Full Circle Associates

More intersections from my time on the Ultraversity Hot Seat. I was pointed to this blog: Ultraversity Student Reps. Some great stuff related to what they'd like to see from their facilitators based on the tool/platform. (First Class is the LMS they use for some of their work):

Learning Facilitator Intervention

Level of intervention in communities:

More intervention, leadership and initiatives from facilitators requested, especially in the quieter small communities

Archiving discussions whilst they are still going on not welcome

Don’t summarise a discussion unless finished

Beware of summarising killing discussion

Facilitator can come in and add support to issues raised and so encourage further participation

Facilitators encouraged to start threads

Facilitators also encouraged to comment on key issues raised by researchers

Facilitators discouraged from speaking ‘ex Cathedra’ and so closing down discussion.

Chat:

Does chat discourage the use of the asynchronous discussion? Are people using chat and therefore diluting the open discussions?

Both chat and asynchronous discussion have benefits and may suit different people and learning styles.

Attributable communication in the discussion areas may limit users’ willingness to discuss

Chat may be useful in learning sets.
Posted at 12:16 am by lmhartley

First Class
Facilitators:

First Class has opened up communications with facilitators more generally. Researchers have access to a wider range of LF advice and this can sometimes lead to confusion.

Some find First Class heavy going and liked JellyOS. This may be connected with learning styles and also with researcher’s feelings of ownership of discussions in Jelly OS.

Communities:

People with multiple school roles do not fit neatly into any one community so that it becomes hard for them to see themselves as part of their small community.

Community structure is problematic. Some communities work better than others

Same few people always participate in some communities.

Size of group not necessarily a key factor in participation

Nature of people perhaps more of an issue than software in terms of participation

Don’t keep adding more communities – (not referring to specialist communities such as Gardening)

Some people need the security of a small group others find it too constraining.

Technically First Class is more reliable

Cohort 1 to help mentor Cohort 2. This is envisioned for yr2. Issue with numbers in C2

Members of Cohort 2 may need contact with Cohort 1 in similar job roles.

Cohort 1 will not grow further. Shrinking numbers may mean fewer groups will be viable anyway.

Is First Class software able to handle the dynamic reforming of groups? This to be checked with tech support.

Small First Class groups need more specific tasks with a clearer purpose defined for groups

Self directed learning needs to be encouraged but not at the loss of community purpose

Posted at 12:09 am by lmhartley