Middle school teachers’ perceptions of virtual teams for professional learning Free

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift for many organizations to operate remotely, transforming homes into virtual workspaces and increasing reliance on communication technologies for collaboration (Marshall, Shannon, & Love, 2020). Schools also transitioned into Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) (Hodges, Moore, Bond, Trust, & Lockee, 2020), requiring teachers to collaborate virtually with colleagues to support their students. This shift meant that teachers quickly adapted their existing face-to-face or blended learning materials for ERT and moved to virtual team models for ongoing collaboration and professional development (Charteris, Berman, & Page, 2021).

While the initial urgency of the COVID-19 mandates has subsided, the landscape of education has permanently evolved. Peterson, Scharber, Thuesen and Baskin (2020) acknowledged that ERT practices would likely influence future educational models, leading schools and districts to plan for more well-developed, sustainable online learning practices. Furthermore as Cabeen (2021) suggests, this planning must encompass robust support for teachers’ professional development and learning in online environments. Educational leaders continue to evaluate and refine online learning strategies to deliver effective professional development opportunities for teachers in this new era, making it crucial to learn from these experiences to provide better online learning experiences through virtual teaming for educators.

Charteris et al. (2021) observed that teachers successfully adapted to virtual teams during the pandemic. Virtual teams are defined as members dispersed across time and space using communication technology to work toward a common purpose (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Gillam & Oppenheim, 2006; Handke, Schulte, Schneider, & Kauffeld, 2019; Lin, Standing, & Liu, 2008; Snellman, 2014). While not a new concept, with many business organizations long utilizing virtual team models for collaboration and productivity, particularly with globally distributed employees (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017), their application in education has gained significant prominence. Charteris et al. (2021) explained that a virtual team approach offers a practical foundation for establishing professional learning communities due to its potential for relevant, collaborative and future-focused learning. However, more research is needed on virtual teams specifically within schooling contexts (Charteris et al., 2021).

Therefore, virtual teams may provide a relevant mechanism for teachers to learn and engage in professional development. Research suggests that relevancy, collaboration and future focus are effective characteristics of online professional development (AITSL, 2012; Charteris et al., 2021). This basic qualitative study explored how middle school teachers from a large, public urban school district perceive their virtual team professional learning experiences as relevant, collaborative and future-focused. The research question that guided this study was: How did middle school teachers perceive professional learning through virtual teams as relevant, collaborative and future-focused?

Virtual teams are defined as groups of individuals dispersed across time and space who utilize communication technology to work collaboratively toward a common purpose (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Gillam & Oppenheim, 2006; Handke et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2008; Snellman, 2014). As Dulebohn and Hoch (2017) elaborate, these teams are “geographically dispersed, have limited face-to-face contact and work interdependently through the use of electronic communication media to achieve common goals” (p. 1). Martin (2021) further describes virtual teams as “teams with a common purpose that use technology to cross time zones, distance and the boundaries of organizations” (p. 17).

The concept of virtual teams is not new, with many business organizations having long leveraged these models for collaboration and productivity, especially for globally distributed employees (Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017). Early research on virtual teams, such as studies on effective design characteristics (e.g. Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998) and critical components (e.g. Cohen & Gibson, 2003; Kiffin-Petersen, 2004; Wilson, 2007), laid foundational understandings. While these foundational works established enduring principles regarding team dynamics and communication, the technological landscape and collaborative environments of virtual teams have evolved significantly since their publication. Modern virtual teams benefit from more ubiquitous high-speed internet, sophisticated collaboration platforms and increased digital literacy among users, which profoundly impact communication dynamics, interaction frequency and the overall learning environment compared to earlier iterations. More recent scholarship continues to explore effective design (Stevenson, 2017; Watkins, 2013) and critical components (Brahm & Kunze, 2012; Erez et al., 2013; Charteris et al., 2021; Marlow, Lacerenza, & Salas, 2017; Pangil & Chan, 2014) within these advanced contexts, highlighting the continuous adaptation of virtual team practices.

The post-pandemic era has further intensified the focus on virtual education, highlighting both its challenges and opportunities, including increased digital literacy and learning flexibility (Sato, Condes Moreno, Dalamitros, Francisco, & Javier, 2024; Stavermann, 2025). Teacher collaboration, in particular, has been revolutionized by digital tools, though issues related to their effective implementation persist (Zuo, Krish, & Jain, 2025). As digital education becomes increasingly compulsory in many regions, ongoing professional development is crucial for teachers to adapt their methods and effectively integrate new technologies (Hörmann, Kuka, Schmidthaler, & Sabitzer, 2024). Research syntheses on Online Teacher Professional Development (OTPD) indicate predominantly positive effects on teacher competencies and practice, yet underscore the need for research specifically tailored to the unique nature and implementation of digital learning formats (Stavermann, 2025).

Despite their popularity in business, Charteris et al. (2021) highlight that the virtual team approach offers a practical foundation for establishing professional learning communities in education, given its potential for relevant, collaborative and future-focused learning. However, there remains a critical need for more research on virtual teams specifically within schooling contexts (Charteris et al., 2021). Existing literature on virtual teams in K-12 or higher education often focuses on short-term projects, manufacturing scenarios, or undergraduate business students rather than on long-term sustainability and job-embedded relevance for educators (Jensen et al., 2023).

Practitioners in education may observe similarities between virtual teams and online communities of practice or Professional Learning Networks (PLNs). However, Charteris et al. (2021) explain a critical distinction: virtual teams are typically formal, continuous and ongoing professional learning cohorts designed to support teams in achieving common goals and purposes. In contrast, a community of practice, whether online or in person, might function as a more isolated, informal professional learning event, similar to the informal approach of PLNs.

This study draws on the framework of the three core characteristics of professional learning and development (PLD) as found by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2012). The AITSL (2012) commissioned a study to explore innovative approaches to online PLD. This study involved an analysis of 97 studies and groups of studies where teacher PLD was linked to student outcomes. As a result of this analysis, the AITSL (2012) provides guidelines for what is considered effective online PLD. Overall, three main themes emerged from the study: relevancy, collaboration and future-focused. Additionally, both situated learning theory and adult learning theory help explain the relationships between the participants and their learning within the context of this study.

Charteris et al. (2021) state that relevant PLD connects educators’ goals, aspirations and needs. Specifically, the framework outlined by the AITSL (2012) encourages professional learning for teachers should:

1. Support teachers and leaders in understanding the immediate and long-term needs of their students

2. Challenge their current assumptions and support a solution-based approach to issues grounded in research and evidence-based practices

3. Align with professional, school and system-wide mission, vision and values

4. Apply principles of adult learning theory

Relevant professional learning based on the list mentioned above will be more “engaging” and have “the greatest impact” on teaching and learning when it comes to addressing and adapting to challenges within their professional environment (AITSL, 2012, p. 4).

Collaborative PLD includes participant contribution to the design, facilitation and evaluation of the pedagogical practices and their learning (Charteris et al., 2021). AITSL (2012) explains that for educator professional learning to integrate effective collaborative techniques, the learning experience should:

1. Include teacher involvement in decisions related to the design, content and evaluation of the learning experience

2. Create a safe space for receiving feedback and observing others in action

3. Provide multiple models of support through coaching and mentoring

4. Integrate experts in the field of learning

5. Ensure connections amongst and between schools

6. Apply technology that elevates learning and collaboration

This list reveals intentionality in including collaboration in professional learning scenarios. It goes beyond simply being colleagues work together on projects. Virtual teams harness the power of collaboration (Stevenson, 2017).

Finally, future-focused PLD allows teachers to evaluate their knowledge around theories that align with their actions (Charteris et al., 2021). Future-focused PLD includes learning experiences that support educator adaptability. For example, AITSL (2012) recommends that for professional learning to be future-focused, it should:

1. Focus on ways to adapt to challenges, both present and future

2. Provide practical strategies for adapting to a rapidly changing world

3. Immerse educators in research that challenges their beliefs and practices

4. Encourage innovative practices

Educational environments can be challenging and demanding as teachers attempt to meet the needs of diverse learners. The shift to ERT disrupted “normal” schooling routines for many students. As a result, students returning to school in person, hybrid, or otherwise will bring additional layers of complex challenges to the classroom. Therefore, providing educators with future-focused PLD is incredibly important so they have several strategies and tools for responding to these challenges as they present themselves.

