STRATEGIES TO ENSURE THAT ONLINE FACILITATORS ARE 
SUCCESSFUL


by Judith Zorfass, Arlene Remz, Jennifer Gold, Denise Ethier, Patricia 
Corley

Copyright 1998: All right reserved.  Education Development Center, 
Inc.


Imagine two situations.  In one, a federally funded technical 
assistance project is planning to offer its first Internet-based 
workshop.  The goal is for teachers and administrators from 
around the country to learn about standards-based instruction 
by sharing information, discussing resources posted on the 
Web, and offering each other adviceÐall online.  Project staff 
members contact Dr. Branch, a respected curriculum leader 
who has conducted many face-to-face workshops for the 
project in the past.  When they ask her to be the online 
facilitator, she agrees.  Although staff members have 
confidence in Dr. Branch, they still have questions:  How will 
this online venue differ from the face-to-face workshops they 
are accustomed to delivering? Will Dr. Branch have the 
necessary skills to elicit conversation, guide information 
sharing, and foster reflection in this alternative environment?  
What can staff members do to support Dr. Branch in her new 
role?

In the other situation, Dr. Galtes, a professor of education, has 
just been asked by his dean to teach an online graduate course 
for the first time.  Buoyed by his past success in teaching the 
course, he agrees to teach it in this new environment.  
Although he is intrigued by the Internet and relishes the 
challenge, many questions occur to him:  Will he feel as 
comfortable in the online learning environment as in the 
classroom? What must he do differently to promote student 
learning? Where can he go to get the information and support 
he needs to ensure success for all?

Both situations raise similar issues:  What are the distinctive 
characteristics and challenges of the online learning 
environment? What knowledge and skills does an online 
facilitator need to be successful?  What kind of support and 
guidance do novice facilitators need and who can provide this?

While this paper addresses all three issues, we emphasize the 
third by addressing the question:  What strategies best guide 
and support online facilitators?  So far, the literature on online 
facilitation has examined what the online facilitator does to 
promote thinking, conversations, and learning.  We have not 
located articles that have taken the critical step back to 
consider what it takes to help online facilitators develop the 
skills they need to do their specialized work.  This paper 
describes ways to provide technical assistance, mentoring, 
support, and guidance to novice online facilitators.  

We anticipate that two different audiences will benefit from 
our paper: those who are recruiting and hiring online 
facilitators, and those who are being asked to be online 
facilitators.  While recruiters can prepare themselves to guide 
facilitators, new facilitators can become advocates for 
themselves, better equipped to request the help they need in a 
new domain.  

The strategies described in this paper emerged from the Web-
based professional development models created and 
implemented by the National Center to Improve Practice 
(NCIP).  A brief overview of NCIP will provide the context in 
which the strategies evolved.  

THE NATIONAL CENTER TO IMPROVE PRACTICE: 
AN OVERVIEW

NCIP is a project housed at Education Development Center, Inc. 
in Newton, Massachusetts, and funded by the U.S. Department 
of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, from 1992-
8.  Our mission is two-tiered.  First, we want to help teachers, 
administrators, clinicians, and other practitioners deepen and 
expand their knowledge about ways in which technology can 
support students with disabilities.  Second, we want these 
practitioners to apply this knowledge in classrooms to improve 
educational outcomes for students with disabilities (Corley, 
1997; Ethier and Gold, 1997; Remz, 1997; and Zorfass, Remz, 
and Ethier, 1998).  

Professional Development Opportunities 

To achieve our goals, we have designed, implemented, and 
evaluated several interactive online professional development 
opportunities using telecommunications technology.  Beginning 
in 1992, we used a dial-in service on First Class; in 1995, we 
switched to the Web environment.  Since then, we have been 
experimenting with HyperNews software to create "centralized" 
conferencing systems on the Web.  This software has allowed 
us to integrate discussion areas into our Web site, where 
participants can post messages to one another.

We have used telecommunications to offer three kinds of 
professional development opportunitiesÐtopical discussions, 
special online ÒeventsÓ featuring guest facilitators, and online 
workshops.  We recruited nationally recognized experts in the 
field of special education and technology to facilitate the 
opportunities.

Topical Discussions

In our topical discussions, participants engaged in ongoing, 
open-ended conversations about the use of assistive and 
instructional technology for students with disabilities.  For 
example, one topic of interest to participants was determining 
what skills students needed to make maximal use of word-
prediction software and key pal projects that use 
telecommunications.  There was no limit to the number of 
participants since anyone finding his or her way to our Web 
site was invited to join the discussion.  The primary role of our 
online facilitators was to make sure that the conversation 
related to the main topic.  Thus, the facilitator needed to be a 
careful listener who promoted lively and relevant discussion 
among participants, but did not monopolize the discussion.

Special Events

Participants in special events had an opportunity to converse 
for three or four weeks with one or more online facilitators 
who were experts in some aspect of special education and 
technology.  Before we switched to the Web, our special events 
featured Bart Pisha from the Center for Applied Special 
Technology in Boston, who facilitated a discussion on the value 
of having students develop keyboarding skills, and Sheryl 
Burghstaler from the University of Washington, who facilitated 
a discussion about her science-related ÒDo ItÓ project.  

