Page 211

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Exploring Group Work Interaction Using Tuckman’s Model

Nur Adibah binti Zamri,

Azrin Raimi bin Ahmad,

Fairuz Husna binti Mohd Yusof,

Siti Hajar

Aisyah binti Azhari,

Muhamad Safwan bin Abu Bakar,

Noor Hanim Rahmat

1,2,3,6

Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, University Technology MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia,

Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, University Technology MARA, Pasir Gudang, Malaysia,

Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Taman Molek, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.924ILEIID0025

Received: 23 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 29 October 2025

ABSTRACT

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.

Keywords: Group Work, Tuckman’s Model, Social Learning Theory

INTRODUCTION

For a long time, group work has been recognised as a crucial pedagogical approach in language learning

settings, where it promotes not only linguistic competence but also social and cognitive development (Long &

Porter, 1985; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Dao et al., 2021). In various educational settings, students are often

placed in small groups to complete tasks, brainstorm, and to construct new knowledge collectively. The recent

meta-analyses conducted by Zhang et al. (2020) confirmed that group work enhances learners' proficiency

benefits compared to practising individually. This kind of interaction aligns with the principles of Social

Learning Theory, which suggests that observation, imitation and modelling others play an important role in

enabling individuals to acquire knowledge, skills and behaviours (Bandura, 1971). Within this framework,

students engage in reciprocal information exchange, negotiate meaning and develop communicative

competence, which are the essential elements of group work. Collaborative language tasks activate the mirror

neuron system more intensely than individual work, as neurocognitive studies have shown (Li et al., 2023),

reinforcing the idea that group dynamics foster communicative competence.

Studies frequently apply Tuckman’s Model of group development (1965; 1977) to gain a better understanding

of the dynamics of group interaction, which outlines four sequential stages, namely forming, storming,

norming, and performing. Contemporary research has confirmed the stages of the model in virtual

environments, positing that storming phases are shorter but are more intense in online settings (Kohnke &

Moorhouse, 2022). Every stage reflects a significant phase in group evolution, distinguished by a range of

Page 212

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

degrees of cohesion, conflict, delegation of duties, and task orientation. These stages provide valuable insights

into how learners adjust to group tasks, foster interpersonal relationships, and pursue shared goals, especially

in language learning settings. Regardless of the prevalence of group work in language classrooms, factors such

as group composition, individual learner traits, task design, and instructional support have always been

important determinants of the quality of interactions in group work (Zhou et al. 2023; Jin et al., 2021). By

studying Tuckman’s theoretical framework and the broader perspective of Social Learning Theory, this study

aims to investigate how group members interact through different stages and phases of group development,

thereby elucidating the mechanisms that reinforce effective collaboration in language learning contexts.

Statement of Problem

One of the most crucial components in collaborative learning is, of course, group work. However, limited

quantitative research has been conducted on how students experience each of Tuckman’s stages of the group

developmental model. Although Tuckman’s framework has been widely used in educational settings, most

research focuses on qualitative methods or emphasises the results, rather than quantifying students’ actual

experiences and perceptions during each stage (Meneses & Ortega-Ruiz, 2015; Rickards et al., 2001). Recent

studies by Alsubaie (2022) and Fransen et al. (2013) emphasise the gaps in understanding how learners manage

interpersonal conflicts (storming) and establish cohesion (norming), particularly in various academic contexts.

Additionally, past research often studies the stages in isolation, discounting potential reciprocal relationships,

such as whether the norming stage affects the performing stage or whether an unresolved storming stage delays

the process (Kuypers et al., 2016). This can be addressed by studying the statistical relationships between

stages.

The need for this research is further supported by the need for rigorous quantitative data on group development

(Alsubaie, 2022). According to Phipps et al. (2017), Current methodologies, such as retrospective surveys, are

often insufficient for validating scales to compare perceptions at every stage. These gaps are addressed in this

study by using a structured survey methodology to:

1. Quantitatively analyse learners’ perceptions of each Tuckman’s stage using Likert-scale items;

2. Analyse stage inter-dependencies through correlation and regression analysis; and

3. Identify demographic predictors (e.g. prior group experience, cultural background) of stage perceptions.

The research findings will provide empirical benchmarks for educators to tailor specific interventions (e.g.,

conflict-resolution training during the storming stage) and enhance group work assessment mechanisms.