Overall, the framework AITSL (2012) outlines practitioners with criteria used to evaluate current virtual teamwork that educators have engaged in due to the pandemic. Educators’ recent virtual team experiences can be used to explore teacher perceptions of their relevance, collaborative components and future-focused alignment. It is important to note that Charteris et al. (2021) claim that these must all be in place to support educators’ effective virtual team professional learning model. As a result, teacher feedback around these components will provide future practitioners with ways to replicate strengths and address gaps within current virtual team models.

An initial survey ( Appendix 1) was sent to 74 middle school teachers from two middle schools that are part of a large school district located in the Mountain West subregion of the United States. These two sites were selected because teachers from these institutions have had previous experiences on two types of virtual teams: “district teams” and “school teams.” District teams included virtual teams where participants collaborate with their colleagues across school boundaries. School teams were those where virtual team participants collaborated with colleagues from their school site. For this study, 22 teachers completed the initial survey ( Appendix 1) and 20 participants responded that they would be open to follow-up interviews. Seven middle school teachers were purposefully selected and interviewed three times over four weeks. The purposeful selection aimed to include multiple perspectives, with participants chosen based on their grade levels taught, years of teaching experience in the district and their overall evaluation of virtual teams (positive, negative, or neutral). These participants represented diverse experiences across different virtual team contexts rather than being members of a single unified team. The middle school teachers in this sample teach one or more grades between sixth and eighth grade.

The initial survey ( Appendix 1) collected demographic information and allowed participants to share their experiences with virtual teams through four questions using a 5-point Likert scale. A criterion sample of seven participants was selected from the respondents based on their grade levels taught, years of teaching experience in the district and overall evaluation of virtual teams. This information helped include multiple perspectives in this research study, such as teachers with varying degrees of teaching experience in the district and positive, negative and neutral evaluations of their experience working on virtual teams.

Selected participants engaged in three semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions intended to extract views and opinions from participants. The specific questions asked during the three rounds of semi-structured interviews are detailed in  Appendices 2,  3 and  4. This study followed Seidman’s (2006) three-interview series methodology. According to Seidman (2006),

Before the first interview, participants received information about the study, including its purpose and expectations for participation. This information included IRB requirements such as study goals, participant rights, confidentiality and data safety plans and consent forms for participation. All interviews were conducted using a password-protected Zoom meetings. Meeting information and the relevant interview questions were sent via Google Calendar and email. Transcripts were downloaded from Zoom and uploaded into NVivo using participant pseudonyms. These items were all stored on a password-protected computer.

Overall, the initial survey ( Appendix 1) provided information that informed participant selection. The three-interview series gave multiple opportunities for participants to build on their experiences. To establish trustworthiness (credibility) in this study, member checks were put in place and participants were allowed to determine the accuracy of the transcribed interviews (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2016).

Saldaña (2016) divided coding into two major stages: the first and second cycles. In Vivo and concept coding were used to complete the first coding cycle. Miles, Huberman and Saldaña (2020) describe In Vivo coding as an appropriate method for “virtually all qualitative studies,” mainly studies that “prioritize and honor participant’s voice” (p. 65). Concept codes are typically applied to more extended sections of the participant’s voice to extract the bigger picture. Overall, the initial coding cycle provides the researcher with a basis for further analysis and interpretation.

After the initial coding took place, the second cycle of coding followed. According to Saldaña (2016), the Second Cycle coding integrates the initial codes into cohesive chunks representing patterns. Patterns “are inferential or explanatory codes identifying a ‘bigger picture’ configuration” (Miles et al., 2020, p. 79). Furthermore, patterns often consist of the following four: categories or themes, causes or explanations, relationships among people and concepts or theoretical constructs (Miles et al., 2020, p. 80). The parent ideas included connections to the core components of the AITSL Framework for PLD (2020). According to Miles et al. (2020), matrices and other tabular data displays “organize the vast array of condensed material into an at-a-glance format for reflection, verification, conclusion drawing, and other analytic acts” (p. 83).

Table 1 shows detailed information about each participant selected for the interviews in this study. This includes relevant background information, experience with virtual teams and teamwork and additional information important to understanding their context. Table 2 presents a summary of the participants’ responses to the initial survey ( Appendix 1).

