Steve, As I said some posts ago, what I'm presently working onto are communities of practice, mainly virtual ones. And since my background (medical), I don't think there is any other way than the equivalent to a working formulation to define groups. That is, one does a literature review (or even a meta-analysis, but that's somewhat trickier even though it could help in selecting - for example - those studies whose "groups" were spontaneously emerging or artificially created rather than comparing apples with oranges), select a number of characteristics for a definition of "group" or "community" or "CoP" etc (and online it's way easier because CMC can be tracked easily in terms of logs, email number and metrics, etc) and defines the four men who meet once a month to play poker a group IF and ONLY IF they satisfy the working definition. Now, the peril in it is that you (generic) could end up selecting only what you want to see, but the advantage is that with a working definition results can be *compared*, ie if I define a virtual CoP as "more than three persons" that "interact through collaborative software", for "work-related reasons", and "at least 3 times a week" meanwhile they exchange "private emails or phone calls at least once a week" I can be sure that this definition might be inappropriate, only partially correct or even frankly off-base but the study results from different researches and researchers CAN be compared and findings MIGHT be applied to other groups fitting the same definition. I am actually engaged into a taxonomy of online groups from an online facilitation perspective. The approach that I adopted is the one above, the "working formulation" (as in hematology, when nobody could understand anything about non-Hodgkin lymphomas and their histology - it was before monoclonal and recombinant antibodies: so they classified lymphomas basing on some symptoms and their morphology into low-, intermediate- and high-grade lymphomas... not perfect but allowed doctors to do diagnosis and treatment while nothing more precise was available), classifies online groups and how to facilitate them basing on some behaviours that are displayed in the way their members do CMC. Far from being perfect, it should allow (in my intention) to have a platform for comparing various findings and hopefully will be amended as more findings are added. Rosanna Tarsiero -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: sabato 23 settembre 2006 23.52 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Listserv research Perhaps the term "group" has become too large and vague for any research findings to be useful. Are four men who meet one a month to play poker a "group"? Are the students in the freshman class of the local community college a "group"? Is the Women's Auxiliary of the local Episcopal Church a "group"? Is each chapter of Rotary a "group"? If a taxonomy of "groups" exist, it would be helpful to know about it. If not, such a taxonomy seems needed. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Kuskis Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 4:23 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Listserv research Yet, the reasons for it would be inappropriate to apply Tuckman to a group of online learners are as much as an assumption as it is to say Tuckman would be appropriate. Are the differences between therapy groups and groups of online learners proved? And in which ways? Furthermore, if differences do exists, are they relevant to the aspect(s) that is/are being studied? ------>I make no assumption either way. Tuckman's stages of group formation might or might not be appropriate to online groups. (My own experience and action research indicates that it is not). But before stating that they are, the research needs to be done to prove it. You don't just adopt a F2F group dynamic and apply it to online groups and willy-nilly state that they're the same. Palloff & Pratt (1999) make no claims for having based any of their assertions on research. By the time they write 'Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom' (2001), they state that Tuckman's stages exist for online groups, but not in the order in which Tuckman placed them. And in 'The Virtual Student' (2003) they drop the matter of group formation entirely. But, if you want a model of online group development that is specific to online courses and is based on action research, I suggest the model of Dr. Gilly Salmon: http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/salmonmodel/index.htm . At some point, I will publish my own research on this matter. ................................[snip].................................. ................................. So to get back to the issue, what specifically do you think is the problem in applying Tuckman to groups of online learners? Does it have something to do with the unconventional models they adopt at Fielding? What specifically do you think is the problem in framing group life in terms of cycles/stages? Have you ever thought that the discomfort with models of groups lies into the cultural bias we Westerners have against group and in favor of individualism? Rosanna Tarsiero --------->The problem is that the research needs to be done before making claims of applicability to the online context. Tuckman has been adopted uncritically for both F2F group formation, as well as online. The words "forming, norming, storming, performing" have become a mantra in all kinds of group dynamics literature (just plug them into Google, and you'll see what I mean). But, whatever warrant there is for it F2F, there is none online. I have no idea what models Palloff & Pratt adopt at Fielding. And having taught university courses entirely online for more than 5 years, employing collaborative and learning community strategies, I have no discomfort whatsoever with group learning models. I think that most online instructors recognize that the bias of online learning is towards collaborative and group work, rather than the individualism of classroom learning.........Alex Kuskis _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/