I recently spent some time with some wonderful members of the Global Facilitator Services Corps (www.GFSC.org) – if you don’t know this organization I strongly recommend that you visit their web site and find out more about their programs to help communities build resilience in times of crisis. They have a lot to teach us all.
The purpose of this particular conversation was to begin to explore how GFSC might build a virtual version of their very successful one or two day face-to-face workshop. GFSC felt that being able to deliver some or all of the workshop materials in a virtual mode would allow them to extend the reach of their expertise and access to their tools.
In the beginning the group felt out of their comfort zone. A previous web conference had been disappointing. Facilitating a workshop filled with attentive faces and sitting alone looking at a computer screen seemed like two different worlds. Technology was the solution but it also seemed to get in the way.
To explore the possibilities, we decided to follow the eight principles from my firm’s recent white paper, Designing Interactive Webinars.
Principle #1: Start with the interactive learning objectives
Looking at the existing written F2F agenda we realized that we had a list of topics rather than objectives. It became a useful exercise to revisit the essential elements of the very successful workshop and list them out anew. Questions we asked ourselves included:
- What are the learning objectives/outcomes of the existing F2F workshop?
- What are the intangible objectives that are important to its success?
- What objectives/outcomes do we need to add when doing this virtually?
- What is no longer relevant/necessary in the virtual model?
Principle #2: Divide learning content into three areas
After looking at the overall program we saw that our F2F design consisted of a series of discrete elements, each with its own interactive group process and activities. We realized that we were working from a place of knowledge and experience. We took the material from each element and divided it in to three piles:
(A) individual study, practice or reflection,
(B) expert presentation, storytelling or Q&A,
(C) interactive process in small or large groups.
This started us thinking about different ways we might deliver each element with a distributed group in mind. For example, we discussed an opening exercise that asks participants to think of a crisis experience from their own lives and recall what it felt like two minutes before and two minutes afterwards. People share their stories in small groups and the trusting connection that this sharing helps create is one of the success factors of the workshop. Taking this specific exercise that we all knew well we were quickly able to brainstorm a whole series of “what if” ideas that would be possible in our virtual module while still achieving the trust and bond that came from listening to others’ stories firsthand. We captured our brainstormed ideas but didn’t work them to a conclusion, as we wanted to review the whole program before fixing on specifics.
Principle #3: Use both synchronous and asynchronous learning methods
As we explored each program element we started to come up alternative ways of delivering materials and exercises in virtual settings, which could range from everyone in different places, the facilitator in a different place or several small groups of co-located participants. Principle #3 reminded us that some things could be done at the same time while others could be done offline or in breakout groups.
The original interactive workshop gave us tested activities that we knew worked well. Often they fell into a 60-90 minute time slot that also happens to be an appropriate time for a real time webinar or virtual meeting. Walking ourselves through the flow of an exercise helped us explore different ways in which we might “virtualize” that exercise with some pre-work or follow-up in small groups after a tele or web conference.
Thinking of the overall program as a series of modules with reading, conversations, data gathering, practice and reflection started to make the whole approach seem much more manageable. We also began to realize that giving participants time to think about material or prepare something in advance of an interactive discussion would actually increase the level of learning and deepen the discussions. Many of the asynchronous activities we discussed (call someone, write a journal, reading groups, …) were low tech or no tech solutions.
An hour of working on the first three principles shifted our group’s mindset from “this is hard – I am operating in an area where I don’t have much expertise” to “this is familiar and doable and I am excited about the possibilities.” We left with action steps to divide up and review the remainder of the F2F workshop elements and reconvene to share our initial ideas.
For those who are interested in exploring this further, we have some openings in our December webinars “Designing Interactive Webinars“. Click to find out more and register for this free event.
posted by Julia Young
Share/Save