instructor before interviews began. Revisions were requested to assist the team in creating open-ended questions that focused on the topic(s) the team has proposed to explore.

Three virtual team activities were required. The interview progress check-in activity asked teams to report on the progress of each team member concerning the completion or expected completion date of the interview and transcription of interview data and to include any assistance they may need from the instructor. The team building activity was created for the virtual teams to experience a team building activity together, during the week the class was exploring team effectiveness and team building (week 12). The team final paper progress check-in activity asked teams to report on the team’s progress on the team final paper; the tasks the team still had to do to complete the assignment, how and by when the team would accomplish those tasks; and what assistance the team might need from the instructor to complete the team final paper.

The team final paper included three major sections: (a) a description of the job title and general work responsibilities of the managers interviewed; (b) a description of issues or problems the managers faced concerning the topic under study in the paper; and any actions taken by the managers to deal with these issues (verified with evidence from the interview data); and (c) the team’s recommendations (applying the course content) to assist the managers in further solving their issues or problems.

In the design and implementation of the course, instructional strategies were used to help students manage the challenges they may face in working on virtual teams. The strategies used are described in relation to each of the challenges that emerged during the literature review—communication, trust, connection and social bonding, and joint commitment and accountability.

Communication is a key issue for virtual teams, as, without it, misunderstandings, confusion, and conflict can result. Several virtual communication strategies were used in the class to stay in contact and monitor the teams’ progress. First, Sunday videos, brief weekly videos where the instructor reviewed what the students would need to accomplish during the week and offered general feedback and tips to teams, were recorded and posted on Canvas. In addition, a student assistant sent out Wednesday email reminders on what was due on Friday, along with a special note of encouragement. Periodic classwide Canvas announcements were also used to provide additional feedback and information to the virtual teams.

Further, at the beginning of the semester, the instructor sent out a Canvas announcement listing the teams, their members, and their common virtual meeting time. It encouraged the teams to get acquainted, exchange contact information, and read one another’s discussion board introduction posts. The instructor was available on Zoom for 4 hours each week to assist students with their concerns or questions, and a student assistant was also available 1 hour per week. To meet students’ varying schedules, these virtual office hours were split over 3 days and included morning, afternoon, and evening times.

Another critical element for an effective virtual team, or any team for that matter, is to create agreed-upon team norms for communication. As previously mentioned, the virtual team charter assignment led students through the process of developing team communication norms. In the team charter, students were asked to list all the communication tools their team found most suitable and would use and to outline when members would be accessible on these tools, how often they would check in, and the protocols or netiquette rules that would guide their communication behaviors for each tool.

Students were encouraged to use various communication tools, including asynchronous (email, Google Docs) and synchronous (Zoom) tools. To maintain frequent synchronous communication, teams were encouraged to meet regularly through Zoom (about 10 times during the semester at their own scheduled times). The topic of discussion and suggested agenda items for these team meetings were listed for students in the course syllabus. When team members had difficulty getting in touch with one another initially or maintaining consistent communication, the instructor intervened to assist students in getting in touch with each other.

Since technology is how virtual teams get their work done, to be an effective virtual team, each team member has to have access to needed technology and should be provided with appropriate IT training and support. Fortunately, as students of CPP, many technology tools were available, as were the resources for technological support and training, which were easily located on the course Canvas site. Further, the instructor and two student assistants provided further technological support as best they could.

Trust between members on student virtual teams can take longer to build because of the need for in-person communication. In addition, because the teams in this class were temporary and would only exist within the context of a single course and then disband after the course was over, it was important to assist the teams with building swift trust (Meyerson et al., 1996).

In forming the teams, the instructor asked the class if any students had previously worked with other individuals in the class and would like to be placed on teams to work with them. All these requests were honored, as one way to build swift trust is to work with one who has had positive experiences in the past. However, most teams were formed based on the students’ self-reported availability (time and day) for meeting virtually. For the most part, this strategy was useful in building trust, as team members knew that the individuals they were working with would be available at the same time they were.

