Kathleen King [HREF1], Department of English and Philosophy, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho 83209, USA. kingkath@isu.edu
Much has been written about online groups, but the writings are fragmented into technical information or advice about teaching methods. No overall theory of why online groups work or fail has been developed. Psychoanalysts W. H. Bion and psychiatrist I. D. Yalom shaped contemporary thinking about group process, and the theories of Bion and Yalom can be used to organize and solve problems in online educational groups. My goal in this paper is to use their theories to provide a framework for thinking about online groups. I will create a structure for understanding group process in the new online groups and provide a context which can contain and place more specialized contributions.
Educational groups are as old as wisdom, perhaps originating in storytelling and in the preservation of myths which held the first humans together. Instinctively, it seems, we humans know that individual knowledge is somehow less than group knowledge. Remember the NASA Test? Perhaps you participated in this role-play as an undergraduate in a sociology class. Stranded on the moon with basic supplies necessary to travel 200 miles to base camp, you could only carry so much. Students were asked to take the test first as individuals, and then in groups. Individuals died miserably (in make-believe) of cold or thirst, but almost all the groups survived because the pooled knowledge and discussion of alternatives enabled them to choose the necessary supplies successfully.
Now we have been overtaken by a new sort of group: the online communities of mailing lists and realtime chats. The workings of groups in this new environment seem mysterious, but theories derived from observation of psychotherapeutic groups can explain the interpersonal dynamics of online groups. At first, it may seem that psychotherapy groups cannot be compared to online groups of university students. But members of both types of groups have a task, whether getting well, getting an A, or just getting through English 201. Each group also has a process, a method of interaction, and if the process fails, the group's work will be completed poorly or not at all.
Much has been written about online groups, but the writings are
fragmented into technical information or advice about teaching
methods. No overall theory of why online groups work or fail
has been developed. Roger
Clarke (1996) [HREF2] noted this lack in calling for a
"means of developing. . .control mechanisms over dysfunctional
behavior." Peter
Kollock (1998) [HREF3] points out that "As the online
world is a wholly constructed environment, it is worth considering
what features, constraints, and challenges of the physical world
might be profitably introduced into virtual worlds."
Psychoanalysts W. H. Bion (Grinberg, Sor, & Bianchi, 1975) and
psychiatrist I. D. Yalom (1975) have shaped contemporary thinking
about group process, and the theories of Bion and Yalom can be used
to understand and solve problems in online educational groups.
My goal in this paper is to use their theories to provide a framework
for thinking about online groups. I will create a structure for
understanding group process in the new online groups and provide a
context which can contain and place more specialized
contributions.
W. R. Bion was a psychoanalytic theorist who wrote on group dynamics. Among his important ideas are the container and the contained; mental processes as influenced by trauma; and the role of leader, savior and genius in group dynamics. He created an abstract model of psychic functioning (the grid) based on algebraic concepts and notation, and studied the behavior of individuals in groups and the emotions which resulted from their interactions. During World War II, Bion organized the rehabilitation of soldiers in a psychiatric hospital by treating getting well as a group project. Later he worked as a group psychotherapist.
According to Bion, a group mentality arises as the group becomes a unit. At any given moment, a group holds one of three basic assumptions, which may differ from the beliefs of the individual members. The basic assumption of dependence arises from the group's anxious need to depend absolutely on someone who ought to protect the members and satisfy all their desires. Collective belief in an enemy who can be dealt with only by attack or retreat forms the basic assumption of fight-flight. The basic assumption of pairing defines the notion that some future event or person will come from outside to solve all problems.
Bion envisioned two basic types of groups: the basic assumption group and the work group. The basic assumption group is shaped by the unconscious of each group member, and the assumptions play out without the cooperation or even knowledge of individuals. The dependent group seeks an all-powerful leader, the fight-flight group needs an enemy and wants the leader to formulate a defense, and the pairing group looks forward to some promised perfect state in the future. The concept of a pairing group needs some explanation. The metaphor here is that the group allows two of its members to become a couple; these two create a child who becomes savior of the group. New ideas (the contained) always carry the power to disrupt a basic assumption group (the container) in the process Bion called catastrophic change. Primitive and hostile, basic assumption groups resist learning. Members of this type of group use language as a weapon rather than as a tool for exploring ideas.
