There is a growing body of literature related to this topic in the business sciences. You might want to take a look at articles that have been written about interactions among members of online communities of practice, as well as how groups form and maintain sustained performance in online environments (i.e., virtual groups, virtual organizations). You might also want to take a look at what Bruce Tuckman has been writing about group formation processes. His stage theory -- forming, storming, norming, and performing -- is transferrable to online group interactions. There is also a lot of valuable information available on group interaction processes in the growing body of change management literature. ***************************** Gail D. Taylor, M.Ed. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Human Resource Education Ph.D. Student Educational Psychology Teaching Assistant "We can't just have mainstream behavior on television in a free society. We have to make sure we see the whole panorama of human behavior." -- Jerry Springer
Gail You wrote: "You might also want to take a look at what Bruce Tuckman has been writing about group formation processes. His stage theory -- forming, storming, norming, and performing -- is transferrable to online group interactions." Actually, it has been transferred to online group interaction by Palloff and Pratt in their work on creating online groups for PhD students at Fielding. Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Rosanna Tarsiero
Good point Rosanna. The same thing happens on film sets on location or in studio (boy do I know this a producer/director) and the military (where I first observed this phenomena first hand as USMC member). Does Tuckman have anything new that you can site? How about Pallof & Pratt? Chris Heidelberg -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Rosanna Tarsiero Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 1:06 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Listserv research Gail You wrote: "You might also want to take a look at what Bruce Tuckman has been writing about group formation processes. His stage theory -- forming, storming, norming, and performing -- is transferrable to online group interactions." Actually, it has been transferred to online group interaction by Palloff and Pratt in their work on creating online groups for PhD students at Fielding. Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Rosanna Tarsiero _______________________________________________ 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/
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
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
Alexander, It reminds me of the controversy around Hall's and Hofstede's work on culture. Elusive concept, maybe poorly conceptualized, done on managers only, done 60 years ago, everybody applied acritically, mere common sense, etc etc. Can we trash the concept that at least some behaviours that people (managers or not) have, even now (not just 60 yrs ago), are influenced by their culture? Hardly. But some do, engaging in a destructive practice rather than in something that criticizes and improves the model. 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 won't even begin to comment on the CMC/group aspect. Most studies (except from Walther's) are deterministic, either sociologically, psychologically or technologically. Again, supposing every person to be sensitive to some kind of influences, usually without addressing whether culture impacts or not in his/her (the researcher's) perceptions, generalizing rat-lab group findings not just to spontaneous settings, but often to the whole mankind. It's an epistemological issue that dates back to the induction/deduction diatribe. There is none that is better than the other, it all depends on the context in which they are applied. 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
Rosanna, You asked Alexander: <<So to get back to the issue, what specifically do you think is the problem in applying Tuckman to groups of online learners?>> How would you apply the Tuckman model to this group:Air-l? Are "we" at one of the Tuckman stages? Or is it your notion that the model applies only/largely/manily to "classes," or "teams," or other kinds of "groups" that are more or less formally organized? Does the fact that you aimed your question at one member and another chose to answer speak at all to the point? Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Rosanna Tarsiero Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 2:44 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Listserv research Alexander, It reminds me of the controversy around Hall's and Hofstede's work on culture. Elusive concept, maybe poorly conceptualized, done on managers only, done 60 years ago, everybody applied acritically, mere common sense, etc etc. Can we trash the concept that at least some behaviours that people (managers or not) have, even now (not just 60 yrs ago), are influenced by their culture? Hardly. But some do, engaging in a destructive practice rather than in something that criticizes and improves the model. 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 won't even begin to comment on the CMC/group aspect. Most studies (except from Walther's) are deterministic, either sociologically, psychologically or technologically. Again, supposing every person to be sensitive to some kind of influences, usually without addressing whether culture impacts or not in his/her (the researcher's) perceptions, generalizing rat-lab group findings not just to spontaneous settings, but often to the whole mankind. It's an epistemological issue that dates back to the induction/deduction diatribe. There is none that is better than the other, it all depends on the context in which they are applied. 