>One of the problems with virtual teams has been that communication through information technology eliminates some of the information or media richness (Daft & Lengel, 1986) that can be shared between team members when they work together in person. Contextual factors such as nonverbal communication (e.g., tone of voice, gestures, or facial expressions) are stripped away, leading to potential misunderstandings or distrust among virtual team members. As mentioned, students were encouraged to use various communication tools, including asynchronous and synchronous. Rich synchronous communication tools like Zoom offer students the ability to build trust by being able to hear and see one another while having private conversations, engaging in small group work in breakout rooms, or creating joint designs on a collaborative whiteboard (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2021).

To encourage synchronous interactions within the virtual teams, the instructor created a video outlining two potential procedures the teams could choose from in working on the final virtual team paper assignment. One was called the “joint work” procedure, in which teams worked synchronously on all sections of the final paper. The second approach was called the “modular approach” (Nemiro, 2004) and outlined a process involving alternating periods of working independently and working together as a team to complete the final paper. Although the amount of time spent working synchronously together varied between the two approaches, time spent together in synchronous Zoom work sessions was emphasized in each. During these meetings, students were to brainstorm and discuss their ideas, and through these interactions, trust was built. As will be seen in the results section, the two most frequent communication methods used by the student teams were Google Docs and Zoom team meetings. These Zoom team meetings helped students build trust because they could hear and see one another while sharing their opinions and ideas.

Even though the virtual team assignment was a team assignment, each team member had to interview a manager of their choice independently. Teams were then required to complete a progress report on the completion of the interviews, and as team members completed their interviews, they demonstrated they could be trusted with their work. In addition, the team progress report on the final team paper was another opportunity to build team trust. One element that trust is based on is accountability (Nemiro, 2004), and outlining in the final team paper progress report what had been done, what still needed to be completed, and who and how that would be done set the stage for accountability and trust.

When virtual teams are initially being formed, it is important to take the time to build interpersonal bonds and task connections between team members. Moreover, once teams are up and running, it is still important to continue to have ways to develop further and maintain team connections. In this class, we developed an initial connection and understanding by holding a synchronous orientation at the beginning of the course, where the instructor introduced the course and answered students’ questions. Additionally, all students were asked to introduce themselves virtually in an introductory discussion post. Members of the same virtual team were required to read the team members’ introductions and were encouraged to hold an introductory team meeting through Zoom. To maintain connection throughout the semester, teams were encouraged to continue to meet through Zoom during the semester at their own scheduled time. Further, the virtual team-building activity was a fun bonding experience for the teams.

Another critical element for an effective virtual team, or any team for that matter, is to create a joint level of dedication and commitment among all the members of the team and to establish accountability to ensure team members contribute equitably to the team’s work as well (Nemiro, 2004). As previously mentioned, the virtual team charter assignment led students through the process of developing team norms. Each team was required to establish its own set of accountability norms (positive norms to ensure accountability and consequences for nonperforming team members) as a key part of their team’s project and task management norms. The instructor abided by each team’s unique set of accountability norms.

An instructional strategy that helped keep the student teams accountable and on track was the requirement that teams could only begin their interviews with their managers once the instructor had reviewed, revised, and approved each team’s protocol. Getting all the teams approved took about a month, and they appreciated getting feedback and revisions on their protocols. The progress check-in virtual team activity assignments (interview and final team paper) also helped to keep team members accountable. They kept the instructor informed of each team’s progress and what the teams needed. Finally, even though there were two assistant student graders in the course, the instructor graded all virtual team assignments; student graders handled reviewing only individual activity and discussion post assignments. By having the instructor grade all virtual team assignments, the instructor could take a proactive approach and request meetings with teams that needed or had asked for assistance.

Table 1 summarizes the instructional strategies used to help students deal with the challenges of communication, trust, connection, social bonding, and joint commitment and accountability.

Participants were recruited from an organizational psychology asynchronous course taught in the Spring 2022 semester in the Psychology Department at Cal Poly Pomona. The course was a large section, with 115 students enrolled. All students were at either junior (26 out of 115) or senior (89 out of 115) level standing. To complete the virtual team assignments, the 115 students were divided into 28 virtual teams (each with between three to five members). Near the end of the semester, an announcement was posted on the course Canvas site inviting all 115 students (if they were 18 or above) to participate in a survey on their experiences with virtual teams in the course. Out of the 115 students invited, 89 students completed the survey (a 77% response rate). Students who completed the survey received five extra credit points in the course. If a student did not want to participate in the survey, an alternative extra credit assignment was also offered, worth the same amount of extra credit points.

The survey link was opened to students on the course Canvas site at the end of week 11 and remained accessible to students until the 16-week course was over. The survey was created on Qualtrics, Provo, UT. Students were presented with an informed consent form after clicking on the link. Students who decided to complete the survey then clicked on the arrow button to consent to participation and were presented with the survey.

The survey included open-ended questions asking participants about the strategies their virtual team used to work effectively together virtually, the types of communication tools or technology apps they found most helpful while working virtually with the members of their virtual team, and what recommendations they would have for future students in the course who have to work on virtual teams. One close- ended question asked students to select all of the communication tools their team used to communicate and collaborate on the virtual team assignments in the course. Tools listed included: Google Docs, Zoom, GroupMe, Discord, Microsoft Teams, Text, FaceTime, and other write-ins. No demographic or identifying information was solicited on the survey to ensure anonymity.

A thematic analysis was conducted on the open-ended, qualitative student responses to the questions on strategies used and suggested recommendations for future students. Counting was then used to indicate the number of quotes related to each code. All three researchers (faculty member and two student research assistants) were involved in the thematic analysis process and reviewed the quotes for each theme to select quotes they felt were the most illustrative examples. Quotes in the paper’s results section were selected by at least two (and often all three) of the researchers.

To analyze the open-ended responses to the question which asked students to write in the types of communication tools and technology apps they found most useful, a list was created with the names of all tools and apps mentioned. Then, the frequency or number of times each tool or app was mentioned was calculated. For the close-ended question, which asked students to check which tools they used-Google Docs, Zoom, GroupMe, Discord, Microsoft Teams, Text, FaceTime, and Other-the frequency or number of times each tool was selected was calculated. In addition, student team charter assignments were reviewed, a list of all the tools and apps teams suggested they would use to work together was created, and the number of teams that mentioned each communication tool was calculated.

In the results section that follows, first, the communication tools used by the teams will be discussed. Then, the findings that emerged from what the students shared about strategies they used to work effectively together, and recommendations they had for future students working in virtual teams, will be organized around the challenges revealed in the literature section-communication, trust, connection, and social bonding, and joint commitment and accountability.

Students were required to complete a team charter assignment, due by the end of the fourth week in the 16-week semester. In the charter, one section asked each team to list each communication method it planned to use to communicate with one another. A review of the 28 team charters in the class (one charter per team) showed what communication tools the teams planned to use in working virtually together on their team assignments. All teams indicated they planned to use Zoom and Google Docs. Other popular tools were GroupMe and Cal Poly Pomona’s (CPP) internal email system (mentioned by 21 teams) and Text (planned to be used by 17 teams). Less frequently mentioned communication tools included the Inbox in CPP’s Canvas learning management system for the course (4 teams); Discord (3 teams); and one team for each of the following communication tools-Face- Time, Phone Call, Google Calendar, Google Slides, Microsoft Teams, and Cozi Family Organizer.

While the team charters included information on the communication tools students planned to use (as it was each team’s first assignment and was turned in at the end of week four), the survey results (from data that was collected from the end of week 11 until the completion of the 16-week course) reported what communication tools the students did use, and which they found were most helpful. Results are shown in Table 2.