To address the research question, the following three sections present findings aligned with the three core components of the AITSL Framework for PLD (2020): relevancy, collaboration and future-focused. Within the realm of relevancy, three primary themes emerged: choice, needs and tangibility (see Table 3). For collaboration, four key themes were identified: community, cross-school collaboration, relationships and structures and routines (see Table 4). Finally, under the future-focused component, four overarching themes emerged: flexibility, new tools, temporary versus permanent and teacher- and problem-centric learning (see Table 5).

Choice is a key principle in adult learning theory (Knowles, 1984). Giving adults choices in the learning process allows them to take ownership of their learning, increasing their motivation and engagement. They are more likely to commit to and follow through with learning when they have a sense of autonomy and can see the relevance of what they are learning to their lives and careers. The theme of choice emerged as a recurrent theme during participant interviews, which discussed content and collaboration.

A key relevancy component is ensuring that professional learning supports both immediate and long-term needs (AITSL, 2012). Even though most participants recognized the complexity of the needs presented due to the pandemic, they still felt that their professional learning through virtual teams needed to be aligned with their needs. The misalignment is likely a result of decisions made when designing virtual team experiences for teachers. Participants frequently referenced challenges with structures, routines and leadership. According to the current literature, these components are critical for deploying effective virtual teams (Berry, 2011; Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Klein, Klienhanns, Gibson, & Cohen, 2003; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998).

In addition to choice and needs, the results revealed the importance of tangible strategies for teachers to find virtual learning relevant. This result aligns with Reeves and Pedulla (2013), who observe that high-quality PLD is “practical, concrete, and readily usable” (p. 62). Furthermore, effective learning for teachers should easily support transferring new ideas and skills to their classroom setting (Herbert, Campbell, & Loong, 2016). Participants reflected that during virtual teamwork, they felt a lack of tangible strategies or takeaways from their learning that met their immediate needs. In addition to strategies, one participant cited that using graphic organizers or other learning tools was not present, resulting in challenges in taking away ideas from virtual learning spaces. As a result, there was a disconnect between what teachers were taking away from their virtual teamwork and how it might impact student learning and enhance their teaching effectiveness.

The theme of community emerged as one of the critical factors impacting participant collaboration in virtual teams. Participants expressed varied experiences and perceptions of community, with many finding that groups that worked toward common, relevant goals were influential, particularly in smaller teams. However, building a sense of community was also a challenge, especially for those who were new to their teams and working virtually with colleagues for the first time. Despite the challenges, participants emphasized the importance of community in virtual teamwork and the need for additional ways to integrate themselves into virtual communities. Current research on virtual teams underscores the importance of successful interactions to help sustain a virtual team community (Charteris et al., 2021; Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998; Marlow et al., 2017; Watkins, 2013; Wilson, 2007).

Multiple participants viewed relationships as crucial to their motivation and comfort in collaborating. Participants referenced relationship building as much more accessible in smaller group settings. The current literature on virtual teams echoes the importance of relationships and the challenge of building trusting relationships in a virtual space (Brahm & Kunze, 2012; Erez et al., 2013; Kiffin-Peterson, 2004; Pangil & Chan, 2014). Participants’ perceptions of relationships and their impact on collaboration align closely with person-based trust, where trust builds over the mutual exchange of knowledge and the professional credibility of the team members (Pangil & Chan, 2014). However, before that could happen, participants needed help with the cognitive-based trust that builds from the professional credibility of the team members (Pangil & Chan, 2014). The challenge of building trusting relationships in a virtual space is well-documented in the existing literature (Brahm & Kunze, 2012; Erez et al., 2013; Kiffin-Petersen, 2004; Pangil & Chan, 2014). The results of this study suggest that person-based trust is a critical component of building strong relationships and collaboration, but that cognitive-based trust, rooted in professional credibility, must also be established.

Another theme that emerged was cross-school collaboration. Almost all participants discussed having a positive experience connecting with teachers across the district. They felt that there was an increase in knowledge sharing in these sessions and that they had the chance to work with people they would not usually get to collaborate with in person. Knowledge sharing is a key benefit of virtual teams in general because they allow for crossing barriers such as time and geography (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017; Gillam & Oppenheim, 2006; Handke et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2008; Snellman, 2014). Furthermore, Charteris et al. (2021) specifically call out that a critical benefit of virtual teams for teachers is connecting teachers who would otherwise not meet.