After migrating to the Web, we have held another type of 
special event, entitledÒTEC Author Online.Ó Authors of articles 
appearing in Teaching Exceptional Children (a journal published 
by the Council for Exceptional Children) hosted a discussion 
about their article. Some examples of these special events 
include the following:

-   Employability Skills + Family Support + Adult Agency 
Support + On-the-Job Support = Successful Employment, 
Patricia Patton, Colleen Harmon, and Bridget M. de la Garza
 
-   Partners in Enrichment: Preparing Teachers for Multiple 
Ability Classrooms, Alexander Casareno and Edwin S. Ellis
 
-   Perspectives on Technology in Special Education, Edward 
Blackhurst
 
-   Positive Change Through Computer Networking, Gladene 
Robertson, Leonard Haines, and Robert Sanche 
 
-   Sharing Ideas About Teaching Effectively: Using Technology 
to Collaborate, Pam Campbell and Jack Tierney

As is typical in this type of forum, participants directed most of 
their comments to the online host, who responded by 
answering the query, reacting to the comment, and/or then 
inviting others to share their perspectives.

Online Workshops

Our online workshops had a more structured format.  Open 
only to registrants, they offered readings, offline and online 
activities, and a place for reflections.  With Joy Zabala from 
Houston, Texas, as the facilitator, we ran the ÒReady! SETT! Go!Ó 
workshop twice.  Each time there were approximately 25 
participants.  Pati King-DeBaun and Caroline Musselwhite co-
facilitated ÒThe Art and Writing ConnectionÓ workshop with 60 
participants.  Both workshops required that the facilitators 
keep participants on track, guide them through a weekly task 
or activity, and encourage interactivity to foster the building of 
knowledge.

Recruiting Facilitators

We relied on three criteria for facilitators for our online 
opportunities.  First, the facilitator needed to have strong 
content knowledge.  Second, we sought online facilitators who 
had experience as trainers or teachers of workshops or courses.  
Third, our facilitators had to express a genuine desire to learn, 
along with us, about what it takes to be successful in this new 
role.

Given the newness of the Internet and online learning, prior 
experience with the Internet was not mandatory.  However, we 
knew that some facilitators were reasonably comfortable in 
conversing online since we had observed their natural flair as 
active discussants in the NCIP online events described above.  
Others, however, were new to the world of online discussions, 
which has many distinctive characteristics as described in the 
next section.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT

An online environment has many characteristics that make it 
different from a face-to-face workshop, course, seminar, or 
other situation where adults learn together in a group.  One 
defining characteristic is that communication is generally 
asynchronous (Tinker and Haavind, 1997).  In a face-to-face 
situation, when someone makes a contribution to a discussion, a 
response usually follows, either immediately afterward or after 
a short interval.  By contrast, when someone posts a message 
online, there is likely to be a lag before responses are 
forthcoming.   Because people log on when it is convenient for 
them (one of the attractions of online learning), it might take 
anywhere from a few seconds to several days to receive a 
reply.  The message below, for example, acknowledges the 
problem of Òwait timeÓ: 

ÒHello Sandra.  IÕm sorry it took me so long to notice that 
you had responded to the first message I posed.  I have 
been teaching a high-enrollment grad class. . . . so I have 
not logged in as much as I did in Òmy weekÓ on duty.Ó

A cluster of features stem from another defining characteristic 
of the online environment: the written word is the medium 
through which people communicate.  All knowledge, questions, 
concerns, reflections, and suggestions are conveyed through 
written messages.  This Òwrite-onlyÓ and Òread-onlyÓ attribute 
has the potential to create barriers to communication and 
understanding.  Since people tend to be more facile and 
comfortable when they are speaking than when they are 
writing, they might be reluctant to post messages, especially 
when they are expected to say something ÒintelligentÓ in an 
online learning situation.  They might be afraid to leave a 
Òpaper trailÓ of their thinking, fearing that their written words 
will return to haunt them later.  Furthermore, writing that 
reflects careful reasoning or thinking takes time; not everyone 
has the necessary time.  Finally, participants in online meetings 
have no extra-lingual clues to key into in order to understand 
others.  In the online environment, unlike a face-to-face 
setting, a person cannot rely on facial expressions, body 
language, chuckling, frowning, smiling, behavior, and/or actions 
to understand someone else.  Moreover, participants cannot 
even develop first impressions of people based on their 
appearance.

Taking part in a face-to-face learning experienceÐfor example, a 
course, workshop, or seminarÐis a common experience.  But 
participating in an online environment is a new experience for 
many people.  Participants, as well as facilitators, have few 
models to rely on for how they are to think, collaborate, share, 
and build knowledge in an online environment that depends on 
writing.  We know what constitutes successful teaching in a 
face-to-face setting, but the criteria by which to judge 
successful online facilitation are still emerging.   The growing 
literature in this field, however, does shed some light on what 
online facilitators are supposed to do.