For the most part, students used Google Docs, Zoom, GroupMe, and Text to communicate and accomplish their virtual team assignments. The students viewed GroupMe as the most helpful tool, followed by Google Docs, Zoom, and Text. While Discord was used sparingly, for those that did, the majority thought it was helpful. Discord can be helpful, especially with the organization, because one can create different channels. However, students may have found it overwhelming or intimidating to navigate initially. FaceTime was not considered helpful by the majority of students who used it. Microsoft Teams, a tool for collaborative work that Cal Poly Pomona offers students access to, was not used at all. This may indicate the need for better preparation and training in university-sponsored communication tools as part of the curriculum for online courses. Tools that Cal Poly Pomona does offer students access to that were used by students included Google Docs and Zoom. It was encouraging that many students reported using Zoom (65), as it was a tool that allowed for richer forms of synchronous communication than did some of the other communication tools. Students did not write in any other forms of communication tools.

Described in this section are the themes that emerged from the analysis of the qualitative responses to the question asking students to share strategies their team used to help the team work effectively together and to the question asking students for recommendations they had for future students in this course who have to work on virtual teams. The findings are discussed around the previously identified challenges-communication, trust, connection and social bonding, and joint commitment and accountability. As expected, many of the recommendations are similar to students’ strategies to manage these challenges while working in virtual teams during the course.

Strategies. Nearly all students who participated in the survey (86 out of the 88 students who answered this question, or 98%) mentioned strategies to assist with communication. One strategy mentioned by over half of the student respondents (46 students) was the frequent use of group messaging tools (i.e., GroupMe, Discord, or text) to stay in contact and to send out regular updates and reminders about deadlines; and establish norms around when to check these tools as well. For example, one student shared, “Some strategies we have been implementing is to start a group chat to discuss what we will be doing for the week and provide each other with updates on the group assignments/projects.” Another student further specified how often the team was to check the group chat, “We decided to use GroupMe and text message chat where we would all be in contact about any questions we had. We also would check our chats at least once a day to see if anything was new.”

Another strategy was regularly holding scheduled synchronous Zoom team meetings, as mentioned by 25 students. Teams in the class were matched based on their selfreported availability to meet out of class. So students could set up schedules for meetings in advance, as this one student shared, “In the first meeting, we scheduled every Zoom meeting we would have and what would be done in that meeting. This way, we were all free and prepared to work on the assignment.” Sticking to the same time and day for each meeting was key, as illustrated by this student, “We kept the Zoom meeting times the same on the same day and scheduled them all out at once.”

A final communication strategy mentioned by 15 students was for their team to maintain an overall emphasis on constant, frequent, and open communication, as these students shared:“We communicated often on what we needed to do and what we were going to do”; and “I think just being open and communicative about any issues we are having.” One student expressed this strategy as the need to overcommunicate, “I have to say over communication, we didn’t allow for any guessing and assumptions to be made.”

Recommendations. Echoing the strategies students shared that they used in working virtually, the first recommendation for future students (mentioned by 25 students) to ensure effective and smooth virtual teamwork was that team members need to view communication as essential and key, and actively keep communicating, making communication frequent, regular, consistent, and open. For example, one student shared, “Everyone will have different experiences when working with virtual teams. You may find it really helpful or you may not like working in it because you get to do all the work, but communication within your team really helps.” Another student shared, “Communicate often and let others know where you are in terms of your work progress and your groupwork will go much more smoothly.”

Nine students suggested that future students not be afraid to be vocal and direct in team communications, especially concerning unresponsive or underperforming team members. One student shared, “Don’t be afraid to be direct with people who aren’t answering. We live in a time where everyone has their phone in their hand 24/7.” Another student shared, “Be more vocal when you feel that the work distribution isn’t equally distributed. I regret not being open with my team and discussing more of work effort.” Students suggested sending reminders as effective way to voice concerns, “Don’t be afraid to let other group members know if you need help or to offer others help through friendly reminders.” Reminders can also ensure all team members agree with the team’s work and deadlines, as indicated in this student’s comment, “Don’t be afraid to send out reminder messages! It is easy to think everyone is on the same page when things are due but always expect others to be confused!”

