{"id":682,"date":"2021-11-02T11:54:25","date_gmt":"2021-11-02T18:54:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/?p=682"},"modified":"2021-11-02T11:54:25","modified_gmt":"2021-11-02T18:54:25","slug":"reflecting-on-my-lrnt-528-facilitation-experience","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/reflecting-on-my-lrnt-528-facilitation-experience\/","title":{"rendered":"Reflecting on my LRNT 528 Facilitation Experience"},"content":{"rendered":"

Over the past twelve weeks, I have been studying online facilitation in LRNT 528 of the Masters in Learning and Technology program (MALAT) at Royal Roads University. One of the primary learning tasks in the course situated learners in facilitation teams, in groups of three or four, where each team was to follow Garrison et al.\u2019s (2000) Community of Inquiry framework (COI) to conceptualize, design, and facilitate one week\u2019s worth of educational content on a topic of our choosing. My team, consisting of myself, Denys Koval, and Eric Yu, selected digital literacy as our facilitation topic. Through a reflection of my experience in this facilitation exercise and an analysis of the learner feedback we received after our facilitation week, this paper evaluates the effectiveness of our facilitation efforts through the structure of the COI framework\u2019s three presences of educational transaction: Social, cognitive, and teaching.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Social Presence\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Our module design featured a week-long video-based discussion as our primary social transaction during our facilitation week. Using a Platform called Flipgrid, learners were to post a short video reflecting on what digital literacy means to them and reply to a minimum of two of their classmates’ posts to spark discussion. Our decision to use video as a discussion medium primarily reflects our aim to offer learners an authentic, open, and expression-filled interactive experience. Video enables users to express themselves through words, tone, and facial expression, which addresses the \u201cemotional expression\u201d (p.89) aspect of building a social presence (Garrison et al., 2000) and allows learners to project more of their personality than with words alone (Smith, 2011). Further, the Flipgrid activity acquainted learners with one another in the context of digital literacy, which, according to Boettcher (n.d.), helps establish community cohesion and addresses three fundamental learning dialogues: Student-student, student-teacher, and student-content.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Having already spent time in text-based discussions in LRNT 528 before our facilitation week, Denys, Eric, and I wanted to inject variety into our learning module by using video as our discussion technology. We, as a group, felt the text-based discussion was becoming a bit stagnant and repetitive. We felt strongly that the newness of video, as a dialogic medium, would re-engage learners and provide an intimate environment where everyone could appear less rehearsed. As the week progressed, we felt learners were participating quite readily, casually discussing their experiences with digital literacy while maintaining an academic tone. In the end, we thought Flipgrid, as a technology and discussion activity, served our purpose quite well and met most, if not all, of our design objectives.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Overall, the learners received our Flipgrid activity quite well, whose feedback validates much of our design approach. First, learners appreciated the opportunity to share personal stories to gain insight, convey personal meaning and emotion, and connect with the learning content. Second, respondents found the personal reflection aspect of the exercise activated prior knowledge of digital literacy, which they appeared to appreciate. Third, learners expressed their appreciation for how the technology was easy to use and offered a streamlined navigational system to cover multiple learner posts in a short amount of time. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, most learners reported that the activity produced a positive social learning experience (Learner 1, 3, 4, & 6, Personal Communication, September 26, 2021).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Flipgrid activity feedback reveals an exciting equation for establishing an effective social presence. Learners felt comfortable using Flipgrid due to its user-friendly design and minimal learning curve, boosting their participation and ultimately increasing their self-efficacy. Mayer (2021) supports this notion by explaining how a well-designed user experience \u201cboosts learners\u2019 perceived competence and reduces their anxiety for using the technology\u201d (p.407). Similarly, since the Flipgrid activity embodied Merrill\u2019s (2002) \u201cactivation\u201d (p.46) stage, learners likely felt confident with their ability to contribute to the conversation since most, if not everyone, had experience with digital literacy. With such learner efficacy established, motivational tactics embodied within Denys\u2019 activity introduction video, namely, his effective use of humour and surprise within his post, drew learners\u2019 attention and further influenced their participation. Keller (2016) explains how the attention phase of the ARCS-V model positively influences learner engagement through tactics that stimulate arousal, interest, and other sensation-seeking characteristics of learners\u2019 personalities. According to Ucar & Kumtepe (2020), motivation is one of the most influential factors contributing to a learner\u2019s ability to adapt to a new learning environment (Carpenter, 2021). Combining all of the above with one\u2019s ability to express themselves through video technology makes it logical to conceive this activity as an open, supportive and purposeful social activity deeply rooted in establishing learner self-efficacy. Therefore, I hypothesize an equation for establishing a social presence through video-based discussion in Figure 1.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Figure 1\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