This study was done to explore stages in group work interactions. Specifically, this study is done to answer the

following questions;

 How do learners perceive the forming stage in group work?

 How do learners perceive the storming stage in group work?

 How do learners perceive the norming stage in group work?

 How do learners perceive the performing stage in group work?

 Is there a relationship between all stages in group work?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Group work is a collaborative learning approach in which individuals come together to achieve a similar

objective/ goal. Group work has been recognised for offering various benefits. It promotes active engagement

and a supportive learning environment as members can learn from one another’s feedback and offer

constructive feedback (Vo, 2023; Ramadan & Jember, 2024). During the process, learners engaged in three

dimensions: Behavioural (learning activities), emotional (feelings about peers, teacher, tasks) and cognitive

(depth of investment in learning) (Sjolie et al., (2022) . The end product of the group work is not the only

product of group interactions. According to Rahmat (2020), group work improves their communication skills.

Page 213

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Learners are able to share feedback among peers, pinpoint learning gaps, and identify areas for improvement

while working in groups (Ramadan & Jember, 2024). The interaction helps participants improve the way they

communicate to complete the assigned task. Additionally, group conflicts are common in group work, allowing

participants to practice their problem-solving skills.

To better understand how group dynamics evolve and support these outcomes, this study adopts Tuckman’s

(1965) stages of group work. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of the study and how its application

allows a more collaborative learning environment. The first stage is the forming stage. This is the initial stage

where participants are getting to know one another and becoming familiar with the assigned group task. The

second stage is the storming stage. This is the stage where all team members give their suggestions for the task.

This stage may contain some disagreements and some conflicts. Nevertheless, the group settles down and

enters the third stage which is the norming stage. This is the stage where all participants strive to make the

group task a success. The last stage is the performance stage. This is where the group task is evaluated. Does

one stage of the group work influence the next stage? This study also investigates whether there are

relationships between all stages of group work.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the Study

Relationship between all stages in group work

The natural progression of group dynamics is highly influenced by learning that occurs among its members.

Thus, Tuckman’s (1965) model of group development—Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing can be

related to Social learning Theory (SLT). SLT is a framework developed by Albert Bandura in the 1970s

(Bandura, 1977) that highlights how people learn new attitudes, behaviours and skills through observation of

others’ actions and their consequences in their environment. Bandura highlighted four main processes involved

in social learning which are Attention (the learner must focus on to the behaviour being modeled), Retention

(the details of the behaviours that were observed), Reproduction (the learners must have the physical and

cognitive ability to imitate the observed behaviour) and Motivation (there must be a reason or reinforcement

for the behaviour to be replicated) (Firmansyah & Saepoloh, 2022). Figure 2 shows the Social Learning

Theory framework.

Figure 2: Social Learning Theory

(Source: Bandura, 1977)

Page 214

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Within structured social settings, such as collaborative groups, individuals learn from one another by sharing

experiences and modeling behaviours (Sjolie et al., 2022). As group members engage in discussions and

collectively determine effective solutions/ approaches, these social exchanges facilitate mutual learning. While

these group interactions promote collaboration and learning among each other, they also come with various

challenges, particularly when viewed through Tuckman’s (1965) stages of group development.

In the Forming stage, group members may be challenged with uncertainties regarding goals/directions and

expectations, which can limit participation among members (Guan, 2024). Zulkifli et al. (2025) found that

strong leadership is crucial to reduce ambiguity. Entering Storming stage, conflicts and power struggle may

emerge as members voice their opinions and challenge each other’s views. Thus, effective leadership is needed

to balance the cohesion and individual differences (Muscat-o et al., 2023). In the Norming stage, collaboration

may improve but other issues like loafing may arise, causing threats to the effectiveness of the group (Luo et

al., 2021; McKay & Sridharan, 2023). In the final stage, Performing is characterised by higher productivity,

ongoing challenges to maintain motivations and balanced participation. (Putra & Pratama, 2021). This

highlights the importance of leadership, communication and role-clarity throughout the development of a

group to deal with challenges while maximising the group potential.

The stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing do not just describe group development. These

stages explored learners' interaction, adaptation, and growth within collaborative environments. Previous

studies have examined these stages to better understand group dynamics. For example, a study by Zulkifli et al.

