Exploring Group Work Interaction Using Tuckman’s Model

At higher education levels, most projects require students to work in groups. However, students often face challenges, such as miscommunication, and rarely interact with group members, which can significantly impact the success or failure of the group’s work. This study investigates group work interaction among UiTM Students using Tuckman’s model of group development, which comprises four stages: forming, storming, norming and performing. A quantitative survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire with 29 Likert-scale items distributed to a random sample of 114 students. The results showed that students viewed all four stages positively, with the performing stage showing the highest ratings for task completion, collaboration and problem-solving. Significant positive correlations were also found between all stages, with the strongest relationship observed between the norming and performing stages. This correlation underscores the significance of cohesion and clear norms in achieving high group performance. These findings suggest that educators should guide students through group work more intentionally to foster cooperation, enhance overall performance and resolve conflict.

Group Work, Tuckman’s Model

1. Alsubaie, A. (2022). Group development stages: A brief review. Journal of Education and Learning, 11(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v11n2p112 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press. http://www.asecib.ase.ro/mps/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(3), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.3.125 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: A historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dao, P., Nguyen, M. X. N. C., & Chi, D. N. (2021). Effects of SCMC mode and learner familiarity on peer feedback in L2 interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1946562 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Firmansyah, D., & Saepuloh, D. (2022). Social learning theory: Cognitive and behavioral approaches. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Holistik, 1(3), 297–324. https://doi.org/10.55927/jiph.v1i3.2317 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fransen, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Mediating team effectiveness in the context of collaborative learning: The importance of team and task awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Guan, K. (2024). Challenges in group work from the perspective of college students. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 45, 169–174. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/45/20230468 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Jackson, S. L. (2015). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach (5th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jin, L., Zhang, W., & Wang, Y. (2021). Personality traits and L2 group work engagement: A latent profile analysis. System, 103, 102645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102645 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kumar, T., Soozandehfar, S. M. A., Hashemifardnia, A., & Mombeini, R. (2023). Self- vs. peer-assessment activities in EFL-speaking classes: Impacts on students’ self-regulated learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. Language Testing in Asia, 13, 36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kuypers, D., Guenter, H., & van Emmerik, H. (2016). Team development and team effectiveness: A network examination of teamwork processes. Small Group Research, 47(2), 186–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415626880 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Li, P., Jeong, H., & Asaridou, S. S. (2023). Social neurocognitive networks of L2 processing. Cerebral Cortex, 33(8), 4984–4996. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac392 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586827 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Luo, Z., Marnburg, E., Øgaard, T., & Okumus, F. (2021). Exploring antecedents of social loafing in students’ group work: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 28, 100320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100320 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. McKay, J., & Sridharan, B. (2023). Student perceptions of collaborative group work (CGW) in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 49(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2227677 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Meneses, J., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2015). Bullying and cyberbullying: Convergent and divergent predictor variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Muscat-o, A. F., Bush, S. A., & Greenhaw, L. L., et al. (2023). Leading teams #2: Stages of group development. Agricultural Education and Communication, 64(1), Article 132832. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2023.01123 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Overskeid, G. (2018). Do we need the environment to explain operant behavior? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00373 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Phipps, D. L., Beatty, P. C. W., & Parker, D. (2017). Measuring teamwork attitudes in healthcare: Development of the TeamSTEPPS teamwork attitudes questionnaire. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(8), 671–677. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005447 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Putra, J. A., & Pratama, M. (2021). Social loafing pada mahasiswa: Bagaimana peranan self efficacy dan kohesivitas kelompok. INNER: Journal of Psychological Research, 2021. https://doi.org/10.21831/inner.v0i0.710 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Rahmat, N. H. (2020). Conflict resolution strategies in class discussions. International Journal of Education, 12(3), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v12i3.16914 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ramadan, E. S., & Jember, B. (2024). A step toward effective language learning: An insight into the impacts of feedback-supported tasks and peer-work activities on learners’ engagement, self-esteem, and language growth. Asian Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00261-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Rickards, T., Chen, M. H., & Moger, S. (2001). Development of a self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership and performance relationships. British Journal of Management, 12(3), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00202 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Sjølie, E., Thomas, C. E., & Buø, R. (2022). Social interaction and agency in self-organizing student teams during their transition from face-to-face to online learning. Computers & Education, 189, 104580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104580 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Vo, T. K. A. (2023). Students’ perceptions towards the application of peer assessment in a virtual English writing class. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 20(2), 5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Wan Yadri, W. S., Ahmad, N. H. F., Abdul Kadar, N. S., Nazym, N. K., & Mohd Johari, M. D. (2024). The influence of conflict in group work according to Tuckman’s model. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(SI), 71–85. https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/106736/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Wei, Siqing & Mehrabi, Amirreza & Tan, Li & Ohland, Matthew. (2023). Revisiting Tuckman's Team Development Model in First-year Engineering Multicultural Teams. 10.18260/1-2--44145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Zhang, R., Zou, D., & Cheng, G. (2020). A meta-analysis of collaborative learning on language outcomes. Language Learning & Technology, 24(3), 43–65. https://doi.org/10125/44739 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Zhou, S., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2023). AI-powered group formation in L2 classrooms. ReCALL, 35(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344023000025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Zulkifli, M., Rahman, N. A., & Ahmad, R. (2025). A study of the relationship between all stages of group work in Tuckman’s model. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i4/25009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Zulkifli, N., Liyana, N., Roselan, S. S., Aminuddin, A., Rosli, H., & Rahmat, N. H. (2025). A study of the relationship between all stages of group work in Tuckman’s model. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15(4), 262–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i4/25009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study