Other participants  have proposed to send massive invitations to CCK08 participants. Although I thought that Nova Spivack, Radar networks CEO would show some reluctance (we´re more than a thousand), he has written me today agreeing to provide us, not only whatever invitations we could need but also a contact that would help us to organize the massive shipment. 

I believe that it would be positive to create a semantic knowledge basis on Connectivism.

So, if you want to test Twine, you can post a comment in this post, contact me or send an email and you´ll be invited to join as soon as posible. I´ve created a Twine about Connectivism and this course related questions. You´re invited, once at Twine, to join it. 

Thanks in advance to George Siemens and Stephen Downes for collaborate.
 

English Resources: 
-Twine Tutorials.
-Screencasts.

Facilitation has been defined as to manage ‘the communication of others online’ (Coghlan 2001).

In order to define the facilitator role, we must to answer to these question:

How are the skills different for each role?

Leigh Blakhall writes about this in Facilitate,not to teach:

“We are working with people who has been educated on a tradicional teaching based model. Online communities participants, are unprepared, not used to the facilitated and individually responsible and self motivated learning environment facilitator tries to encourage:

I can understand the expectation for a teacher in a course. Naturally a student who has enrolled in a formal course, following traditional administration channels, paying fees etc and who is of an age and professional experience that is very used to the idea of taught and instructed learning, would expect a similarly efficient, industrial strength, structured learning pathway within the course. But this is at odds with my understanding of facilitation and my principals around individual responsibility, networked learning, and a belief in the importance of deschooling.

Either I yield to the tradition of schooled learning and assume the role of teacher, instructor and assessor and forgo the role of facilitator, or I invest a lot more time with these courses and develop my skills as a communicator and become more sophisticated in ways of moving expectations towards a facilitated and individualised learning environment.(…)

Unfortunately frustrations are expressed from time to time that relate to the seeming lack of structure and direction in the facilitation of the course, and the apparent over whelming amount of information and technical skills needed to participate. I can’t help but think that a lot of this frustration can be attributed to the confusion between teacher and facilitator, and the expectation of instructed learning that the course admin has encouraged.

It is generally assumed that “facilitation” ethic emerges after a participant practices blogging and experiences networked connections. This is true for approximately 10 – 20% of the participants I have had contact with, so what of the 80 – 90%?

Perhaps this number will decrease as more and more people experience this type of expectation and meet others who have experienced it before.. a bit like the take up of email… or perhaps social networking sites like Facebook or Ecto will replace the idea of blogging and bring us back to group work, which seems to be what we are all schooled to being more comfortable with.. sadly.”

The last is an interesting point. Individual, self-conducted (but networked) learning as the better way to learn.

I´m going to end this post with the following, very clear scheme about the various moderation models now being presented to assist teachers understand the fundamental concepts of facilitation and as a basis for theorising:

* Salmon’s Five Stage Moderation Model
* Collison, Elbaum, Haavind and Tinker’s Facilitation model
* Paulsen’s Function model
* Hootstein’s ‘Four Pairs of Shoes’ Model

Salmon’s fives stages are

* Stage 1: Access and motivation
* Stage 2: Socialization
* Stage 3: Information Exchange
* Stage 4: Knowledge Construction
* Stage 5: Development

Each stage calls for different e-moderating skills requiring participants to master certain technical skills and steps learners through a logical process of induction before deeper level interactions occur. Students learn through participation and engagement. Motivation is the key, and so is the provision of a conducive structure and environment.

Collison, Elbaum, Haavind and Tinker’s model is based on techniques used by the moderator to guide and facilitate the learning. It is premised on the view that appropriate communication interventions by the moderator can move students forward and facilitate (but should not lead) their understandings.

Paulsen maintains that moderators should identify their preferred pedagogical style, based on their philosophical orientation, their chosen moderator roles, and their preferred facilitation techniques. Moderator roles can at times vary. Facilitation functions are classified under headings of organizational, social and intellectual facilitation.