(2025) was done to explore learners’ perceptions of interactions across Tuckman’s four stages and examined

the relationships between these stages within educational settings. The survey employed a 5-point Likert scale

and was administered to 255 undergraduate students from various disciplines. Participants reported that the key

to effective teamwork was solid structure, strong leadership, open communication, and shared responsibility.

Results also revealed that there were strong relationships between the stages, supporting Tuckman’s model.

Overall, the study emphasised the importance of encouraging support and open communication to help learners

adapt to group work.

Similarly, a study by Wan Yadri et al. (2024) employed a quantitative method to examine learners’ conflict

perceptions and cognitive-emotional traits across Tuckman’s four group development stages (forming,

storming, norming, performing). Using a 5-point Likert scale, the survey was distributed to 178 undergraduate

students. Findings show that respondents had positive group experiences and managed conflicts well. It also

reveals strong links between most stages, but a weak correlation between performing and storming. In the end,

this study highlighted the importance of clear guidelines and support in group formation to help prevent

conflicts early. This ensures a smoother progression through the stages, which then allows more effective

collaboration among group members.

A qualitative study by Wei et. al (2023) done on two engineering students through one-to-one interviews found

that students experienced some stages at the same time and the dynamics of their groups were influenced by

external factors. The study highlighted that instructors should encourage a positive atmosphere and prepare

students to handle conflicts fairly and strategically and help students build trust and give them space to

improve.

Numerous studies have investigated group development using Tuckman’s model, but a majority of recent

studies tend to focus on the qualitative approaches that explore learners’ experiences and perceptions of group

dynamics. It is undeniable that this kind of research provides a rich understanding of the dynamics in the

group. However, the scarcity of quantitative studies on inter-stage relationships of Tuckman’s model using

statistical analyses should be addressed. Thus, this study intends to fill in this gap by analysing each stage of

Tuckman’s model quantitatively.

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a quantitative study design to explore students’ perceptions of stages in group work based

on Tuckman’s model. A convenient sample of 114 participants from an undergraduate public university

Page 215

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

responded to the survey. Convenient sampling allowed for data collection; however, it may limit the

generalizability of the findings. This is due to potential sampling bias as well as a lack of representation across

all academic disciplines. The instrument used is a 5-point Likert-scale survey. Table 1 below shows the

categories used for the Likert scale; 1 is for Almost never, 2 is for Seldom, 3 is for Occasionally, 4 is for

Frequently and 5 is for Almost Always.

Table 1- Likert scale Use

Almost Never

Seldom

Occasionally

Frequently

Almost Always

Table 2 shows the distribution of items in the survey. The instrument for this study is rooted in Tuckman

(1965) to reveal the variables in the table below. Section B has 7 items on Forming. Section C has 6 items on

Storming, Section D has 8 items on Norming, and section E has 8 items on Performing.

Table 2- Distribution of Items in the Survey

Section

Stage

Items

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

TOTAL ITEMS

Table 3 shows the reliability of the survey. The analysis shows a Cronbach alpha of .884 for all 29 items; thus,

revealing a good reliability of the instrument used (Jackson, 2015). Further analysis using SPSS is to analyse

the findings and answer the research questions for this study.

Table 3 - Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha

No. of Items

.884

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic Analysis

Table 4 - Percentage for Demographic Analysis

Question

Demographic Profile

Categories

Percentage (%)

Gender

Male

30%

Female

70%

Cluster

Science & Technology

11%

Social Sciences & Humanities

41%

Business & Management

48%

Page 216

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

This section presents the demographic analysis of the study’s respondents. 114 students from various faculties

responded, and it was revealed that the majority of the respondents were females, which constituted 70% of the

responses (n=80). The rest of the respondents were males, which constitutes 30% of the respondents (n=34). In

terms of discipline clusters, students of 3 educational clusters responded to the questionnaire, namely Science

and Technology, Social Science and Humanities, and Business and Management. 11% (n=13) of the

respondents were from Science and Technology discipline, 41% (n=47) were from Social Sciences and

Humanities, and lastly 48% (n=54) consisted of Business and Management cluster.

Findings for Forming Stage

This section presents data to answer Research Question 1 - How do learners perceive the forming stage in

group work?

Table 5 - Mean for Forming Stage

Questions

Mean

SECTCaFQ1

Before we start group activities, we set rule or procedures to ensure that everything runs

smoothly.

