Edward, Your message suggests to me that somewhere in the literature there are attempts to distinguish between a "group," a "team," a "society," an "organization," and so on. Or are these terms used imprecisely in the literature? Another hunch: most of the research and writing on "groups" assumes that "groups" will be meeting in real time and face-to-face for most of their "groupness." Thus the possibibility that much of the research does not fit well or easily such new creations as online assemblages of people such as this one where time and space are used in novel ways. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: Lamoureux, Edward [mailto:ell@bumail.bradley.edu] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 8:45 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; drseskow@cox.net Subject: groups I don't want to either overstate the obvious or to sound offensive or condescending in any way. It is certainly the case that merely because a topic of study has gotten a lot of attention does not guarantee that the findings there are helpful to everyone in every circumstance. My comments also don't directly refer to whether or not a particular approach or concepts (like Tuckman's work) cross apply/generalize to other (such as online) research contexts. But in general, I'm sort of responding to Steve's question as to the usefulness of the term "group." There are established literatures about group behavior in (just to name a few) psychology, sociology, and communication studies. Each set (and others) have taught us a lot about how groups function. There are a lot of definitions of the term "group," just as there are a lot of definitions of terms such as "communication" or "peace." But I don't take the plethera of definitions, or the interest that they reflect, as evidence in favor of dropping the terms. Most certainly one (or other) definition will be better suited to the particular phenomena at hand for study. But I don't think one gets very far by trying to drop a key taxonomical item. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org on behalf of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Sat 9/23/2006 4:51 PM 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/
Steve, Since I don't know you I am left with having to ask you about your intent. 1. I paragraph one designed to pose a serious question or is it puposely obtuse to provoke comment? 2. My first reaction to paragraph 2 is that it is condescending, was that your intent. 3.the third paragraph is on point since some many of our group members have cited Tuckman and Paloff and Pratt as seminal in their work. Do you think that "groupness" in online communities is not understood and has been explained by innappropriate correlations. Sam --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
Sam, <<Steve, Since I don't know you I am left with having to ask you about your intent.>> Forming? <<1. I paragraph one designed to pose a serious question or is it puposely obtuse to provoke comment?>> Note the logistical problem created by online communication. You haven't included my "paragraph one" in your message: in order to answer your question I would have to leave this message, find the message to which this refers, and so on. I assume you haven't proceeded this way in order to provoke me, but I have no way now of dealing with your question. Did you intend "purposely obtuse" as an insult? <<2. My first reaction to paragraph 2 is that it is condescending, was that your intent.>> I don't have paragraph 2 before me. Why do you ask such a question? <<3.the third paragraph is on point since some many of our group members have cited Tuckman and Paloff and Pratt as seminal in their work. Do you think that "groupness" in online communities is not understood and has been explained by innappropriate correlations.>> I feel that you are grading me, paragraph by paragraph. Was that your intent? I think "groupness" is a concept developed before the Internet created new possibilities for collaborative dialogue, and that it is possible that the attempt to apply analytical concepts developed for face-to-face "groups" may not be useful for these newer forms. Your message to me illustrates the point. Is it part of the stage of "forming"? "Storming?" None of the above? All of the above? Steve
Steve, So that you know... You asked: "I feel that you are grading me, paragraph by paragraph." It happens *very* frequently in listserv involved in research of *any* kind.... in virtual communities of practice of researchers, the "peer-to-peer" spirit is a weird one. It's an egalitarian one among experts, it's a top-down one between an expert and a newbie (instantly defined "troll" if s/he doesn't conform to the top-down part of the norm). Oddly, this is a tribal aspect of communities of researchers. Participants post in a given way, with a given lingo (not discussing, but putting references interspersed in what they write as if they were writing an article), and honor and recognition are highly valued. It's particularly interesting to see online exchanges because they make the tribe apparent. Rosanna
Not all trolls are bad (Stories from the Moominland come to mind). Not all "spoilers" are mean. I suspect that the tribe mentality exists anywhere where people can define themselves as "us" versus "them" regardless of the means by which exchanges occur. Evan among trolls themselves. Jarek
From: "Rosanna Tarsiero" <rosanna@gionnethics.com> Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org>, <drseskow@cox.net> Subject: Re: [Air-l] groups Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:39:03 +0200
Steve,
So that you know...