Strategies. Only eight (out of the 88 students who answered this question, or 9%) offered specific strategies to build team trust. The team charter assignment was recognized as a useful tool to assist with trust based on accountability, as two students shared: “We stuck by the group charter”; and“The team charter helped us build trust and stay on track as well as track our progress.” In addition, six students mentioned having norms for respectful, constructive, and inclusive decision-making as a way to build trust within the team. For example, one student shared, “We used constructive criticism and genuine thought and consideration for each other’s efforts.” Another student commented,“We would discuss each assignment with each other to see if we agreed on the answer.”

Recommendations. In dealing with the members of one’s team, seven students recommended being respectful and patient with one another and their schedules; and being open- minded and flexible with others’ work styles, as shared by this student, “Be upfront about the way you like to work, but also be flexible if other members don’t work that way.” In addition, being open to working on a virtual team was recommended to assist with team dynamics and trust, as this student shared, “Being open to it, it is something that many find nervewracking and uncomfortable so know that you are not alone in feeling that way and just be open to giving it your best shot.” Keeping the size of the team small was also recommended by one student.

Strategies. Only a few students offered specific strategies for building connection and social bonding in their teams, primarily doing so by providing help and support when their team members needed it. This was illustrated by the following student comments, “I like how we all help each other out and have a support network”; “It provided a group that I could turn to for help”; and “I felt supported by my team members aside from the classwork, if any of us had a question, we knew we could ask each other.”

Recommendations. Four students suggested it would benefit teams to take time to develop connections between team members by having fun and enjoying the team’s interactions and work, and not being shy. For example, students shared: “Enjoy and have fun, get to know your peers, and always work as a team”; and “Don’t be shy, at first it might seem horrible if you’re a shy person, but it gets easier, and once you warm up to others it’s actually not bad at all.” To further build connection, a student suggested discussing individual team members’ work habits, strengths, and weaknesses in synchronous meetings to understand one another better, as illustrated in this comment: “I would recommend getting to know each other. This may seem odd, but having a Zoom meeting where everyone discusses their schoolwork habits (such as people who prefer working on assignments ASAP versus last minute), strengths and weaknesses, etcetera.”

Strategies. Forty-one percent of the student respondents (36 out of 88 students that responded to this question) mentioned specific strategies to assist their teams in managing joint commitment and accountability while working on the team’s project and related tasks. The use of a document-sharing application, primarily Google Docs, was mentioned by 12 students as a specific useful strategy for managing the team’s work. For example, one student shared, “We made a document so everyone could access the work, and it helped individuals who needed more time to work on it and those who wanted to finish their part beforehand.”

Creating team deadlines for assignments before formal course deadlines to encourage early completion of the work was a strategy mentioned by nine students. Two examples of student comments were: “We all came up with specific deadlines together to get our parts of the work done”; and “Getting ahead of scheduled time frames as most of us have work that can get in the way of group work sometimes.”

Eight students mentioned the strategy of assigning specific roles and delegating tasks to individual team members as a helpful way to manage the challenge of accomplishing the team’s work, as illustrated by these students’ comments: “I think that it was very helpful to assign tasks to each person as it gave a clearer goal to each person. It helped ease the confusion of what was due and when it should be accomplished”; and “After each meeting we posted what was covered and what we would do as far as individual tasks.”

For each virtual team assignment in the course, students were provided with written guidelines, a video explanation recorded bythe course instructor, and a sample paper. Three students recognized these clear assignment guidelines and instructions as a useful strategy in managing their team’s work, as illustrated by these student comments: “We also had specific requirements of each assignment”; and “Clear instructions was the best method for effectively working together.”

Four students mentioned the specific strategy of splitting the work evenly among team members, as illustrated by these students’ comments: “We would split the work evenly so it was fair to everyone”; and “We have tried to hold people accountable by making sure we all split up work evenly.”

