ONLINE LEARNING COMMUNITIES: A MODEL FOR APPLYING TUCKMAN'S THEORY OF GROUP DEVELOPMENT TO THE DESIGN AND FACILITATION OF ONLINE COURSES

Jan Engle
Governors State University, University Park, IL, USA
Chris Boozer
Sierra Tel Networks, Oakhurst, CA, USA
Jocelyn Cessar
Trinidad State Junior College, Trinidad, CO, USA
Bonnie Correia
California State University-Hayward, Hayward, CA, USA

Abstract

Learning in community offers distinct benefits for students in a distance-learning course. The question of how a group of people who register for an online course can become a community of learners is of vital interest to curriculum developers and facilitators. This paper proposes that a group dynamics model can provide an effective structure for answering this question. After familiarizing the reader with the five-stage group development model postulated by Bruce Tuckman (1965) this paper will discuss ways in which the model can be used to inform the design and facilitation of online courses in ways that enhance the community-building process.

Learning in community offers distinct benefits for students in a distance-learning course. The presence of community removes the sense of isolation and provides both social and academic support, resulting in lower dropout rates. Studies support the fact that success or failure in online courses depend on students' perceptions of being 'insiders' or 'outsiders' (Wegerif, 1998). Interacting with other students also provides academic benefits as students become exposed to multiple perspectives and experience a deeper level of learning than when they learn in isolation. Community enhances learning through such elements as collaborative group exercises, role-play, and exposure to students from diverse social, ethnic, and cultural groups (Brown, 2001).

In order to meaningfully discuss the creation of a community of learners, it is important to establish a definition of what is meant by the term 'learning community' and to establish a series of measures that operationalize the definition. For the purposes of this paper, we have established the following definition of learning communities.

Members in an online course become a community of learners when people begin to experience a sense of 'belonging' to the group and:

• They share resources freely.
• They are able to work productively on collaborative projects.
• The contributions of all members are valued.
• The level of trust between members grows as members become willing to change preconceived ideas or opinions based on facts presented by other members.
• The group becomes self-leading, no longer requiring organizing principles or interaction protocols to be imposed externally.
• Leadership is shared and questioning of members is encouraged.
• Members exchange feelings and ideas, solicit and give feedback to one another, and explore options and actions related to the task.

Having operationalized a definition of learning community, we turn to the central questions of this paper: (1) how does a group of people who register for an online course evolve into a community of learners; and (2) can specific design and facilitation techniques facilitate the community-building process in an online course? In attempting to answer these questions, we will turn to the five-stage group development model postulated by Bruce Tuckman (1965). After familiarizing the reader with Tuckman's model, the paper will explore ways in which the five stages can be used to inform both course development and facilitation strategies to enhance the community-building process in online courses.

Community of Learners and Group Process

Learners in an online course constitute a group of people who have come together around a common purpose. As a group, we can anticipate that a class will evolve through several phases or stages as the students move from the initial meeting of members to the termination of the class. In his classic study of small groups, Bruce Tuckman (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) identified five stages through which groups typically move: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Applying this model to online courses can guide developers and facilitators in constructing learning activities and promoting interactions among learners that will enhance both community-building and academic objectives.

Each of the five stages identified by Tuckman involves specific types of interactions among members and requires the resolution of developmental tasks if the group is to move successfully to the next stage. The forming stage is characterized by polite interactions between members as they are getting to know one another. Group members seek acceptance by the group and indications that the group is safe. Controversy is generally avoided and members seek guidance and direction from the group leader. Major group tasks during this phase involve orientations to tasks and to other group members (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Designers and facilitators can assist groups in successfully moving through this stage by providing an opportunity for students to meet, establishing a safe social and emotional climate that will engage students in learning, and providing activities that encourage students to begin interacting not only with the instructor, but also with their peers.

Groups enter the second, or ‘storming,’ stage when members begin to risk the possibility of conflict as they attempt to deal with such issues as what is expected in the group, who is responsible for what, what are the potential rewards and consequences of involvement, etc. Conflicts, whether overt or covert, will exist over leadership, structure, power, and authority. (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). A variety of behaviors emerge as the group begins to deal with conflict:  absence or lateness in responding to issues, silence, domination of discussion threads, avoidance of issues, dropping out of the topic, verbal abuse, development of subgroups, blaming, provocation, ‘flaming’, etc. (Collaborative Learning Online, n.d.). The major group task during the storming phase is the development of an ability to listen and tolerate differences (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). The involvement and skill of the facilitator becomes key during this stage, with an emphasis placed not on the inhibition of conflict but on helping the group seek a productive resolution.

As groups begin assuming a problem-solving stance in dealing with issues and conflicts, they enter the third stage of development, ‘norming.’ During the norming stage, groups achieve a level of cohesion and are able to work productively on projects. The contributions of all members are valued. The level of trust between members grows as they become willing to change preconceived ideas or opinions based on facts presented by other members. Leadership is shared and questioning of one another is encouraged. The primary task of the ‘norming’ stage is sharing of information, both factual and emotional. Members exchange feelings and ideas, solicit and give feedback to one another, and explore options and actions related to the task. During the norming stage, people begin to experience a sense of ‘belonging’ to the group and have positive feelings regarding the resolution of interpersonal conflicts. Movement to the next stage requires that the depth and range of personal relationships in the group evolve to true interdependence (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Groups in the norming phase no longer require a high level of involvement by the facilitator and the facilitative role evolves more into monitoring the group and serving as a resource when requested. As the group moves more deeply into the norming stage and prepares to become a performing group, more complex exercises involving greater levels of interdependency among members can be introduced.

The fourth, or performing, stage involves members working independently, in subgroups or in the group as a whole with equal facility. Individual roles and responsibilities adjust to changes in the needs of the group and of the individual members. Individual members trust the group sufficiently to become self-assuring, instead of requiring the need for group approval. Members are concurrently task and people oriented. There is support for experimentation and conflict is embraced and resolved openly in a spirit of problem solving. Group identity is complete, and morale and group loyalty are high. The task function is problem solving and the overall goal is productivity (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). 'Performing' is the most productive phase of group development and is one that is achieved by only a relatively small percentage of groups, regardless of environment (real or virtual), because of the length of time and amount of interaction among members required to move through the preceding stages. Facilitation responsibilities are negligible for performing-stage groups because, by definition, they are self-leading. While it is theoretically possible for a group of learners in a single online course to evolve to the performing stage, it is not likely due to time and communication restraints.

The final stage of group development, ‘adjourning’, involves the termination of tasks and the disengagement from relationships within the context of the group. Successful, planned ‘adjourning’ involves recognition of participation and accomplishments and an opportunity for members to say good-byes. This phase is often avoided by groups in an effort to avoid the pain of loss (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). The potential loss of the group may trigger destructive actions on the part of some group members, conflictual interactions with the facilitator or other group members, or the refusal to complete the remaining work of the group. Because of this tendency toward avoidance, course designers and facilitators assume an important role, regardless of the stage of development the group has achieved prior to adjournment, by providing an opportunity for reflection and encouraging an open discussion of feelings of loss as the group comes to an end (Collaborative Learning Online, n.d.).

Learning in community occurs when there is a high level of student-to-student interaction. Such active participation is the foundation for a discovery-based approach to learning. However, student-to-student interaction does not occur serendipitously; developing student interaction must be a central aspect of the course design. The Tuckman model discussed in the previous section can inform more effective course design by helping developers to plan interaction activities that recognize the group development process that occurs within an online class. Planning activities with a particular group stage in mind, and using activities to facilitate movement of a class through the various stages of group development, can contribute to the development of community and deepen the learning experience for members of an online learning group. Key design elements that impact student interaction include the following:

• level of structure required in group interactions;
• extent to which students need to be trained to work together (teamwork);
• discussion forums; and,
• cooperative and collaborative learning exercises.

