I read this and just couldn’t help myself.
In an online community, breaking the ice can be more difficult. Blogs are like puppies and gardens.
Wonderfully put, Shelley!
Facilitating – from latin: facilis – easy, ergo- to make it easier
see Greg’s blog post:
I believe we get caught in such a dilemma when we take Facilitating as an exclusive term. The dilemma is resolved once we go back to its basic definition as: “to make possible or easier” And this is where context plays a very important role, because in the context of ‘facilitating as making it possible or easier,” then we can be facilitating as Teachers when we make learning possible or easier, and we can be facilitating as Moderator when we make discussion or exchange of information possible/easier. In the same manner, we can facilitate as a Teacher when we make whatever we do (lectures, presentations, demonstrations, etc.) easier.
Online – common usage for using the internet, being connected through the internet. Here connecting from computer to computer as opposed to face to face.
Community -from communis “common, public, general, shared by all or many,” (http://www.etymonline.com/)
Okay, time to move on.
After following the threads of the FOC course and reading through some of the blogs, my idea of what a community has started taking a different form.
In one of the threads Leigh reacts to a blog post from Minhaaj saying:
Minhaaj then goes on to point out something possibly overlooked in the consideration of communities online – the numerous instances where prejudices normal in face to face communities, are transcended online. This might be something unique about online communities – the idea that age, race, gender, religion, sexuality, while known about by the members, may not be a big consideration in their community.
I read this after I had been reflecting on the matter myself. I certainly be in a community with people Ukrain, Lebenon, India, Sudan, places in South America, or even New Zealand in a f2f community.And I agree with the different voices I’ve been following that there is an emotional investment in an online community just as one would expect in a f2f community.
It is the online aspect that brings people from all over the world together who might never otherwise exchange a single word. This I find exciting, and if all these people come together to form a community, then the world has become a lot smaller. In a f2f setting I’d like to think that issues of gender, age, appearance, etc would not influence my desire to join a community. But the chances of joining such a diverse community are rare in f2f life.
Which brings me back to the definition of a community. Most of what I’ve been reading follows the same line of course, but I’d like to share a definition from Ken Allan (thanks, Ken!) in the form of a short article called Working with Online Learning Communities. I do this partly because I find it a great summary, and partly because I am overwhelmed by the shere task of requoting all the great comments, threads and posts I’ve read so far.
Reading through it, I’ve highlighted parts that struck me as particularly relevant or interesting and will reiterate them and other thoughts here:
Ken quotes Caleb Clark’s 3 guiding principles:
So with reference to this course, does it only become a community if it is successful? If we don’t find ourselves building a community, has the course failed to be successful? Has the facilitator failed to facilitate or have we failed to share the personal narrative? (this is completely hypothetical as I see growing bonds and emotional investment between members of this (very large!) course) Here I would set the personal narrative parallel and in some cases equal to emotional investment, i.e. giving of oneself.
Ken continues to quote Clark with the traits a successful facilitator should have. One that catches my eye is ‘control the environment, not the group’.
Actually, nowhere is the word ‘facilitator’ mentioned. The word ‘leader’ is, and in many online learning communities you could also use the word ‘teacher’, though the role of a teacher may change in an online community. This has also got me thinking about the person in the role of the facilitator.
Leigh has apologized for joining in the conversation and claims that the facilitator should stand outside of it in order to observe and steer as necessary. I suppose this is one way, but if the facilitator is part of the community, I would say he or she has just as much validity in the conversation as anyone else, providing the aim is not to dominate or force anything onto the community, but to share, for isn’t this the essence of what a community is for?
A further question in my mind is how fixed the role of facilitator is. Couldn’t others take over this role in understanding of the responsibility that goes with it? Must it be a formal role that is given like a title to ‘the person in charge’? I prefer the idea of a flexible facilitator who is also anxious to learn from the others without the urge to dominate the conversation , and is willing to let other members lead the way.
So what is the difference between a facilitator and a moderator? Does it lie in the institutional nature of the group? I would love some opinion here, as I wonder if maybe I’ve mixed the two up.
The final point that has come up in the threads of conversation quickly but not been expanded on is the role of those who do not actively participate, more commonly and less nicely known as lurkers.
Often the question comes up as to how to integrate these members. First, I’d like clarification as to when such a person is a member of a community and when he or she is an observer. In a course like the FOC I’d think that by way of signing up, one has committed oneself to the community. But there are many other communities out there, and the idea of 90 non-active to 10 active participants makes me think about what the 90 % are doing. Are they following what is going on and processing it? Or have they emotionally and physically disengaged from the community? The names may still be on the list, but that doesn’t mean that they are.
How do we find out? And is it necessary to urge them out of complacency? Those who are still participating, albeit non-actively, may at some point have gained the confidence and knowledge to shout out and become active. And the others? Do we throw out those who have disengaged? Do they need nudging, a gentle reminder that the community is still there? These are questions I’d like to find answers to in order to support the non-active members in a community.
I didn’t really have any expectations about this course and how it would be run, but simply threw myself into cold water.
And I’m more than happy with what is going on. It looks like the discussions will be deep and the learning will be steep.
It has been an intense week with a lot of negotiating and getting the feel for the modes of discussion.
Besides introductions there has been a lot more going on.
On the one hand there has been the setting up of blogs, readers and other useful tools as well as the negotiation of whats and whys or why nots. The different levels of knowledge and experience in these areas have caused excitement, fear, motivation and struggling among the group as everyone tries to get a feel for the ‘campus’.
On the other hand a voice went up reminding us of the main topic of the course and asking where the facilitating came in, and whether it was lost under the whole techy aspect.
But what is facilitation? And how do we include those members who are quiet out there and feeling intimidated by the perhaps over-eager ones who start chatting away?
These are questions that have been raised and which I would like to have a closer look at in week 2 of this course.
I also hope to have more time to read through the other blogs and reflect on the way others have been experiencing the course.