Finally, leadership approaches made it challenging for virtual team leaders to facilitate collaborative learning environments with top-down directives for their teams and unrelatable structures and routines. The challenge that the leadership approaches created is supported in the literature when looking at both adult learning theory and AITSL’s (2012) framework for PLD. The theory and framework both stress the importance of learners being active members of the planning, designing and delivery of the learning experience. Participants’ perceptions of structures and routines also connect to the literature on the importance of team processes in virtual teams (Berry, 2011; Gibson & Cohen, 2003). Supportive structures begin with norms and expectations around communication and collaboration, including accountability measures (Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Whitener et al., 1998). Some virtual team leaders deployed top-down directives that made engaging in collaborative learning challenging for their teams. This approach lacks connection to the literature, emphasizing the importance of involving learners in developing learning processes (AITSL, 2012; Forsyth, 2008). Participants’ perceptions of unrelatable structures and routines align with the literature on the significance of team processes in virtual teams (Berry, 2011; Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Gibson & Cohen, 2003; Klein et al., 2003; Whitener et al., 1998). Supportive structures should be established to promote collaboration, starting with clear norms and expectations around communication and collaboration, including accountability measures. These findings accentuate the importance of effective leadership and support team processes in promoting collaborative learning in virtual teams.

The participants discussed the benefits of virtual teamwork, including flexibility in learning and communication. They found that this allowed for a deeper understanding of the student experience and provided new modalities for professional learning. As previously discussed, flexibility is often cited as a key benefit of virtual collaboration and teamwork (Anthony, 2020; Charteris et al., 2021; Dulebohn & Hoch, 2017; Trust, Carpenter, & Krutka, 2018). The flexibility of learning through virtual teams provided teachers with models for new ways of delivering and participating in learning activties through virtual teamwork. Learning new strategies aligns with the AITSL (2012) framework for PLD as it relates to future-focused learning. For example, a description of future-focused learning includes exposing “teachers to new and emerging practices and the theories that underlie them” (p. 5). Based on the data from this study, participants were able to connect the new ways of learning through virtual teams and spaces to new ways of teaching and learning. Moreover, embracing these new ways of teaching and learning allowed the participants to learn more about the latest technology tools and platforms that support student learning.

Participants also discussed the benefits of the new technologies and the skills they learned through virtual teamwork. For example, the interview data revealed that teachers appreciated using and experiencing new presentations and collaborative tools. They discussed other Web 2.0 tools that aided in improving productivity and efficiency. Exploring new technologies aligns with future-focused learning in that it promotes innovation in teacher practice and supports adapting to a “rapidly changing and hyper-connected world” (AITSL, 2012, p. 5). Several studies on virtual teams in education specifically focus on virtual teamwork through virtual collaborative tasks (Andrade, 2019; Stoerger & Krieger, 2016).

Additionally, participants in this study could conceive of a future that included virtual teamwork and collaboration through a hybrid approach. Charteris et al. (2021) specifically mention that a potential strategy for ensuring future-focused PLD is using blended or purely virtual approaches “can maximize the use of evolving and new technologies” (p. 6). Participants perceived using new technologies through virtual team collaboration as beneficial in improving productivity and efficiency, fostering innovation and preparing for a rapidly changing world. This study and several other studies have demonstrated that virtual teamwork and collaborative tasks can potentially impact teaching practices. By using a blended or purely virtual approach, teachers can maximize the use of evolving and new technologies and better support the diverse needs of their students. The insights gained from this study highlight the importance of ongoing professional development in technology integration and virtual collaboration and the need to create a culture of continuous learning that supports educators in adapting to new challenges and opportunities.

