Marsha West

Janet asks for strategies for supporting effective dialogue in discussions.

I'd like to build on that question with one of my own.

I find threaded discussions such as we are having here in SCoPE tend to lend themselves to the most depth. I really don't enjoy listserve type discussions myself though I participate in a couple.

But I am most curious about how others feel about the current "blog-style" discussions. I've been asked to moderate at a site where this is the format. Anyone can create a new topic, and there are hundreds being added to the content by the administrators as they set up the site, which has to do with health information.

Is it possible to generate meaningful discussions when all the responses are just posted in a single column to individual posts that are added to the site by either administrators or participants? I'm concerned that there will be dozens of fragmentary conversations going on simultaneously with little opportunity for deepening the level of the dialogue.

I'm wondering if there are any strategies for moderating meaningful discussions in this sort of space, or is the work of a "moderator" really that of a gate-keeper (just keeping up with a multitude of unrelated "lines," and possibly removing offensive ones that show up??)

How can a moderator get folks to the level of talking to each other and collaborating instead of merely responding to whatever prompts them at the moment?

Can a collaborative spirit be built in such a space?

I'm trying to discern just what my role would be in this position. I'm very interested in what the owners are trying to accomplish, but question whether this set-up can work very well.

Any advice for me??
~~marsha

Jeffrey Keefer writes, I know I would find them helpful IF the technology to create these were easy enough to manipulate the font changes during the discussion. . .

Jeffrey's right - not everyone will want to use these text enhancement strategies. I find that if the moderator models them, others may pick up the technique. But, bottom-line, manipulating tone through writing strategies is the simplest and most important way to craft an effective online voice.

~~marsha

Robin mentions

My facial expressions are part and parcel to my face-to-face training and since most of my consulting includes a blended approach, by the time learners reach the online discussion part, they would have seen the instructors live. As such using emoticons, though forboden to some, have been quite useful in my case (and those of my instructors).

Facial expressions, vocal inflection, and body language are all important parts of f2f communication and for those using a blended approach, they are a natural. But there are some simple strategies that can help make online voices sound natural and "real," by substituting for visual or aural clues.

For instance:

• Emphasis can be provided by using color, boldface, and even judicious (and very sparing) use of capital letters (OOPS!).
• Manipulation of font size can suggest variation of vocal volume, and use of italics can indicate a whisper - or a personal aside.
  For example,

  "Hmmm . . . I'd need to think about that . . . " or
  "That's a very interesting possibility!"

And traditional writing techniques for manipulating tone can be employed, i.e. use of contractions to "sound" informal, conversational sentence structure (including deliberate use of sentence fragments, etc.), and careful choice of diction to affect the "sound" of our voices can all help our written messages to have authenticity.

My goal is to try to encourage online voices that will make us almost forget that we're reading/writing instead of speaking/listening. So I think about how to communicate shifts in rate, volume, and tone.

I'm sure we all experience that natural and real "sound" of voices in the SCoPE discussions - and I think it's partly because the moderators and participants unconsciously employ such methods. It's just kind of interesting to think more consciously about the process . . . and I think that online voice can have a lot to do with generating successful online dialogue.

~~marsha

COOL! You acknowledged my idea, gave me attribution, but turned and spoke to the group!

Ooops! I just did what *I* recommended we not do! What I "meant to say," ahem, was that BRENDA acknowledged my idea . . . It sounds SIMPLE, but actually, it's a little tricky.

I try to think of myself at a party where I'm trying to generate conversation in a group of somewhat reluctant conversationalists - I want everyone to feel included, so I use a lot of body language, eye contact, and inclusive language to make sure everyone feels they are welcome to join in.

Now I need to give attribution to my own source -- In the work I do, I try to use the
**methodology put forth in the Concord eLearning Model: http://www.concord.org/courses/cc_e-learning_model.html,
**the style of facilitation demonstrated in their course: http://www.concord.org/courses/facilitating/ , and
**the book it is based on: http://www.concord.org/publications/detail/facilitating-online-learning.html .

This style of indirect discourse is something I learned from watching and working with Sarah Haavind, one of the authors of the book noted above . . . and I think it's very effective. We teach it in the Online Facilitator Training course in PBS TeacherLine.

Sometimes I think we get so wrapped up in new technologies, etc., that we forget that the bottom line is to make online conversations "feel" and "sound" like face-to-face ones. We just need to translate our daily social skills and leadership skills to a written medium.

Any other ideas/insights out there about how to accomplish that sense of verisimilitude in the online world?? Any tips on how to make our written voices "sound" real???

~~marsha

Janet asks, "What strategies do you recommend for supporting effective use of Dialogue?"

Some of the strategies I find most useful are very simple.

• Avoid one-to-one conversations in online discussions - keep the orientation to the group as a whole. To do this use third person address. Don't say, "Mary, I agree with you . . . " Instead, say "I agree with what Mary has to say about . . . " (And of course build on those ideas as you respond.)
• Gather ideas together from two or three different colleagues, and hold them up for comparison and consideration . . . weaving them together to extend the ideas.
• Ask inquiry level questions - open-ended ones that encourage further exploration of a topic. Avoid making summarizing statements - they tend to be showstoppers.
• Always use bits and pieces from the post to which you are responding, so that context is provided for pushing the discussion forward.

~~marsha