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 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, You asked: "Does the fact that you aimed your question at one member and another chose to answer speak at all to the point?" I addressed the reply to one member because *that* member (not others) replied to what I had written. Now to address what you asked... "How would you apply the Tuckman model to this group:Air-l? Are "we" at one of the Tuckman stages?" IN all honesty, I don't know whether the Tuckman model is applicable to this group, nor do I know which possible stage would fit. That is because I did join relatively recently and most of what I read were flames (or "counterflames). I would need to observe a little more, the threads, the way they are explored, the relationships that get formed, and how the group possibly solves the problems it stumbles onto (governance included). I wasn't particularly impressed at the call to take some topics off list, limiting the number of posts or the insistence toward following rules that, albeit necessary as a general statement, were regarded as unchangeable. So I'd say the way governance is dealt with is problematic, but I can't say anything yet. "Or is it your notion that the model applies only/largely/manily to "classes," or "teams," or other kinds of "groups" that are more or less formally organized?" Not at all. I raised an epistemological issue, ie whether and when group stage or model might be appropriate. And I am used at working with communities of practice, this is to tell you that no I don't believe models apply to "formal" groups at ALL. However, since I care to keep myself objective, I am open to the possibility to be wrong. What I am not open to is generalization, whether from induction or from deduction. Rosanna Tarsiero
Rosanna, <<What I am not open to is generalization, whether from induction or from deduction.>> Perhaps one difficulty of the Tuckman model is that it is a generalization: a model that purports to describe the evolutionary cycle of all groups. << I would need to observe a little more, the threads, the way they are explored, the relationships that get formed, and how the group possibly solves the problems it stumbles onto (governance included). I wasn't particularly impressed at the call to take some topics off list, limiting the number of posts or the insistence toward following rules that, albeit necessary as a general statement, were regarded as unchangeable. So I'd say the way governance is dealt with is problematic, but I can't say anything yet.>> How would a "governance" that is "problematic" relate to the Tuckman model? One hunch: this kind of loose federation, with members joining at different times, dropping in and out, isn't really a "group" at all in the sense that Tuckman thinks of groups. If that is so, the group is always "forming" for some--you mention that you are new, so you're "forming"-- and "storming" and "norming" and "performing" go on together and endlessly, rather than in clearly marked stages. In which case Tuckman doesn't apply. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Rosanna Tarsiero [mailto:rosanna@gionnethics.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:35 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org; drseskow@cox.net Subject: RE: [Air-l] Listserv research Steve, You asked: "Does the fact that you aimed your question at one member and another chose to answer speak at all to the point?" I addressed the reply to one member because *that* member (not others) replied to what I had written. Now to address what you asked... "How would you apply the Tuckman model to this group:Air-l? Are "we" at one of the Tuckman stages?" IN all honesty, I don't know whether the Tuckman model is applicable to this group, nor do I know which possible stage would fit. That is because I did join relatively recently and most of what I read were flames (or "counterflames). I would need to observe a little more, the threads, the way they are explored, the relationships that get formed, and how the group possibly solves the problems it stumbles onto (governance included). I wasn't particularly impressed at the call to take some topics off list, limiting the number of posts or the insistence toward following rules that, albeit necessary as a general statement, were regarded as unchangeable. So I'd say the way governance is dealt with is problematic, but I can't say anything yet. "Or is it your notion that the model applies only/largely/manily to "classes," or "teams," or other kinds of "groups" that are more or less formally organized?" Not at all. I raised an epistemological issue, ie whether and when group stage or model might be appropriate. And I am used at working with communities of practice, this is to tell you that no I don't believe models apply to "formal" groups at ALL. However, since I care to keep myself objective, I am open to the possibility to be wrong. What I am not open to is generalization, whether from induction or from deduction. Rosanna Tarsiero
Steve, You wrote: "How would a "governance" that is "problematic" relate to the Tuckman model?" It has much to do with what you wrote here, IMHO: "One hunch: this kind of loose federation, with members joining at different times, dropping in and out, isn't really a "group" at all in the sense that Tuckman thinks of groups. If that is so, the group is always "forming" for some--you mention that you are new, so you're "forming"-- and "storming" and "norming" and "performing" go on together and endlessly, rather than in clearly marked stages." There is a lot of fuss, and a lot of studies, about "community", online as well as offline. The bottom line of what makes a community is participation in shared governance forms (any form). When groups form and especially *norm*, they create rules as well as procedures to create new rules and change old ones, ie governance. That's why I said that whenever there is a governance problem Tuckman can't be applied, in my opinion. If governance is problematic, there can be no norming. "In which case Tuckman doesn't apply." In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Rosanna