WHAT SUCCESSFUL ONLINE FACILITATORS DO

The literature on online learning and facilitation has begun to 
specify what online facilitators need to do to be successful 
(Berge, 1996; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, and Turoff, 1996; Tinker 
and Haavind, 1997; Spitzer, Wedding, and DiMauro, 1996; Hiltz, 
1995; Davie, 1997;  Riel, 1997; and Kimball, 1995).   An 
analysis of these articles reveals that the facilitatorÕs roles and 
responsibilities fall within the following categories: 

-   orienting participants and guiding them to post and read 
messages, as well as to locate, review, and download 
relevant messages, materials, and resources
 
-   making sure that participants understand the expectations 
and norms for respectful interaction, as well as knowing 
how to follow directions for carrying out the associated tasks 
and activities (both online and offline)
 
-   creating a strong, interactive learning environment by 
encouraging participants to provide information and 
resources, discuss issues, and collaborate with each other to 
generate solutions to problems
 
-   using a variety of strategies to help participants expand 
their knowledge based on their particular situations, needs, 
interests, and abilities, such as: 
---asking people to elaborate upon, justify, or support ideas, 
especially if there are conflicting views or multiple 
perspectives
---infusing content information to nourish the conversation
---pointing out ways in which one personÕs comment links to 
or builds upon anotherÕs; encouraging the connection of 
ideas, thus moving the communication from individual 
ideas to a group understanding
 
-   encouraging participants to reflect on what they have 
learned and what impact this information has on their 
beliefs and behavior
 
-   guiding participants, as relevant, to critique the online 
learning experience from a personal and professional 
perspective

When we recruited online facilitators for NCIPÕs topical 
discussions, special events, and online workshops, we did not 
assume that our facilitators would know how to carry out these 
actions.  Therefore, we worked closely with them to ensure that 
they would be successful.  Next we discuss the emerging 
strategies we used to work with them.

EMERGING STRATEGIES

Some of our strategies relate to the process of designing an 
event; others relate to implementation; and still others help 
bring an event to closure.  Some strategies require that we 
work behind the scenes; for others we are visible to 
participants, serving as ex-officio facilitators.  

In our most visible role, we take responsibility for responding 
to technical questions and providing user support.  In this way, 
participantsÕ technical issues are handled quickly, and the 
momentum of the discussion is not compromised.  NCIPÕs 
assuming of this responsibility frees the facilitator to devote 
time and energy to the substantive aspects of the role.   One of 
the facilitators noted how relieved she was when she knew 
that she could tell participants to contact NCIP for help, as she 
did in the following example:


It may take a few tries to get used to HyperNews but 
there's lots of help available from Denise [NCIP technical 
assistance provider] if you're confused.  You may want to 
consider subscribing to this conference so all entries will 
be delivered to your e-mail and you won't miss anything 
(see the Technical Tips at the top of the Views page).  As 
Denise suggested, be sure to make NCIP Views a 
bookmark so you can check in and add your ideas often.

In addition to handling technical issues, NCIP has developed 
the following four strategies to support facilitators:

-   co-constructing workshops with the facilitator
 
-   modeling and mentoring
 
-   coaching to prevent and ameliorate problems
 
-   working in tandem with the facilitator to promote 
interactivity
 
Below we discuss each of these strategies and provide 
examples to further illustrate how we provide support.


Co-Constructing Workshops with the Facilitator

From the initial stages of conceptualization, we collaborated 
with Joy Zabala to design the SETT workshop and with Pati 
King-DeBaun and Caroline Musselwhite to design the art and 
writing workshop.  We chose to collaborate for three reasons: to 
showcase the facilitatorsÕ content knowledge; mold the online 
workshop in ways that captured the structure and organization 
of the facilitatorsÕ face-to-face workshops, as appropriate; and 
allow the personalities of the facilitators to shine through.

Before developing the SETT workshop with Joy Zabala, we 
spoke with her about the design principles underlying her 
face-to-face workshops, attended several of her conference 
presentations, and reviewed her presentation materials 
(overheads, handouts, readings, etc.).  We then created with her 
a four-week design that maintained the key elements of a face-
to-face SETT workshop.  We expected online participants to

-   read a case study about a student with disabilities who 
could benefit from technology 
 
-   analyze the case according to the SETT Framework, which 
stands for S=Student, E=Environment, T=Tasks, and 
T=Technology Tools (and support services)
 
-   engage in discussion and debate as if they were part of a 
team meeting (a Òvirtual meetingÓ) that involved teachers, 
specialists, administrators, and parents

In addition, participants introduced themselves, modeling their 
introductions on one posted by Joy; reviewed background 
readings and resources (available in hard copy and online); and 
filled out evaluation surveys before and after the workshop.