Recommendations. Fifty student respondents offered recommendations for future students in the course to assist with establishing a joint level of commitment and accountability in their virtual teams. The first recommendation, shared by four students, was to have a general plan for the team’s work and keep the work organized and stay up to date on completion of the work, as illustrated in these student comments: “Stay organized”; “Make sure they plan out with their groups what they are going to do”; and “Make sure you stay up to date with your team. It is easy to forget you have assignments due and just forget about having to do work in general.”

Twelve students recognized the importance of setting and staying on top of deadlines and even striving to finish the work early, ahead of those deadlines. For example, one student shared, “Set deadlines and stay on top of them.” Yet another student suggested,“Schedule being done with an assignment a few days before the actual due date as it then gives you some wiggle room to finish the assignment.” In addition to setting deadlines, nine students recommended creating workable schedules (agreed-upon days and times) for team meetings from the very beginning of the team’s inception, as suggested by this student, “Come up with a set time to meet center away. 1st thing you should do.”Finding team members with similar schedules to collaborate with was another related recommendation, as indicated by these students’ comments, “Find people with a similar schedule to you”; and “Make sure you guys have similar schedules.”

To further assist with establishing accountability and an equitable workload across all team members, seven students shared that placing an overall emphasis on holding team members accountable and having reliable teammates was key to the success of a virtual team. This general emphasis on accountability was illustrated in these concise student recommendations, “Just to hold each other accountable”; “Always take accountability; it’s a group effort”; and “Have reliable teammates.”

Additional specific recommendations to achieve accountability included (a) doing one’s part of the team’s work (mentioned by seven students), as illustrated by this comment, “The only tip I would have is to pull your own weight and to do the work that you are designated to do. This way everything is even, and everyone has earned their own points instead of more of the work falling on other team members”; (b) assigning team members clear roles, duties, and work tasks (suggested by five students), as described in this response, “One tip that came from the professor is assigning each member a duty. I think that has really helped my team and I to stay on track and remind each other of what is due or soon due”; and (c) seeking out assistance from the professor or student assistant when needed, as shared by two students and expressed in this quote, “Speak to the professor or student assistant early if your team members don’t do the work before the project is mostly completed.”

In addition, three students had recommendations regarding the team leader role, suggesting “To have one person in charge of keeping things on track,” and that “Someone has to take the initiative to ensure everything is set up to success and to ensure everyone is on the same page.” Further, one student shared that future students should not be embarrassed to take on the leadership role, as stated in this comment, “For the most part, everyone is trying to get their points but don’t want to take the lead, so you shouldn’t worry about embarrassing yourself if you’re the one that takes lead.”

Table 3 includes a summary of the strategies students shared they used and the recommendations they had for future students in the course to manage the challenges faced in virtual teams concerning communication, trust, connection and social bonding, and joint commitment and accountability.

This case study provides valuable information that can be used to develop further virtual team skills training for college-level students prior to entering the workforce. Along with a description of the design of the course and the virtual team assignments used in this case study, instructional strategies are shared that faculty may implement to assist students in managing the challenges of communication, trust, connection and social bonding, and joint commitment and accountability. While the authors hope these strategies will be transferable and useful in many college courses across various disciplines, faculty can draw from the instructional strategies presented in this case, test them out, and adapt them to their situations and courses.

Findings from the survey data revealed that allowing students to work in virtual teams within the context of an otherwise asynchronous online course allowed them to authentically develop their strategies to manage the challenges they may face while working remotely in the future. Although the students in this study did not receive any specific virtual team skills training at the beginning of the course, the results of this case study demonstrate that the students were able to effectively >meet these challenges by creating and implementing their emergent strategies to build resilient virtual teams (Kirkman & Stoverink, 2021). While students can be formally trained in how to work in virtual teams, research suggests that students may internalize their learnings far better when teachers offer authentic learning experiences to expose students to real-world problems and allow those same students to discover their own personalized and spontaneous strategies to solve the real-world challenges they face (Fairweather & Cramond, 2010; Nemiro et al., 2015; Sawyer, 2010).

