Structuring a Local Virtual Work Ecology for a Collaborative, Multi-Institutional Higher Educational Project: A Case Study

Structuring a Local Virtual Work Ecology for a Collaborative, Multi-Institutional Higher Educational Project: A Case Study

Shalin Hai-Jew (Kansas State University, USA)
Copyright: © 2010 |Pages: 29
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61520-979-8.ch015
OnDemand PDF Download:
No Current Special Offers


This chapter focuses on a multi-institutional shared curricular-build project (2009) out of Kansas State University, Johnson County Community College, Kansas City Kansas Community College, and Dodge City Community College. This project involved the building of a range of digital learning objects for modules for an online course that will be taught at the various institutions in both online and hybrid formats. This collaboration is unique in that it brought together experts from cross-functional domains (from both the empirical sciences and the humanities) for an interdisciplinary freshman level course. The team collaborated virtually through computer mediated communications and built e-learning based on instructional design precepts. The curriculum was built to the standards of the public health domain field, the Quality Matters™ rubric (for e-learning standards), federal accessibility guidelines, intellectual property laws, and technological interoperability standards (with the curriculum to be delivered through four disparate learning / course management systems). This chapter focuses on the socio-technical structuring of a local virtual work ecology to support this “Pathways to Public Health” project.
Chapter Preview

The Challenges Of Virtual Teaming

The research on virtual teaming highlights a range of supervisory challenges that extend beyond typical management duties. These include:

  • difficulty establishing trust (Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter, 2004; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999; Jarvenpaa et al., 2004);

  • difficulty establishing a shared team identity (Armstrong & Cole, 2002; Cramton, 2001);

  • managing conflict (Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Hinds & Mortensen, 2005; Montoya-Weiss, Massey & Song, 2001);

  • maintaining awareness of members’ activities (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005);

  • coordinating team member efforts (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2001; Malhotra et al., 2001; Sarkey & Shay, 2002);

  • effective leadership (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Kayworth & Leidner, 2001);

  • knowledge sharing (Cramton, 2001, Griffith et al., 2003); and

  • determining the appropriate task technology fit (Qureshi & Vogel, 2001, as cited in Ocker & Fjermestad, 2008, p. 52).

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book: