This resource was developed in 2002 by the LearnScope NSW Teaching Counselling Online team, based at Relationships Australia (NSW). Many thanks to the team for sharing this valuable resource with the community.

Emotional Processes in the Development of Online Learning Groups

Online learning and the establishment of online communities is a field growing exponentially. Great efforts are being made to conceptualise how to successfully facilitate the establishment and the maintenance of online communities that thrive. There is now considerable literature available describing various aspects of these communities and their facilitation. This paper proposes that the area of Group Leadership and Group Dynamics has a great deal to offer in conceptualising the processes that also occur in online groups.

Of course, there are many different types of online learning groups and communities, with a great diversity of structures, purposes, forms of membership and life expectancies. The types of communities particularly referred to in this paper are groups that have a known membership and a designated e-moderator. In Group Leadership literature the membership of these groups would be called closed rather than open. Quite different group dynamics would apply to an open online learning site where large numbers of browsers may become involved in the online discussions, or not.

Gilly Salmon (2001), based on a large scale qualitative research project, has proposed a 5 stage model to describe the processes involved in the development of teaching and learning online. These 5 stages are named as Access and motivation, Online socialisation, Information giving and receiving, Knowledge construction and Development. Salmon’s description of these 5 stages seems to emphasise the individual nature of the learning goals, with other participants portrayed as a “means to an end” in achieving these goals prior to the individual moving on independently. It is argued here that considering online learning / communities as an example of a group process can add greatly to the way this model is conceptualised and consequently the role of the e-moderator in these processes.

Tuckman is well known in the Group Leadership literature for his model that describes 5 stages in the development of task oriented groups: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning. Salmon’s Access and Motivation stage would provide some of the essential aspects in the Forming of an online group. Online socialisation roughly corresponds to the process of Norming in Tuckman’s model. Information giving and receiving plus Knowledge Construction similarly correspond in broad terms to aspects of Tuckman’s Performing, ie, completion of the tasks established as the focus to meet the individual / group goals.

A consideration of Tuckman’s process of storming provides an important aspect of group process that is rarely, if ever, described in the online learning literature. (ie I am not aware of any) Storming is an emotional process that all participants usually experience in the process of a group that is much more than just an issue of 1st stage access and motivation. In Salmon’s model there is no real articulation of managing change or dealing with conflict between participants during the process of an online learning group.

There was an interesting online discussion between members of our Teaching Counselling Online project group, who are all experienced group leaders and familiar with Tuckman’s model. We identified 2 different forms of storming during our discussion. The first occurs as Tuckman suggests early in the process of group formation. Storming can be identified in some groups as part of the process of establishing group norms, some people need to establish themselves by their "difference" prior to engaging in the norming process. This storming prior to norming is generally fairly short lived and can be seen as a normal part of the establishment of individuals as members of the group. By focussing on individual differences around expectations there is always the potential for a degree of discomfort or conflict, however if this process is avoided by the group leader and not discussed overtly then generally these issues and heightened emotional responses become more of an issue later in the process of the group.

Storming can also occur after the "fitting in together" in the norming stage when more challenging dynamics and emotional responses can arise with the emergence of difference during the process of task completion. This type of storming is far more challenging for a group leader to facilitate particularly in a way that the group can constructively move on. If this process is not acknowledged or managed well it can result in "splitting" within the group, eg group members withdrawing, dropping out, conflict escalating, cliques developing alliances or coalitions etc.

The other major difference in a comparison of the models of Salmon and Tuckman involves the very last stage of the group. Salmon’s stage of Development leaves the ending of the process very open, where the new learner has become more experienced and simply moves on. In turn they may become a mentors for potential new participants in an ongoing spiral process. Although Salmon advocates a process of individual reflection, there was no work toward facilitating any sort of closure or termination as would be expected in group work theory, as indicated by Tuckman’s process of Adjourning. The emotional aspect of this process of ending a group is very important to acknowledge explicitly, as well as the process of the sharing the reflections of the participants. Where membership of the group or the status of some of its members changes, without this process of acknowledgement, emotional issues are more likely to be “carried” by individuals and can become “baggage” rather than left behind as resolved and the participants emotionally ready to move on.

