Facilitation+Reflection+2


 * Include in your Facilitation Reflection: **
 * **A brief outline of the context in which you facilitated (what protocol was used, the work that was presented, and who the participants were (NOT names, just descriptors – eg. //four Middle School teachers//)) **
 * **What you noticed about the protocol **
 * **What you noticed about the participants **
 * **What you noticed about yourself (the facilitator) **


 * Each facilitator’s reflection length = 250 words minimum **


 * *We encourage each of you to __respond to ONE other course participant's facitiation reflection__ (at least once in the duration of this course). The nature of CFG work is DIALOGUE... **

To create your POST here on this wiki page: click the EDIT button in the top right corner, then add your post. BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOUR NAME at the top of your post. BE SURE TO press SAVE before leaving this page.

Erika Levesque Faciliation #2 

Matthew Laurence Facilitation Reflection#2 

__Paul Harris Facilitation Reflection #2 __

David Cole Facilitation Reflection #2

Julian Thornbury's Facilitation Reflection 2

My second facilitation was conducted during a working-lunch period. I facilitated a consultancy protocol where a colleague wished to present findings from a student survey he had conducted. The participants were teachers on the Student Welfare Committee, and it was during one of our monthly meetings. As I had posted on my reading reflection, this protocol could have been facilitated much better. Due to a time restriction (there was only 45 minutes available), I felt that the information being presented and the feedback needed from the participants would require the total amount of time allotted. So, I wanted to speed up the protocol by not “setting the stage” first. If you are not familiar with setting the stage, it refers to certain “moves” that a facilitator makes in order the prep the participants. These moves are: reviewing the purpose of the protocol, previewing the steps of the protocol, marking the steps of the protocol, making distinctions, and cueing the presenter. This was a mistake. Though the protocol worked sufficiently, there were a few instances when a participant did not know that they were not following the protocol. I needed to interject and keep the protocol on track. Even though I was able to practice my use of diplomacy and tact, had I set the stage I don’t think that I would have needed to interject. Also, during my colleague’s reflection time, a participant provided their thought on the reflection, when none should have been made. This can be attributed to an error on the facilitator’s part. On a positive note, my use of diplomacy and tact when correcting participants (when they were asking probing questions instead of clarifying questions, and when their questions stemmed from their personal agenda) or keeping the protocol on track was efficient and effective. For future protocols, I will definitely set the stage first, even if time is a premium.

Scott Hossack's Facilitation Reflection #2
 * Protocol: A Charrette**


 * Participants**: 6 Elementary Teachers (all had been trained in CFG)


 * Procedure:** For this protocol we used a lunchtime period of 45 minutes to generate ideas on how to improve the House system at our school. Since I knew time was short I sent out information on the protocol, the focus question and how it was going to work before hand.

We started by having the presenter describe what is currently being done in the House system. He took about 5 minutes to do this and then we had a few clarifying questions. After this I turned the problem over to the group and they started to generate ideas, the presenter then removed himself from the group and recorded ideas.

At very points during the protocol we stopped and I checked with the presenter to see if we were on the right track. He made a few suggestions of things he would like us to focus on.

At the end he did a quick reflection on what he had heard. This process took the entire time so we did not get to debrief as a group around the protocol. Instead I talked to individuals about their feelings in the protocol.


 * //Reflection://** //For the most part this protocol went well. I think by laying it out before hand and really clarifying how it will work that we saved the set up time and all participants felt knowledgeable about the process.//

//There are a few areas that I would change to make the process better. One since the group was quite familiar with each other and worked really well together I let them go a little bit in the discussion. At times it became a little off topic but with a little refocusing we came back to the focus. They were also so into the process that at times they tried to talk at the same time. I let them go because everyone was still getting a chance and this group was very respectful when something like this happened. I realize I would have to change if the dynamics in the group were different.//

//Also I believe the focus was too big and thus we had to generate ideas on a multiple of things around House Sports. I believe that this Charrette could be modified and broken down into various focus areas and then you could either do the protocol multiple times or combine the Charrette with World Café. With a larger group we could have had one discussing the administration of the House system, another group discussing events, another talking about staff and student participation. Maybe the use of technology could be used to record all of the discussions.//

//The participants in this protocol were totally engaged and really seem to take the problem on as their problem. It was a loud group that really had spirited discussions. Individually they all expressed how much they enjoyed being part of this process and that they really liked doing this particular protocol. I can see where if the group was larger or was new to one another you might have to have review norms at the beginning.//

//The only issue I had as a facilitator was I wasn’t sure when the protocol should end. Because the focus was around a lot of areas this group could have talked for hours and the presenter could have gained many more ideas. In the end the time was what stopped this protocol. I also like doing this protocol because of its structure. I also enjoy it because it gets people really talking about dreams and wishes, which I find to be quite a positive experience.//