Our collaboration with Pati King-DeBaun and Caroline 
Musselwhite followed a similar pattern.  Since we had already 
attended their sessions at national conferences, we had a strong 
understanding of the content and flow of their jointly 
presented face-to-face workshops.  After several conference 
calls, supplemented with faxes, we narrowed the focus of the 
workshop and decided which topics would be covered over a 
four-week period.  These included ÒBooks for Learning, Books 
for FunÓ; ÒConnecting Art and WritingÓ; ÒBuilding Success for 
WritingÓ; and ÒMaking Writing Fit into Your Busy Schedule.Ó
     
Our most intensive planning with Caroline and Pati involved 
the issue of personalized responses to participantÕs messages.  
Noting that Joy had responded to every message from every 
one of her 25 participants, Pati and Caroline wanted to achieve 
the same individualized approach.  However, since they were 
aiming for an enrollment of 60, they realized that they were 
setting an overly ambitious goal.  To solve the problem, 
together we devised a two-pronged approach.  In conversations 
that involved all participants, Pati and Caroline agreed to post 
intermittent summaries, after several participants had posted 
messages.  At the same time, we created a built-in opportunity 
for responding to every message within an Òactivity center.Ó  In 
this component of the workshop, participants tried out 
suggested activities in their classrooms and reported the 
results online.  Only a subset of the total enrollment 
participated in the activity center.  For this smaller group, Pati 
and Caroline decided that they would offer the kind of 
personalized feedback that JoyÕs participants had found so 
valuable.


Modeling and Mentoring

We carried out modeling and mentoring before and during 
online events.  Three strategies were particularly helpful to 
facilitators before the event began.  First, we recommended 
that Òon-deckÓ facilitators closely observe the practices of other 
online facilitators.  They might visit an online event in progress 
or a discussion that NCIP had archived.  Christine Alpert, a 
facilitator for a forum on technology applications, followed our 
advice.  As she reported, ÒIt was useful for me to go back and 
look at old ÔViews from the FieldÕ and see how things were 
handled.Ó  In addition, we suggested that novices ask 
experienced facilitators to debrief, sharing what they had 
learned.  Using this strategy, Pati and Caroline contacted Joy 
right after her course ended while the experience was still 
fresh in her mind.  She offered them advice about how much to 
post and when.  Second, we offered specific tips and directions.  
For instance, after the first TEC Author Online Event, we 
compiled a list of suggestions, as shown in Figure 1, that we 
sent to each upcoming TEC author.  We asked them to review 
the list, call us with questions, and begin to implement the 
ideas.  Third, we helped facilitators write biographies about 
themselves to accompany the photographs that we posted 
online.  This strategy helped the facilitators feel like real 
people to the participants and allowed them to Òbe themselvesÓ 
online.  Facilitators for one of the TEC author online events later 
reflected that the introductory pictures and biographical 
information made them Òfeel like individuals to participants.Ó

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1:

TEC AUTHOR ONLINE EVENT SUGGESTIONS

In Preparation for the Event
 
1. It would be very helpful if you could become familiar and 
comfortable with theTEC Author Online structure and HyperNews 
conferencing system.  ItÕs located on NCIPÕs Web site: 
http://www.edc.org/FSC/NCIP.  

From our home page, select TEC Author Online.

You can read messages posted during the ongoing or previous TEC 
Author Online.  In fact, in order to ÒpracticeÓ sending a message, you 
could post a new message to that conference, introducing yourself and 
inviting people to participate beginning April 21.

You can also become familiar by reading and/or posting in 
the NCIPnet Views discussion conference, which uses the 
same HyperNews conferencing system.  Again, an 
introduction/invitation would be great (and you might even 
get some discussion started before the event itself).

2.  WeÕll need a few items from you in order to prepare the 
pages for your online event.  The earlier you can send these 
items, the better:

-   A bio and if possible, a picture.  If you already have a 
picture posted someplace on the Web, we can grab it 
from there.  If not, send us a copy and weÕll scan it in.

-   A draft of an Òopening paragraphÓ with several lead-off 
questions.  See the 	example from the previous online 
events.  The purpose here is to give a 1-2 paragraph ÒteaserÓ that 
invites people to jump into conversation with you.  	
WeÕll edit the paragraph if needed.

4   If you have any additional resources (charts, documents, 
vignettes, other papers) that werenÕt printed as part of 
the article, but would be useful for discussion purposes, 
please send them to us, and we can try to work them in.  
Again, see some of the earlier events for different 
examples of how we can 	link up resources.

3. During the event, Judy will serve as a co-facilitator and will 
post some comments and questions to try to get and keep the 
conversation rolling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once an online offering was in progress, we shifted our 
mentoring and modeling strategies.  For example, we 
frequently posted messages that would serve as models for 
both the online facilitator and the participants.  In the SETT 
workshop, for example, one of us posted the following message:

I observe that Josh is unable to write legibly even for 
short  periods of time.  I would like to know if/how his 
keyboarding ability changes over periods of time (i.e., 
what impact does hand fatigue have on his speed, errors, 
etc.?)