To meet the communication challenge, students used various communication tools and realized the importance of consistent and open communication for virtual team success. While students were encouraged to communicate through asynchronous and synchronous forms of communication, they were given the freedom and autonomy to select their own set of tools for communicating with one another. Given that many students mentioned the use of Zoom team meetings as a way to accomplish their work, it was encouraging that students realized the importance of synchronous, rich forms of communication in virtual teamwork in order to form bonds within the context of an asynchronous class and to have a space to share and work through ideas. Group messaging tools were another frequent form of communication used. Intuitively, students realized that there were different purposes for each type of communication tool. Students used Zoom team meetings to generate ideas and for work sessions while sending reminders of assignment deadlines and meeting times through group messaging tools.

To meet the challenge of joint commitment and accountability, students developed strategies that would be transferable to any team situation, not just virtual teams, such as creating deadlines, striving to accomplish the work ahead of the deadlines, assigning roles, and delegating tasks to individual team members. This was encouraging, although students were not initially trained in using such techniques as task accountability charts (which might be something to include in the future). While accountability and an equitable workload are common challenges for university students working on team projects, the teams created their own unique set of accountability norms, including positive measures and consequences, in their team charters.

In this case study, fewer students mentioned strategies for building trust, connection, and social bonding within their teams. Of those that did, students shared that they had developed and implemented norms to encourage respect and inclusion of one another and helped and supported team members when they had questions. The virtual teams in this course were short-term project teams assembled to complete a joint project (Opdenakker & Cuypers, 2019). These ad hoc project teams are often made up of members with no preexisting working relationships who work together for a limited time and do not anticipate working together in the future (Thompson, 2014). The teams in this course may have been primarily task-focused, emphasizing actions to accomplish the team’s work, and less relations-focused, where actions to develop social relations and connection between the members of the team would be emphasized (Fiedler, 1967; Henkel et al., 2019). Expanding the investigation to student virtual teams that work together for longer periods (i.e., long-term research or internship teams) might yield more specific strategies around the specific challenges of team trust and connection, and social bonding.

The current study’s findings offer promising directions for developing virtual teaming skills in students. Allowing students to be exposed to the challenges of working in virtual teams and having to solve those challenges before having to do so in the workforce further prepares students for their future careers. However, a notable limitation of the course curriculum in which these students were enrolled was the absence of initial training on virtual team effectiveness. Future implementation should integrate more formalized virtual team training for students into the course curriculum.

To encourage the use of communication tools offered by the university to students (which would mean all students would have accessibility to these tools), initial training in these tools would be useful. Although some of the standard communication tools used by the students in the course were Cal Poly Pomona (CPP) tools (Zoom, Google Docs), some commonly used tools were not CPP-affiliated tools (GroupMe, text). Further, some tools offered to students at CPP (Microsoft Teams, Canvas Collaboration Tool) were not used. This may indicate the need for better preparation and training in university-sponsored communication tools as part of the curriculum for online courses. It would be helpful to include initial communication tool training, not only in how to use them but also in when it is most appropriate to use each tool and standard protocols to guide their usage.

Another form of training that may be useful would be some team bonding activity, required initially in the course for virtual team members to get to know each other and bond. The team building training should be done through rich mediums, such as Zoom, so that team members can see and hear one another simultaneously. This may help build swift trust (Meyerson et al., 1996) necessary for temporary virtual teams that only exist within the context of a single course and then disband after the course is over. The requirements in this class only had one team-building activity, and it was later in the semester. All the other virtual team requirements were task-focused.

In this case study, the students were all psychology majors enrolled in the same course on organizational psychology at Cal Poly Pomona, a university in Southern California. It would be helpful to expand research on virtual teams in higher education to other populations, including students from different majors (such as science, business, engineering, and the arts) and from students from across the globe. As one of the key benefits of virtual teams in business is to allow team members to join together no matter where they are located across the globe to solve organizational and societal problems (Nemiro, 2004; Nemiro, in press), expanding the study of global virtual teams in higher education is a necessary direction for future research.