Reflection on FO2010 Mini-Conference event

My event was an asynchronous discussion hosted in this blog. My guest was Dr. E. Marcia Johnson who I interviewed about her experiences with online facilitation. We discussed the idea of managing student expectations, and Marcia described how she learned to be very explicit as in her instructions and in specifying what her expectations are regarding student involvement and participation. The interview of just over 5 minutes was streamed into the blog from OpenDrive, an online repository of sound files which can be stored and retrieved remotely. The OpenDrive interface provides a url link to sound files, and can even provide a console by which the user can listen to the file in the browser.
There was a deal of time that went into working out how this could be done in the blogger environment, and I was disappointed in having to limit my contributors to text-based/written responses. I would have preferred for them to have the option of leaving a voice message if they preferred, but blogger doesn't have that facility.

Note: My reflection on this process below has been organised to fit directly under the headings as they appeared in the FO2010 assignment 3 instructions.

What went well, and what did not go so well
What went well was that the sound file provided an alternative to simply reading a transcript or prepared document... and in an asynchronous blog it was a little different. We kept the interview as short as possible to keep from being too onerous on the participants' time, and the interview, while spontaneous, was discussed beforehand to keep as 'on topic' and efficient as possible. However, a consequence of this was that the content of the interview was somewhat surface-level, and the real depth of Dr. Johnson's extensive experience could not be explored within that time frame. Additionally, I am not very accomplished as an interviewer, and stuttered my way through the process, which then required a modicum of editing in order to bring to it any kind of coherence. It turned out ok, but if I hadn't had the technical ability to edit the file it would have been decidedly painful to listen to... (I could never do something like this live!)
What was especially pleasing with this event was that, although there weren't very many participants, those who contributed wrote carefully considered and complete responses. It never became chatty; instead it provided an opportunity for real concerns to be aired. Any strategies or solutions that were offered were well prepared and it was clear that they were the product of extensive experience on the part of the contributor. This was the most gratifying result of all in this process. It was nice, too, that members of the public found their way in and contributed.
What did not go as well was that many of the FO2010 cohort who might have contributed didn't, most probably because the assignment took place very late; I speculate that many students had moved on from paying attention to the FO2010 correspondance. Consequently, although the quality of the discussion was high, the quantity of threads was limited.
There was a time during the discussion when VoiceThread was not available, and two would-be participants contacted me to say that they couldn't access the file. (This I could deal with, but I was not able to help with the fact that at the same time local infrastructure was also offline, compounding access difficulties)

How the event was organised and promoted
I am fortunate to work with my guest speaker, making it relatively simple to negotiate a time for our interview. I then advertised it through the google groups facility which the FO2010 course facilitator had made available. This went to approximately 100 recipients, and the initial response to the discussion was via this promotion.

Adequate information
The introduction to the discussion was entitled FO2010 - mini conference event:... after which I explained what the discussion was about and what participants could do to take part. It was very simple and I am not aware that there were any difficulties with this.
In my initial explanation I explained why the assignment was being completed so late, but I also assumed that the recipients of that correspondance would have some idea as to what I was attempting, having taken part in the course and facilitated their own 'events'.

Support (technical and access)
I am not sure to what extent the faciliator can be held responsible for the availability of infrastructure for all participants. There are low-bandwidth options that can be offered, but I hesitate to restrict participants who do have high-speed access to the level of content available to those who do not. I must acknowledge that I didn't consider these issues when I posted and hosted my discussion, and was a little startled to discover that there had been access issues for some people. I was able to make the file available via another route to those people, but realise now that I should have indicated this option in my initial promotion.

Relevant for the audience
It's hard to know if the low volume of responses was because my content was irrelevant, or more a factor of the event timing. However, as mentioned a little earlier, the quality of the responses suggests that for those who contributed at least it was relevant; perhaps relevance can be inferred in so much as the conversation slid sideways onto a participant-negotiated theme. I certainly found it relevant.

Whether the event was managed and conducted smoothly - particularly noting how you handled any disruptions.
The advantage of an asynchonous event is that it gives the facilitator and the participants time and space to deal with disruptions. There was a period of about a day in the 10 days of discussion in which the file was unavailable, although access to the summary of the content and comments was not disrupted. My reminder email to FO2010 google group included a personal email address in case any would-be participants were having difficulty with access. I have the resources to be able to provide the content via other means in such cases... but I hadn't anticipated this and hadn't offered alternative access in my initial advertising of the event. This was an oversight.
I was unable to help with participants' local technical issues, ... and most people understand this... but was successful in arranging access alternatively for several contributors.

What efforts you made to ensure that all participants knew where they were supposed to be and when, and arrange technical support for people?
Comment under this heading really has applicability more for a synchronous event.

How you set the stage, made introductions, explained the aims, and whether you managed to remain neutral and facilitatory.
Most of my learning about this process is in considering my performance in relation to the facilitation of this event. Throughout the process I was constantly questioning my role. I was torn between wanting to take part in the discussion as a participant, and knowing that as well as this I was facilitating... and being challenged about the degree to which these roles overlapped... if they did at all.
I think introducing my guest and the topic was handled adequately. However, I was aware of being unsure about the following: 1) my presence within the discussion... (the speed with which I should counter-post... should I leave it a few days and give another contributor time to interact, or should I acknowledge a contribution as quickly as possible?) 2) the nature of my postings... (should my post simply acknowledge and summarise a contribution, or was it appropriate that I add and question further in the hope that it instigate a fresh angle and motivate contributions. ... how much of my personal ignorance regarding the content is it acceptable to reveal? or should I rather be completely neutral on the topic and businesslike regarding the discussion?)

How you did a round up, drew closure and indicated where recordings and other follow up materials would be made available.
My strategy for winding up was to summarise the overall themes and direction of the discussion. Because of the small number of contributors I was able to name their contributions individually. (I reflect, however, that if there had been a far greater number of participants in the discussion this rounding off would have had to be more general.) I like to be complimentary and grateful to participants openly but I do realise that I risk coming across as patronising. I don't really know how I might avoid this.
As far as follow-up, already there has been a subsequent contribution to the conversation, even after the discussion closed. An asynchronous blog is a (semi) permanent document (as far as any electronic document can be) and there will not be any restriction on access... if people know where to find it.

Feedback from audience
A contributor posted a comment after the discussion finished with positive feedback. However, I have not sought contributor feedback which rather limits my ability to comment under this heading. I guess seeking feedback on my event would require the participants to again make their way into my blog, or as a first contribution to explain why they didn't participate earlier. Feedback of this nature (especially if it is critical) can be difficult to come by.

How you would do things in the future
I would do this again. In fact, I feel inspired to do so... however, I do not feel that I should 'spam' the FO2010 cohort... rather allow my followers to find their way in, perhaps advertising on twitter or facebook.

General comments and additions.
I think facilitated and structured asynchronous discussions are easier for participants than open-ended tasks, and inviting opinion or personal experience rather than expecting answers and facts is more encouraging... a discussion needs to be safe, and expecting solutions to problems before students even really have a grasp on what the problems are is asking for silence.