For one of the TEC author online events, we again modeled for 
both the facilitator and the participants how to situate a 
question within a question.  Soon after the event began, we 
posed the following question to Pam Campbell, a developer of 
CoPlanner, a software program that encouraged teachers to 
collaborate:

The features of CoPlanner are very elegant.  I can easily 
see how the format, guiding questions, and tools promote 
collaboration among teachers and specialists.  

Have you been able to follow teachers over time as they 
use CoPlanner?  If so, in what ways do teachers change 
over time?  In what ways do they expand their 
knowledge?  Do they change their beliefs? In what ways 
do they change their instructional practice?  How much 
collaborative coplanning does it take before new habits 
emerge?

I am asking these question because we are carrying out a 
research project that engages teachers in collaborative 
planning around improving inquiry-based science 
instruction for students with disabilities.

Teachers tell us that they find this collaboration, 
supported by our paper and pencil tool, to be very 
powerful.  However, we want to be able to study change 
over time.  ThatÕs what motivated my questions above.

As an event progressed, facilitators often found themselves 
wondering how to respond to a message that might create 
controversy, was too personal, or could be offensive.  In 
addition to offering our own suggestions, we once again 
encouraged facilitators to use other online facilitators as 
models.  By observing how others had handled a difficult 
situation, we reasoned that they could learn which approaches 
were successful and which were not.  Christine Alpert reported 
how this approach worked for her:

Whenever I wasnÕt sure how to respond to something, I 
would go back and look at how Joy Zabala or someone 
else might have responded.


Another facet of mentoring involved our offering positive 
feedback to the facilitators when it was genuine and justified.  
When we noted that facilitators were making ÒmovesÓ that 
were productive, we would send them congratulatory e-mail 
messages to support them.  For example, we sent the following 
message to one of our facilitators: 

It was great the way you asked several leading questions 
designed to tap into various peopleÕs interests.  Hopefully, 
someone will ÒbiteÓ and get conversation going.

Later Joy Zabala said that the encouragement was critical to her 
success:

ÒNCIP staff made me feel valued and capable and able in a 
venture that was totally new to me!  That invited me to 
be more inviting and reinforcing to participants, since I 
was more comfortable myself.Ó


Coaching to Prevent or Ameliorate Problems

We often coached facilitators to prevent problems and help 
them succeed.  For example, to help facilitators elicit immediate 
participation, we helped them to craft a provocative question 
or a warm and inviting introductory statement.  Christine 
Alpert recalls that ÒArlene [Remz from NCIP] provided me with 
suggestions and feedbackÓ related to the draft of her opening 
message.  The message finally read:

As the "current facilitator" for NCIP Views, I'm looking 
forward to some good discussions to brighten up the 
winter months! In October, I had the opportunity to 
participate in the on-line SETT workshop (where I met 
Joy, Mia, and Mandy).  We had some interesting and 
thought-provoking exchanges, as did the November 
group.  I'm hoping that NCIP Views can provide a place 
for continued sharing and also expand on some of the 
topics introduced in previous forums.

In addition to welcoming NCIP veterans, I'd like to 
welcome newcomers (like my friends who have 
PROMISED to contributeÐ you know who you are). . . . 

My New YearÕs resolution for NCIP Views is for lots of 
interaction, conversation, and discussion.  If you have 
questions (and certainly if you have answers!), ideas, or 
problems to solve please post them.  Check out the NCIP 
Bulletin Board for announcements, "ads," or newsbytes of 
information you want to pass along.

Once an event was underway, we kept close tabs on it, 
carefully noting the level and degree of participation, the 
questions and concerns posed by participants and facilitators, 
and the extent to which people were fulfilling requirements, 
especially within a workshop.  We acted as diagnosticians, 
identifying emerging problems before they festered and then 
working with the facilitators to remedy the situation.  

For example, at the end of the first week of ÒThe Art and 
Writing ConnectionÓ workshop, we noticed that few of the 
participants who had opted for the activity center posted 
messages reporting on the outcomes of classroom activities.  In 
addition, we were receiving questions via e-mail indicating that 
people were confused about what to post and where it should 
go.  We recommended that Pati and Caroline clarify the 
directions.  Based on our suggestions, they provided 
participants with the following information:


Hi Folks, For those of you who are "activity participants," 
now is the time to start posting those book reviews! 
(Refer to Activity Schedule for March 3-9 for specifics.)  
Here's how it works: a) Choose a book and use the Books 
for Learning Checklist for your initial evaluation of the 
book; b) If it seems like an appropriate Book for Learning 
for your students, write up a brief review, using the 
model we included in our "Pati & Caroline's Books For 
Learning" set; to do this, you might want to include a 
couple of lines of information about the book, tell who it 
is most appropriate for (use your 
Communication/Literacy Profiles), and think of potential 
goals for students having the various Communication 
Literacy Profiles.

 I know the format may seem a bit cumbersome at first, 
but the intent is to get us to focus on specific 
communication and literacy goals that we might address 
using a Book for Learning.  Anyone want to give it a shot? 
I'll be checking!