Hootstein proposes a model in which the e-learning facilitator or moderator “wears ‘four pairs of shoes’ – acting as instructor, social director, program manager, and technical assistant”. In the instructor role the instructor guides the learning in a problem-centred learning environment, offering insights and assisting learners. As a social director they create and foster a collaborative environment. A program manager directs the agenda. And as a technical director they “assist students to become comfortable with systems and software and prepare learners to resolve … technical difficulties that may occur”.

Each model presents a different way of conceptualising the learning and facilitation interactions and provides useful techniques, and each has made a significant contribution to the research fields of online learning and computer-mediated communication.

References

• To Facilitate or to Teach – CC By Leigh Blackall with discussion in the comments.
• Wikibooks: Managing Groups and Teams/How Do You Build High-performing Virtual Teams?
• GROU.PS is a platform for social groups to get together. Use it for any purpose. Choose your template and pick all the modules that you want (wiki, blogs, photos, links etc). And get your group web site without waiting. No branding, it’s free!
• Effective Online Facilitation – Australian Flexible Learning Framework guide
• Five stage model for e-moderating- Gilly Salmon.
• Curatorial Teaching CC By George Siemens 2007 with audio recorded presentation and discussion

I leave you today a summary of the First Unity of the Course Facilitation and online communities: The course is held in English but I thought that some Spanish readers could be interested of some of its findings. I´ll publish an Spanish version of each unit.

This is a summary exercise with some personal contributions, based on my community online moderation or participation experiences. You can see the theoretical sources at the end of the article.

I have also created a twine about “online communities of practice” in which i´ll add the recommended lectures and other bookmarks and interesting contents generated from this course. You´re invited to participate.

There are frequently on the social web discussions about the terminology defiinición and the roles of networks, groups or communities (see the reference to Downes). I think that they are just in a continuus line or a flood of personal involvement. I don´t believe an agreed definition could be possible, so I leave you my own:

Networks: the very concept of network is straightforward, without too many implications. Network are, simply, an opportunity to establish (six degrees, the theory of 6 degrees) connections, superficial ties with others. It will always remain as an aprioristic requirement for any of the following two.

Groups: There are some theories that attache the concept of group to the assuming roles by participants.

I understand groups, better, however, like  the mere presence of more than one individual in a physical place or, in this case, online environment. The term should be distinguished from “team”, with established roles and directly designed to the achievement of objectives.

The formation of groups from all network connections that can be set casual, led by interests or directed by hierarchies (if the goal is learning or information-Communities of practice or CoPs) or actors (if the objective is the promotion of products). Group features include dynamism, change, freedom of choice or leave it easily.  Because communities involve an important, if we are talking about human beings, element: affectiveness.

Ted Rheingold talks about that in his presentation: The State, Future of Passion & Business-Centric Online Communities. Communities could be important instruments to boost people´s passions, operationalize it and make it productive.

There are also emotional at extreme the three facilitators cited by Clay Shirky:

- Sex, relationships among members.

- Identifying and negativization of external enemies (Bion)

- Similarity Deification (basis of religion, also Bion).

But will be the driving characteristics of groups to turn them into communities?

Based on detailed specifications by Sylvia Currie, a member of my community in FOC08, listing 10 facilitation skills, attributed to Leigh Blackall we´re going to provide some ideas about bonds facilitation (stimulate, moderate , rewarding passion) that converts a group in online community:

1 – Communication skills (offline) and new technologies expertice: Facilitators must dominate NNTT as well as the typical facilitators of groups offline skills.Driving groups is a skill that requires some subtlety: “When the work of a good leader ends, all say ‘We did it ourselves” (Lao-Tse, 400BC)

2 – Content, quality environment. Collect data is the first step towards knowledge. Sharing is the first step towards the community (Henry Gates).. Thus, the facilitator will provide not only a theoretical initital framework but the instrumental tools to share information on the subject area. When we´re creating online discussion groups, blogs planets with participants or establishing a common label for FOC08 contents, we are going beyond a learning environment or PLE creation. We´re working towards community (see next item)

3 Promote, create, community “culture”, to establish identification elements among its members: . Providing ways to access small pieces of information (messages, chat logs, events, etc.…, blogrings) is a good thing to do.