Even though the interview data revealed connections to future-focused learning, participants expressed concerns about the rush to return to in-person learning and the lack of teacher-centric learning. Some participants believed that hybrid and remote learning should be permanent and wondered if the shift to virtual teams would have occurred sooner if it had not been for the pandemic. As a result, action learning and moving practices forward impeded participants’ perceptions of future-focused learning. The AITSL (2012) Framework for PLD recommends a few different approaches for facilitating future-focused learning, including addressing the day-to-day needs of participants but also exploring new realities. This juxtaposition was a struggle for participants as they perceived their learning experiences as “getting by” until they returned to “normal.” Additionally, future-focused learning should equip teachers to deal with future and current challenges. Adapting to current and future challenges is an unexplored area in the current literature as educators grapple with post-pandemic education and its impacts on students and teachers. The assumption that “returning to normal” would include the same challenges as pre-pandemic education made it difficult for educators to perceive their learning during the pandemic as relevant to future challenges.

Furthermore, participants felt another difficulty with preparing and responding to current and future challenges was the need for teachers’ voices in virtual teamwork and collaboration during the pandemic. Current literature suggests that when teachers have a voice in their professional learning, they are more invested and more likely to apply the knowledge (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008; Desimone, 2009; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Hirsh & Hord, 2010). Furthermore, Charteris et al. (2021) perceive teacher voice in planning virtual teams for professional learning as a critical component for success. Having choice over content and approaches for collaborative inquiry and exploration also helps the experience feel more relevant to teachers, in addition to being future-focused. The limited studies on virtual teams in educational contexts focus primarily on undergraduate students, and even within these studies, participant voice in designing their virtual team experience is lacking (Jensen et al., 2023). While limited studies have explored virtual teams in educational contexts, future research could investigate ways to design virtual team experiences that center around the needs and challenges voiced by teachers, including developing structures, norms and accountability measurements for virtual teammates.

To further illustrate the nuanced perceptions of individual participants, a cross-table analysis detailing the specific benefits and challenges experienced by each teacher across the relevancy, collaboration and future-focused components is provided in  Appendix 5.

After coding and organizing themes into Relevancy, Collaborative, or Future-focused, the analysis revealed relationships between these core components of AITSL’s Framework. The study found that collaboration was key to participants’ perceived effectiveness of professional learning through virtual teams. Furthermore, the results of this study also revealed that both relevance and future-focused learning heavily impacted participants’ motivation to collaborate in virtual teams.

The results of this study also identified several overlapping ideas between the components of the AITSL (2012) Framework for PLD, such as building community, cross-school collaboration, empathy, basic needs, value and flexibility. These factors were critical in making virtual professional learning experiences more relevant and meaningful. Finally, this study found a connection between collaboration and future-focused learning, with collaboration being impacted by the perceived lack of future-focused learning. The interconnectedness of the framework components is less clear in the literature from Charteris et al. (2021) and the AITSL (2012) Framework for PLD. For instance, this framework compartmentalizes the core components of professional learning rather than how they might intersect or the impact of their relationships on professional learning. Therefore, it is important for future studies to explore the connections between the components in order for future educators to prioritize and plan for the most impactful components of effective professional learning as it relates to this framework. Overall, this study’s results suggest that virtual teams can effectively deliver professional learning when they are problem-centered, serve an immediate need and work toward common goals.

There are several limitations in this study. First, the size and scope of the study were small and confined to only two schools in one educational district. Furthermore, this study only included middle school teachers, primarily teaching core content and elective classes and did not including support staff such as paraprofessionals or special education teachers. As a result, the different teaching contexts and virtual teaming among these groups may highlight experiences different from those selected to participate in this study.

Additionally, it is important to acknowledge the timing of this research. The professional development experiences examined in this study were largely conducted in a “just-in-time” fashion during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. This rapid transition likely influenced the design, organization and implementation of these virtual PD opportunities. Future virtual professional development, conducted post-pandemic with more deliberate planning, might exhibit different characteristics and outcomes.

Finally, almost all participants expressed comfort using technology for different purposes. Therefore, those with less experience using technology, especially for collaboration and learning, may have different experiences with professional learning through virtual teams. Another limitation of this study was the design of the interviews, as the participant self-reported their experiences. Because the study relies on participants’ subjective experiences and perceptions, their individual biases or perspectives may influence their responses.

First, the scope of this study was limited to a small sample size in one district. Given the limited number of participants, further research could attempt to duplicate this study with a larger sample across multiple districts. Furthermore, the sample only included middle school teachers teaching electives and core content areas. Future research could explore elementary and high school teachers to expand the scope. Additionally, this study did not include many educators outside of those with their own classroom, such as support staff in schools and districts who often work across classrooms and even school buildings. Future research could explore their experiences, especially given the positive results of cross-school collaboration from this study.

