May 26, Part I

This discussion of tonight's class got so long I published it as two posts; I am hoping this part sums up the insights we came to through our work in class. In many ways = we "enacted" exactly the concepts we were working on! Great class!

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

We began class by talking over some of your reflections on your first "studio" session. As I read through your comments, I noticed points of agreement - as well as some differences in perspective. One particularly important point which the most everyone seemed to agree on were that facilitators would do well to hold back on judging, or interpreting what participants "mean." I read your comments as emphasizing the importance of what we might call reflective listening => taking in what speakers say and listening for a number of possible ways to understand what is said before coming to conclusion.

In our discussion we talked over situations where it might be particularly important not to come to a conclusion about what a student is doing or saying: when students' comments seem to be "off topic" or not making sense it can be useful to ask them to talk a little more, or to place their comment in context (make it more specific or concrete), to connect it to the topic in a different way or say it in different words - before assuming that they didn't understand. Your discussion contributed other, useful ways to respond to behaviors, comments, and interactions that might seem "wrong" but which if received with a thoughtful, open response = can lead to the creation of stronger - and perhaps more conscious & intentional - patterns for communication.

An important point where we noticed different perspectives centered on the use of "scripts". One point at issue was what we mean by the term "script" - and there was general agreement that the term script implied something too set or fixed to be useful for our work. Alternative language included: protocols, "what if" language, information or activity banks or resources. I am going to use the term protocol - which isn't perfect either, but protocols are generally understood as general approaches that are responsive to particular situations, whereas scripts are often thought of as word-for-word directions for what to say/do.

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

To further clarify this discussion we observed that we were talking about protocols - some sort of rehearsed language or a general approach - for three different kinds of situations:

1. General protocols for studio meetings. These include the what happens in what order, bullet-pointed descriptions in Grego & Thompson; and a plan for the overall arc of our studio program (where we want to start, what kinds of activities we want to get through during each week of the six-week program, and where we want to end).

2. Protocols for facilitating particular activities (a suggested approach to make the process concrete and clear). These protocols describe roles & language moves for facilitators & for students. They might include protocols for the introductory/getting-to-know one another session, for the session where the netbooks are distributed; for presenting new applications or software; for boundary setting & conflict resolution; for presenting reading assignments, writing assignments, content assignments, and so on.

3. Protocols (rehearsed language) for responding to difficult or unanticipated group dynamics.

Each of these protocols has a different form & function. Our first discussion more or less lumped all "scripts" together - but we our assessment of when and how to use protocols became more nuanced as we moved through the class. In the first discussion we identified drawbacks both to too strict adherence to protocols, and to not identifying protocols. Too strict adherence protocols limits opportunities to respond to the particular learning dynamics generated through group interaction; no statement of or invocation of protocols causes problems for providing students & facilitators with a clear idea of what they are doing, group accountability & meeting programmatic goals.

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

The in-class experience conducting studio group style discussions during the next section of class demonstrated that - in practice - facilitators moved between invoking formal expectations for "correct" studio discussion, and responding to the particular dynamic of the group's conversation.

In our discussion of what "worked" in these discussions, Eric's group reported that the facilitator's move to initiate discussion & then withdraw was what supported in-depth talk by "students" in their group (this is more or less the "scripted" role for the facilitator in studio sessions); while Dane's group reported that the invested participation of the facilitator was a strength in their discussion (not the "scripted" role for facilitators). While Dane opened discussion and responded to the questions/interests of participants - he took part in the analysis as a discussant. This seems to point back to our discussion of scripts v not-scripts and suggests that in some very real sense - good facilitation consists of making a series of reflective decisions about when to draw from the agreed upon forms - and when follow or lead participants in departing from those form (and perhaps create new ones).

Important reflection (note to self): As we plan training for facilitators - we need to create activities that will give them experience identifying and using appropriate protocols - as well as appropriate experiences to help them make decisions about when to abandon those protocols.

For the "reading" studio experience you worked in the same groups you will work in to develop your Studio Program Plan. These groups are:

Dane

Jessica
Marie

Musheerah
Ryan

Vanessa

Angela

Eric

Ricardo

Sam

Studio - not Studio?

In reflective talk following the studio reading-group exercise, we talked about what was studio-like about this group work, and what was not.

Studio-like=> comprehensive discussion in small groups; included interactional inquiry, everyone had an equal say

NOT Studio-like=> not "outside-alongside"; participants were equals (in Studio sessions within Grego & Thompson's book - facilitators are faculty or graduate students, and participants are "struggling" students); no "artifacts"

For me the discussion of whether it mattered that sessions were studio-like or not studio-like circled back to considerations of "scripts". While mandating "scripts" may not be useful - noticing which script you are in - and whether and how it is working - IS important. Because this training - and the training you will provide for facilitators - AND the work students will do with their facilitators - is all about being aware of conversation dynamics/rhetorical positioning (and the accompanying power dynamics and outcomes) that are associated with different patterns for talk.

The remainder of the class was devoted to going over what to do for next class (the subject of May 26, part II).