An equation for effective video-based discussion<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n
User-friendly technology + activation of prior knowledge = increased learner self-efficacy\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Increased learner self-efficacy + motivational design tactics + video-based expression = active participation & authenticity\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Cognitive Presence\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Although our module design incorporates numerous elements to address the cognitive presence, one final assignment and its associated readings comprised most of the learner\u2019s cognitive workload. Learners were assigned two core readings throughout the week, serving as a general overview of digital literacy. We chose to incorporate peer-reviewed readings as the source of our learning material since we did not have time to prepare original content. Accordingly, we based our approach on the courses in the MALAT program, which predominantly use journal articles as learning material. The module assignment featured a jigsaw activity (see Tewksbury, n.d.), where learners were assigned specific topics on digital literacy and asked to produce a 150-word written summary which would later be added to a collaborative infographic by the facilitators. Tewksbury (n.d.) states the jigsaw activity is an \u201ceffective way of engaging students both with course material and with each other \u2026 [and] shows significant benefits for students not only in terms of the level of learning but also in terms of positive social and attitudinal gains\u201d, (Jigsaw section) which coincides nicely with COI-based instructional design.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We felt good about our module\u2019s cognitive presence leading into our facilitation week. The jigsaw activity embodied much of Garrison et al.\u2019s (2000) elements of a cognitive educational transaction, including a sense of puzzlement, exploration and information exchange, and the integration of new information into solutions. Thus, our cognitive presence approach covered all the key design elements of the COI framework. Likewise, we thought our core reading selections were appropriate for the learning context; however, we had some reservations about the length of the readings. In past MALAT courses, learners expressed their displeasure with doing readings while working on other learning activities in one week, so we were aware there might be some backlash during our facilitation week. However, to our surprise, we did not receive any comments or concerns about workload as the week progressed, so we believed the prescribed workload was appropriate.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

On the positive side, most learners appreciated the concept of the jigsaw assignment, and to some extent, the content within the readings; however, as predicted by our team, 90% of respondents complained about their workload. More specifically, 70% of respondents found the readings were too much, 60% found the learning activities (excluding readings) were too much, while 50% found all activities combined exceeded their workload threshold. In addition, Learner #3 noted that although they had read enough to benefit how the team intended, there was a \u201cdegree of stress\u201d associated with their lack of completing the reading material. Further, much of the feedback advised our group to \u201ctrim back\u201d by either reducing the core readings or excluding the last activity altogether on the basis that one week is not enough time to complete such diverse learning responsibilities (All learners, Personal Communication, September 26, 2021, Column K).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I found myself questioning whether this feedback truly reflects poor design and facilitation strategies or if it could reflect something else entirely. Therefore, my first task is to determine the total number of study hours our learning module inflicted upon the learners to see if there is any objective truth in this feedback (See Table 1 below for a breakdown of our module\u2019s workload).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Table 1.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Calculating total workload duration in hours and minutes.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Total study hours allowed for the learning week: 5- 7 hrs.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Core Readings<\/b><\/p>\n

Average non-fiction reading time: 238 words\/min (Brysbaert, 2019, p.2).<\/span><\/p>\n

Average words per page: 500 single spaced<\/span><\/p>\n

Approximate reading time: 30 pages (non-fiction, single-spaced) x 500 words\/page \u00f7 238\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

words\/min = ~ <\/span>63 min reading duration<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Flipgrid Activity<\/b><\/p>\n