Level of Structure

Deciding how much freedom and control of learning activities to maintain in the course design and how much to give to students is a design issue that faces developers in every course. Consideration of the stage of group development that a class has achieved can help guide the developer in making the determination regarding the amount of structure and control to design into student-to-student interactions. Newly-formed groups will need a high degree of initial structure to present a welcoming atmosphere and to allow student interaction to flourish in a safe, controlled environment. It is also important during the early stages of a course to let students know what is expected of them; for example, providing specific discussion thread topics, letting students know the minimum amount of participation expected, providing written guidelines for what is to be done, providing examples of appropriate responses. Design strategies such as the liberal use of discussion threads that ask questions soliciting student opinions and reactions and use of community-building activities such as creation of student home pages or class photo albums are particularly helpful in achieving higher levels of student interaction during the initial days of a class. As the group progresses through the various stages of the group dynamics model, the amount of structure built into course units can become progressively less. Design choices can progressively integrate activities and interactions in which the group assumes more responsibility for leadership and instructor involvement lessens. For groups that achieve the performing level of development, the responsibility for structure goes to the group, thereby allowing complex project assignments where the group establishes direction, scope, outcomes, and working process (Rockwood, as cited by Panitz, 1997).

Extent to Which Students Need to Be Trained to Work Together (teamwork)

As classes progress through the stages of group development, participation evolves from simple interaction into cooperation and collaboration. For many students, cooperative group work is new and they will need active support from the instructor in order for them to succeed in group-centered activities. Training in teamwork skills (e.g., active listening and constructive feedback) should be provided for groups in the early 'forming' stage of development. Additionally, students need guidelines for working together and preparation for providing and receiving feedback on how the group is functioning. Requirements for peer evaluations help the group members to understand their responsibilities and how to improve their participation and performance. (Matthews, Cooper, Davidson & Hawkes, 1995). Careful preparation for peer evaluations is critical since requiring students to evaluate one another can bring a group prematurely into the storming stage. When a group moves into the storming stage, regardless of the triggering event, members should be guided to work through issues to bring about conflict resolution. Information and links that focus on conflict and productive resolution strategies can be very helpful at this point. Once a group has reached the norming stage, the group maintains its own self-evaluation and conflict resolution. Evaluation of the group process is for the benefit of the group and not the instructor (Matthews et al.).

Discussion Forums

Communication between group members is a crucial element if group growth and development is to occur. Using discussion forums as a means of communication provides a sense of presence for students and the instructor. To encourage active discussion as the group is forming it is important to include class participation as part of the student’s grade. During the early stages, topics should be specific and provide open-ended questions that stimulate the sharing of ideas and information between group members. Issues posed for discussion can increasingly deal with more complex and controversial issues as the group moves through the various stages.

Cooperative and Collaborative Learning Exercises

Group projects that involve students in interdependent activities provide fertile ground for delivering superior learning outcomes (Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne, 2002). Independent projects fall on a continuum from simple cooperation to full collaboration. Theodore Panitz (1997) defines cooperative learning as follows: "Cooperative learning is defined by a set of processes which help people interact together in order to accomplish a specific goal or develop an end product, which is usually content specific." Cooperative learning exercises are structured, focused and teacher-led. Relating this to the group dynamic model would suggest that simple cooperative group work would be most useful for groups in the forming or storming stages of group development. Introducing interaction among group participants and developing specific task-oriented projects are appropriate for this level. An example of a simple cooperative exercise might be the compilation of an annotated bibliography for a specific topic. Such an exercise could be completed with individuals completing a portion of the assignment on an individual basis (e.g., finding 'x' number of sources, writing the annotation, and submitting for final compilation) without a great deal of interaction among team members.

The norming stage represents the time during which groups will go through transitions in the group process if they are to evolve into a ‘performing’ group. Increasing the level of complexity of cooperative exercises and focusing responsibility for defining scope, method, and outcomes on the group instead of on the instructor can facilitate the evolution of groups from the norming to the performing stage. An example of a more complex cooperative assignment might be one in which the group defines their project and then parses out pieces of the project to be completed independently by group members and compiled into a final project.

