Blog

Group facilitation

In this post, I reflect on a 3-day course titled “Effective Group Facilitation” which I took last month and that was facilitated by Julian Griggs of Dovetail Consulting (see note 1). In some cases, my reflections will encompass aspects of the course which spanned the three days; in other cases, I will write about a single activity or idea. I’ll preface the reflections by saying this was an excellent course.

Effective and ineffective observable behaviours during meetings

Each participant generated a list of observable behaviours which we deem effective or ineffective and seen during meetings. Effective behaviours included: listening, taking turns speaking, being on time. Ineffective behaviours typically included: using digital devices, being late, interrupting. Julian’s provocative question was: Are these observable behaviours (actually) ineffective? Or, are we judging them to be ineffective? Could it be that, in some cases, a shouting match is exactly what we need to move a process forward?!

He cautioned: do not attribute motivation or intention (to a behaviour) too quickly! We must be aware of our own assumptions and be prepared to question and examine these.

Basic facilitation ≠ developmental facilitation

Basic facilitation builds dependency.  Developmental facilitation builds self-reliance. From the handbook we received: “…in developmental facilitation, the facilitator is actively involved in helping the group learn to monitor compliance with its core values themselves” (p.C-6).  I appreciated the articulation of this distinction.

Non-neutral facilitation

Many definitions of facilitation that I’ve encountered make some reference to the facilitator as someone who is “neutral” or “objective”. One thing I appreciated a lot about this course is that Julian acknowledged that, often, we are ‘non-neutral’ facilitators. He built time into this course for us to explore the challenges of this role (Section K of handbook).

As a non-neutral facilitator, how do we balance the need for impartiality with other demands? We worked through some helpful case studies to explore this (P.C-7 handbook).

And, for anyone wanting to read about general distinctions between facilitator, trainer, coach, mediator, chairperson, resource person, these links might be helpful (excellent table on P.C-5):

Activities/energizers that I particularly enjoyed

Portrait drawing

(a) first, we individually write a response to a question posed by facilitator [in this case, the question was: “What is the single most important thing I would like to learn/gain/strengthen from this course?”. (b) Look around the room, lock eyes with someone. Lock eyes! Take 20 seconds to draw that person. Then, move to that person. Share your response and drawing.

Where in the world?

[imaginary context: Community forum]

(a) designate a spot in the room, such as centre of room; (b) “if this is where we are right now, physically, find a spot in the room that represents a place in the world that is special to you. You’ll need to talk to one another to determine where you are.” (c) people move around and find a spot; (d) facilitator invites each person, one by one, to respond to “Why is the place important to you?”

Mirrors on your self

Imagine you have mirrors on your feet…Shine the mirrors on the ceiling (10 secs). Imagine you have mirrors on your hands…on your bottom…etc.

Twinkle fingers

To get a quick pulse from the group on an idea or other, first show the group how to do ‘twinkle fingers’ (participants hold out hands and move fingers as if they were playing a keyboard in one spot). If you want to find out from the group whether they agree with a particular decision (a light one), ask them to show their twinkle fingers.

Mindfulness (ends with 2 great questions)

I have used mindfulness in my teaching, but not in my facilitation. Julian guided us through a mindfulness activity but I don’t recall what it was.  What I do remember were the two questions he ended with (these are great):

Imagine you’ve had a fabulous day (presumably, you’re imagining the end of the facilitated day),

  1. What have you done to make this happen (he came back to this later when inviting us to participate in role plays)?
  2. What have you NOT done to make this happen?
Ending simply and with energy

Instead of a drawn-out workshop end, everyone stands in a circle and holds hands. At the count of 3, everyone takes a step towards the middle of the circle, puts up hands and says “We’re done!”.

Interventions

We spent quite a bit of time on the morning of Day 2 on interventions. Doing this reflective writing has reminded me of the amazing resources that are in the handbook (see section G).

Simply put, an intervention is when you see something happening and decide to do something. Questions to ask myself as a facilitator:

  • How do I know this behaviour (that I’m observing) is ineffective? (perhaps it’s my own ‘stuff’ …)
  • Is this the right time to intervene?
  • Do I have the skills to go here?
  • Is it just me, or is this happening?

Ways to intervene:

  • Change the structure (i.e, big group to small group)
  • Change the content (get permission/agreement from the group)
  • Reframe (i.e., “we’ve been struggling with X. Let’s look at the advantages of…” — help shift perspective)

Level of intervention can be low, moderate or high.

Tips on openings

(click on picture for list of good tips–please excuse the fuzzy picture)

 

Random nuggets

  • As a facilitator, you are not responsible for the group’s success, you are responsible for helping the group be the most effective it can be. (Day 1)
  • Ask both: “Is everyone clear on X (e.g. the learning outcomes)?” and “Is anyone not clear on X (e.g. the learning outcomes?”
  • When using role plays in my teaching/facilitation, remind people not to overdo it.