4.3

0.8

SECTCaFQ2

Before we start group activities, we assign specific roles to team members.

4.4

0.7

SECTCaFQ3

Before we start group activities, we determine the goal and what tasks need to be

accomplished.

4.5

0.7

SECTCaFQ4

Before we begin any group activity, our team members may be reluctant or unwilling to

seek help from others.

3.3

1.2

SECTCaFQ5

Before we begin any group activity, team members do not completely trust each other

and closely monitor others on a specific task.

1.3

SECTCaFQ6

At the beginning, it seems like we are making little progress to achieve the goal of the

task.

3.9

0.9

SECTCaFQ7

At the beginning, even if we are not completely sure about the activity's goals and issues,

we are excited and proud to be on the team.

3.9

0.9

Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics for the forming stage in group work. It reveals a generally positive

perception among learners. Item 3, defining the goal and identifying necessary tasks, showed the highest mean

score (M=4.5, SD=0.7), followed narrowly by item 2, assigning specific roles to team members (M=4.4,

SD=0.7) and the third highest mean score is item 1, setting procedures and protocols to sustain order (M=4.3,

SD=0.8). The respondents also showed moderate agreement that (item 6) initially, it felt like little was being

completed (M=3.9, SD=0.9) and (item 7) they still felt excited and proud to be on the team regardless of the

uncertainty about goals (M= 3.9, SD=0.9). However, the data showed lower mean score that (item 4) they were

reluctance to enquire for help, at start (M=3.3, SD=1.2) and the lowest mean score is item 5 which indicated

the respondents’ lack of trust leading to keeping a watchful eye on teammates’ tasks (M=3.0, SD=1.3),

implying these facets were less prominent in learners’ perceptions at the forming stage.

Findings for Storming Stage

This section presents data to answer Research Question 2 - How do learners perceive the storming stage in

group work?

Page 217

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Table 6 - Mean for Storming Stage

Questions

Mean

SECTCbSQ1

During discussions, we are quick to get on with the task at hand and do not spend too much time in the

planning stage.

3.6

0.9

SECTCbSQ2

During discussions, the team leader tries to stay organized and contributes to the task at hand.

4.2

0.7

SECTCbSQ3

During discussions, the tasks are very different from what we imagined and seem very difficult to

accomplish.

3.3

0.9

SECTCbSQ4

During discussions, we argue a lot even though we agree on the real issues.

2.9

1.2

SECTCbSQ5

During discussions, the goals we have established seem unrealistic.

2.9

1.1

SECTCbSQ6

During discussions, there is a lot of resistance to the tasks at hand and approaches to quality

improvement.

3.3

1.1

Table 6 shows the mean for storming stage. The highest mean is item 2 (M=4.2,SD=0.7), which states that

during discussions, the team leader tries to keep order and contribute their ideas. Next, item 1 (M=3.6,

SD=0.9) reports that during discussions, the students were quick to begin the task given. Two items share the

same mean of 2.9. The first is item 4 (M=2.9, SD=1.2), which states that during discussions, the learners felt

the goals were not realistic. Finally, item 5 (M=2.9, SD=1.1) states that the goals given were unrealistic.

Findings for Norming Stage

This section presents data to answer research question 3 - How do learners perceive the norming stage in group

work? The details are presented in the following table.

Table 7 - Mean for Norming Stage

Questions

Mean

SECTCcNQ1

In the group, we have thorough procedures for agreeing on our objectives and planning the way we will

perform our tasks.

4.1

0.8

SECTCcNQ2

In the group, we take our team's goals and objectives literally, and assume a shared understanding.

4.2

0.7

SECTCcNQ3

In the group, the team leader ensures that we follow the procedures, do not argue, do not interrupt, and

keep to the point.

0.8

SECTCcNQ4

In the group, we have accepted each other as members of the team.

4.4

0.8

SECTCcNQ5

In the group, we try to achieve harmony by avoiding conflict.

4.4

0.6

SECTCcNQ6

3.7

Page 218

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

In the group, the team is often tempted to do more than what was required for the project.

SECTCcNQ7

In the group, we express criticism of others constructively

3.4

1.1

SECTCcNQ8

In the group, we often share personal problems with each other.

