Dear Rosanna, Palloff & Pratt did nothing of the kind. They simply adopted Tuckman's ideas, which are well known in small group studies, and applied them without qualification to the online medium. Tuckman's research on small group formation is probably more or less correct in broad strokes for F2F groups, but it is not applicable without modification to online groups. Dr. Palloff admitted as much to me in an online seminar a few years ago. Let me quote something I have written on this topic, with apologies for the length.........Alex Kuskis Perhaps the most famous of the sequential stage theories of group development was proposed by Tuckman in 1965; he stated that groups evolve through four stages, which he labeled: Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing (Tuckman, 1965). His research was based on studies of therapy groups, human relations training groups, laboratory-task groups, and natural groups. A fifth and final stage Adjourning was added by him later (Tuckman, 1977). The limitation of Tuckmans study, according to (Kass, 1996), is that group therapy settings were over-represented, while other types of groups, such as laboratory-task groups and natural groups were under-represented. The original framework was first abstracted from the over-represented group therapy studies, then applied to human relations training groups, and still later to laboratory-task and natural groups. Still, it is remarkable that Tuckmans 5-stage model coincides with the models of Lacoursiére, Fisher, and Tubbs to a remarkable degree, and as such, the 4 models tend to support each other. Despite the fact that the other three models confirm Tuckmans to a considerable degree, Tuckmans theory must still be used with caution, if applied to other types of groups, and especially to learning communities, whether face-to-face or virtual. Kass (1996) cautions that: While [Tuckmans] suggested sequence and perceptions of trends appeared to hold under varied conditions of composition, size, duration and focus, and while it would seem to stand the test of common sense, generalizations must perforce be limited to the fact that what has been put forth is mainly delineated from research dealing with group therapy settings. (p. 51) Unfortunately, some later writers [Palloff & Pratt] on virtual teams and communities have not always exercised such caution, and have accepted Tuckmans 5-stages at face value and applied them uncritically, stating that online communities evolve through Tuckmans 5 stages. Kass, R. (1996). Theories of small group development. Montreal: The Centre for Human Relations & Community Studies, Concordia University. Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399. Tuckman, B.W., & Jensen, M.A. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419-427. Alex Kuskis, PhD Adjunct Professor MA Progam in Communication & Leadership School of Professional Studies Gonzaga University "Learning a living" - Marshall McLuhan ----- Chris, You asked: "Does Tuckman have anything new that you can site? How about Pallof & Pratt? Pallof and Pratt are original thinkers. What they wrote is unconventional, in practice as well as in theory. For one because they have studied a real group of learners as opposed to lab-rat ones. For two they have studied this group from within and yet they haven't used ethnography. Finally, because their findings go completely against the conventional wisdom which has its origins into the cues-filtered out approach (and similar deterministic stands, even though socially or psychologically oriented). They didn't quite frame it in this way (and it's a pity), but what they did was action learning. Rosanna Tarsiero