To prevent further difficulties in the succeeding weeks, we 
coached Caroline to post messages that gave participants a 
status update and described the next steps.  After the third 
week, she wrote:

WeÕre moving on to Topic 3, though Topic 2 will still be 
around for you to explore and get any information you 
might have missed.  Please feel free to continue to add 
strategies and materials to the Activity Center for Weeks 
1 and 2, as well as starting to send in ideas for Week 3. 

We then added a follow up to the facilitatorÕs message, which 
reinforced her directions:

The Topic 3 area is ready.  Topic 3 is a look at creating 
writing activities related to storybooks.  Come share your 
ideas  at http://www.edc.org/cgi-
bin?HyperNews/NCIP/EC/get?Topic 3.html. 

Finally, we coached Pati and Caroline at the end of each week 
to distill important ideas to serve as a bridge to the next week.  
In response to our suggestion, Pati posted the following 
message:

ÒWow, what a great week!  The main themes of this week 
seem to be Ôprocess, not product,Õ helping students gain 
independence through light-tech and high-tech 
approaches and lots of creativity (students and teachers).Ó


Working in Tandem to Promote Interactivity

The goal of interactivity is to have as many participants as 
possible contribute to a vibrant, on-topic conversation.  We 
developed several strategies to help facilitators promote 
interactivity.

First, we addressed a major concern of facilitators:  how the 
frequency of their postings affects interactivity.  Some 
facilitators worried that if they posted messages too often, 
especially if they thought Òbusiness was slow,Ó they might 
deter others from engaging in the conversation.  For example, 
Joy Zabala expressed this concern, yet she wanted to be sure 
that all messages were eventually responded to.  She wrote: Ò. . 
. things are slower than IÕd like, but IÕve learned that if I can 
just hold out someone will say something!Ó  Other facilitators 
feared that if they waited too long to post a message, 
participants would feel neglected, or, perhaps worse, think that 
the facilitator was lazy.

We worked hard to assuage the facilitatorsÕ concerns by 
sharing our growing understanding about the linguistic, social, 
and emotional reasons underlying a reluctance to post 
messages.  We reminded the facilitators that participants might 
lack the time needed to think and write about something 
important, might have difficulties putting into words what they 
really want to say, or might feel vulnerable in knowing that 
their messages are open to public scrutiny.  

In supporting the facilitators, we did some hand-holding.  If, 
for example, we suggested that facilitators refrain from 
jumping in to give participants time to respond, we Òwaited it 
outÓ with the facilitators.  On one occasion, we assured Joy 
Zabala repeatedly that discussions can slow down at times and 
that she shouldnÕt feel that it was all her responsibility to 
create more activity.  When we helped Christine Alpert in this 
same way, she found that our being by her side was 
comforting:

Arlene was particularly helpful in answering my 
questions about Òwhat do I do if . . . . ?  and alleviating 
my panic every time a few days went by and there were 
no new responses and items.  

Serving as ex-officio co-facilitators, we employed several 
support strategies to help the facilitators foster interactivity: 
offering participants tips to jump start interactivity, posing 
questions to help facilitators initiate or sustain conversation, 
posting follow-up messages after the facilitator has posted 
something, and synthesizing information.  


Tips to Participants

Providing tips to participants took the burden off of the 
facilitator. We became the ones who nagged and nudged, not 
the facilitators.  For example, during the SETT workshop, we 
posted suggestions to participants drawn from our own 
observations, comments from prior participants, and the 
literature, such as:

-   contribute often, even if it is just a brief sentence or two, or 
a word or two; let everyone else know you are reading 
messages in the discussion
 
-   ask lots of questions about process and content
 
-   ask for technical support
 
-   if you subscribe to the conferences, you will receive a copy 
of the messages in your e-mail (a real time saver, especially 
if you are paying for access)
 
-   compose offline
 
-   read offline and make notes about what you would like to 
post before going online 
 
-   try to set aside time every day to check your e-mail for new 
messages

We also sent personal reminders to participants privately via 
e-mail.  For example, in ÒThe Art and Writing ConnectionÓ 
workshop, after Caroline Musselwhite posted her directions 
about moving onto to Week 3 activities (see above), Denise, of 
NCIP, sent a reminder via e-mail to each participant alerting 
him or her that we were moving on.


ÒSet upÓ the Facilitator

After facilitators introduced themselves in the TEC Author 
Online events, we usually led off with a provocative question.  
For example, in an event hosted by Ed Blackhurst from the 
University of Kentucky, an NCIP staff member posted the 
following message:

Ed, I liked what you said in your article about starting 
with no-tech or low-tech solutions and then working your 
way up the continuum to medium- and high-tech 
solutions.

I agree that we never want to be device drivenÐbut, 
rather, be driven by desired student outcomes, the 
studentÕs abilities and needs, environmental factors, and 
other issues related to curriculum, instruction, and 
assessment.  My question, however, is what specific 
criteria should guide decisions?  Similarly, what criteria 
should we use to determine over time if an initial 
solution is still the most viable and effective one for a 
particular child?  How can we ensure a process of ongoing 
assessment so that the solution is always in sync with 
demands and goals and changing competencies?

