1. Breadth and Quality of Existing Research
1.1. There are plenty of case studies of successful implementations to learn and develop from.
1.1.1. Half of the research surveyed reflects a case study of a particular implementation (14 of the 28 studies).
1.2. Few studies of protracted duration or mixed methodology, and even fewer of non-qualitative data such as text analysis of conversations in communities or correlation with measurements of TPACK skills.
1.2.1. Of studies that do include quantitative data, some seem to be less rigorous than might be hoped for.
1.3. Few studies implement the models promoted by researchers. several create their own processes or seek to create standards and best practices for implementation
1.4. Few quantitative, mixed method or experimental studies
1.4.1. Of those that do collect quantitative data, many are mixed methods approaches, entailing surveys and case studies. There are also several phenomenological assessments.
2. Implementation and Characteristics
2.1. Seeks to answer the question, "What can communities of practice look like?"
2.2. Frequency of "Ground narratives" (Wenger) about how the vCoP operates
2.3. Modality explorations
2.3.1. Embedded within each study is typically an explication of the modality and delivery choices for the PLN/vCoP
2.3.2. These might include social media, LMSs, websites, or organizationally supported tools.
2.3.3. In most studies, there is clarification of the need to blend synchronous and asynchronous tools in order to meet participant expectations and needs
2.4. Individual and organizational constraints on membership/participation
2.4.1. Consider the time constraints and management needs of participants (Stone et al., 2017;
3. Membership
3.1. Seeks to answer the question "Who participates in a vCoP and why?"
3.2. Defining roles and responsibilities of participants from core, to active to peripheral (Mckenna et al., 2016; Schultz & O'Brien, 2017;
3.3. Often comprised of diverse members, such as expert professionals, support staff or administration in key roles to support faculty. In the case of social media vCoPs or PLNs, membership is often not isolated to a discipline or profession, and instead may be composed of heterogeneous members informing teaching and learning practice, research and scholarship aims, or other professional needs.
3.4. In many case studies, intended faculty groups are narrow in scope, typically focussed toward small pools of online or adjunct faculty, and not used broadly as a mechanism for connecting all faculty.
3.5. Much research discusses the induction of new members
3.5.1. Technical challenges, training requirements and provision, and how an organization can support this.
3.6. Understanding constraints on participation
3.6.1. Time constraints and management (Stone et al., 2017;
3.6.2. Participation happens across diverse and disconnected spaces (Trust et al, 2017) such that the variety of choice may be a challenge to generalization in research.
3.6.2.1. Trust et al. (2017) identify 56 distinct organizations faculty may connect through. Most are social media platforms, though this particular study distributed their survey through social media, so this bias is obvious. The majority engage daily or weekly.
3.7. Start small and increase in size as capacity allows
4. Understanding the Participant Experience
4.1. Seeks to answer the question "How does participation influence changes in awareness, attitudes, and adoption of new practices?"
4.2. Case studies and phenomenoogical investigations (n=16) explore themes in faculty's descriptive narratives of experiences.
4.2.1. Challenge of measuring this in other ways, such as observation of classroom activity or parsing of conversations in vCoPs.
4.3. Communication and collaboration
4.3.1. "relaxed multi-faceted discussion" (Schultz & O'Brien 2017) "multi-faceted networks" (Trust et al. 2017)
4.3.2. Transmission of tacit knowledge
4.3.3. asynchronous access to conversations and information, available 24/7
4.3.4. Primarily social experience, asking questions and sharing ideas.
4.4. Belonging and social capital
4.4.1. Faculty feelings of belonging or sense of community contribute to willingness to participate and changes in attitudes and willingness to adopt new ideas.
4.4.2. The mentorship (rather than apprenticeship) dynamic among participants (Schultz & O'Brien, 2017;
4.4.3. PLNs are primarily social in nature, and less so about knowledge curation
4.4.4. The development of trust and shared responsibility (Stone et al.,2017; is a cornerstone to the community
4.4.5. Often comprised of diverse members, not isolated to a discipline or profession.
4.5. Overall, many use faculty anecdotes to evaluate the effectiveness of VCoPs, often measured as faculty "awareness, attitudes and adoption" of evidence-based practices (McKenna et al., 2016; ). Much effort is spend to understand the awareness and attitudes of faculty, less research understands the adoption of learning into practice
5. Maintenance and Feedback
5.1. Seeks to answer "How can vCoPs be sustained long term?"
5.2. Importance of feedback in the process of maintenance and ongoing improvement of the space
5.3. Describe outreach efforts
5.4. How does formal organizational endorsement influence success or appeal of a vCoP?
5.5. Consider how to support VCoPs that arise organically versus organizationally supported
5.5.1. Grassroots: Often the leadership is distributed among members, in particular when a study evaluates a grassroots implementation
5.5.2. Organizational: often a digital steward may help maintain and improve the team, and typically looks to support embedded leadership within the community
5.5.3. Some implementations where organizations were not part of the vCoP, as in the case of social media platforms. These studies may discuss the role voluntary spaces play in educator identity formation and impact of community.
5.5.4. In the case of Schultz & O'Brien (2017), the VCoP was expected to live on organically post-grant support, and was affiliated with, but not run by, organizations of discipline and teaching excellence.
5.5.4.1. With the loss of funding came the loss of momentum - despite benefits tangibly experienced by members, a lack of long term planning resulted in the loss of a valuable space of professional learning.
6. Impact on Classroom Performance
6.1. Seek to answer the question "Does participation in this vCoP result in a transfer of new knowledge into practice?" or "Does participation in this vCoP result in improved student outcomes?"
6.1.1. Few studies investigate this topic, but many call for this.
6.1.2. In Several studies, (Trust et al, 2017...) it was clear that it is harder to measure the impact of faculty participation in vCoPs on studnet learning or outcomes, although the perception is that it is positively correlated.cA study of this nature would be a significant undertaking, but this is a clear missing piece to understanding the impact of vCoPs and PLNs on education more broadly.
6.1.3. Benefits from PLNs may not yet be translating into improved student outcomes, as some respondents struggled to connect their participation in a PLN to changes in practice. (Trust et al. 2017)