Balance is, at this point, fundamental. Leigh´s work consists on establishing common references but also respecting the needs and trends of the entire community to “be herself”. Communities are bornt to be active, to fullfil the need to build, to create, from skratch, something new.

4 – Presence, moderator facilitators:

Leigh is always there, connected, available for any consultation or occurrence “as soon as possible. This is a temporary need that could be eased when community is established. The facilitator can leave the community once the responsibilities of the course have been adopted by its members.

Communities, when established, are self-sufficient.

Using a friendly tone, positive, assertive and simple when interacting is a good question for facilitating too.

5-Expertise:

Although when we talk about education 2.0 I like to refer to the horizontal communication or lack of leadership roles or directionality of learning from expert to novice and considering that the issue is more important if we talk about communities offline (Face to Face, F2F) knowledge of the “leader” should be at least equal to those of the participants.

6 - Strengthening participation, including:

Giving an opportunity to talk to everybody, both during the meetings online and on orientation towards creating a space for itself in which each participant can communicate with the rest.

Being sure that the technological environment, which for many but not all may be familiar, does not make anyone feel “disconnected” is one of the requirements of communities developing.

Seeing participation as something not essential but evolutionary, susceptible of change along with the group going towards the community. To understand and be understood on that is essential for facilitating CoPs.

Let’s see a little more about this:

Sheryl Nussmaum-beach write about different degrees of involvement in the community, modelled on the 4LS, (Linking, Lurking, Learning, Leading… link, see, learn, lead), model, inspired by comments from John Seeley Brown ( social learning). Derek Wenmoth model, based on the model role of Lee on ways to participate online about blogs is more accurated to my experience. In this case, participants evolve through a series of phases, gaining progressively trust and understanding:

Consumers – Participants (or Lurkers), simply read and explore  others posts. Beyond being passive considered, consumers can be really very active participants in an online community, but still not as visible as others.

Those who comment in blogs or discussion forums, often seeking clarification, showing agreements or offering suggestions or links to similar things.

Those who contribute – we would be talking about UGC or user-generated content. They are already trained and have the necessary confidence to express theirselves and their own ideas.

There is a general rule:  the easier it is to join a conversation, more visitors will become people who contributes. Communities that allow anonymous interventions tend to generate greater interest, although they may have to filter the relevance of some of the initial inputs.

Community instigator (is annother of the synonyms used for moderator) should act as if all were leaders in terms of potential relevance of their contributions. There will be participating candidates to lead the plot content but also others who, though not at the time as “experts” on matters like the others, they may be are at this time encouraging the formation of an emotional link on the entire community or even acting as mediators to the conflicts that may arise.

Reinforcing towards intrinsic motivation (not based on karma or other extrinsic factors) will be crucial for the community facilitation.

7. Openness, communication with the outside world, diversity: In a knowledge society, moreover, interdisciplinary, identifying and enhancing areas of expertise expression of the diversity of everyone, help learning and mutual enrichment.

Feelings of belonging to the community are enhanced if everyone is free to bring the best of himself to the community. Horizontal communcation, horizontal hierarquies are related items.

A good example is the recent Mozilla initiative,  seeking input from all (designers, apart from developers) to their development or crowdsourced translationsions of many environments and social networks into other languages, are on that line.

Web Sources:

• Groups and Networks video of Stephen Downes 2006. You will need a broadband connection speed to view this video, and I suggest you open the link, press play and then press pause for 10 minutes or so as to let the video load ahead some. Same technique for dial up, but wait much longer on pause.
• Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System by Etienne Wenger 1998
• Building Online Communities – The Internet exists to improve communication. Communities can grow anywhere communication occurs.
• 1% Rule – Wikipedia, June 2008
• Clay Shirky’s A group is its own worst enemy
• Susan Herring’s Gender and power in online communication
• The Art of Building Virtual Communities by Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach 2007
• ResearchSpace at The University of Auckland: Interaction between existing social networks and information and communication technology (ICT) tools: As a conclusion, it is suggested any ICT intervention in a developing country requires at least three elements to be effective: a tolerable physical infrastructure, a strong degree of social texture and an activator of information.
• Glossary of online interaction CC By NC SA Nancy White 2008
• Web Worker Daily: Building Online Community Brick by Virtual Brick – Since I first got online in 1987, I’ve been using the Internet (or at that time, Bulletin Board Systems) for not only communications but for community building – for my own projects and for clients.