On the other hand, the work group depends upon a certain maturity in members, manifested by cooperation, tolerance of frustration, and rational thought. Although the task may be difficult, group members experience growth as they are guided in their work by a leader. The basic assumption group evades or disposes of new ideas without considering them, but the work group focuses on the task at hand instead of drowning in fear. However, it is important to remember that every work group contains within it an unseen and irrational basic assumption group which may erupt at any time.
Irvin D. Yalom, a psychiatrist who wrote an important textbook on group therapy and studied encounter groups, stresses the importance of group cohesiveness, defined as the attraction of members to one another and the group. According to Yalom, twice-weekly meetings of not more than two hours keep group members involved without overwhelming them. A group size of seven is ideal, with fewer group members if the meeting is shorter, and more members to fill up a longer time period. Face-to-face contact is important, whether the group sits around a table or in a circle with an empty middle. The second arrangement allows better observation of nonverbal responses. Group members always have two jobs: the assigned task and the social interactions necessary for completion of the task.
Groups go through an initial honeymoon phase, followed by
disenchantment, which then leads to cohesiveness. Members Yalom
calls "early provocateurs" challenge the group leader and then
depart, and normally ten to thirty-five percent of psychotherapy
group members drop out by the twentieth session. Lateness and
missed sessions signal resistance to group cohesiveness.
Subgroups which set themselves apart from the main group by forming
outside alliances also endanger cohesiveness. For instance, a
romance or close friendship between two members of a larger group may
make others feel excluded. Yalom believes that conflict may not
be a negative factor for groups; disagreement can foster excitement
and learning. Too much aggression by one member results in the
assertion of group norms by the others, teaching individuals how to
work together.
Online groups are different from traditional groups because they lack the face-to-face contact so important to us as human beings. Humans use visual, auditory, olfactory, and pheromone (via the vomero-nasal organ) cues to divine the emotions of others in the group. Computer-mediated communication strips these important emotional cues from the conversation, leaving only the typed words on a computer screen. This creates an anonymity which at once invites quick intimacy and weakens the power of group norms. Even a telephone conversation allows some transmission of emotion via voice modulation, but words on the computer screen carry no emotion beyond their dictionary definitions. Yet people share their inmost secrets and strongest beliefs with strangers on the Internet.
Two types of online groups used frequently in educational settings are mailing lists and realtime chats. The mailing list, essentially an elaborated email system which forwards to all members messages sent to a central processor, creates a slow and unwieldy conversation, with response times measured in hours or days. Nevertheless, people become intensely bonded in mailing lists. Collins and Berge (1996) [HREF4] point out that asynchronous mailing lists create "a constant stream of reminders that the conference is proceeding. . .students. . .have time to think and reflect on their responses." Regular contact creates the sense of an ongoing relationship. Realtime chats increase the rate of information exchange to nearly the speed of in-person dialogue, but the participants remain faceless and voiceless, known only through ephemeral lines of type moving across an inanimate screen. However, the pace of synchronous computer chats resembles that of face-to-face conversation. According to Collins and Berge, "the text on the screen can scroll along at a furious pace." Another advantage is the potential to download a transcript of the conversation for study at a later time. In this regard, it resembles a book, which the reader can stop to reflect upon at any time.
Owston (1997) [HREF5] points out that some faculty members believe a high quality of learning can be achieved with online interaction. Rheingold (Electropolis) [HREF6] reminds his readers about the substantial effect of health-related information and support groups on the lives of the chronically ill. Rheingold believes that we're not yet sure what virtual communities are, but we're learning more about them all the time. Pointing out disadvantages, Mark Slouka (Electropolis) [HREF7] calls virtual communities "a world of enormous silence" where "language grows strained and awkward."
Collins
and Berge (1996) [HREF4] offer hope for "a virtual
community. . .that provides support and encouragement and promotes
sharing. . .and can help overcome the isolation of remote
areas." Karaliotas
(1997) [HREF8] agrees, comparing the Internet to an
"agora. . .in which knowledge is not only shared, but created and
recreated." In the late 1970s, the author of this paper
was privileged to use PLATO, the source of an accidental online
community which arose from an early email and newsgroup system
developed by David
R. Woolley (1994) [HREF9]. The PLATO
community brought together academics, first in Illinois and later
throughout the world, and Woolley believes that PLATO showed how
online communities can flower. Rheingold
(1992) [HREF10] agrees, calling a deliberately
constructed online community, the WELL, "a bit like a neighborhood
pub or coffee shop. . .a salon. . .a groupmind," where "we do
everything people do when people get together, but we do it with
words on computer screens, leaving our bodies behind."
The first task in setting up a work group is to think about the characteristics outlined by Bion and Yalom. Cooperation, tolerance of frustration, and rational thought characterize the work group, creating an atmosphere in which members experience growth. Although the work group is a safe container for new ideas, a basic assumption group always lurks just beneath the surface. Clarke (1997) [HREF11] writes that "Communities in cyberspace need means of achieving cohesion and maintaining relationships, while avoiding unduly dysfunctional behavior by community members and outsiders." Kollock (1998) [HREF3] agrees, noting that "group boundaries must be clearly defined so that there is a clear sense of who might make use of collective resources and in order to prevent individuals from entering the group, making use of its resources, and then departing without ever contributing to the group."
The role of the leader is to organize the group, to set the goals and agenda, and to build cohesiveness by focusing attention on group process. Rohfeld and Hiemstra (1995) [HREF13] point out that "the moderator must attend to two types of group processes. . .group building relates to the task the group is undertaking. . .maintenance refers to the function of the group as a group." Their terminology is a bit confusing here, but group building is equivalent to the group task, and maintenance refers to the interaction necessary to accomplish that task. Although the leader sets up basic group norms, he or she should not forget that the group acting together can overpower the leader. Kollock (1998) [HREF3] believes that each group should build customized norms for behavior.
In most classes, the online group will have more than the seven members suggested by Yalom, and the leader may want to design exercises which allow students to work in smaller, more intimate groups. Synchronous chat groups should meet twice a week, and asynchronous mailing list members should read the collected messages and write a long reply or continuation at least twice per week. According to Yalom, disagreement is valuable because it "fosters excitement and learning" while "too much aggression leads to assertion of group norms." The instructor should expect the group to go through honeymoon and disenchantment phases on the way to cohesiveness. Lateness or missed sessions should be discussed by the entire group. "How do members of the group feel about X's lateness?" might be a good starting question. The early provocateurs will challenge the leader and may leave. Subgroups or outside alliances between group members may form.
Students and teachers who participate in online groups must be comfortable with technology. Karaliotis (1997) [HREF8] points out that three levels of technology use are available. The simplest use is as an aid to instruction, but technology may be added on to conventional classes, or used to produce technology-driven courses on the Internet, classes beyond the ordinary limits of place and time. A dozen years ago, 10% of students at Idaho State University had used computers on campus or off. Now 90% are familiar with the basics of word processing and the Internet. Rohfeld and Hiemstra (1995) [HREF13] suggest that educators pay attention to the need for "appropriate technical support materials and well-designed course study guides."
Paulsen (1995) [HREF14] suggests that instructors "identify their preferred pedagogical styles, based on their philosophical orientation, their chosen moderator roles, and their preferred facilitation techniques." Attitudes about learner-centered classes, including teaching, assessment, and tone, can help a moderator develop his or her teaching style. According to Berge (1996) [HREF15], the online instructor has four roles: pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical. The leader contributes knowledge, keeps the discussion on track, weaves together various discussion threads, and maintains group harmony.
The leader also directs attention to group process through a technique known as meta-talk or meta-discussion. Meta-discussion is talk about the talk, a chance to understand and improve group process and group norms. According to Holeton (1997) [HREF16], "metadiscussion can be a valuable exercise in negotiating norms and conventions." Collins and Berge (1996) [HREF4] agree, suggesting that "metacomments. . .be used to remedy problems in context, norms or agenda, clarity, irrelevance." Rheingold (1992) [HREF10] describes the "ëMetaWELL,' a conference. . .about the WELL itself, its nature, its situation (often dire), its future." In a poetry class, the professor received two messages in one week. The first writer, sensitive to criticism, had hurt feelings over a rather gentle critique of his poem by other students during a face-to-face class. The second wondered if she was talking too much. Both of these students need counseling on their relationship to the group, one about viewing a critique as hostile criticism, and the other on ways to involve more bashful group members who lurk at the edge of the discussion.
The group leader can use simple techniques to increase participation and cohesiveness. According to Rohfeld and Hiemstra (1995) [HREF13], bringing the group members together for "an initial get acquainted and orientation session" allowed students to visualize their fellows. Giving each group member a set task brings everyone to the table. A question of the week -- How does sensitivity to criticism help or hinder the poet? -- can focus on both the subject matter and the interaction between group members. Cross-fertilization occurs when students begin to respond to each other's comments as they would in a classroom. Techniques which increase participation tend to enhance group cohesiveness, a vital factor according to Yalom. Rohfeld and Hiemstra suggest debates, polling activities, and learning partnerships. Journal writing can stimulate critical and reflective thinking, and a guest lecturer or student -moderated discussion can pick up the pace. The moderator should open each discussion by providing background and describing the issues to be explored, ending this opening statement with a question designed to stimulate conversation.