 

 

Notes:

  1. This reflection is part of an assignment which I need to complete to get credit for the course.

 

Favourite Podcasts (at this time!)

podcast listen

Inspired by Katie Linder’s “You’ve Got This” episode about her favourite podcasts, I decided to create my own list. Since I feel like doing some light and fun blog writing, this seems like the perfect fit for this month’s post.

In no particular order, my favourites are:

Side Hustle School: I’ll try not to gush…**but**this one is so much fun to learn from! Daily episodes are short stories of a pursuit someone has followed through on which has fulfilled a purpose and made some money. The hustle is actualized while that person is working another job (or more than one) and juggling many other responsibilities. Chris Guillebeau‘s narratives are engaging and his take-aways are rich. I have been a committed listener and am excited to be taking first steps on my own side hustle (thanks to what I’ve learned and been inspired to do via this show).

Coaching for Leaders: In this podcast, Dave Stachowiak interviews people with expertise on various facets of leadership. Topics include facilitating conversations that matter, productivity, cross-cultural communication, coaching, feedback and more. His style is warm and affirming and I always glean many useful and practical lessons from these 30-minute weekly interviews. I came to this podcast via the Teaching in Higher Education podcast hosted by Dave’s wife (see below).

Under the InfluenceTerri O’Reilly is a master story teller in this podcast focused on marketing, advertising, adventure (yes!) and persuasion. The team produces tight, well-researched, 30-minute episodes that are fun, educational, and delight me with surprises. The season is short and I always look forward to it. A CBC podcast.

Teaching in Higher Education: In this weekly 30-minute podcast, host Bonni Stachowiak interviews an expert on an aspect of teaching in higher education. Shows may focus on concepts, practical approaches, productivity, technology–or a combination of these areas. This is another excellent source of learning for me and I thoroughly enjoy the relaxed (Bonni has a great laugh!) yet informative approach in these shows. This podcast has helped shift my own thinking about technology in teaching.

Lead Through Strengths. I only recently started listening to this one after hearing an excellent interview with host Lisa Cummings in another podcast. Lisa focuses on how to help people use their ‘strengths’ (which are really talents) to thrive in their career and workplace. She draws from StrengthsFinder as the source of her work and her style is warm, friendly, knowledgeable and engaging as she interviews guests. Via this show, I am not only learning about StrengthsFinder, but a lot about leadership and human communication.

Les Eclaireurs. A fun, informative podcast (in French) that deals with social trends, marketing, consumer choices, travel, and health. Each episode is hosted by Sophie-Andrée Blondin and features several guests who share lively exchanges and laughter. Proud to listen to CBC podcasts🙂

The Hidden Brain. Like some of the other podcasts above, this one involves wonderful story telling. Drawing from psychology and science, host Shankar Vedantam explains some of the unconscious patters at work in our society, choices, habits.

The Introvert Entrepreuneur. In this show, Beth Buelow interviews guests and covers various topics which are related to entrepreneurship, life, choices, career, and well-being. She also has some solo episodes in which she reflects on any of these broad areas. I enjoy her straightforward, gentle, honest style.  I came to this show via Coaching for Leaders.

You’ve Got This. Branded as “a podcast for academics and higher education professionals looking to increase their confidence and capacity for juggling ….” their various responsibilities and demands. I enjoy these short weekly podcasts in which Katie Linder shares her experience in a relaxed and conversational style. It is like listening to a wise friend.

 

Photo credit: Terry Freedman “Podcast listen” https: //flic.kr/p/aWGFS6

Give students choice in their assignments

The other day, I was part of a focus group organized by an instructor so he could get student feedback on a group assignment he had designed and implemented for an intense 2-week module in a Health Sciences masters program. Participants were students who had completed the course last term. In that course, students could opt to complete a group project or an essay-based exam.

Toward the end of the focus group session, one of the students, we’ll call him Matt, said “I was confused why there was a choice in the course assignment”. He explained:  “I’ve never had a course where students can choose between a group project or an exam and I was curious why we were given a choice.”

I was stunned. What?! This student has never been given a choice in his final assignment? In my own teaching within the UBC Faculty of Education, I always give the students choice; and in my experience as a student in that Faculty, I seem to recall that was always the case.  I assumed it was fairly common practice.

In this post, I will briefly explore reasons to give choice in student assignments.

Choices

Giving students choice helps them establish relevance

When you offer students assignment choices, they engage in a decision making process about the pros and cons of the options presented. In making a choice, they need to figure out what is interesting (to them) and personally relevant (Carl Weiman Education Initiative, 2013). Sure, some (maybe even many) try to figure out which assignment will likely result in the highest grade. Nevertheless, all students have to consider the options and make some decisions based on what is most relevant and helpful to them, individually, at this time. This is drastically different from the instructor telling students why an assignment is relevant or simply assuming that the student can ‘see’ the relevance of doing a particular assignment. Along with their final submission, you may ask students to provide a 2-3 sentence explanation about why they chose assignment X–this might give you interesting insights.

