Those visual cues

Am really glad I was available on Saturday morning to take part in the Elluminate class faciliated by co-students Sharon and Carole who did a fabulous job, and guest Nancy directing us from her home in Seattle. I appreciated the way that the phone was ringing and the dog was barking in the house, all contributing to the sense that our facilitator is part of the real world.

There were a number of themes that emerged as the session progressed. Nancy indicated quite early on that she was deliberately underprepared; that she would go with the direction that her learners/participants led. I loved that, because we all wanted the opportunity to 'have a look at' the way the program works from a faciliator perspective without having to be a facilitator first in order to see how to use the program as a facilitator ... does that make sense?

We discussed the idea of 'failing safely'... am already aware of the need for safety within an online environment (any learning environment) but had never identified quite so concretely "safe from what?" In a f2f classroom, of course, the faciliator monitors carefully to make sure the participants are safe from mockery, from 'losing face' (I have a lot of students for whom this is a very real fear... a valid fear from their cultural perspectives), are safe from exclusion and from feeling abandoned and isolated... left behind. Of course we do that. The idea of 'failing safely' was not one that made it onto my list, but now it has...that 'failing' can be a strategy from which valuable learning can take place.

 

Now I want to know how... and of course loved the softly inclusive responsiveness of Nancy, Carole and Sharon's faciliation; will try to do the same. However, I have some questions.

1. Their 'negotiated curriculum' style was lovely, but not bounded at all by the requirements of a curriculum. So, have been thinking about how we might negotiate the expectatioin of one with the ideal of the other
2. Signals: in a f2f classroom we read the various cues of our learners, and we get quite sensitive to them. We know that if the students tell us that that they understand that does not necessarily mean that they do; we read body language, facial expressions, we concept check, we get students talking together in pairs or small groups and we monitor monitor monitor. So, an online class shouldn't be any different in principle, but a number of those cues are not there. Can we put the responsibility back onto the learners to let us know if they're not with us... (am not convinced that's a reasonable expectation). Nancy got us providing our perspectives on the whiteboard and working together, she had us drawing pictures, and reflecting on the learning that was taking place. (It is this that I mean when I say that f2f pedagogy and online pedagogy are not the same... or... they are in principle, but they're not when it comes to the practicalities and we faciliators must adjust to what is available to us in this new environment).
3. Play: my husband saw our doodles on Nancy's whiteboard and he said "You guys are just playing!", which was really cute, but we were and it was fun, and I learned so much! What a primal concept - playing to learn... all mammals do that!
4. Faciliator summaries and meaning making: How much, if at all? I like that the facilitator summarises, and provides a road map of the themes. There was concern expressed in the session that this might inhibit the meaning making for students who need to express their own meanings . Good point, but summarising is still a crucial in my mind... for capturing the essence of the content and as a strategy for helping students keep up. We need to summarise, but I might get the students to do it too, perhaps to invite them to contribute to my summary in some way. Maybe to make a resource from which study material can be gleaned for an assessment? Does anyone have ideas about this?