Video post duration: 90 sec maximum<\/span><\/p>\n

Total posts required per user: 3 (one original post and two replies)<\/span><\/p>\n

Approximate time spent to reflect for the original post: ~ 30min<\/span><\/p>\n

Review of classmates posts: 7 total posts to watch (8 learners registered in learning module)<\/span><\/p>\n

7 total posts to watch x 90 sec each = 10.5 min<\/span><\/p>\n

90 sec x 3 + 30 min + 10.5 min = <\/span>46 min to complete Flipgrid activity<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Jigsaw Activity<\/b><\/p>\n

Approximate time for research: <\/span>1 hr 30 min<\/b><\/p>\n

Approximate writing time (150 words and image): <\/span>1 hr 30 min<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Total Workload Calculation<\/span> = 5.56 hrs<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Note<\/span><\/i>. This figure depicts all of the learning activities associated with our learning module. The remaining 1.5 hours allow for learner orientation in Google Classroom (our module host) and Flipgrid.<\/span><\/p>\n

Based on my calculations, our module design featured an appropriate amount of workload that operated within the parameters given by our course instructor. Considering a part-time program in higher education typically involves 20 hours of work per week, our learning module has not deviated from the norms of post-secondary education. Accordingly, learner feedback on workload may not directly reflect the quality of our module and facilitation design. So why did the learners return such negative feedback about our workload?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First, and generally speaking, \u201cconvincing students to allow adequate time for the learning process is challenging\u201d (Scully & Kerr, 2014, p.446). This point is particularly true when no grades are on the line, which as Thomas & Bain (2004) note, assessment impacts learning approaches. Since our learning module did not involve traditional assessment or grades, learners might not have managed their study time appropriately. Further, research also suggests it is common for higher education students to complain about workloads, specifically, perceiving their workload as too much (Scully & Kerr, 2014, p.444). As a learner, I can attest to observing students who complain about workload when tasks become particularly challenging; in this instance, complaining is a coping strategy, an action, of which, is not necessarily indicative of poor instructional design.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Third, and perhaps most importantly, a student\u2019s perception of workload is \u201c a complex construct of aspects that can be drawn from the student and the learning environment\u201d (Scully & Kerr, 2014, p.445). Actual work hours only \u201cweakly influence\u201d (p.165) student workload perception, as \u201cstudy time and perceived workload are not synonymous\u201d (Scully and Kerr, 2014, p.176). These points illustrate that certain learner conditions, such as stress, home life, work, and relationships, can significantly impact one\u2019s ability to practice effective study habits (Brown et al., 2015). In sum, it is the qualitative perception of the student that should be taken into account when evaluating workload instead of objective measure alone (Kember, 2004); therefore, learners are best to acknowledge their personal circumstances before concluding a workload is too much and the curriculum design is ineffective.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Teaching Presence\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

At the core of our teaching presence is Google Classroom (GC) (see Carpenter et al., 2021), a free-to-use platform that offers a user-friendly educational interface for both facilitators and learners. GC incorporates many of the functions needed to facilitate an effective COI, including a stream page for learner-learner and learner-teacher interaction and a classwork page where learning materials and instructions are housed. Each element within the GC has a built-in chat function, providing ample opportunity for interactivity between all actors. We chose GC as a foundational technology to establish teaching presence for two primary reasons: (1) We had never used it before, and we were curious about how it works, and (2) the platform makes it easy for all facilitators to get involved in all aspects of the course. In addition, we situated a synchronous session mid-week, acting as a real-time, Q&A-style lesson to clarify details regarding the module assignment.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We felt confident that our learning module featured all the information needed to ensure a smooth educational experience for our learners. We had written our instructions clearly and covered all essential details, and our communication plan was thorough enough to accommodate whatever the learners brought our way. It was not until learner #4 presented their confusion over accessing our Flipgrip page that we realized some written instructions might be faulty (Personal Communication, October 10, 2021). Upon review of the instructions in question, I realized they were, in fact, confusing, so I made the necessary adjustments and assisted the learner by creating a tutorial video that showed them how to access Flipgrid. Accordingly, I scoured the rest of the text-based instructions to assess if they were written clearly or not, which, at least to me, were written very clearly.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Learners appreciated our teaching presence but did return mixed reviews. Clear and consistent communication, use of video lessons, and robust content construction in the GC highlighted examples of a strong teaching presence in the learner feedback. The only real issue learners complained about was to do with the assignment instructions. 70% of respondents were confused by the assignment instructions in the first half of the learning week. Learner #1 wrote, “the jig-saw assignment of the infographic was poorly described. It wasn’t until the synchronous session that I clearly understood what was being asked of me”. Learners were unclear whether they were responsible for creating an infographic individually or if it was to be a team effort. Almost all learners corroborated with the above feedback comment. If we, as a team, felt our instructions were clear and concise, then we need to understand why the learners were unanimously confused about their assignment (All learners, Personal Communication, September 26, 2021, Column G).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