Giving students choice taps into their motivation

In “How Learning Works” the authors write that “students’ motivation generates, directs, and sustains what they do to learn” (Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., Lovett, M., DiPietro, M., & Norman, M., 2010, p.69). Read that one again–there’s a lot to it! I find it notable that the sentence doesn’t end with “sustains what they learn”, but rather with “sustains what they do to learn“. Motivation, defined in this way, is about the process of learning and is tied to the notion of learning goals. Ambrose et al. point out that when students are guided by their learning goals (as opposed to their performance goals) they attempt to “gain competence and truly learn what an activity or task can teach them” (Ambrose et al., 2010, p.72). As instructors, this is what we strive for.

Giving students choice can prompt creativity

Unsurprisingly, creativity is defined in various ways. Here is a definition I like from Creativity at Work: “Creativity is characterised by the ability to perceive the world in new ways, to find hidden patterns, to make connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena, and to generate solutions.”

When students are not given every parameter for completing an assignment, they will engage in some creative processes. Creative thinking and critical thinking are connected and both are under the broader umbrella of learning.

As an instructor, I’ve been delighted on multiple occasions by the creativity students bring to their assignments when they are given choices.

Bonus benefit: Giving students choice makes marking more fun for the instructor

I don’t have any data on this, other than my own experience:

When I give students choice about their assignments (see here for example), I end up with a fair bit of variety. I have received videos, artwork, essays, mind maps with deep reflections, and more! This variety makes marking more fun for me.

——————-

Given that one of the key characteristics of learner-centered teaching is
“it motivates students by giving them some control over learning processes” (Weimer, 2013), then giving students choice is good learner-centered practice.

If this isn’t something you have tried, I strongly encourage you to do so! If you have any questions on how to go about this, I suggest you contact the teaching and learning centre at your post-secondary institution as I’m certain the fine folks there will be able to help you. You are also welcome to contact me.

References:

Ambrose, S., M. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. Lovett, and M. Norman (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Carl Weiman Education Initiative (2013). Motivating learning. Retrieved from http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Motivating-Learning_CWSEI.pdf

Weimer, M. (2012). Five characteristics of  learner-centered teaching. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching-strategies/five-characteristics-of-learner-centered-teaching/.

 

Photo credit: (By complete fluke the picture I picked is by Derek Bruff, a fellow educational developer). Link to Derek Bruff’s picture above: https ://flic.kr/p/9vpdf7

The role of informal conversations in developing university teaching

This blog posts consists of some notes on a paper titled “The role of informal conversations in developing university teaching?” by Kate Thomson and Keith Trigwell (full reference at end). It ends with reflections from my educational developer perspective. My interest in this topic is tied to a research collaboration with Gary Poole and Roselynn Verwoord.

Conversation

Thomson and Trigwell’s paper describes how informal “corridor” conversations contribute to the teaching-professional growth of academics. This article is based on a qualitative study of 24 mid-career academics from across six different departments at a research-intensive university in Australia.

Role of informal conversations

The full paper is worth reading, but here I relay only the authors’ findings on the role of conversations. As described in the paper, the roles were:

  1. “To manage their teaching context (i.e. learning about processes and systems such as library reserves)
  2. To improve their teaching and student learning
  3. To reassure themselves about their teaching practice
  4. To vent about teaching-related issues
  5. To transform their thinking and practice of teaching” (Thomson & Trigwell, 2016, p.4)

These functions often overlapped with one another. The “manage” role was cited most often by participants, while the “transform” one appeared least often (Figure 2 in the article, presents a nice visual image of the distribution).

Value of informal conversations

  1. Allow university teachers to deal with challenges related to their teaching, in an manner that is both private and confidential.
  2. Enable instructors to get reassurance from colleagues about specific teaching issues, and in doing so, promote mutual learning.
  3. Allow instructors to take a collaborative approach to managing their teaching; this “may mean that issues are resolved quickly and appropriately without academics having to wait for formal opportunities for dialogue” (p.9).

Quick reflections from my educational developer’s perspective: Implications for promoting instructional growth through informal conversations

The authors found that, in some cases, academics took a “problem-solving” approach, rather than a transformative one, because of time constraints. As an educational developer, I have limited control over people’s time. However, when I engage in consulting conversations with faculty members, I can remind myself of the transformative aim if/when I slip into problem-solving mode.

Experienced instructors need support, in particular as they try out new-to-them approaches. I frequently work with experienced instructors and have found this to be true. When designing our teaching and learning centre’s programming, we need to keep this in mind and make sure that sessions are geared, not only at new instructors, but also fulfill the needs of experienced instructors.

