Communities of Learning (CoL) have become a popular methodology for organizational training initiatives (Rehm, 2009). While such communities allow employees to collaboratively upgrade their knowledge and skills, they also enable participants to get in touch with colleagues from all over the world (de Bruyn, 2004). Nonetheless, in order to become an effective educational resource, they also need to be cherished and protected (Paloff & Pratt, 2003). Yet, previous research has largely neglected the impact of facilitators on CoL for working professionals. The present study addresses this lacuna by conducting an exploratory examination on the role of facilitators in CoL of a global training program for an international organization. Our results indicate that working professionals generally do not seem to require much stimulation from facilitators to participate in discussions. Moreover, we find evidence that participants consider the input of facilitators as an added-value to the discussions, rather than a replacement for their own contributions. By addressing these issues, our study can serve as a springboard for facilitators to design and implement an effective teaching strategy for similar CoL in the future, thereby contributing to the overall quality of participants’ learning experience.

1. Managing Communities of Learning
The Impact and Role of Facilitators
Martin Rehm, Anna Galazka, Wim Gijselaers, Mien Segers
EDiNEB 2012, Haarlem
May 2012

4. Communities of Learning (CoL)
• defined as groups of people who meet
online to engage in “collaborative learning
and reflective practice involved in
transformative learning”
(Paloff & Pratt, 2003, p. 17)
• co-construction of knowledge through the
combined effect of reflection and interaction
(Sengupta, 2001)

6. The Role of Facilitators in CoL
facilitator activity is one of the key processes
involved in participant interaction
(Cho, Stefanone, & Gay, 2002)

7. The Role of Facilitators in CoL
vs
“Guide on the side” “Cheerleader”
(Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003) Paloff and Pratt (1999)

8. Hypothesis 1 - General
• too much instruction may reduce interaction
(e.g. Mazzolini & Maddison, 2003)
• limited facilitator activity can reduce quality of
learning & social dynamics
(Jones & Issroff, 2005)
H1 - The level of facilitator activity is
positively related to the level of participant
activity within CoL

9. Hypothesis 2 - Social
• facilitators should compensate for limited audio-
visual cues
(Stacey, 2002)
• facilitators can positively influence participants’
activity levels by developing rapport and cultivating
a sense of belonging
(Iorio, Taylor, & Sturts-Dossick, 2011)
H2 -The number of facilitators’ social messages is
positively related to participants' overall level of
activity

10. Hypothesis 3 - Content
• facilitator assistance encourages participants to
engage into in-depth discussions
(Iorio, Taylor, & Sturts-Dossick, 2011)
• facilitators should abstain from giving content-
related feedback which provides quick answers to
questions asked
(Vonderwell, 2003)
H3 – The number of facilitators’ content-related
messages is negatively related to participants’ level
of content

11. Setting
• online training program of a large
international organization
• 14 weeks of online learning
• 16 CoL
– 149 participants +/- 12 participants per CoL
– 2 facilitators per CoL
• asynchronous discussions forums:
– Café-Talk
– Content-Related (real-life tasks)

12. Instruments
• Activity Levels
– user statistics from discussion forums
(Zembylas & Vrasidas, 2007)
• Content Analysis
– coding instrument
(Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001 Schellens & Valcke, 2005)
– unit of analysis: unit of meaning
(Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997)
– inter-rater reliability: Cronbach alpha ( )&
Cohen’s kappa ( )

13. Average # of Messages Participants Facilitators
Total Messages 14.81 30.85
General Non-Task-Related 4.62 26.08
Task-Related 10.19 4.78
“Planning” 1.68 9.58
“Technical” .19 .60
Non-Task-Related
“Social” 2.59 14.45
“Nonsense” .16 1.45
“New Facts” 1.18 .35
“Own Experience and Opinions” .70 .38
Task-Related
“New Theoretical Ideas” .05 .33
“Explicitation” 7.19 3.03
“Evaluation” 1.06 .70
= 0.92; = 0.73 (p < 0.01)

14. A detailed investigation of task-related sub-categories
revealed a significant correlation between
participants’ Own Experience and Opinions and
facilitators’ Evaluation messages.

15. Discussion
• hypotheses (largely) build upon studies
from higher education
findings cannot easily be transferred across
target groups
• working professionals
– do not need to be “taken by the hand”
– seem to enjoy the challenge of partaking in
high-level discussions

16. anna.milena.galazka@gmail.com
rehm@merit.unu.edu