1.2

The table shows some highlights of means for the Norming stage. The highest means are recorded by Items 4

and 5 with mean 4.4, SD=0.8 and SD=0.6, respectively. A majority of students agreed that they accepted each

other as members of the team, which means they acknowledged each other’s roles in the team. Besides that,

they agreed that they tried to achieve harmony by avoiding any conflicts that arose while completing their

tasks. The second highest mean (M=4.2, SD=0.7) is by Item 2, in which most students agreed that they

understood the team's goals and objectives as outlined and assumed that everybody shared the same

understanding. Next, Item 1 recorded the mean 4.1, SD=0.8 which shows students agreed on having thorough

procedures for agreeing on the objectives and planning on how the tasks are performed. Item 3 recorded the

next highest mean with mean=4, SD=0.8, where students agreed that they followed procedures, avoided

arguments, interruptions and kept to the point. Nevertheless, the three items with the least means, mean=3.7,

3.4, 3 and SD=1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 respectively showed that they were often tempted to go beyond the scope,

expressed constructive criticism and shared problems, indicating that in the norming stage, although not agreed

by most, students are settling to get comfortable with each other.

Findings for Performance Stage

This section provides data and analysis aimed at addressing Research Question 4 - How do learners perceive

the performing stage in group work? The details are presented in the following table.

Table 8 - Mean for Performing Stage

Questions

Mean

SECTCdPQ1

In the end, our team feels that we are all in it together and share responsibilities for the team's success or

failure

4.3

0.7

SECTCdPQ2

In the end, we do not have fixed procedures, we make them up as the task or project progresses.

3.7

0.9

SECTCdPQ3

In the end, we enjoy working together; we have a fun and productive time.

4.4

0.8

SECTCdPQ4

In the end, the team leader is democratic and collaborative.

4.3

0.7

SECTCdPQ5

In the end, we fully accept each other's strengths and weaknesses.

4.4

0.7

SECTCdPQ6

In the end, we are able to work through group problems.

4.4

0.8

SECTCdPQ7

In the end, there is a close attachment to the team.

4.2

0.8

SECTCdPQ8

In the end, we get a lot of work done.

4.6

0.6

Page 219

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Table 8 shows the mean for performing stage. The highest mean is item 8 (M=4.6, SD=0.6), which states that

the majority of learners were able to accomplish a significant amount of work through focused effort and

effective collaboration, despite facing challenges. The second highest mean (M=4.4) is items 3, 5, and 6. The

items state that when the learners collaborated as a team, they had a great time while also getting a lot

accomplished (item 3), they recognised and valued each other's abilities as well as areas for growth (item 5),

and they were able to resolve challenges that arise within the group (item 6). Next, 2 items share the mean of

4.3, SD=0.7. Firstly, item 1 states that the learners had a strong sense of unity that allowed them to collectively

share responsibility for both the successes and setbacks that they experienced. Then, item 4 states that the

learners felt that their team leader encouraged input from them that fostered a democratic and collaborative

environment. Next, item 7 (M=4.2, SD=0.8) states that the learners felt a strong sense of connection and were

emotionally invested in team members. Lastly, item 2 (M=3.7, SD=0.9) indicates that only a few learners

believed that their approach was flexible; they did not follow rigid procedures but instead adapted and

developed processes as the task or project evolved.

Exploratory Statistics

Findings for the Relationship between all stages in group work

This section presents data to answer Research Question 5 - Is there a relationship between all stages in group

work? To determine if there is a significant association in the mean scores between all stages in group work,

data is analysed using SPSS for correlations. Results are presented separately in tables 9, 10, 11 and 12 below.

Table 9 - Correlation between Forming and Storming Stage

FORMING

STORMING

FORMING

Pearson (Correlation)

.545**

Sig (2-tailed)

.000

114

STORMING

Pearson (Correlation)

.545**

Sig (2-tailed)

.000

114

**Correlation is significant at the level 0.01(2-tailed)

Table 9 shows that there is an association between forming and storming stages. Correlation analysis shows

that there is a highly significant association between forming and storming stages (r=.545**) and (p=.000).

According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level, and positive correlation is measured on

a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation

from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong positive

relationship between forming and storming stages.

Table 10 - Correlation between Storming and Norming Stage

STORMING

NORMING

STORMING

Pearson (Correlation)

.455**

Sig (2-tailed)

.000

114

NORMING

Pearson (Correlation)

.455**

Sig (2-tailed)

.000

114

Page 220

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

**Correlation is significant at the level 0.01(2-tailed)

Table 10 shows that there is an association between storming and norming stages. Correlation analysis shows

that there is a moderately significant association between storming and norming (r=.455**) and (p=.000).