E-moderators could facilitate this process in a small way by the structuring of an end date to online discussions. Close to this end date an overt process of summarising and reflecting to track the process and how it has evolved and the active facilitation of all group members to participate in this process would be very helpful. Where there have been changes in group membership this should be acknowledged and commented on even if the group isn’t formally ending. This assists in the readiness of participants to refocusing on the next stage in the development of the group and to establish a new focus. If the process was formally coming to an end it would be expected that the group facilitator would overt this closure as a group and to spend more time debriefing the experience of all of its members. Creating closure is a very important emotional process and one that Western culture generally facilitates quite badly. This process is equally important in an online environment.

Salmon identifies the need to acknowledge high levels of anxiety and lack of confidence in some participants, particularly in the first stage of participants accessing online learning. Group leadership experience highlights that this attention to emotional processes is important throughout the life of the group. It emphasises how important it is to structure adequate facilitation, and some kind of support or buddy system. To us it seems essential to take the time to support online students through these emotional processes. The relationships built in this process are very sustaining for individuals, they help to energise participation and also help them to hang in through challenges and the more difficult phases.

Of course, there is an interaction between the stage of the group process and the individual. Each individual may respond differently to the shift in focus/ inherent challenge of the process, resulting in far greater diversity in responses within the group. Chaos theory helps to explain how small events can be instrumental in triggering "storms" for individuals. These “storms" can also be thought of as critical events in learning - which Stephen Brookfields elaborated in the field of adult learning.

When groups work together over a longer period of time these emotional processes become a more significant issue to work with and manage. Experienced group leaders generally facilitate an overt discussion of these issues. Given the high level of anonymity in many Online learning communities and the often asynchronous nature of interactions it is easy to assume that these emotional processes are somehow less significant. Our experience of the Online Role Play during the Networking 2002 conference indicates quite strongly that this is not the case. These emotions may possibly be harder for an e-moderator to identify, but no less significant. People bring their emotions with them in all interactions. These largely unacknowledged processes within online groups may explain why some groups are more comfortable to spend time in the joining or socialisation stage and find it difficult to move more deeply into tasks and processes as this requires the acknowledgment of differences. This could also possibly be the culprit to explain high non-participation or “lurking” rates within some online learning communities.

There are clear implications for the role of an e-moderator in the facilitation of the emotional processes such as storming within an online group. This may be more difficult than in a f2f group where non verbal cues are available for the group leader to recognise and potentially to utilise more directly. However an e-moderator can attempt to actively and overtly elicit individual differences in a very affirming and normalising manner to assist the process of individual membership of the group. An e-moderator can also facilitate potential storming within the group through the effective weaving of individual responses. It is argued that an awareness of Tuckman’s model would assist e-moderators to conceptualise these processes as normal and essential to be facilitated rather than ignored or avoided.

Apart from the work of Tuckman, there a many other models in the area of Group Leadership and Group Dynamics which all provide very useful insights for the realm of online groups and communities. The work by Mary Marples titled "Group development: Extending Tuckman's Theory". For a more psycho-analytical approach the classic model developed by James and Goldney would be very useful. There are also the models developed by Hartford, Murray and Bion. Further theoretical analysis of how these well established Group Leadership and Group Dynamics theories may relate to the context of online learning groups could be very beneficial for this new and rapidly evolving field. Similarly, research on the application of these ideas from Group Leadership and Group Dynamics in the new context of online learning communities could also be greatly beneficial for the growing knowledge base within this field.

Our experiences of the Learnscope Project and the Networking 2002 conference have certainly indicated to us that emotional processes are equally alive and well in online learning and within online communities. A deeper consideration of the emotional issues involved and the techniques that could be utilised to assist the facilitation of these processes would certainly assist to prepare e-moderators for this important aspect of their role. In turn, I believe that this attention to emotional processes would also assist these online communities to thrive.

Teaching Counselling Online LearnScope Team 2002
Relationships Australia (NSW)