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