« Online Community | Home | Context-aware Computing »
Teach, Facilitate and Moderate
By Trishus | September 13, 2008
Teaching and Facilitating while closely linked, they can be poles apart. As a teacher, I aimed to help facilitate students learning, create classroom environments that aided and allowed students to come to learning form their own unique place and draw from the experience the knowledge and skills that interested them. While this was my aim, in realty sometimes teaching is just making sure that you cover the vast amounts of knowledge and skills that need to be past on for students to reach benchmarks. I believe that both can happen. Conversely, when facilitating a session, it is easy to slip into teacher mode, especially when there is some group knowledge lacking or when some side (usually the facilitators side) of an argument is left out.
Moderation is another kettle of fish again. Online communities, like any communities, tend to have leaders (facilitators) teachers and people who moderate content. Moderation may compromise facilitation when some members of the community don’t get their voices heard or discussions get heated or passionate. Listening and sharing is important in any community. Also if moderation is not performed, a few can dislodge and offend others making the environment no longer feel save, hence breaking down the facilitation and communication processes.
Online communities need to have healthy discussions about what these roles entail and when they are appropriate, possibly working in a push and pull mechanism. When facilitation is needed, then that takes place, when there is something to be learnt, teaching will be required and when moderation is on the cards, then that should be conducted. Protocols help to maintain uniformity throughout these processes. In some communities these roles will be organic and will flow with the content and emphasise that have been created around certain issues, in others more static and provide guidance and boundaries for participants.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:09 am
“While this was my aim, in realty sometimes teaching is just making sure that you cover the vast amounts of knowledge and skills that need to be past on for students to reach benchmarks. I believe that both can happen.”
“realty” is a typo and should be “reality”
“past” is a misuse and should be “passed”
I agree with what you say about organizing and listening and roles. But the roles should be traditional listening roles.
I think that traditional democratic form has served well enough as moderator, in discussions and communities, for eons and see no need for subversive elements, introduced by ignorant technocrats, to be encouraged on the Internet.
The existence of so-called “moderators” on the web indicates that something is not right with our organizing procedures. I don’t accept the role of “moderator” as a legitimate presence. Democratic form is our only moderator. The technocrat is unqualified to displace and replace those forms.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
thanks for telling me bout the typos…
As for moderation… i believe when everything is just cruising along as it should be there is little need for moderation, yet when we find ourselves in a situation where process has broken down, moderation can be helpful and necessary for the health of the community. I don’t see that moderation needs to come from a ignorant technocrat. It can be as simple as someone speaking up for what they believe to be not right to someone with a fresh on un-bias view to step in and hear out all parties. Moderation I believe is the trickiest of all three…teaching, facilitating and moderating as there is usually some grievance in play in order for it to be require.
I see it that:
facilitation is the art of evoking ideas and participation
Teaching is the art of creating meaningful learning &
Moderation is the art of keeping it all in balance.
Maybe I am not familiar with the type of moderation that you refer to.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Thanks Trish,
Traditional process has broken down and moderation is what has served in breaking it. I find no legitimate reasons for breaking down traditional form. If we trace back to where this break down first occurred we will find a small group of technocrats who see democratic form as a real hindrance to their self-serving goals or just a bunch of unshcooled techies who missed out on studies such as ethics and history and philosophy in pursuit of the more lucrative studies of computer sciences and systems.
They might also have studied the English language and not now be using words such as “member” and “community” in ignorance to what those words mean.
artie