Understanding Group Dynamics and Learner Groupings in Online ELT Contexts

Introduction

Group dynamics play a crucial role in shaping how learning unfolds in English language teaching (ELT) contexts. According to the British Council’s TeachingEnglish platform, “Group dynamics refer to the relationships between learners in a group and the impact that this has on the way they work” (British Council, n.d.). These dynamics influence student participation, learners’ interaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and ultimately course and program learning outcomes. While traditional discussions of group dynamics often assume face-to-face (F2F) classrooms, the increasing prevalence of online learning environments requires teachers to rethink how grouping strategies operate when physical space is replaced by virtual platforms.

Drawing on Module 3, Unit 2 of the TeachingEnglish: Managing learners and resources course, this essay explores how classroom layout, interaction patterns, and task planning influence group dynamics, with particular attention to online teaching contexts (British Council, n.d.). As a teaching practitioner, I also reflect on my own teaching practice as an online English instructor, addressing both challenges and opportunities in managing learner groupings. By combining theory, course insights, and reflective practice, this paper argues that intentional planning of interaction patterns is central to fostering positive group dynamics in both physical and virtual classrooms.

Group Dynamics and Classroom Structure

An essential dimension of group dynamics concerns the physical, or virtual, arrangement of learners. As the TeachingEnglish materials highlight, seating arrangements affect not only how learners interact with one another but also how the teacher relates to the group (British Council, n.d.). This idea resonates strongly with architect Frank Lloyd Wright’s famous assertion that “structure governs behavior,” a phrase originally applied to buildings but highly relevant to educational spaces.

In traditional classrooms, fixed rows of desks facing the front often reinforce teacher-centered instruction and limit peer interaction. Harmer (2015) notes that such arrangements can discourage communication by preventing learners from making eye contact or engaging naturally with one another. In contrast, flexible layouts such as circles, U-shapes, or group tables promote collaboration and learner-centered practices.

However, in online environments, physical furniture is replaced by digital interfaces. As I have often shared with teachers in ELT webinars, “As opposed to what happens in a regular F2F class, my students are in various places around their homes… Mobility is something I don’t count on; the only one thing I can do is to grant their permission to join a group whose topic they are interested in discussing.” In this context, visibility, seeing one another’s faces on screen, becomes the primary structural feature shaping interaction. Zoom’s main room resembles a boardroom layout, while breakout rooms can approximate café-style groupings, though other traditional configurations (e.g., U-shape or herringbone) are simply not possible.

Despite these limitations, structure still governs behavior online. The way breakout rooms are formed, the size of groups, and the clarity of tasks all shape how learners interact. As Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) argue, group dynamics are not accidental; they are constructed through deliberate pedagogical choices.

Interaction Patterns and Their Pedagogical Value

The British Council’s course outlines a range of interaction patterns that teachers can use to vary classroom dynamics and maintain learner on-task engagement. These patterns include teacher-to-learners, whole-group discussion, individual work, pair work (open and closed), changing pairs, group work, mingling, and learner-to-learner instruction. Each pattern serves distinct pedagogical purposes and contributes differently to group cohesion, content practice, and learning.

Reflecting on my recent online teaching practice, I noted that “During my last four classes… I have used teacher to learners, whole-group discussions, individual work, closed pair work, group work, and learners to learners” (Acuña Solano, 2026). This variety aligns with Harmer’s (2015) recommendation that teachers alternate interaction patterns to keep lessons dynamic and to address different learning needs and styles.

Each interaction pattern offers specific benefits. Teacher-to-learner interaction allows for efficient but concrete delivery of explanations and instructions, ensuring that all learners receive the same input. Whole-group discussions promote shared meaning-making and enable learners to connect textual or audio content to their personal and professional experiences. Individual work supports cognitive processing and allows learners to work at their own pace, which is particularly important for accuracy-focused tasks.

Closed pair work and group work, on the other hand, foster collaboration and communicative practice. As I usually explain to peers and pre-service student teachers, “This is used to have learners perform a sketchpad and a roleplay to practice grammatical and lexical content” (Acuña Solano, 2026). Such activities resonate with Long’s (1996) interaction hypothesis, which emphasizes the role of negotiation of meaning in language development. Learner-to-learner instruction further enhances autonomy and confidence, allowing students with stronger mastery to scaffold their peers’ learning, a process closely aligned with Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development.

Planning Tasks to Shape Group Dynamics

A key insight from the course is that group dynamics and interaction patterns influence each other bidirectionally. Not only do existing group dynamics shape how learners interact, but the interaction patterns embedded in task design can actively create or disrupt positive dynamics. As the course materials suggest, “The types of interactions you plan for your tasks can determine the group dynamics” (British Council, n.d.).

Careful planning is therefore essential. Assigning pair work to tasks that require independent reflection may generate frustration, while overly complex group tasks can overwhelm learners without sufficient scaffolding. In my own practice, this has required a heightened level of intentionality, particularly in a flipped learning model. I candidly note, “Sometimes I forget to [teach process language], assuming that learners did their preparation for the class” (Acuña Solano, 2026). This reflection highlights the risk of overestimating learner readiness and underscores the importance of explicitly teaching the language needed for interaction.

Process language, such as “Can you repeat that?” or “Do you want to start?”, enables learners to manage interaction smoothly. Pre-teaching this language, leaving it visible during tasks, and encouraging learners to record it aligns with best practices in communicative language teaching (Harmer, 2015).

Supporting Interaction in Online Group Work

Beyond task design, promoting successful interaction requires ongoing support. Pre-teaching task language, providing ideas, monitoring breakout rooms, and giving preparation time are all strategies emphasized in the course and reflected in my teaching philosophy. I explain, “Monitoring what learners do in breakout rooms is a way to scaffold learners even with extra ideas they may have not considered yet” (Acuña Solano, 2026). This form of contingent support mirrors Vygotskyan scaffolding, where assistance is adjusted to learners’ immediate needs.

Preparation time is particularly critical in oral and summative assessments. As I have noted through my reflective journaling notes, “Especially in summative assessment tasks, preparation time is crucial for a better success of oral assessments in pairs” (Acuña Solano, 2026). Without adequate planning time, learners may struggle to articulate ideas, leading to breakdowns in interaction that are not reflective of their actual competence.

Conclusion

Understanding and managing group dynamics is a central component of effective ELT practice, whether in physical or virtual classrooms. The British Council’s TeachingEnglish course provides a valuable framework for analyzing how classroom structure, interaction patterns, and task planning intersect to shape learner experiences. As this essay has shown, these principles remain highly relevant in online contexts, though they require adaptation and heightened intentionality.

From my own perspective as an online English instructor, I have learned that while I cannot move desks or rearrange chairs, I can still design interaction, foster collaboration, and shape group dynamics through thoughtful use of breakout rooms, varied interaction patterns, and explicit support for learner interaction. Ultimately, positive group dynamics do not emerge by chance; they are the result of reflective practice, careful planning, and a deep understanding of how learners learn together.

San José, Costa Rica

Thursday, February 12, 2026

📚 References

Acuña Solano, J. (February 2026). Understanding groupings. [Unpublished course notes and reflective journaling].

British Council. (n.d.). Managing learners and resources: Understanding groupings. TeachingEnglish. https://open.teachingenglish.org.uk/Team/UserProgrammeDetails/676892

Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Harmer, J. (2015). How to teach English (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.