According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level, and positive correlation is measured on

a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive correlation

from 0.3 to 0.5, and moderate positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a strong

positive relationship between storming and norming.

Table 11 - Correlation between Norming and Performing Stage

NORMING

PERFORMING

NORMING

Pearson (Correlation)

.669**

Sig (2-tailed)

.000

114

PERFORMING

Pearson (Correlation)

.669**

Sig (2-tailed)

.000

114

**Correlation is significant at the level 0.01(2-tailed)

Table 11 shows that there is an association between norming and performing stages. Correlation analysis

shows that there is a high significant association between norming and performing stages (r=.669**) and

(p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level, and positive correlation is

measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. Weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate positive

correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and strong positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is also a

strong positive relationship between norming and performing stages.

Table 12 - Correlation between Performing and Forming Stage

PERFORMING

FORMING

PERFORMING

Pearson (Correlation)

.326**

Sig (2-tailed)

.000

114

FORMING

Pearson (Correlation)

.326**

Sig (2-tailed)

.000

114

**Correlation is significant at the level 0.01(2-tailed)

Table 12 shows that there is an association between performing and forming stages. Correlation analysis shows

that there is a moderate significant association between performing and forming stages (r=.326**) and

(p=.000). According to Jackson (2015), coefficient is significant at the .05 level and positive correlation is

measured on a 0.1 to 1.0 scale. A weak positive correlation would be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, moderate

positive correlation from 0.3 to 0.5, and moderate positive correlation from 0.5 to 1.0. This means that there is

also a strong positive relationship between performing and forming stages.

Page 221

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

CONCLUSION

This study quantitatively investigated students’ perceptions of Tuckman’s four stages of group development

and examined how these stages relate to one another in collaborative learning contexts. Results confirmed that

all stages were positively perceived and interrelated, with the strongest link between norming and performing.

This pattern reinforces the sequential nature of Tuckman’s model and demonstrates that cohesion and

established norms are critical precursors to effective group performance.

Summary of Findings and Discussions

This study examined students’ perceptions of Tuckman’s four stages of group development—forming,

storming, norming, and performing—and explored the relationships among them. Overall, the findings

revealed that students viewed all stages positively, indicating that group work is a valued and effective learning

practice in higher education. However, several meaningful patterns emerged that warrant deeper interpretation.

Forming Stage

Students rated goal definition and role assignment highest during the forming stage. This pattern suggests a

preference for structured beginnings, reflecting Malaysian learners’ tendency toward clarity and guidance in

collaborative tasks. In collectivist learning contexts, students may rely on clear leadership and defined

procedures to reduce uncertainty and establish psychological safety. This aligns with Social Learning Theory

(Bandura, 1977), as observing peers and leaders setting expectations helps model appropriate participation

behaviour.

Storming Stage

Conflict (storming) was perceived as less frequent compared to other stages. Several contextual explanations

may account for this. First, Malaysian students often prioritise harmony and avoid open confrontation,

consistent with high power distance and collectivist cultural norms (Hofstede, 2001). Second, effective

instructor monitoring or structured project guidelines may have pre-empted potential disputes. Finally, a

reluctance to self-report conflict could stem from social desirability or concern about being judged negatively

by peers. These factors may collectively result in the underreporting of conflict, making storming appear less

prominent than in Western studies of Tuckman’s model.

Norming Stage

The high mean scores for acceptance of group members and avoidance of conflict indicate that harmony

becomes a key goal once groups stabilise. Students appear to substitute overt disagreement with cooperative

adaptation, which reinforces cohesion but may suppress constructive criticism. This stage demonstrates how

learners internalise observed cooperative behaviours and maintain them through mutual reinforcement—an

example of modelling and motivation processes described in Social Learning Theory. The consistent

interpersonal harmony reported here may act as a foundation for the strong positive correlation observed

between norming and performing.

Performing Stage

The performing stage received the highest overall ratings, suggesting that once cohesion and trust are

established, groups achieve high productivity and satisfaction. This outcome is consistent with Tuckman’s

(1965) description of the performing phase as characterised by effective communication and task completion.