¿Es hora de cambiar de Theme? Temas libres, atípicos, de calidad para wordpress | El caparazón

Marcar o no marcar, esa es la cuestión (twine y los blogs) | El caparazón

Feedly: el mejor organizador de feeds hasta la fecha | El caparazón

We are, fortunately, surpassing the debate-inferiority complex or the power struggles of “intellectuals” about whether what we read or write is or not relevant.

The information saturation (with a trillion pages according to some on the web yet) tries offset by various filters:

-Specialized networks, communities.

-The daily born of several startups that promise to improve search or filtering (socially, by interests, by popularity, by authority, by actuallity, by date, by semantic criteria, etc…) content.

-The emergence from chaos of attempts to organise the information temporarily (lifestreaming) more or less rigid or configured by the user (specialized for specifical groups)

From these three concepts (and some more) is emerging, on recent days on the network the so-called, in learning science, PLEs or personal learning environments. Or “geek” told, virtual desktops or future operating systems on the network.

We can read on Nova Spivack´s Twine and blog that we should not think of the virtual desktops as online versions of our existing PC desktops. Ubiquity is a growing need, in a unified area to collect the various plattforms due to our mobility and activity (laptop, mobile device, PC, etc…).

There is not a quick and efficient alternative. If any company it succeeds a good tool, will hold one of the Web 3.0 or organizated web basic features.

Future desktop will be our personal learning environment hosted on the Web. Be that as it determines how public with criteria probably becoming less restrictive.

So if our life before digital was located at our desks physical space (directories, folders, desks, etc…) interconnected (Connect) today stands at the temporary organization of data, which are updated continuously through constant interaction with the network that generates. (river of news, feeds, blogs, lifestreaming, microblogging, flowing constantly…)

Are we evolving, taking a step beyond Connectivism? (Connectivist theories are based on our similarity with the network to complete a theory of learning).

Are we inaugurating something that might be called digital constructivism and that part of the same similarity with the network to note that neither the network nor we are somewhat static but fluid?

Are we already prepared for the emergence of the PLE online or the beginning of organized or 3.0 Web?

Probably yes.

I saw a few days ago a lecture by David Brooks  on the importance of the unconscious in our decisions, according to recent scientific advances: The conscious mind processes only 1% of the information captured. The rest are non-cognitive skills that would explain many things in economics, neuroscience, sociology, psychology and much other areas.

We are complex, unknown, chaotic, emotional, pre-programmed:

If the net is similar or tends to be pre-programmed, “emotional” (impredictible), even chaotic in their connections, theories about our net interaction need to integrate the study of change, organizational systems to take care of this, systematization flow tools.

Or put another way, if we are being “connected” (neurology, social) and the best way to learn is based on connections and social development on the ground of this new ecosystem,  we are also “fluid” beings. And this is the argument for a “Rational control” of it all.

PLEs, enrichned virtual desktops (who accept images, video, etc.…), updatable, ubiquitous, interoperable, portable, sensitive to change, scalable to our virtual identities extent, self-organization able…these are to the chaos of the network as our “head” or rationality  to control complexity, chaos in ourselves.

What will this new-our brains, our reason in the network would be like?

I believe that it must be virtual (remain connected). We must choose also from possible ways that we will see not only the best but that suits us better communicate, for sharing the broadest rich (multimedia) and free (GNU) possible contents ( We´ve learnt a lot about sharing, comunicating from web 2.0)

We´ll talk about it shortly…

References:

• Conferencia virtual de Martin Weller (grabación). Virtual Conference Weller Martin (recording).
• Nova Spivack, The future of the desktop Nova Spivack, The future of the desktop
• 5 competencias básicas del trabajador 2.0 5 core competencies of the worker 2.0
• Google nos hace estúpidos (menos a mi) Google makes us stupid (at least my)
• Conferencia de David Brooks (inglés) Conference David Brooks (English)
• Photo: Viomoi.