Next, teachers were forced into virtual teams by circumstance. All participants reflected on the heightened emotions and experiences impacting some of their work during this time. Therefore, additional research could be conducted with educators working in virtual teams in some capacity at the current moment. Or, the results of this study, combined with the suggestions of Charteris et al. (2021), could be used to inform and test a model on teachers in the current climate to reflect a more accurate understanding of virtual teamwork outside of a pandemic. This approach might provide a little more validity and produce artifacts or empirical data to support additional findings.

Finally, the participants in this study were comfortable using technology. Therefore, those with less experience using technology to collaborate and learn were left out of the findings. It is important to note that participants’ comfort level with technology may have influenced their perceptions and experiences with virtual teams. Future studies should consider this factor and explore how it impacts the effectiveness of professional learning in virtual teams. It would be valuable to research how to support teachers who may not have the same level of comfort and experience with technology to succeed in virtual teams. New studies could focus on the experiences and perceptions of those who perceive themselves as less “tech-savvy.”

This research included the involvement of human participants and IRB approval was received before conducting research.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants prior to the study.

Name

What is the best email to contact you?

(Optional) Phone

1. What grades do you teach? Select all that apply:

   • 6

   • 7

   • 8

2. How many years have you been teaching in the district?

   • This is my first year

   • 2–5 years

   • 5–10 years

   • 10 or more years

3. Virtual teams are teams that use digital communication technologies to work together to achieve common goals. What types of virtual teams have you taken part in since the shift to remote learning in 2020? Select all that apply:

   • Grade Level Teams (PBIS, MTSS, RtI)

   • Professional Learning Communities (content)

   • District Level (across school sites)

   • Other:______________________

4. Based on your experience in the teams that you selected in the previous question, please evaluate the following statements:

   • I enjoyed working on virtual teams.

     • Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

   • Virtual teamwork met my needs.

     • Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

   • Virtual teams were an effective way to support my professional learning.

     • Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

   • I would like to continue working on virtual teams.

     • Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

5. Would you be open to being contacted by the researcher to receive a $75 Amazon gift card for a set of follow-up interview questions? Your total time commitment would be 3 separate virtual interviews over the course of 6–8 weeks (Mid September-End of October). Each interview will last no longer than 30 minutes.

   • Yes/No

6. (OPTIONAL) Is there anything else you would like to explain or elaborate on as it relates to your experiences with virtual teams?

1. Tell me about your educational background, how did you come into teaching?

2. Tell me about your background and experience teaching in this district, what have you taught and for how long?

3. What have teams been like that you have worked on within the school? The district?

4. How would you describe professional learning?

5. What have been your experiences working on teams since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic during the spring of 2020?

6. What have been your experiences with professional learning since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic during the spring of 2020?

7. Tell me about any virtual teams you worked on before the pandemic, what are they and what were/are they like?

8. How has your experience working in virtual teams impacted your professional practice?

1. What current virtual teams and teamwork do you engage in at the school level?

2. What about the district level?

3. What typically happens in these? Walk me through an example of one.

4. What is your role in these virtual teams and teamwork?

5. How easy is it to participate in virtual teams and teamwork?

6. How useful is it to participate in virtual teams and teamwork?

7. What are the benefits of virtual teams and teamwork?

8. What are the challenges of virtual teams and teamwork?

9. Provide an example of a time when virtual teamwork was effective? What do you think made it effective?

1. Reflecting on the last 3 years working in virtual teams, how would you describe the collaboration that took place?

2. What about the relevance of the learning experience through virtual teams?

3. What about the learning experience as future-focused? In other words, how did the learning experience through virtual teams support your ability to be proactive in problem-solving for the future?

4. How would you evaluate your experience working within and learning during your participation in virtual teams and teamwork? Why?

5. Which virtual team learning experience was the most effective and why?

6. What about least effective? Why?

7. How would you make learning through virtual teams more relevant?

8. What about being more collaborative?

9. What about future-focused?

10. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience learning and participating in virtual teams and teamwork?