Rosanna, Perhaps the key variable is not "governance," but the idea of an "agenda': some sort of organizing center that is more specific than the concern that is at the center of many online groups. In the "Fielding model," to the extent that I understand it, the agenda that brings an online group into being is a "KA," a "Knowledge Area." Is that right? That "KA," although open to many variations, is defined in advance by the institution; all members of the group are required to complete the "KA"; and although the faculty member is nominally a democratic leader , he or she has some authority. And, of course, the members are all highly motivated: they all need to complete the KA as part of their search for a graduate degree. Most online groups do not have that clarity of structure, do not have an "agenda' in that sense, although they have a zone of interest, members have different motivations for joining and differing levels of interest. Hypothesis: Tuckman only applies when a "group"--online or face-to-face--has a clear "agenda," a clear set of obligations for participants, and an authority structure in place and visible and respected. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: Rosanna Tarsiero [mailto:rosanna@gionnethics.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 7:49 PM To: drseskow@cox.net; air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: RE: [Air-l] Listserv research Steve, You wrote: "How would a "governance" that is "problematic" relate to the Tuckman model?" It has much to do with what you wrote here, IMHO: "One hunch: this kind of loose federation, with members joining at different times, dropping in and out, isn't really a "group" at all in the sense that Tuckman thinks of groups. If that is so, the group is always "forming" for some--you mention that you are new, so you're "forming"-- and "storming" and "norming" and "performing" go on together and endlessly, rather than in clearly marked stages." There is a lot of fuss, and a lot of studies, about "community", online as well as offline. The bottom line of what makes a community is participation in shared governance forms (any form). When groups form and especially *norm*, they create rules as well as procedures to create new rules and change old ones, ie governance. That's why I said that whenever there is a governance problem Tuckman can't be applied, in my opinion. If governance is problematic, there can be no norming. "In which case Tuckman doesn't apply." In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Rosanna
Steve, You wrote: "Perhaps the key variable is not "governance," but the idea of an "agenda': some sort of organizing center that is more specific than the concern that is at the center of many online groups." In this sense, I often argued that "community" as "having something in common" can be very rewarding even online. I mean, some sets of people that have been labelled communities because of co-location (example: neiborhoods, in general). However co-location doesn't necessarily imply having something in common although I recognise that centuries ago villages were communities because they were concerned about the "common good" (I'm not idealistic here, the "common good" might have been a very egoistic proposition, yet it was a common value). More often faith-based initiative, nonprofit organizations and political activism happen to be more of a community because they do have a mission statement and a vision statement neither one of them (usually) is loose, ie they have an agenda. "In the "Fielding model," to the extent that I understand it, the agenda that brings an online group into being is a "KA," a "Knowledge Area." Is that right? That "KA," although open to many variations, is defined in advance by the institution; all members of the group are required to complete the "KA"; and although the faculty member is nominally a democratic leader , he or she has some authority. And, of course, the members are all highly motivated: they all need to complete the KA as part of their search for a graduate degree." Yes it's more or less like those communities (online or offline) whose mission statement is defined and members adhere to it. Congregations, too, aren't about discussing their doctrine, but adhering to it. Political parties are about discussing strategies, not their common values (in fact, even though one could join the Republican party even if he were a Democrat, the fact is, it usually don't happen, and what "democrat" or "republican" means depends on the party's hierarchy -- look at the long-winged debate in Europe about Blair's "third way"). "Most online groups do not have that clarity of structure, do not have an "agenda' in that sense, although they have a zone of interest, members have different motivations for joining and differing levels of interest." True, that's why I cringe anytime I see the term "online community" used before a. a review of the concept and b. an analysis of that specific group to check whether it has a value system or not. Even among online groups that are about a practice, some are groups of members that share at least some value while some are not. And again, they are defined "communities" without giving it a second thought. "Hypothesis: Tuckman only applies when a "group"--online or face-to-face--has a clear "agenda," a clear set of obligations for participants, and an authority structure in place and visible and respected." We're in agreement again :) Rosanna
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
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/
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/
participants (5)
-
'Gail Taylor -
Alexander Kuskis -
Dr. Steve Eskow -
Heidelberg, Chris -
Rosanna Tarsiero