As groups evolve into higher levels of functioning they become ready to move from cooperative to collaborative projects. Panitz (1997) differentiates collaborative learning from cooperative learning as follows:

Collaborative learning is a philosophy of interaction. . . . There is a sharing of authority and acceptance of responsibility among group members for the group’s actions. The underlying premise of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building through cooperation by group members, in contrast to competition in which individuals best other group members. 

Transition from cooperative to collaborative learning starts in the norming stage and grows to full potential in the performing stage. With collaborative projects, there is less formal structure, students work among themselves to discuss and solve problems, and the instructor transfers authority to the group. Once in the performing stage, fully collaborative learning exercises are appropriate. An example of a fully collaborative learning exercise might be the development of a research project in which a team works to achieve consensus on the research question, develops information collection and evaluation protocols, collects information, evaluates information in accordance with established protocols, achieves consensus regarding study findings, and develops a final paper describing the research project and findings. In this instance, each of the major steps in the process would involve interaction among group members and an achievement of consensus regarding all elements of the work.

		Stages of Group Development
		Forming	Storming	Norming	Performing	Adjourning
Design Elements	Level of Structure	Greatest level of structure with predefined activities, specific directions regarding interactions, clear definitions of roles and expectations.	Activities continue to be predetermined but the forms of interactions and definitions of roles are less defined, allowing students room to negotiate.	Assignments are provided with general directions regarding deliverables, timeframes, etc. Requirements of interactions, definition of roles, determination of methods are addressed by the group.	Activities are not predefined. Students are presented with a problem and are challenged to define the project, determine deliverables, develop evaluation criteria, and establish timelines.	A return to an increased level of structure in order to assure that adjourning activities are not avoided. Assignments and activities are defined to focus on issues surrounding the disbanding of the group.
	Teamwork Skills	Issues regarding teamwork are built into assignment directions. Specific task steps are identified to help students learn to work as a team in the online environment. Exercises introduce groups to the various online tools that can be used for team activities.	Resources regarding conflict and conflict resolution are made available. Additional time is provided for assignments to allow for the resolution of conflicts.	Discussion threads and assignments that focus on group process are integrated into course activities to promote the continued growth of team and collaboration skills.	Resources and tools to facilitate team activities are made available to the group to use as they deem necessary.	Focus part of the termination discussion on the contributions of the team (i.e., the whole is greater than the sum of the parts).
	Discussion Forums	Predefined discussion topics that focus on introducing students to the course and to fellow group members.	Provide discussion forums that focus on generation of alternatives and on group process.	Predefined discussion topics focus on increasingly complex and controversial topics.	There are no predetermined discussion topics. The group determines topics.	Termination issues receive top priority over task/product issues.
	Cooperative and Collaborative Learning Exercises	Structured, closed-ended, specific tasks with specific roles are assigned. Students are individually accountable though interdependent for final outcome.	Continued structured, closed-ended exercises with specific tasks.  Role negotiation may be left up to group. Students remain individually accountable though interdependent for final outcome.	Decrease structure and increase open-endedness of exercises. Allow groups to determine tasks and roles. Design exercises to transition groups from cooperative to collaborative activities.	Social construct is evident. Open-ended, complex tasks are undertaken. Group is responsible, not individuals; higher level skills are required.

Design decisions can provide experiences that help to move an online class through the stages of group development. Even the best design strategies, however, require the presence of a skilled facilitator in order to nourish effective group development (Bates, 2000; Berge, 1995; Gustafson & Gibbs, 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; McCullough, 1997; Rohfeld & Hiemstra, 1995). For many instructors and learners, participation in online courses is a very new way of learning, communicating, and interacting. Inevitably, there are obstacles to overcome before learners feel sufficiently at ease to get the most out of an online course environment. Facilitators can help learners to negotiate theses obstacles, such as using the technology, navigating the course content and most importantly, forming relationships and collaborative groups.

