Exploring feedback for FLO

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

What exactly do we mean by “constructive” feedback? Do we actually model the behaviours we ask students to demonstrate? Do we provide clear explanations of what we expect? Do we provide constructive feedback when the students’ feedback is weak, superficial, slapdash? Do we scaffold our learners so they can consciously build and flex their critical thinking and collaborative or team-work skills?

My reflections on constructive feedback were inspired by a random Twitter post fimage 4 steps constructive commentsrom Howard Rheingold who shared a Diigo collection of links related to online facilitation. When I took a quick look a DS106 post on Constructive Comments caught my eye and, while scanning the article, I found an image tweet from @deedegs (Danielle Degelman 25 Nov 2014) Her visual list of the “3Cs and a Q” made me think about how I present, scaffold, model, promote constructive comments in my online facilitation.

As the Facilitating Learning Online workshop has evolved, I’ve had the pleasure of co-facilitating with several dedicated, passionate faciliators who strive to explain, demonstrate and facilitate the importance of constructive feedback or comments. When I began facilitating FLO, the workshop had built in weekly opportunities for peer-to-peer group feedback (i.e., each week a team of participants would facilitate a learning activities for the other members of the workshop). At the end of each weekly “mini-session” or “short learning activity”, the facilitators would encourage feedbackparticipants (to share constructive feedback on their experiences with the team of facilitators). We explored a number of different starter posts in a shared discussion forum to clarify what we were looking for in terms of “constructive”. The participant feedback, and any responses from the facilitation team members is open to the class.

During 2016, at the suggestion of FLO Facilitator, Beth Cougler Blom, we explored different ways of structuring the weekly learning activity team feedback. We asked the participants to share their feedback using these questions / prompts :

  1. _____________ (fill in the blank) really helped/supported my learning.
    My learning might have been better if ______________ (fill in the blank).
  2. I like….  (what you liked about the facilitation and why)
    I wish…  (something that you wish the facilitators would have done/encouraged)
    What if… (something that describes another alternative or option rather than what the facilitators did)
  3. What did the faciitators do that you really liked?
    What did the facilitators do that were challenging for you?
    What other kinds of facilitation strategies could the facilitators have tried, either as alternatives or add-ons?

And when I review our structures and approach in light of Danielle’s 4-step feedback, I think I might reframe it this way:

  1.  Appreciate  (identify something you valued or appreciated in the learning experience)
  2.  React (What did you think of the experience? What did you learn? Be specific but not judgemental – use “I” sentences.
  3. Suggest (What might you suggest be done differently – why? How would this change improve the experience from your perspective?)
  4. Connect (Can you relate something that was said or read or viewed with other discussions or activities? Have you any relevant personal/professional experiences that may be useful to share?)
  5. Questions (What questions do you still have – about the topic or about the strategies or choices the facilitation team made)

During the upcoming BCcampus FLO workshop that I’m co-facilitating with Leonne Beebe, I hope to explore different ways to emphasize the importance and critical thinking that is involved in providing truly “constructive” feedback – both through the use of different feedback structures, and by asking good questions to stimulate our participants to embed this approach in their learning and practice.

So, when you think about how you encourage your learners to provide “constructive” comments or feedback – what are the essential elements you emphasize?

Sylvia

Losing the personal touch in online teaching?

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of the best things (IMHO) about the Facilitating Learning Online workshop (offered regularly by BCcampus and Royal Roads University) is the emphasis we place on building a sense of community for learners and a sense of being “seen” by the instructor and other participants. Previous studies of the experiences of learners online highlighted the sense of isolation that they felt and the importance they placed on receiving timely feedback on their actions and assignments from instructors.

Personalized Learning DesignerI just finished tracking down a tweet that mentioned a webinar on the potential value of using a Personalized Learning Designer in Moodle. I was curious how Moodle would “personalize” learning. I reviewed some back-and-forth discussion about what it was and why it wasn’t available in current versions of Moodle (https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=224834) and found the actual description of how it works. If I’m understanding it correctly, you (the instructor) devise a series of “rules” that states something you want to do or respond to a student doing (events, conditions or actions); the rules automate the instructor-student communication process so you never miss a beat, particularly during the crazy-busy times at the beginning of courses when you’re teaching several courses with large cohorts. You can find some examples of rules in this article from Moodleroom: “Three rules you can’t live without”

While I can see the benefit to some instructors, I have experienced the “fussy-ness” of rules – if you don’t set them properly they end up causing confusion, miscommunication and additional work to correct. If you have a team of learning designers or instructional technologists, this may not be an issue (or if you’re good at writing rules and setting consistent conditions). But I wonder how much of the “personal touch” would be lost and how the development of a sense of “instructor presence” might be hampered by using a tool that intends to “automate facilitation” and make your course run like “a well-oiled machine.”

I guess my concern is that so many of the new apps and tools are intended to take away the need to focus on our learners; to get to know them and to develop a relationship that is mutually respectful and provides support and encouragement at times and in ways that best suit each student. By automating that relationship we may ensure that we never miss responding to something that we pre-identify as expected and important but we may lose the unexpected opportunities to emphasize “learning moments” or suggest alternatives or simply acknowledge and praise our learners when they may need it most.

I’ll be curious to hear what intructors find when they use this new tool (and to hear what participants think) although I understand it’s only available to a limited group for now (“the Personalized Learning Designer is a feature of joule, the Moodlerooms distribution of Moodle available only to Moodlerooms hosted customers“)

Four FLO Facilitators at Festival of Learning

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Well, this blog post has been sitting in my Evernote notebook since the Festival of Learning in Burnaby this past June! The summer has just flown by!

Festival of Learning location

BCcampus Flickr https://flic.kr/p/H1ByGE

I had the pleasure of co-facilitating another “get the word out about FLO” conference session at a new professional learning event called “The Festival of Learning” (#FOL16) that took place June 6 – 9, 2016 at the Delta Villa Hotel in Burnaby, BC. Not to be confused with a similarly named event early in May, the June Festival was conceived by the BC Teaching and Learning Council and organized by BCcampus and a platoon (army?) of volunteers to offer an unprecedented range of learning and sharing opportunities for BC educators.

Our quartet of FLO afficionados and practitioners: Beth Cougler Blom, Leonne Beebe, Sylvia Currie, Sylvia Riessner was offered a 3 hour time slot to explain the “power of FLO” and the potential the five week Wednesday sessionworkshop offers to develop online facilitation skills (and the value of the FLO OER resources available for other institutions to develop their own “in-house” offerings).

Although the 3 hours sounded generous at first, we quickly found ourselves scrambling to tighten up each section to ensure that we covered the important elements about the FLO workshop while still making the actual session interactive, engaging and useful for participants. We also integrated some Liberating Structures facilitation micro-structures (modified for constraintsimpromptu networking activity of time and space as we had a fairly awkward presentation room) – Impromptu Networking and Shift and Share AND shared a template for creating engaging and interactive online learning activities.

During the session, we explained:

  • the evolution and “flow” of the Facilitating Learning Online workshop
  • the weekly topics, team facilitation activities, and “stream themes” used to focus the discussion, activities and reflections during the 5 weeks
  • the value of shifting roles from participant-facilitator-participant

We took turns sharing:

  • what we valued most about our involvement with FLO
  • some statements from past participants about what they valued about FLO
  • brief descriptions of the focus activities (facilitated by different teams of participants each week)

Our participants in the Festival session seemed surprised at the scope of the FLO workshop, curious about the OER resources available, and left with a “grab-bag” of ideas for addressing their own challenges around engaging learners online.