Photo by engin akyurt on Unsplash
Overview of Facilitation Week (8):
The week will encompass an exploration of Digital Literacy Skills for Effective Online Facilitation with a focus on the use of data analytics and “surveillance tools.” We will start the week with an article from our guest speaker questioning the pervasiveness of surveillance in online education. We will then look at articles that speak to the positive benefits, as well as the negative side of data-analytics and surveillance tools that are now a foundational part of most educational technology.
Facilitating Team Members: Jeff Goodes, Eunice Leung, Leigh McCarthy, Sue Reid, and Lorne Strachan
Learning Activity: After reading three articles, learners will be asked to participate in an asynchronous debate over a two-day period in the assigned Moodle Discussion Forum. We have intentionally designed the debate process to allow the teams ample time to read the articles, post their comments and engage in discussion. The facilitating team will act as the “Judgment Team” and will prepare a post which will reflect their determination about who won the debate, providing clear justification for the selection of the winning team. No late nights for this activity!
Readings:
- Guest speaker article: We’re keeping it secret for now, but stay tuned!
- The Guardian (2019, October 22). Under digital surveillance: how American schools spy on millions of kids
- Scapin, R (2018). Learning Analytics: How to Use Students’ Big Data to Improve Teaching
Learning Objectives: At the end of this activity, the learner will be able to discuss, contrast and compare the use of surveillance tools in online education, and demonstrate their opinions as well as critique and debate the opinions of the opposing team.
Timeline/Flow of the Week:
| Date | Activity |
| Sunday, October 11 | Debate teams will be announced and readings posted in Moodle. |
| Monday, October 12 | Explore three readings required as background for debate. |
| Tuesday, October 13 | Asynchronous debate opens (Tuesday – Friday) “Be it resolved that digital tracking can be used to help students without crossing over into invasive surveillance.” Facilitating Team will add a “Starter Point/Post” to each side of the debate on Tuesday. Minimum requirements for each participant: 1 post and 1 reply to a counterargument statement. |
| Wednesday, October 14 | Moodle Quiz opens (Summary Evaluation – multiple choice questions) Asynchronous debate continues… |
| Thursday, October 15 | Guest speaker, 6:00 to 7:00pm PST Asynchronous debate continues… |
| Friday, October 16 | Asynchronous debate concludes/closes at 11:59pm PST |
| Saturday, October 17 | Moodle Quiz closes (Summary Evaluation – multiple choice questions) |
| Sunday, October 18 | Debate Summary & Judgement posted by Facilitating Team by 6:00pm PST |
Technologies and Rationale:
Moodle: posting readings and discussion forum.
Moodle Collaborate Ultra Room: to host Guest speaker.
We have chosen these technologies because they are accessible to all members of our cohort, and will allow us to communicate with learners via the Moodle Discussion Forum created specifically for this facilitation experience. We will also record the Collaborate Session for our peers who are unable to attend, or are located in different time zones.
Facilitating using a Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework using guidelines drawn from the work of Garrison and Arbaugh (2007), as well as the work and CoI Coding Template from Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000, p. 89):
Teaching Presence
We plan to establish our teaching presence by:
- Sharing a clear design and organization of week’s activities, in advance of facilitation week.
- Balancing direct and indirect instruction.
Indicators: Defining and focusing discussion through guidelines and selective moderation.
3. Participate in Bull’s (2013) roles of cheerleaders and co-learners in both the discussions and guest speaker session.
Indicators: Share encouraging comments with learners during the debate/discussion, and participate with same curiosity in the guest speaker session.
Social Presence
As facilitators, we will encourage social presence of our learners by:
- Setting a tone for open and respectful communication, making space for all voices to be heard.
Indicators: Participation from all learners, through “risk-free expression” (Garrison et al., 2000).
2. As facilitators, “be real and affective” (Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes, Garrison, 2013, p. 57).
Indicators: Participants sharing personal meaning and connections and facilitators responding to group dynamics in asynchronous and synchronous discussions.
Cognitive Presence
As facilitators, we will encourage cognitive presence of our learners by:
- Providing readings, an informal debate, guest speaker, and providing a summary at the end of the week to create: “a triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution” (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007, p. 159).
Indicators: Learners will exchange information and ideas, and connect and apply new ideas in the asynchronous debate and synchronous discussion following the guest speaker.
References
Bull, B. (2013, June 3). Eight Roles of an Effective Online Teacher. In Online Education: Faculty Focus—Higher Ed Teaching Strategies from Magna Publication. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/eight-roles-of-an-effective-online-teacher/
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. In The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), pp. 87-105. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Retrieved from https://www.aupress.ca/books/120229-teaching-in-blended-learning-environments/
Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Retrieved from https://www.aupress.ca/books/120229-teaching-in-blended-learning-environments/
September 13, 2020 at 7:09 pm
Ohhhh, a guest speaker. I am intrigued! The only concern I have with the plan (which does a great job of mapping CoI) is the “asynchronous debate over a two-day period”. 2 days is a quick turnaround for a rich debate to develop. You may want to carry that on for a few more days in order for the discussion to unfold as a discussion. Your week does run from Monday to the following Sunday so you may want to consider extending the week and have the debate continue after your synchronous session in order to give learners more time to participate.
September 13, 2020 at 7:57 pm
Intrigue can be good… 🙂 Your feedback about our draft plan for our asynchronous debate is definitely worth further consideration, Clint. We are still actively processing, as a group, the most effective way to manage the debate/discussion. Your feedback is likely the missing piece that will guide us to an effective and engaging final plan.
Thanks on behalf of the group,
Leigh
September 15, 2020 at 12:21 am
A guest speaker! that sounds fun 🙂 trying to guess who she or he is hmmm.
Looking forward!
Good luck 🙂
Tala
September 19, 2020 at 2:21 pm
I think you will like the guest speaker, Tala. 🙂
Looking forward to having you participate, as usual!
Leigh