Facilitators can support the group development process by being aware of which stage the group is in (Tuckman, 1977), and by utilizing facilitation strategies and interventions to promote the group’s movement to the next stage. Berge (1995) categorized what he believed to be crucial facilitator roles, strategies and interventions into the following four areas: pedagogical; social; managerial; and technical. The pedagogical role is present in the facilitator’s use of questioning techniques and prompts to promote learner responses that focus on critical concepts, principles, and reflection. The social role calls upon the facilitator to create a friendly, social environment for "promoting human relationships, developing group cohesiveness, maintaining the group as a unit, and in other ways helping members to work together in a mutual cause" (Berge, 1995). Facilitators also take on a management role by setting clear objectives for learner interaction and by establishing timetables, procedural rules and communication norms. The last role, technical facilitator, comes into play as instructors make learners comfortable with the learning management system and online learning technologies.

We’re just beginning to understand the role of the facilitator in building communities of learners, but it is apparent that the role has an intimacy and an immediacy that can make for a very intense and very satisfying experience (Mason, 1991). The following matrix provides specific strategies for online course facilitation that can be integrated effectively within the overarching stages of group development structure and crucial facilitator roles. Facilitation strategies are taken primarily from the works of Bates (2000), Berge (1995), Palloff and Pratt (1999) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977).

Student interactions in online courses can significantly influence the level of learning, course completion rates, and student satisfaction when individuals become a group and the group evolves to become a community of learners. However, student-to-student interaction does not occur on its own. Developing student interaction must be a central focus of the course design. Bruce Tuckman's (1965) five-stage group development model provides a way to conceptualize the evolution of a 'community of learners' that can be used to inform online course development and delivery. Course developers and facilitators who understand the stages of group development can design stage-specific interactions and exercises and employ stage-appropriate facilitation strategies to maximize the impact of community on the learning process.

References

Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Bauman, M. (n.d.) Online learning communities. Retrieved October 29, 2002, from http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~marcyb/tcc-l.html

Berge, Z. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: recommendations from the field. Educational technology, 15(1), pp. 22-30. Retrieved October 15, 2002, from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html

Brown, J. (2001). Creating a learning community online. Retrieved October 29, 2002, from http://www.scu.edu.au/services/tl/ilo/com_role.html

Carlson, L. (1989). Effective moderation of computer conferences: Hints for moderators. In Moderating conferences (pp. 6.10-16.13). Retrieved October 30, 2002, from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/winograd.html

Collaborative Learning Online. (n.d.).Group dynamics in online discussions. Retrieved October 31, 2002, from http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/innovations/groupdynamics.shtml

Gustafson, P., & Gibbs, D. (2000). Guiding or hiding? The role of the facilitator in online teaching and learning. Teaching education, 11(2), pp. 195- 210.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Stanne, M.B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved January 11, 2003 from http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html

Mason, R. (1991). Moderating educational computer conferencing. Distance education online symposium news, 1(19). Retrieved October 30, 2002, from http://www.emoderators.com/papers/mason.html

Matthews, R., Cooper, J., Davidson, N. and Hawkes,P. (1995). Building bridges between cooperative and collaborative learning. Change, 27(4). Retrieved November 13, 2002 from http://www.csudh.edu/soe/cl_network/RTinCL.html#building

McCullough, M. (1997). Get it together and remember where you put it. OK: Honor Books.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: Comparing the two definitions helps understand the nature of interactive learning. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 8(2). Retrieved January 26, 2003, from http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm

Rohfeld, R., & Hiemstra, R. (1995). Moderating discussions in the electronic classroom. Computer mediated communication and the online classroom, 3, 91-104. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63, 384-399.

Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development. Group and organizational studies, 2, 419-427.

Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 2(1). Retrieved October 29, 2002, from http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm

TCC 2003 Online Conference
Copyright © 2003 Kapi'olani Community College,
University of Hawaii, All rights reserved.