After reviewing our written instructions in the GC, this perceived confusion is not a direct result of poorly written instructions; instead, it may reflect other gaps in our delivery, in addition to user error.\u00a0 Some learners simply did not read the instructions properly and were confused by their own devices. Learner #3 wrote, “I actually recognize, in hindsight, that the information was available to me, but again, the heavy use of text was a little off-putting, and I didn’t read it all” (Personal Communication, October 10, 2021). This comment is particularly significant as it validates user error while revealing a flaw in our delivery: We only used text to present our assignment instructions. Not all learners take well to text-based instructions, so providing other forms of media, like video, to explain the assignment may be beneficial. Further, learners were confused because we did not give enough direction early in the week. Vaughan et al. (2013) explain, “facilitation is most critical in the earliest stages of interaction; direct instruction becomes more important as complexity increases” (Cognitive Presence section). Because of the complexity of our jigsaw assignment, we needed to include more direct instruction early in the facilitation week to clarify certain details. Therefore, I feel this instance of the learner feedback is justified; however, not for the reasons learners suggest.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

My key takeaway from this facilitation experience is recognizing the significance of the teaching presence, how it impacts the functioning of an online course, and how it influences learners\u2019 perception of their learning experience. A strong teaching presence acts as the instigator, the glue, the critic, and whatever else is needed to direct, engage, motivate, assist, and validate learners in a social activity like our Flipgrid discussion. It acts as a moderator and meaning-maker for complex learning tasks like our jigsaw assignment and can be harnessed to create buy-in with learners when assigning long readings. If I were to do this facilitation week over again, knowing what I know now, teaching presence would be at the center of all design and facilitation strategy adjustments (see Table 2 in the supplemental materials at the end of this document for examples). Boettcher (n.d.) once wrote, \u201c[teaching presence is] the effort and activity around the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes in learning communities created to foster inquiry\u201d (Teaching Presence Revisited section). Although I knew this to be true before LRNT 528, I now have a totally new appreciation for COI-based design and the teaching presence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/b><\/p>\n

Boettcher, J. V. (n.d.). Ten Best Practices for Teaching Online. <\/span>Design for Learning<\/span><\/i>. <\/span>http:\/\/designingforlearning.info\/writing\/ten-best-practices-for-teaching-online\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Brown, M., Hughes, H., Keppell, M., Hard, N., & Smith, L. (2015). Stories from Students in Their First Semester of Distance Learning. <\/span>The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4)<\/span><\/i>. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.19173\/irrodl.v16i4.1647<\/span><\/p>\n

Brysbaert, M. (2019). <\/span>How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate<\/span><\/i>. <\/span>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.31234\/osf.io\/xynwg<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Carpenter, J. (2021). <\/span>Evaluation of the addie and arcs-v models of instructional design<\/span><\/i> [Blog Post]. <\/span>https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/evaluation-of-the-addie-and-arcs-v-models-of-instructional-design\/<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Carpenter, J., Koval, D., & Yu, E. (2021). <\/span>Digital Literacy in Higher Education<\/span><\/i> [Google Classroom]. <\/span>https:\/\/classroom.google.com\/c\/MzI0ODkxNDQ4MjZa<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Keller, J. M. (2016). Motivation, Learning, and Technology: Applying the ARCS-V Motivation Model. <\/span>Participatory Educational Research vol.3(2)<\/span><\/i>. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.17275\/per.16.06.3.2<\/span><\/p>\n

