Bender's Recipe for Online Facilitation

The week’s discussion was anchored on Tisha Bender’s book “Discussion-Based Online Teaching.” With continued emphasis on improving our WebCon and EdWeb preparations we were asked to reflect on what changes we anticipate adopting in our online facilitation. I thought this was a good learning exercise. The Web Con was intense; I was just glad to have it over with that I missed out on digesting what went on during the conference.

I started off the discussion thread with my thoughts on “Silence online.” This is a topic very important to me because the nature of the online environment can drive a wedge in the learning process if these silences are not addressed. As a facilitator, I found this to be one of the most unsettling experiences: trying to balance jumping in to lessen the uncertainty while leaving enough room to allow gestation of individual perspectives. Based on this and the interesting exchanges that ensued, I thought that this was my best contribution for the week.

Several people in class provided insights that expanded the dimension of silence online. Some of the ideas include:
     Timing: The possibility of fielding a question when the participants are overwhelmed with other tasks, thus, reducing their capability to do more.
     Uncertain Closure: The discussion may be dragging on for too long. The learners may assume that the exchanges will wrap up soon and will not be worth the time to jump in.
     The Question itself: The phrasing of the question may be too vague, or too narrow; its purpose may also not be clear.

All of the above create ambiguities in an environment that already offers more of this than its face-to-face counterpart. There seems to be agreement that these affect learners’ interest and motivation which could lead to the silence.

Chad’s insightful question regarding action plans for a facilitator’s unanswered question generated several responses. Citing an online source, Kerry provided strategies to help avoid this incident. These include 1) clarifying objectives, 2) asking opinions on a controversial topic, and 3) asking questions that will require learners to analyze the subject matter (as opposed to having obvious answers).

David’s suggested strategies included applying the Keller’s ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence & Satisfaction) in online discussions, as well as managing expectations through the introduction of more structure. Both of these mitigate the uncertain environment and related motivational aspects stated earlier.

Planning for the Web Conference

IT5670 started where IT5660 left off. Teams discussed the results of the formative evaluation obtained during the EdWeb trial run. The objective was to generate key questions and response choices that would shape the conduct of the actual EdWeb to be held in February. True to the constructivist slant of the program, the class was divided into 3 teams all tasked to discuss, negotiate, persuade and filter ideas until the questions and corresponding response options were formulated.

Stephanie was instrumental in starting off the discussion and putting order into it. I thought that my best contribution was including a question on the evaluation process. With the lackluster responses we obtained which was replicated in several teams, I suggested exploring the option of a centralized evaluation (as opposed to individual session evaluations located within the confines of each session shell). I think the process of capturing information is as important as the question themselves.

A significant part of the exchanges centered on the areas of conference duration and session content. Some of us expressed preference for a one week schedule and create a more focused conference friendly to the facilitators’ workload. Others preferred the two week format to provide a longer opportunity for learning. These questions were, however, contextualized by the other question pertaining to session content.

Sheri introduced the idea of combining sessions. The more popular couplings were Serious Games and eLearning Simulations, Synchronous Tools and Blended Learning, and Interactivity & Interaction and Engaging Learners. As a member of the Blended Learning team which has unfortunately dwindled in number (from 4 to 2), I am all for the merging of our team with Synchronous Tools. An increased session coverage will favor a longer conference duration.

After crafting the survey based on the teams’ outputs, the overwhelming responses gave clear directions on: Combining Serious Games and Simulations, not requiring participation in other teams’ sessions; the Web Conference should not emulate face-to-face formats, and adherence to the session format of presentations and discussions.