Participants must have a stake in the group. When asked about the purpose of their class mailing list, students responded that the group was good for asking and answering questions, communicating with each other, and communicating with the professor. A graduate student wrote that "I think this part of the class, the news group, is our own little coffee and steamed milk shop. . .I like to think of each of you pulling up class email with your feet propped on a bean bag and a bit of improv playing in the background" (Ovard 1998).
Group dynamics can help the instructor or group moderator analyze and solve process problems in online groups. New ideas have the power to disrupt a of group, leading to change which can be catastrophic for the group. An online discussion group which becomes a basic assumption group, innately angry and intolerant of new ideas, is a container which easily breaks apart. Lacking a strong leader to set behavioral parameters, the group operates in a dysfunctional manner shaped by a shared, unconscious belief in one or more of the basic assumptions. The cohesiveness which ordinarily generates behavioral norms to protect group members cannot form. An early signal that a basic assumption group is emerging is the use of language as a weapon, in the form of hurtful comments. The leader should be alert for such behavior, which signals the possibility of catastrophic change.
Clarke (1997) [HREF11] points out that the decentralized architecture of the Internet, which lacks a single overriding authority, may lead to "a lawless ëelectronic frontier' [emphasis in original], calling for a code of behavior which focuses on education rather than punishment. He published a collection of mini case studies of dysfunctional behavior on the Internet (1998) [HREF 13]. In writing about the development of PLATO, Woolley (1994) [HREF9] relates that "Nobody on PLATO had ever experienced an online community before, so there was a lot of fumbling in the dark as social norms were established.
Much attention has been focused on the lack of social context cues
in Internet communication, which takes place "without the benefit of
face-to-face speech, vocal tones, nonverbal expressions, and other
social-context cues" (Rohfeld
and Hiemstra 1995) [HREF13]. Collins
(1992) [HREF17] explains that "the level of uninhibited
verbal behavior. . .is a function of the absence of social context
cues. Yalom points out the importance of face-to-face contact
in psychotherapy groups. When we cannot see the body language
of others, it is easier for Bion's anarchic and primitive basic
assumption group to emerge.
The teacher sets up a class mailing list or online chat, teaches the
students how to use the system, and then waits for them to do
so. Nothing happens. Once a week, a brave student asks a
question, the teacher replies to the group and the interaction ends
there. This non-group is functioning under Bion's basic
assumption of dependence, the group's need to depend on a leader for
protection and satisfaction.
The student who hasn't been able to join in yet may have been kidnapped by parents and recruitment officers and sent to college against his or her will. However, many students who at first seem defiant and unwilling to get involved in online groups are technologically insecure, fearful of doing something wrong, or not used to online groups. Others suffer from depression and boredom, and a few are simply overworked and don't have time to read and write group messages. According to Owston (1997) [HREF18], shy persons may find that online forums free them from their fear of participating.
Computer anxiety often results from lack of knowledge. Most
people do not like to seem ignorant, and taking students carefully
through the steps of logging in and finding the Internet can help
them overcome their fears. Doing something wrong should be held
up as part of learning rather than a reason for a low
grade. The group leader can proceed slowly and carefully
through the login process, preferably demonstrating on a large screen
at the front of the room, backing up when necessary. More
experienced students can be encouraged to look on such a brief
workshop as a review of the basics. A clear, usable course
manual with plenty of bold print and white space and a prominent Help
telephone number can serve the same purpose for groups which do not
meet in a classroom. Some students need one-on-one coaching
during office hours. The student who needs to set up an email
program on a home computer may require more specialized instruction
by telephone from the system's Help Desk. Assume the
nonparticipant needs a leader.
One phenomenon which endangers the cohesiveness of online groups is flaming, defined by Collins (1992) [HREF17] as "uninhibited verbal behavior," offensive language or ad hominem attacks, often directed at new or naive members of the community. Adolescent computer hackers seem to delight in flaming each other, but flaming has become a more general problem in Internet groups. Rheingold (1992) [HREF10] points out that "Degrees of outright incivility constitute entire universes such as alt.flame, the Usenet newsgroup where people go specifically to spend their days hurling vile imprecations at one another." Flaming results from the Bion's basic assumption of fight-flight, group belief in an enemy which can be dealt with only by attack or retreat. The lack of social context cues in online groups makes flaming easier. The email excerpt below (the original went on for many pages) shows the basic characteristics of flaming behavior.
