Online Facilitation
Running Head: FACILITATION: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
Facilitation: What Do We Know?
Debra S. Lee
University of Tennessee
1
Online Facilitation
2
Facilitation: What Do We Know?
In the current world of blended/hybrid courses and fully online courses, the first question
is how to define online instructor. For purposes of this review, an online instructor will mean an
instructor/facilitator who teaches and/or guides synchronous and/or asynchronous distance
education courses or synchronous and/or asynchronous elements of face-to-face (F2F) courses in
a blended environment. The question this review seeks to answer is how online instructors can
create and contribute to effective online learning environments. The growing body of crossdisciplinary research testifies to the vital importance effective facilitation. As universities offer
more distance education courses and providing access to hybrid courses, the determination of
effective facilitation techniques becomes increasingly important (Bennett & Lockyer, 2004).
The purpose of this review is to investigate the research to determine if there are
facilitation commonalities, which can provide a basic framework for new online instructors as
they begin their journey into the world of distance education. Studies include those only
designed to investigate facilitation, those designed to investigate the learning environment, and
those investigating group cohesion. These studies, while not directly targeting facilitation all
offer insights into the complex task of online facilitation.
Theoretical Frameworks
One of the issues that quickly surfaces when the research studies are reviewed is the lack
of a consistent theoretical framework for the studies, perhaps because of “content/context
specificity” discussed by Paulus (2008). Understanding that studies are undertaken with different
theoretical frameworks reveals the complexity of determining best practices in facilitation.
Teachers preparing to enter the distance education classroom should be aware of the lack of
theoretical consistency in the studies and note the theories behind facilitation suggestions offered
Online Facilitation
3
Online Facilitation
4
by the studies in this review. One overarching theory or epistemology guiding most of the
current research in online learning is social constructivism. In social constructivism, the learners
are actively involved in making meaning of learning, with the instructor as a guide or facilitator
in the process. Learning is an active, social process where “[m]eanings emerge from the patters
of our social experiences that occur over time in a contextual, situated, and continually changing
synthesis” (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998, Constructivist Learning Theory, ¶ 3). There is more than
one answer and that answer is based upon the active social process of making meaning or
knowledge construction (Kanuka & Anderson, 1998).
Basing the research on the social constructivism still means that active researchers need a
framework for research. One framework, common in qualitative studies is grounded theory.
Grounded theory is basically the reverse of traditional quantitative theory. In grounded theory, a
researcher begins by gathering data, which is then searched for codes or methods of analyzing
the material, remembering to eliminate bias when possible. Once the codes have been
established, similar concepts are grouped into categories and from the categories a theory is
developed to unify the research. The most important aspect of grounded theory is that the
researcher combines or “grounds” the theories with the data. The data forms the theories and not
the reverse (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Gilbert and Dabbagh in a study of structuredness in
asynchronous discussion, rely on a “meaningful discourse” framework (Gilbert & Dabbagh, p. 6,
2005). Meaningful discourse involves discussion and reflection as participants relate the content
to prior knowledge, or schema (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). Liu and Burn (2005), although
discussing several theories, in the end, seemed to accept a form of Gersick’s Punctuated
Equilibrium Model (1988), which they adapt to present the “process-content-process-content”
pattern as the best communication model .
Online Facilitation
5
Moore’s transactional distance concept (1993) with its tripart categorization of online
learning interactions as learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner was an attempt to seek
common definitions of interactive categories among distance educators. His categorization
continues to be used in current studies (Sargeant, Curran, Allen, Jarvis-Selinger, & Ho, 2006;
Vonderwell, 2003). A related framework, based on John Dewey’s work, is the communities of
inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2000). Under the communities of inquiry
framework, social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence are dimensions of
successful online learning. Figure 1 provides a look at the alignment of the communities of
inquiry model with transactional distance concepts. The community of inquiries framework,
while more descriptive than Moore’s transactional distance definitions, is similar. Learnercontent is the cognitive presence, learner-instructor is the teaching presence, and learner-learner
is the social presence. Of course, this is a simplistic view of the communities of inquiry
framework, but it provides a basis for understanding the relationship of the two concepts.
Learner-Content
Learner-Learner
Learner-Teacher
Figure 1. Community of Inquiry aligned with Transaction Distance (adapted from Garrison,
2007, p. 62)
Online Facilitation
6
Two final theoretical frameworks, among myriad others not discussed, have informed
studies used in this review. Dialogic inquiry, used by Groenke & Paulus (2007) in a case study of
preservice teachers’ online communication with middle school students (Groenke & Paulus,
2007), and a challenge model used by Paulus (2006), when studying asynchronous
communication in a graduate-level education class. The dialogic inquiry model focuses on the
type and level of dialogue exchanged between teachers and students and students to students.
The discussion should go beyond a typical teacher question-right response situation (Christoph &
Nystrand, 2001). The challenge model, while perhaps similar to dialogic inquiry, focuses more
on argumentation structures for communication (Paulus, 2006).
Online Facilitation
7
References
Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2004). Becoming an Online Teacher: Adapting to a Changed
Environment for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Educational Media
International, 41(3), 231-248.
Christoph, J. N., & Nystrand, M. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher’s
transition towards a dialogic classroom. CELA Research Report. Albany, NY: National
Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED456458).
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based
Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group
development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41.
Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful
discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.
Groenke, S. L., & Paulus, T. (2007). The role of teacher questioning in promoting dialogic
literary inquiry in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Research on
Technology In Education, 40(2), 141-164.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). Online Social Interchange, Discord, and Knowledge
Construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74.
Liu, Y. C., & Burn, J. (2007). A framework to evaluate the performance and satisfaction of
virtual teams in on-line learning environment. Journal of Information Systems Education,
18(3), 369-379.
Online Facilitation
Moore, M. G. (1993). 2 Three types of interaction. Distance Education: New Perspectives.
Paulus, T. M. (2006). Challenge or Connect: Dialog in Online Learning Environments. Journal
of Computing In Higher Education, 18(1), 3-29.
Paulus, T.M. (2008). Best Practices in Facilitation. (Comment in Rsp to Debra Lee’s Msg #5
Summary Post posted to EP532 Blog site on Blackboard at http://online.utk.edu.
Retrieved October 7, 2008.
Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating
Interpersonal Interaction and Learning Online: Linking Theory and Practice. Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26, 128-136.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Sage Publications
Newbury Park,
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and
perspectives of students in an online course: a case study. The Internet and Higher
Education, 6(1), 77-90.
8