Students’ enjoyment of teamwork and collective responsibility also highlights the emotional engagement

component of social learning, where shared success reinforces further collaborative behaviour.

Page 222

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Interrelationship Among Stages

Correlational results demonstrated moderate to strong positive links among all four stages, particularly

between norming and performing (r = .669). This provides quantitative evidence supporting Tuckman’s

sequential and interrelated model, implying that successful completion of earlier stages facilitates later

performance. The findings also affirm that social and emotional cohesion (norming) is a significant predictor

of collective productivity (performing). Thus, while the storming phase may appear muted, its resolution—

whether explicit or implicit—still contributes to smoother progression through later stages.

Collectively, these findings highlight that group development among students follows Tuckman’s general

sequence but may manifest differently in degree and intensity due to cultural, instructional, and interpersonal

dynamics.

Theoretical and Conceptual Implications

This study highlights Social Learning Theory, as proposed by Bandura. It emphasises that learning occurs

through observation and environment. Other than that, learning also occurs through reciprocal influence

between personal factors, behaviour and environment. The positive ratings showed that during the forming

stage of a group project, students tend to create clear goals and assign roles. Students also observe and mimic

effective behaviour demonstrated by their group members and leaders, which helps to establish a productive

and organised team dynamic. Furthermore, the storming stage indicates how group members manage conflicts

and change behaviour accordingly through learning from one another. Other than that, the performance stage

shows the strong outcomes and high correlations between norming and performing (r = 0.669). This showed

that students are confident in their abilities and see positive examples from their group members. So that

students tend to perform better.

In addition, this student lends support to Tuckman’s model framework of four stages, which are forming,

storming, norming and performing. The significant correlation between all stages shows that group

development is a progressive and interconnected process. The norming and performing stages demonstrated a

strong link between these two stages, where group trust, cohesion, and shared norms significantly affected

group productivity and problem-solving. These results highlighted the importance of addressing early-stage

problems, such as conflict resolution and trust-building, to ensure smooth and successful work progression

later on. The conceptual model that emerges from this study can hopefully guide trainers and educators in

choosing the right actions at the right stage to ensure group work is successful.

Pedagogical Implications

The findings of this study have revealed that the stages of Tuckman’s model of group development are indeed

interrelated. As a result, several pedagogical implications about the topic have been identified. Firstly, because

the stages are progressive and related to one another, it highlights the importance of the instructor’s role in

managing early-stage interactions to ensure group performance later on (Bonebright, 2010). This means

teachers or instructors should design activities that scaffold and promote healthy interactions throughout the

stages. By deliberately aligning instructional strategies with the development needs of each stage, educators

can enhance social cohesion and group performance. Such an approach not only builds collaborative

competence but also prepares students for real-world teamwork where navigating group interactions is as

critical as mastering content knowledge.

Another implication that has been identified is that there is a systemic need for educational institution

administrators, such as schools and universities, to introduce communication workshops for students,

especially first-year students, in order to prepare them for future group assignments. Targeted communication

workshops for students can equip them with the interpersonal skills needed to navigate through the group

stage, especially during the Storming and Norming stages, where conflict or unclear expectations often hinder

group productivity. Such workshops can focus on active listening, constructive feedback and conflict

Page 223

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

resolution, which have been shown to improve problem-solving in collaborative environments (Johnson &

Johnson, 2009).

Suggestions for Future Research

This study employed a quantitative research approach to investigate students’ perceptions of the stages in

group work. Moving forward, future researchers could employ different approaches, such as mixed methods,

to build on this study’s findings by providing deeper insight into the reasons way students feel the way they do.

It is also suggested that future research consider an intervention-based study, such as implementing

communication workshops, to evaluate their effectiveness in helping students to navigate group work. In

addition, a longitudinal study could be conducted to investigate whether students' perceptions change over

time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Our heartfelt gratitude and profound appreciation to Dr. Hanim binti Rahmat and the Academy of Language

Studies for their unwavering support, insightful guidance, and significant contributions to the success of this

research.

REFERENCES

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

2. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.

http://www.asecib.ase.ro/mps/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Jackson, S. L. (2015). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach (5th ed.). Cengage

Learning.

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

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

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.

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

Page 224

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools. Foundation for

Critical Thinking Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

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

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.

32. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.

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/

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.

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

Page 225

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

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

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

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