There is certainly merit to both of the models discussed in the textbook

There is certainly merit to both of the models discussed in the textbook. Tuckman and Jensen have devised a visualization of group dynamic that is both simple, yet extraordinarily effective. The five stages described are quite well thought out and can easily be conceptualized. In my own personal experience, looking back, I can clearly remember groups I have been a part of and break down the experience into each segment. During my first year at Towson, one of my classes required a semester-long group project which consisted of various components and was extremely time consuming. I can clearly visualize each of the segments we went through. Forming was mostly out of necessity for the course, and lasted a relatively short time. Storming was a rather difficult patch as a power struggle between myself and another member ensued due to vast differences in opinion on research methodology. I eventually took lead of the group and during the norming stage, despite some hiccups in establishing member requirements, we got a general system of work down. Performing was a little different in that I continually had to remind group members of deadlines and generally was the leader throughout. Finally, as the class ended, we adjourned.
My experience does bring forth at least one flaw of Tuckman and Jensen’s model, however. A groups development cannot be categorized into five, chronological, distinct segments as a rigid formula. While groups tend to develop in accordance to the five stages, they are not static and do not always stay in the past.