Facilitation Strategies to Moderate Synchronous Virtual Discussion Groups in Teacher Training

Introduction

Holding a social meeting in a three-dimensional (3D) virtual world rather than in a physical space can be a challenge (Konstantinidis, 2017). Numerous considerations are involved when planning a gathering in a synthetic world, including clarifying the purpose (e.g., social, educational, or business), choosing a location (public or private access), and considering a suitable format (e.g., lectures, discussions, exploratory fieldtrips, or task-based activities).

The notion of multimodal communication is another critical aspect of virtual worlds. It not only consists of verbal-mode voice and text chat but also of non-verbal mode aspects, such as avatar movement, kinesics, proxemics, and appearance (Peterson, 2006; Wigham & Chanier, 2013). Compared to two-dimensional (2D) online environments, the multimodal nature of virtual worlds has been associated with richer and more effective collaborative learning (Dalgarno & Lee, 2009), offers an authentic environment for communication (Liou, 2012), increased student engagement, and better learning outcomes (Claman, 2015).

Due to the complexity of the communication modalities, the expert facilitation of a virtual group discussion deserves special attention. This chapter revolves around the facilitation of virtual group discussion events for educational purposes. Girvan and Savage (2013), for example, provide excellent prior, during, and post guidelines with regard to individual and group interviews conducted in Second Life®, which is a three-dimensional semi-immersive virtual world where users can interact, collaboratively work on projects, explore regions, navigate in different ways (walk, run, fly, dive, etc.), and communicate with each other in real time using voice or text. Girvan and Savage (2013) highlight a facilitator’s skills set, such as the ability to manage multiple threads simultaneously.

Similarly, Schmeil et al. (2013) have formulated guidelines based on their experience in organizing and conducting social conferences in virtual worlds. One of their suggestions is to create break-out rooms, or so-called “satellites”, instead of having everyone gather in the same virtual room. The satellite approach might increase the participants’ willingness to engage and interact with each other more informally. Although a satellite offers more privacy than a whole-group discussion, each satellite might still need its own private facilitator, depending on the purpose or task.

Wang et al. (2014) highlight the complexity of group discussions in virtual worlds. The authors note potentially challenging factors, such as the combined use of text, voice, and avatar gestures, and offer pragmatic advice with an emphasis on advance preparation, skillful multitasking, and co-facilitation to ensure smooth communication within a group. Their participants expressed great appreciation for the co-facilitation because it helped them manage the overwhelming amount of information coming in from multiple communication channels.

This study is situated in an educational online learning context at graduate level. Similar to many virtual worlds studies, the case study described in this chapter takes a pragmatic rather than a theoretical approach (Wang & Burton, 2013). The chapter examines effective facilitation of avatar-based group discussions in a 3D virtual world through examining a graduate technology course case study. This examination includes an exploration of selected areas that are critical for educators to be aware of when planning to transfer group discussions, or any type of communicative interaction for learning purposes, to a 3D environment.

Background

This section offers an introduction to (1) the facilitator’s role and skills required to moderate a group discussion, (2) communication modalities (text vs. voice), (3) the challenges of promoting participation and interactivity, and (4) a sense of social and physical presence.