What [X] appeared to be communicating to this list is that he is in EXTREME UNTOLERABLE PHYSICAL PAIN which NO DOCTOR is willing to help him with..Have you ever expierienced pain to the point it hurt so bad that all you can do is to try to get through the pain but you cannot cry, eat, smile, wrinkle face to cry, or even think??????? YES i am yelling at you for playinbg doctor and not HEARING his call for HELP with the PAIN.
Unable to use visual, auditory, or olfactory cues, the flamer jacks up the emotional content of the words, substituting capital letters for a loud voice and angry gestures. Excessive punctuation, as in the question marks seen near the end of this section, is also used to intensify emotion. The note has clearly been written in haste, and contains errors of word use, spelling, and punctuation, indicating the flamer's disturbed emotional state. In the last sentence, the flamer writes "i am yelling at you," telling the reader what is already apparent. Faced with such hostility, both the flamer and the attacked person may abandon the group or fight back with hostile messages, coming to believe that such behavior is acceptable and even admired.
Flaming results from inadequate empathy for other individuals and flawed cohesiveness with the larger group. The solution to problems with flaming in an online group is complex. First, a strong leader must guide group members as they examine the basic assumptions under which the group has been operating. What type of interaction between group members caused the flame? It is important to stress that the flame results from failure of group cohesiveness rather than individual badness. Rheingold (1992) [HREF10] suggests that "the most powerful and effective defense an online community has in the face of those who are bent on disruption might be norms and agreements about withdrawing attention from those who can't abide by even loose rules of verbal behavior. ëIf you continue doing that. . .we will stop paying attention to you.'" However, I believe that restatement of the norms of kindness, mutual understanding and support, tact, and courtesy by the group, not just by the leader, is the first step in reintegrating a flamer into the group, with ostracism or expulsion as a last resort.
Group members must learn to see each other as feeling human
beings, not as anonymous lines of print on the computer screen.
Then the more empathetic group must generate new rules for behavior
to encourage rational thought and cooperation. Graphics
can contribute to group cohesiveness. Group members could be
encouraged to post photos and biographies to the online
exchange. As the group becomes a safer container, new ideas
become less dangerous, and the need to flame subsides.
The basic assumption of pairing defines the notion that some future
event or person will come from outside to solve all problems.
This type of basic assumption group lacks cohesiveness because
members look outside the group for solutions to problems rather than
into the group. Because the online group may never meet
face-to-face, the members have little investment in the group task or
group process.
Some years ago, a graduate student was dismissed from Idaho State University. An experienced online group member, she planted seductive and inviting messages on every pornographic bulletin board she could find. Her email account received so many messages that the university computer system was overloaded and crashed for three days during registration week, a great inconvenience to students, faculty, and administrators. Once she was no longer a member of the main group, the university, it became possible for her to damage the larger group without guilt.
Another instance of fragmenting involved two athletes, one a football player and the other on the basketball team. When the class logged onto a realtime chat, bantering between these two group members led to a splitting of the entire group, with attacking comments directed at the now-leaders of the two teams. One solution to problems with splitting is to divide the larger group into smaller work groups on purpose. Each group should have a task involving presentation of information to the class to increase competitive spirit. In a group of three or four, each person must contribute for the group to be successful, and no one can disappear into the woodwork.
For example, in a composition class using human-animal
communication as a topic, the leader divides students into groups of
three. Each group must make an online presentation and answer
questions from the whole class. One group focuses on
chimpanzees, another on dolphins, a third on dogs, a fourth on horse
whispering, etc. In the chimpanzee group, one student describes
observations of chimp communication in the wild, a second covers
attempts to teach human sign language to chimps, and the third
examines future applications of the knowledge gained from these
studies. Each student posts a long message -- an essay -- to
the larger group, and all group members are invited to respond
thoughtfully online to the information presented. This
technique turns the focus of the group inward, building
cohesiveness.
Educators using online discussion groups and realtime chats have a
unique opportunity to shape an emerging culture. At the
beginning of any group, the members look toward the leader
expectantly. The leader's response determines how the group
will operate and what will be accomplished. Using the
theoretical framework of group dynamics, the instructor can set up
work groups, maintain group cohesiveness, and solve interpersonal
problems. The group dynamics theories of Bion and Yalom, allow
leaders of online groups understand group process and to act in a way
that creates a context in which the initiative and creativity of the
group can emerge.