As I design professional growth opportunities, I will want to build in opportunities for “reassurance”. Thomson and Trigwell noted that many formal opportunities aim to improve teaching and by-pass the reassurance aspect.

Autonomy with respect to who to talk with, focus, timing, location, and durations of conversations, repeatedly showed up as an important element for fostering conversations in this study. The authors concluded that “It may be this level of autonomy that contributes to the perception of conversations as an effective and efficient way for mid-career academics to learn about teaching” (p.9). As an educational developer, I will continue to encourage academics to speak to other trusted colleagues.

Here is what I’m left with, because it relates directly to one of our research questions: Are there relationships among perceived similarity, value of interactions, and impact of the network on one’s teaching and research on teaching?. Put otherwise: do academics seek out others who they perceive as “similar” to them when they want to engage in conversations? And, do they perceive that conversations with people who share similar beliefs (about teaching and learning) are more valuable?Since “reassurance” figured very prominently in Thomson & Trigwell’s findings, I presume that people do seek out others that are similar to them in their beliefs about teaching and learning. When interacting most often with individuals who share similar beliefs, is the potential for growth and transformation limited? I presume it may be (Roxa and Martenssen, 2009, touch on this too).

“… it is through challenging implicit assumptions and questioning taken-for-granted practices that professional learning can lead to changes in practice.”(Webster-Wright, 2009 p.703)

Thus, the purpose for engaging in the conversation matters. For reassurance, an instructor may seek out like-minded individuals. If they are wanting to growth professionally as a teacher, they may benefit from reaching out to people with diverse approaches to teaching.

You can read my previous posts on significant networks and significant conversations, here.  For resources from an ISSoTL (2016) session on the topic, see the Resources section of this site.

References:

Thomson, K.E. & Trigwell, K.R. (2016): The role of informal conversations in developing university teaching?, Studies in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/03075079.2016.1265498

Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 702-739.

Photo credit: “Conversation” by fte leaders https: //flic.kr/p/egbSUD

Formative assessment to enhance self-regulated learning

I recently re-read the paper “Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice” by Nichol and MacFarlane-Dick (reference at end).

The paper looks at how to enhance feedback practices to support students’ self-regulation. Authors argue that formative assessment and feedback should be used to foster students to become self-regulated learners. This blog post contains some notes and excerpts from the pages 199-205.

Definitions

Formative assessment: assessment that is specifically intended to generate feedback on performance to improve and accelerate learning (Sadler, 1998 in Nichol & MacFarlane-Dick p.199).

Self-regulation refers to “the degree to which students can regulate aspects of their thinking, motivation and behaviour during learning” (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002 cited in Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p.199).  (p.205 contains a good summary of research on SRL)

Self-regulated learning “is an active constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behaviour, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features of the environment” (Pintrich and Zusho, 2002, p. 64 cited in Nichol & MacFarlane-Dick, p.202)

Student-centred learning: the core assumptions are active engagement in learning and learner responsibility for the management of learning (Lea et al., 2003 in Nichol & MacFarlane-Dick p.200).

The problem

In higher education, formative assessment and feedback are still largely controlled by and seen as the responsibility of instructors (instructors ‘transmit’ feedback messages to students about what is right and wrong in their academic work, about its strengths and weaknesses, and students use this information to make subsequent improvements) (p.200)

This is problematic because:

  • impedes self-regulation
  • assumes students understand the instructor’s feedback
  • ignores how feedback interacts with motivations and beliefs
  • increases instructor workload

Feedback and learning

There is considerable research that shows that effective feedback leads to learning gains.

Sadler (1989) identified three conditions needed for students to benefit from feedback in academic tasks. Students need to know:
1. What good performance is (i.e. the student needs to understand the goal or standard being aimed for);
2. How current performance relates to good performance (for this, the student must be able to compare current and good performance);
3. How to act to close the gap between current and good performance.

For students to do above, they have to possess their OWN evaluative abilities; they cannot solely rely on ‘outside’ source.  Consequently, we need to help students with SELF-ASSESSMENT skills.

Feedback and learning: The model

Nichol and MacFarlane-Dick present a model of self-regulated learning and the feedback principles that support and develop self-regulation in students. To see a larger version of this model, click on the above image. This image is from the author’s paper available here.

Good feedback practices: 7 principles

In this paper, good feedback practice is defined as anything that might strengthen the students’ capacity to self-regulate their own performance.

Good feedback practice (p.205):
1. helps clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, expected standards);
2. facilitates the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning;
3. delivers high quality information to students about their learning;
4. encourages teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
5. encourages positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
6. provides opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
7. provides information to teachers that can be used to help shape teaching.

 

Reference:

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.
For a freely accessible version of the paper, see here.