You asked: "I feel that you are grading me, paragraph by paragraph."
It happens *very* frequently in listserv involved in research of *any* kind.... in virtual communities of practice of researchers, the "peer-to-peer" spirit is a weird one. It's an egalitarian one among experts, it's a top-down one between an expert and a newbie (instantly defined "troll" if s/he doesn't conform to the top-down part of the norm).
Oddly, this is a tribal aspect of communities of researchers. Participants post in a given way, with a given lingo (not discussing, but putting references interspersed in what they write as if they were writing an article), and honor and recognition are highly valued.
It's particularly interesting to see online exchanges because they make the tribe apparent.
Rosanna
_______________________________________________ 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/
Rosanna, Your message below helps solve the puzzle. Apparently a veteran member of this group decided I needed taking down a peg or two. Does Tuckman explain that aspect of veteran/newbie behavior? Or any other model? Steve -----Original Message----- From: Rosanna Tarsiero [mailto:rosanna@gionnethics.com] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 2:39 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; drseskow@cox.net Subject: RE: [Air-l] groups Steve, So that you know... You asked: "I feel that you are grading me, paragraph by paragraph." It happens *very* frequently in listserv involved in research of *any* kind.... in virtual communities of practice of researchers, the "peer-to-peer" spirit is a weird one. It's an egalitarian one among experts, it's a top-down one between an expert and a newbie (instantly defined "troll" if s/he doesn't conform to the top-down part of the norm). Oddly, this is a tribal aspect of communities of researchers. Participants post in a given way, with a given lingo (not discussing, but putting references interspersed in what they write as if they were writing an article), and honor and recognition are highly valued. It's particularly interesting to see online exchanges because they make the tribe apparent. Rosanna
Steve, You wrote: "Thus the possibibility that much of the research does not fit well or easily such new creations as online assemblages of people such as this one where time and space are used in novel ways." Aside from the difference in settings between F2F and online groups, what puzzles me is *some* research on groups, namely the one picking up members among volunteer students and putting them to accomplish a task. At least theoretically there is a possibility that the motivation of a volunteer to participate in a study and of a person to participate in a "spontaneous" group concerning something s/he cares about are different. They could therefore have different results. Of course I'm not about trashing such rat-lab groups, but I'm in favor of applying it ONLY to group which were/are formed in a similar way (ie people volunteering to accomplish a task that is mandated by somebody else). Once I incurred in a ludicrous Cochrane review "testing" the effectiveness of self-help groups by *randomly selecting* its participants. EVERYBODY knows that what occurs in spontaneous settings is, people read the mission of the self-help group and self-select in and out. So those findings' applicability approximates to zero and yet were disseminated as evidence-based medicine. Rosanna
Steve wrote:
Your message suggests to me that somewhere in the literature there are attempts to distinguish between a "group," a >"team," a "society," an "organization," and so on. Or are these terms used imprecisely in the literature?
Perhaps the answer lies in the intension behind the group - its reason for being. The intention behind the group will both influence (possibly even dictate) the way the group communicates (the tone of voice, the technology choices, the spectrum of face-to-face vs online), the group dynamics, the kind of group members and the way that new members are drawn into the group. Of course, elements like member churn, and the openness to accepting newbies (the thickness of the skin of the group) influence the way a group grows. Group recruitment will determine the level of homogeneity between members. Diverse groups will take longer to bond. It makes sense to me that groups with a limited clear and single focus (a political agenda) will have a very different group dynamic to a group which aims to discuss and debate the issues dejour. A virtual group I have been part of for close to 11 years (yes, it is that old) has a thin skin (members come and go) but a solid core. No set agenda - it's water cooler conversation for knowledge workers. The spread of participation and volume of postings is far more frequent than here (possibly I should wait a while before making snap judgements about this group, being an outsider evaluating if the level and quality of these discussions is enough to glue me to the group). Michele
participants (5)
-
Dr. Steve Eskow -
J. J. -
Michele Sohn -
Rosanna Tarsiero -
Sam Tilden