Berge, Z. (1996). The role of the online instructor/facilitator. [Online]. Available: http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/moderate/teach_online.html [1998, November 30].
Clarke, R. (1996). Cyberculture: Towards the analysis that internet participants need. [Online]. Available: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/CyberCulture.html [1999, February 26].
Clarke, R. (1997). Encouraging cyberculture. [Online]. Available://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/EncoCyberCulture.html [1998, November 30].
Clarke, R. (1998). Netethiquette: Mini case studies of dysfunctional human behavior on the net. [Online]. Available: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/Netethiquettecases.html [1999, February 26].
Collins, M. (1992). Flaming: the relationship between social context cues and uninhibited verbal behavior in computer-mediated conversation. [Online]. Available: http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/papers/flames.html [1998, November 30].
Collins, M., & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. [Online]. Available: http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/moderate/flcc.html [1998, November 30].
Grinberg, L., D. Sor and E. T. de Bianchedi. (1975). Introduction to the Work of Bion. Scotland: The Roland Harris Educational Trust.
Holeton, R. (1997). A case study of electronic community building in a freshman dorm. [Online]. Available: http://www.stanford.edu/~holeton/wired-pages/wired-main.html [1998, November 30].
Karaliotas, Y. (1997). Learning on and over the internet: dynamics and limitations. [Online]. Available: http://users.otenet.gr/kar1125/education.htm [1998, November 30].
Kollock, P. (1998) Design principles for online communities. [Online]. Available: http://www.sccnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/design.htm [1998, November 30].
Ovard, Leslie (Ovarlesl@isu.edu) (1999, February 17). Re: Question of the Week. Email to Kathleen King (kingkath@isu.edu).
Owston, R. (1997). The world wide web: a technology to enhance teaching and learning? [Online]. Available: http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~rowston/article.html [1999, February 27].
Paulsen, M. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. [Online]. Available: http://www.nettskolen.com/alle/forskning/20/moderating.html [1999, February 26].
Rheingold, H. (1992). A slice of life in my virtual community. [Online]. Available: gopher://gopher.well.sf.ca.us/00/Community/virtual_communities92 [1998, November 30].
Rheingold, H. Public life in the electropolis. [Online]. Available: http://www.feedmag.com/95.08dialog/95.08dialog1.html [1998, November 30].
Rohfeld, R., & Hiemstra, R. (1995). Moderating discussions in the electronic classroom. [Online]. Available: http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/moderate/rohfeld.html [1998, November 30].
Slouka, M. Public life in the electropolis. [Online]. Available: http://www.feedmag.com/95.08dialog/95.08dialog1.html [1998, November 30].
Woolley, D. (1994). PLATO: the emergence of online community. [Online]. Available: http://thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm [1998, November 30].
Yalom, I. D. (1975). The Theory and Practice of Group
Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.
HREF1
http://www.isu.edu/~kingkath
HREF2
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/CyberCulture.html
HREF3
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/so/faculty/kollock/papers/design.htm
HREF4
http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/moderate/flcc.html
HREF5
http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~rowston/article.html
HREF6
http://www.feedmag.com/95.08dialog/95.08dialog1.html
HREF7
http://www.feedmag.com/95.08dialog/95.08dialog1.html
HREF8
http://users.otenet.gr/kar1125/education.htm
HREF9
http://thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm
HREF10
gopher://gopher.well.sf.ca.us/00/Community/virtual_communities92
HREF11
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/EncoCyberCulture.html
HREF12
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/Netethiquettecases.html
HREF13
http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/moderate/rohfeld.html
HREF14
http://www.nettskolen.com/alle/forskning/20/moderating.html
HREF15
http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/moderate/teach_online.html
HREF16
http://www.stanford.edu/~holeton/wired-pages/wired-main.html
HREF17
http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~mauri/papers/flames.html
HREF18
http://http://www.edu.yorku.ca/~rowston/article.html
Kathleen King, © 1999. The author assigns to Southern Cross
University and other educational and non-profit institutions a
non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in
courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and
this copyright statement is reproduced. The author also grants a
non-exclusive licence to Southern Cross University to publish this
document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD-ROM and in printed
form with the conference papers and for the document to be published
on mirrors on the World Wide Web.