Our group is discussing the question, “Cameras on or off? Should digital facilitators require cameras during synchronous sessions?”. Our facilitation week is September 18-24. We have developed an engaging and entertaining week for our participants.
To develop our facilitation plan, we decided to use SessionLab. SessionLab is a flexible planning platform for facilitators to design the flow of their sessions, whether for meetings or training courses. The thing that we found that made SessionLab different is its huge library of facilitation tools to help facilitators design interesting and engaging sessions. We had a good time reading through some of their ideas and coming up with what we feel is a weeklong session that our fellow learners will enjoy experiencing with us.
SessionLab has an export function that we used to export the following facilitation plan. The tab labeled “Day 1” is the synchronous session that will occur at the end of the week on Saturday, September 23 at 12 pm noon PT. The tab labeled “Day 2” is the Monday through Friday asynchronous piece that will occur in Mattermost throughout the week. Please review it and let us know what you think!
I chose a fishbone diagram deliberately. I work in the nuclear industry and the fishbone diagram is one root cause analysis (RCA) technique used in industries like nuclear that are required to investigate incidents and improve processes.
From the tail on the left, a fishbone diagram has the observed elements or causes that feed into an event or process. In my infographic, the tail section contains various strategies available for each of the three presences (Teaching, Social, and Cognitive) outlined in the Community of Inquiry framework (Lalonde, 2020, 2:20). The fish head on the right is the result. For an investigation, for example, it would be the observed event. For my infographic, it is the created learning event, considering the strategies for each presence.
I facilitate learning for professionals in the nuclear industry who need to learn and apply regulatory requirements. The next learning event I will be facilitating will be at an international conference in Vancouver in November 2022 where we will be discussing radiation safety training with a group of senior trainers in the industry. I plan to use this information to help prepare that event.
For this infographic assignment, keeping my context in mind, I chose the following strategies for each presence:
Teaching
Vaughan et al (2013) discussed the need to make sure there is a place for the community when developing learning.
Boettcher’s (n.d.) best practices included creating “a supportive online course community” (Boettcher, 2013, heading 2). To me, this said vulnerability by the facilitator first.
Vaughan et al (2013) talked about providing participants with choices early on. The facilitator needs to have these ready beforehand.
Social
For the group to develop its glue, humor can be used (Garrison et al, 2000).
Self-disclosure by learners after the prepared disclosure noted in #1 above by the facilitator can be useful (Garrison et al, 2000).
Recognition (Garrison et al., 2000) is important for learners to receive to continue to participate and make meaning of their learning.
Cognitive
Learners need time to be together and discuss as described by Boettcher (n.d.).
Learners need time to reflect (Boettcher, n.d.) in small groups.
Learners need a Mirror that the facilitator can be (Bull, 2013).
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press.
Three initial feelings about digital facilitation are that:
Facilitation is harder online. Without the advantage of being able to see body language in person, I feel like it would be hard to understand learners’ needs as well in order to meet them.
More accurately, facilitation needs to be developed more thoughtfully. Facilitators would need to have a good understanding of their learners’ situations in order to develop effective facilitation methods.
Those facilitators who are good in person may not translate online. I know some amazing in-person facilitators who just didn’t click online. Part of it has been a technology learning curve and part of it has been just a difficulty in translating their own personality to another medium.
Two questions I have about digital facilitation:
How do you find new stuff like Mattermost? There are SO many new platforms and delivery methods coming out all the time. How on earth do we find and keep up with them???
How to build a community of friendly critics for beta testing? I would like a safe place, or safe group of experience facilitators, to review my ideas before launch.
One metaphor or simile about digital facilitation:
A recent class I took through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in July not only permitted group work for the final exam but encouraged it! It was a course on Management Systems that very accurately recognized that, in real life, we will never be working in complete isolation. The test was therefore designed to be better completed by choosing a peer/colleague whose knowledge complements our own. The result was a good collaboration experience in the final quiz, where we both brought our own knowledge and experience to the table. Here’s my image then:
