My facilitation exercise was an asynchronous discussion which took place over the course of one week. The topic was the ‘pros and cons of blogging for projects’ and the discussion group consisted of eight people, five participants of this facilitation online course, two alumni students and myself. The forum for the discussion was a Google Group called Pros & Cons of Blogging for Projects. This forum was set up with an activity page which highlighted the topic for discussion, some brief learning objectives and some links to various resources about blogging. Some articles provided positive description of the use of blogs and some identified some of the negative aspects. Three links to actual blog sites were also given as examples of how a blog could be used for recording a project.
Points of success:
- The first learning objective was “to identify the pros and cons of blogging” and this was achieved. See conclusion page.
Points of failure:
- Sometimes responses did not relate to other people’s posts – individual statements rather than conversation.
- Not referring to learning objectives when summarising the conclusion – no point in having objectives if there’s no reference to them later!
- Two participants introduced themselves but then did not return to the discussion. This was not followed up.
- The time allocated for the discussion was one week and this was not enough. Just as the discussion was getting started, it was over. So the second learning objective was not explored in enough detail.
- No response from participants as to whether the discussion was useful for them – although not surprising as they were not involved in the topic selection and were participating in order to help me fulfil an assessment!
This exercise was an opportunity for me to practice facilitation online, something I’ve never done before. The discussion topic is one I am interested in and the opinions expressed designed to help me make a decision about whether I will continue my blog next year when I start the practical project part of this elearning programme. Therefore, as an educational exercise it was a fairly informal one, not part of a course of study or qualification. As such, there are two factors to note. Firstly, participants kindly volunteered to take part. There was no requirement to participate and there was no grade or mark attached. This could have affected participation levels. Secondly, the time frame allowed for the discussion was clearly too short given that participation was not compulsory. Allowing time for people to introduce themselves took up too much time in the week and the discussion was just developing when time was up.
Reflecting on the experience I would expect that a future attempt at a similar exercise would lead to the following changes:-
- If this was at the start of a course I would allow more time for the discussion to develop – once introductions were out of the way. If this was part way through a course I would get straight into the discussion and make sure that participation was expected.
- I would contact those who were not participating. I would invite them to take part with some questions to lead them in the right direction. It may be that the original topic was not clear and a re-wording may help. (I had planned to email people who did not participate but as I was dealing with volunteers, I did not want to impinge on their goodwill).
- I would contribute more ideas if the discussion was slow moving and give more pointers especially in trying to get participants to respond to each other.
- I would have liked to have found a video to put on the activity page for the more visual learners – rather than just text based readings. This was not something that arose from the discussion but in consideration of the various learning styles identified at the start of this course.
- I would make it clear where the discussion was taking place – i.e. identify one of the threads as the place to start in the hope of avoiding disorientation.
- I would sum up the discussion by referring to the learning objectives so it is clear if they have or have not been met. If they have not been met it would be useful to provide further reference material for learners to review if they wished to.
- I would ask the students to sum up what they have learned so it is clear what has been gained, providing a focal point for the discussion.
It’s difficult to identify an event/strategy that shaped the discussion, although from looking at an overview of the posts made (click on image below), it is clear that the majority of the discussion (11 posts) occurred after a particular post. Therefore I’ll consider this event and how it shaped the discussion.
The interaction which then occurred began to demonstrate different levels of critical thinking. Henri's Cognitive dimension (1992, cited in Hew & Cheung, 2003) identifies types of interaction representing different levels of critical thinking, either “surface level” or “in depth”. Five different types of critical thinking are identified and below are some examples from this discussion. (The whole discussion can be retrieved from http://groups.google.com/group/pros-cons-of-blogging/topics?start=)
|Levels of critical thinking||Examples from Discussion|
|Elementary clarification - passing on information without elaboration||“Gordon’s link … identifies a number of uses for blogs – worth a read”|
|In depth clarification - analyse a problem, identify assumptions||“The consequence of [interpretation] is that we believed it to be very important to take care with your words or phrases”|
|Inference - concluding based on evidence from prior statements||“In developing a project it’s sensible to try to benefit from the experience/knowledge of others”|
“I think there’s definitely evidence of this happening in our course”
|Judgment - expressing a judgment about an inference||“Presumably the degree to which feedback occurs is one measure of the strength of the learning community”|
|Strategies - proposes a solution, outlines what is needed to implement the solution||“This seems to be yet another argument for trying to connect the learning of the group with other learning communities, and inviting participation from learners who are already engaged in the process”.|
The short time frame did not allow for enough development of the discussion and had it continued I think there would have been more examples of critical thinking.
In the future I would ask the group to produce their own summary at the end of the discussion. In having to reach their own consensus and conclusion they are more likely to interact fully with each other, to negotiate an agreed outcome. This would enable the participants to fully construct new knowledge and work through the various types of critical thinking. With the participants in this group (i.e. adults working within educational professions) it is not surprising that critical thinking was in evidence. If I was facilitating a group of 16-19 year olds I would expect to be involved more in the discuss to help them achieve this ‘deep’ learning. Being aware of what constitutes the various levels of critical thinking, in terms of written posts in a discussion forum, is important for any future online discussions I’m involved in. Guiding learners into responding to each other instead of just writing their own statements will help start to develop critical thinking.
This was a different experience for me and less taxing, I imagine, than managing an Elluminate session or a trip into Second Life but nevertheless it has been fascinating reading about the facilitation techniques and types of learning involved in asynchronous discussions.
1. Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating Computer Conferencing: Recommendations From the Field. Educational Technology. 35(1) 22-30. Retrieved on 3 November 2007 from http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html
2. Hew, K. F. and Cheung, W. S. (2003). Models to evaluate online learning communities of asynchronous discussion forums. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2), 241-259. Retrieved on 1 December 2007 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/hew.html