This message gave Ed the entry he was looking for.  Below are 
excerpts from his reply:

ÒYour question is a terrific one and a hard one to answer. . 
. . (You sure have a knack for getting right to the heart of 
a matter.) I'll respond in several ways.

 The quick and simple response to the question about 
criteria is: "The general criterion that should be used to 
guide decisions about assistive technology selection and 
use is that the solution should enable the student to 
respond to environmental demands in an effective and 
efficient fashion." This response may seem rather 
simplistic because it leads to other questions, such as 
"What is meant by effective?" and "How do we measure 
efficiency?" However, it is a central concept to the 
application of the functional model that was alluded to in 
the TEC article. The situation is certainly more complex 
than this, however, and the challenge facing us is how to 
operationalize this concept. . . . 

I look forward to other responses that are prompted by 
Judy's [Zorfass] questions.  They certainly point us in the 
direction of needed research to identify criteria that can 
be used to guide decision making and the development of 
instruments and procedures to conduct such assessments 
and monitoring.Ó

As a result of this interaction, the ensuing conversation was 
lively and engaging.


Posting Follow-up Messages

We wanted to avoid a situation in which the facilitator posted a 
message that just ÒhungÓ in cyberspace for an extended period.  
Therefore, we often took responsibility for posting follow-up 
messages that echoed, validated, and extended what the 
facilitator had just written.  For example, when Christine Alpert 
led one of the topical discussions, she posted a message asking 
for information about how to make worksheets for students 
using FileMaker Pro.  She had heard about this idea from a 
presenter (Judy Sweeney) at a national conference.  But having 
arrived late for the session, Christine had missed the key 
information.  She posted a message asking for the information, 
not just because of a personal need, but because the topic was 
relevant.  Her message closed with these comments and 
questions:
 
. . . I missed the part about why ClarisWorks database 
applications wonÕt do the job as well. . . . 

It does seem like a good way to make an accessible, 
easily customized electronic response format.

Has anyone done this and want to comment on ease (or 
hassles) of working with FileMaker Pro or some other 
database program? Any tips to share?

When several days had passed without response from 
participants, Arlene Remz from NCIP, who had attended the 
same conference session, posted a message that shared 
relevant information.   Drawing from her conference notes, 
Arlene responded:

HereÕs what I have written:  advantages of FileMaker Pro 
over ClarisWorks=pictures, sounds, scripts, ability to set 
fields, ability to ignore fields. 

ArleneÕs message included other pertinent information.  
Wanting to reopen the conversation and give Christine 
something solid to work with, Arlene ended with this question:  

Anyone else have any more info about Judy SweeneyÕs 
use of FileMaker Pro templates or any other similar 
applications?

A few people offered selected tidbits of valuable information. 
Like Arlene, many of us from NCIP frequently contributed to 
the events, introducing new topics when things were slow, 
responding to questions or discussions initiated by others, and 
making appropriate links to online messages and resources.


Synthesizing Information

While in the midst of a discussion, facilitators juggled many 
ideas and strategies; thus they did not have the time needed to 
carefully synthesize information.  We worked in tandem with 
our facilitators by taking responsibility for synthesizing key 
information from an ongoing discussion.   We believed that a 
succinct and timely synthesis could foster interactivity by 
enabling participants to reflect on what had been said and to 
jump into the conversation.

We synthesized information in several ways, depending on the 
format and goals of the online event.  For example, in the 
general discussion area, we regularly synthesized the 
discussion by creating an introduction to the discussion area 
that included links to the major topics currently being 
discussed.  As the conversation evolved, we edited the 
introduction to reflect new topics under discussion.  On other 
occasions, we published a review of the conversation to date 
and then asked questions based on what had been discussed.
 
In the SETT workshop, participants discussed a case study 
about a student with multiple disabilities.  We used a graphic 
of the SETT Framework to synthesize information.  The Web-
based graphic contained four columns (student, environment, 
task, and tools).  We distilled the key ideas from the messages 
and listed them on the graphic in the appropriate column.  Each 
item listed on the graphic was linked back to the originating 
message.  Joy Zabala found our behind-the-scenes synthesizing 
invaluable:

This was very helpful to me and to the participants.  We 
were able to easily see what had been said and what still 
needed to be said, where questions had been addressed 
and where we needed to probe further.  Hopefully, this 
also provided a model for participants when they 
attempted to use the SETT Framework in their own work 
environments.


TESTIMONIALS: EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS

Did the strategies we used to guide our facilitators prove to be 
successful?  To explore this question as well as others related 
to online learning (e.g., Did we reach our intended audiences?  
How did participation affect knowledge, beliefs, and practice? 
How could we improve our online endeavors?), we carried out 
two evaluations, supplemented by ongoing data gathering.  