Scully, G., & Kerr, R. (2014). Student Workload and Assessment: Strategies to Manage Expectations and Inform Curriculum Development. <\/span>Accounting Education, 23(5)<\/span><\/i>, 443\u2013466. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09639284.2014.947094<\/span><\/p>\n

Smith, R. (2011). Enhancing learner\u2013learner interaction using video communications in higher education: Implications from theorising about a new model. <\/span>British Journal of Educational Technology<\/span><\/i>. <\/span>https:\/\/web.b.ebscohost.com\/ehost\/pdfviewer\/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=1a6e3559-3e3c-49cd-a327-4764fd0d9535%40pdc-v-sessmgr02<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Mayer, R. (2021). <\/span>Multimedia learning<\/span><\/i> (3rd edition). Cambridge University Press. UK. <\/span>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781316941355<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. <\/span>Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3)<\/span><\/i>, 43\u201359. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/BF02505024<\/span><\/p>\n

Tewksbury, B. (n.d.). Teaching methods: <\/span>A collection of pedagogic techniques and example activities<\/span><\/i>. Teach the Earth: The portal for Earth Education. <\/span>https:\/\/serc.carleton.edu\/NAGTWorkshops\/teaching_methods\/jigsaws\/index.html<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Thomas, P. R., & Bain, J. D. (1984). Contextual differences of learning approaches: The effects of assessments. <\/span>Human Learning<\/span><\/i>, 3, 227-240.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ucar, H., & Kumtepe, A. T. (2020). Effects of the arcs-v-based motivational strategies on online learners\u2019 academic performance, motivation, volition, and course interest. <\/span>Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3)<\/span><\/i>, 335\u2013349. <\/span>https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jcal.12404<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). <\/span>Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry<\/span><\/i>. Athabasca University Press. Chapter 3: Facilitation (pp. 45-61).<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supplemental Material<\/b><\/p>\n

Table 2<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Examples of Design and Facilitation Strategy Adjustments\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Problem<\/b><\/td>\nAdjustments<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The workload is too much<\/span><\/td>\n\n
    \n
  • Establish triggering events (Vaughn, 2013): Connect the Flipgrid activity to the jigsaw activity, early in the week so learners can build mental models\/frameworks of their impending tasks to manage their physical and cognitive workload accordingly.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Establish clear communication (Scully & Kerr, 2014): Include detailed instructions on the readings, including an estimated reading duration, in the course introduction video so learners accurately conceptualize the task at hand.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Provide a clear and concise summary of every assignment or task in the module introduction video, providing advice on how to manage the workload throughout the week.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The jigsaw instructions are confusing<\/span><\/td>\n\n
    \n
  • Tap into the visual and auditory memory channels (Mayer, 2021): Include an instructional video on the assignment to assist visual and auditory learners, and support student agency over their learning experience.<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Repeat keywords or concepts in both the text and video explanations of the assignment (e.g. \u201cyou are not creating your own infographic \u2026).\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Apply triggering events (Garrison et al., 2000): Assign learners the task of viewing the assignment instructions and prompt for their understanding early in the week.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Note. <\/span><\/i>Examples of design and facilitation provisional adjustments to be made in accordance with the received learner feedback (Personal Communication, September 26, 2021). Examples are not exhaustive but do reflect some of the realizations experienced from participating in LRNT 528. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Over the past twelve weeks, I have been studying online facilitation in LRNT 528 of the Masters in Learning and Technology program (MALAT) at Royal Roads University. One of the primary learning tasks in the course situated learners in facilitation teams, in groups of three or four, where each team was to follow Garrison et […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":185,"featured_media":684,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/185"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=682"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/682\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":685,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/682\/revisions\/685"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/684"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0163\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}