Initial Reflection on Digital Facilitation (1-2-3)

Digital Facilitation, for me, is like having sex in space. Not that I have had the experience, but according to Neil deGrasse Tyson, it’s awkward. And it seems to be a constant struggle to overcome obstacles. In other words, it takes more time and effort, and it’s less enjoyable. I still prefer to do it (teaching) in person. And probably always will.

Unless technology advances to a point where it is a super realistic simulation, but I could still do it from home. Walk around my place in my underwear (invisible to my students) and teach a bunch of student holograms in my living room. I guess my students would see my hologram as well. I wonder if that scenario would present any issues? Somehow I suspect it would still feel less natural. Which brings me to another question: could digital facilitation ever be better than in-person?

Yes, I am doing 1-2-3 instead of 3-2-1. It’s in my nature to break patterns, and I find it difficult to conform to existing structures, rules or guidelines. Even if my way is not a better way, I need to feel like I am an individual, which made me realize that I would not fit into any system of formal education. Going through this program has been an interesting journey, but I could never teach in it. Every course is designed the same way; it follows the same formula. I am sure it is the most effective way for the institution, but I wouldn’t be motivated since I am stimulated by novelty, uncertainty, and unpredictability.

This week’s reading mentions the Socratic method, and it’s great, but Socrates didn’t sit in front of the computer all day, nor did he stand in front of the classroom. His students followed him in the streets. And the passing of knowledge (and his method) was done through mentorship rather than the traditional (which digital facilitation tries to emulate) facilitation.