8.0 Introduction 

In this chapter, we will discuss four online learning facilitation frameworks: Anderson’s Educational Interactions framework, Berge’s Computer Conferencing Moderation framework, Garrison’s Community of Inquiry framework, and Borup’s Academic Communities of Engagement framework. Each of these frameworks includes elements that facilitators should keep in mind as they provide support in their courses, whether in online or blended contexts. 

As you learn about these frameworks, pay attention to how facilitation affects the learning environment and learner engagement. You may recognize elements of your own course facilitation that you could improve. 

Learning Outcome: I can use terminology from various frameworks to support my online facilitation strategies.

• I can categorize interactions as learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content interactions. (Section 8.1)
• I can describe each of Berge’s four categories of facilitation: pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical. (Section 8.2)
• I can discuss how cognitive, social, and teaching presence interact to create a community of inquiry. (Section 8.3)
• I can describe the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions of engagement. (Section 8.4)
• I can compare and contrast different frameworks for talking about online learning facilitation. (Section 8.5)

8.1 Educational Interactions (Anderson)

Learning Outcome: I can categorize interactions as learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content interactions.

In Chapter 5, we introduced three different kinds of interactions: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner (see Figure 8-1). Each of these interactions can incorporate facilitation in some form or another, though the most observable facilitation happens in learner-learner and learner-instructor interactions.

Learner-content interactions describe the interactions learners have with course content, such as reading, listening, watching, creating, practicing, and/or reflecting. Learner-instructor interactions are the ways in which the learners and the instructor interact with each other, such as the instructor giving learners feedback on an assignment or the learners asking the instructor clarifying questions. Learner-learner interactions describe the interactions learners have with each other to share their understanding and mentor each other. Table 8-1 contains some examples of the three types of interactions.

Table 8-1. Examples of Learner-Content, Learner-Instructor, and Learner-Learner Interaction

Some learning activities in your course may include multiple types of interaction. For example, you may have an activity that includes both learner-instructor and learner-learner interaction, such as a class discussion. You could also have group projects, which may include learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner interaction.

What might facilitation look like for different activities? See Table 8-2 for examples of activities and how instructors may use different strategies to facilitate learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner interactions within each activity.

Table 8-2. Activities, Interactions, and Facilitation Strategies

8.2 Computer Conferencing Moderation (Berge)

Learning Outcome: I can describe each of Berge’s four categories of facilitation—pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical.

In Berge’s (1995) framework, four categories of facilitation describe the various roles and responsibilities of an online instructor or moderator (see Figure 8-2).

Figure 8-2. Online Facilitation Framework

Pedagogical Facilitation: This category focuses on guiding and enhancing learners’ learning. This may include strategies such as:

• Asking questions to stimulate critical thinking
• Probing and elaborating on learner responses to deepen understanding
• Encouraging active participation and contributions from learners
• Promoting meaningful conversations among learners
• Directing learners to additional resources for further exploration
• Connecting and synthesizing ideas within a discussion to create coherence

Social Facilitation: This category is concerned with fostering a positive and interactive learning environment. This may include strategies such as:

• Conducting icebreaker activities to build rapport and establish a sense of community
• Setting a friendly and welcoming “social tone” for the course to encourage collaboration
• Modeling effective discussion and interaction behaviors for learners
• Assisting learners in working together on group projects
• Creating dedicated spaces for learners to interact socially and build relationships

Managerial Facilitation: This category deals with the organization, procedures, and administration of the online course. This may include tasks such as:

• Adjusting due dates and pacing of course activities to accommodate learner needs
• Setting the agenda and desired outcomes for synchronous sessions, if applicable
• Organizing learners into groups or teams for collaborative work
• Defining and communicating clear course expectations and guidelines
• Responding to emails or messages promptly and efficiently to address administrative needs

Technical Facilitation: This category pertains to the facilitator’s role in ensuring learners are comfortable with the technology used in the course. Berge (1995) suggested that the technological layer of the course should be facilitated in such a way that the layer is “transparent,” so learners can focus on the academic tasks. This may include responsibilities such as:

• Providing video demonstrations or tutorials to help learners navigate the course learning management system (LMS) or specific tools being utilized within the course
• Organizing content intuitively within the LMS to facilitate easy access and navigation
• Familiarizing oneself with multimedia tools that promote learner engagement in synchronous sessions, when applicable
• Guiding learners to relevant resources or materials to address technical questions and challenges

Berge’s framework acknowledges that while these facilitation categories offer a structured way to understand the roles of an online facilitator, real-world facilitation may involve some overlap between categories as tasks and functions do not always fit neatly into one category. 

For example, facilitating a synchronous online discussion could involve all four types of facilitation. The facilitator is likely asking open-ended questions and probing learner responses when necessary (pedagogical facilitation). Additionally, they are setting the tone for interaction and ensuring that learners are participating in respectful ways (social facilitation). The facilitator may organize learners into smaller breakout rooms to have smaller group discussions (managerial facilitation). And lastly, the facilitator may need to help learners find and utilize tools within the conferencing platform, such as how to share their screen, join a breakout room, or raise their hand (technical facilitation). 

This framework can be helpful because often instructors focus on pedagogical facilitation and don’t realize that there is a role for them to fill in terms of the other types of facilitation.

8.3 Communities of Inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, Archer)

Learning Outcome: I can discuss how cognitive, social, and teaching presence interact to create a community of inquiry.