Our data-gathering strategies included the following:

-   asking participants to fill out questionnaires sent to them 
via mail and e-mail before and after an online event
 
-   holding informal focus groups at national conferences with  
online participants
 
-   sending an e-mail survey to facilitators
 
-   holding informal telephone interviews
 
-   analyzing online messages
 
-   gathering statistics about usage

The overwhelming majority of participantsÕ comments and 
reflections suggest that facilitators were successful, especially 
in creating a strong interactive learning environment, making 
participants feel like valued contributors, and supporting the 
participantsÕ building of knowledge.  Figure 2 summarizes 
participantsÕ assessments.




Figure 2:

EVIDENCE OF SUCCESSFUL FACILITATION:
ASSESSMENT BY PARTICIPANTS


Created a Strong Interactive Learning Environment where 
Individuals 
Feel Valued

-   Joy was positive in her feedback
-   . . . . made me feel welcome 
-   bringing everyone into the SETT dialogue
-   encouraging people to chime in
-    . . . allowed different opinions in a nonconfrontational manner
-   she [Joy] had a way of making each person feel as though 
his/her comments were important and significant to the process
-   I thought Joy made exceptional efforts to personalize the 
interaction
-   she [Joy] was good at keeping people on track without being 
mean about it
-   the wealth of sharing was wonderful
-   they reinforced the contributions for the ideas
-   positive and upbeat


Facilitated the Building of Knowledge

-   helped in encapsulating ideas
-   helped to clarify and reflect upon posted messages 
-   made me think about and explain why I felt certain issues were 
  important
-   new insights into the beliefs and concerns of others
-   They were able to pose questions that sought specific 
information




The comments by online facilitators capture the appreciation 
they felt for the active role we at NCIP played in providing 
guidance and support.  As one facilitator observed:

I cannot imagine how so many formerly unknown 
colleagues from around the nation and the world could 
have possibly come together for sustained collaborative 
work if not for the leadership and expertise of the people 
at NCIP, who helped me do my job.

Our prediction is that the demand for online learning 
opportunities will only increase in the future.  People like 
logging on when it is convenient, having access to national 
experts without leaving their home or work environments, and 
being able to link to many resources.  Accompanying this 
increasing demand will be a need for strong and effective 
online facilitators.  Like all teachers or leaders, some facilitators 
will have a gift for online leadership and others will need 
guidance.  Now, while this medium is still in its infancy, we 
have the opportunity to create a powerful set of strategies to 
support those who will design and lead online professional 
development now and in the future.   
 



REFERENCES


Berge, Z.L.  (1996).  The role of the online instructor/facilitator 
[Online].  Available: 
http://cac.psu.edu/~mauri/moderate/teach_online.html.

Corley, P. (1997).  Diving versus surfing: Deepening knowledge 
through the Web.  Paper presented at the American Speech and 
Hearing Association (ASHA) Convention, Boston, MA.

Davie, L. (1997).  Facilitation techniques for the on-line tutor 
[Online].  Available: http://www-
icdl.open.ac.uk/mindweave/chap6.html.

Ethier, D., & Gold, J. (1997).  Using the Web for professional 
development.  Keynote Address presented at ConnSENSE, 
Windsor Locks, CT.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M.  (1996).  Learning 
networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online.  
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hiltz, S.R. (1995).  Teaching in a virtual classroom [TM] [Online].  
Paper presented at the 1995 International Conference on 
Computer Assisted Instruction (ICCAI Ô95), Hsinchu, Taiwan.  
Available: http://www.njit.edu/CCCC/VCPapers/Teaching.html.

Kimball, L. (1995).  Ten ways to make online learning groups 
work.  Educational Leadership, 53(2), 54-56.

Means, B., & Olson, K. (1995).  TechnologyÕs role in education 
reform.  Paper prepared for the Office of Education Research 
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.  Menlo Park, 
CA:  SRI International.

Remz, A.  (1997). Diving versus surfing: Deepening knowledge 
through the Web.  Paper presented at the Educational 
Technology Conference & Expo Ô97, Atlanta, GA.

Riel, M.  (1996, Winter).  The Internet: A land to settle rather 
than an ocean to surf and a new ÒplaceÓ for school reform 
through community development.  Technology in Education 
(T.I.E.) Newsletter: ISTE SIG/Tel.


Spitzer, W., Wedding, K., & DiMauro, V.  (1996, March 16).  
Fostering reflective dialogues for teacher professional 
development [Online].  TERC, LabNet.  Available: 
http://www.hub.terc.edu/terc/LabNet/Guide/Fostering_Refl_Di
alogues.html

Tinker, R. & Haavind, S.  (1997).  Netcourses and netseminars: 
Current practice and new designs.  Unpublished manuscript.  

Zorfass, J., Remz, A., & Ethier, D. (1998).  Illustrating the 
potential of an online workshop through a case study example.  
Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine [Online], 5(2).  
Available: 
http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/feb/zorfass.html 
[1998, Feb. 1]. 





Zorfass, Remz, Gold, Ethier, Corley, 1998                                            	               11