The Communities of Inquiry (CoI) framework was developed to help understand and model the online environment elements that are necessary to facilitate effective educational experiences. While this framework was created with the online asynchronous text-based context in mind, it extends to blended and in-person contexts as well. Communities of inquiry are composed of instructors and their learners. The three main elements of this framework are cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (see Figure 8-3).

Figure 8-3. Communities of Inquiry Framework

Community of Inquiry

Cognitive presence describes the learners’ ability to create and exchange meaning through their communication. 

Social presence describes the learners’ ability to present themselves as real people and foster relationships with others in the community. Many researchers suggest that social presence supports cognitive presence. Additionally, it is often the facilitator who sets the “social tone” of the course.

Teaching presence describes the instructor’s effort and activity with the design, facilitation, and direct instruction. Teaching presence supports both social and cognitive presence throughout the course.

As a course facilitator, there are strategies to foster each type of presence in your course. Table 8-3 describes some strategies you may use to support cognitive, social, and teaching presence.

Table 8-3. Fostering Cognitive, Social, and Teaching Presence as a Course Facilitator

Cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence interact with and support one another to create the learning environment and the learners’ educational experience. Deep and meaningful educational experiences typically necessitate all three elements.

8.4 Academic Communities of Engagement (Borup)

Learning Outcome: I can describe the affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions of engagement.

In the Academic Communities of Engagement (ACE) framework, learner engagement can be described across three different, but interconnected, dimensions: affective, behavioral, and cognitive (see Figure 8-4).

• Affective engagement describes the learners’ emotions and attitudes involved with engaging in course learning activities. Indicators of affective engagement can include interest, enthusiasm, and enjoyment.
• Behavioral engagement describes the learners’ physical behaviors involved with engaging in course learning activities. Indicators of behavioral engagement can include active participation, attendance, and completion of assignments.
• Cognitive engagement describes the learners’ mental efforts involved with engaging in course learning activities. Indicators of cognitive engagement can include attention, critical thinking, and metacognition.

These dimensions of engagement are impacted by “facilitators of engagement.” These facilitators include individual learner characteristics and support from the personal and course communities. The instructor, or main facilitator, of the course can have a large influence over the course environment and the course community. When they focus beyond teaching of the content, they can also play a role in helping learners to expand relevant learner characteristics like self-regulation, social-emotional skills, and other academic competencies. While not as common in higher education, instructors can also play a role in enabling or encouraging support in the learners’ personal community.

Figure 8-4. Academic Communities of Engagement - Facilitators of Engagement

There is often an “engagement gap” between the levels of engagement learners have on their own and the engagement necessary for academic success (see Figure 8-5). 

Figure 8-5. Academic Communities of Engagement Framework

These gaps can be filled from personal community support and course community support. The course instructor or facilitator, as a large part of the course community support, can utilize a variety of strategies to support each domain of learner engagement. See Table 8-4 for a non-exhaustive list of ideas for the instructor to support learners’ affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement.

Table 8-4. Supporting affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions of learner engagement

Adapted from Borup et al.’s Support Elements for the ABC dimensions of engagement

8.5 Why are facilitation frameworks important?

Learning Outcome: I can compare and contrast different frameworks for talking about online learning facilitation.

Understanding these frameworks will help you look at course facilitation from various perspectives and can help you as you reflect and conduct informal formative evaluations of your own facilitation. Frameworks act as lenses that allow us to see the interactions between people and content in different ways. 

Let’s take the following scenario and look at its different facilitation elements using the four frameworks described in this chapter.

Scenario: For a blended class of 60 learners, Dr. Stevenson held a review session for the first midterm synchronously over Zoom. Two days before the review session, she provided the learners with a study guide, and she had the learners get together with their project groups (of 4-5 people each) to review the study guide and submit 2-3 topics or questions they would like to see addressed in the review session. They submitted their topics or questions on a discussion board, which allowed other learners to “like” topics that they also would like to see in the review. Dr. Stevenson selected the popular topics or questions and those that would specifically be helpful for them to study before the exam, organizing them into a review PowerPoint. At the beginning of the Zoom session, Dr. Stevenson briefly demonstrated to learners how to use the chat feature. Then in Zoom, learners were able to ask follow-up questions using the chat feature. See Table 8-5 for examples of framework elements found in this scenario. 

Table 8-5. Frameworks and their elements found in the scenario.

After looking at this scenario from different lenses, we can see that some framework elements were missing (or not explicitly stated), such as social and technical facilitation or supporting learners’ affective and behavioral engagement. For individual activities, it may not always be necessary to touch upon every point. For example, not every activity will warrant technical facilitation, such as when learners are already familiar with the tools. However, as you facilitate the entire course, you should be aware of these various framework elements and be intentional about when and how you are supporting your learners. 

Conclusion

In this chapter, we introduced four frameworks for online facilitation and explored how these frameworks can influence your facilitation strategies. These frameworks guide both instructors and instructional designers as they perform formative evaluations of facilitation strategies. 

Resources

Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational technology, 35(1), 22–30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428247

Borup, J., Graham, C. R., West, R. E., Archambault, L., & Shin, J. K. (2023). Academic Communities of Engagement (ACE) Framework. EdTechnica: The Open Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. https://dx.doi.org/10.59668/371.12259

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2020). Facilitation matters: Instructor perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies in online courses. Online Learning, 24(1), 28-49. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.1980. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1249262.pdf