At last night's orientation for the FRSSI home group facilitators, we did a constructivist protocol that got us to think about the traits of excellent facilitation. Here are the ideas that Lynn and I scribed.

Good facilitators. . .
. . . are a catalyst for reflection.
. . . have pleasant, positive attitudes.
. . . make learning fun and interesting.
. . . are flexible.
. . . are thoughtful in questions and responses. Their questions push thinking.
. . . are concerned with making every one feel comfortable.
. . . allow time for reflection.
. . . listen well.
. . . don't take themselves seriously but take the work seriously.
. . . are seamless.
. . . solve dilemmas.
. . . can remain neutral.
. . . talk with not at.

In hindsight, I would like to add that the very best facilitators that I've had the pleasure of working with are also transparent.

This list makes me wonder what traits I am strong in and what traits I need to strengthen. I wonder what my colleagues would say.

During the Fondren Reforming Schools Summer Institute, one of the home group activities was to divide into smaller groups and have each group engage in the "Success Analysis Protocol" which asks each person to identify a success, tell the story of the success, and listen as the group analyzes what traits made that particular event successful.

Some of the 250 or so institute participants were trained CFG coaches or experienced CFG members. Most were not--and quite a few were experiencing being part of a collaborative professional learning community for the first time.

As my co-facilitator, Lance, and I mingled with the triads during this activity, we noticed that some of the groups quickly devolved into mere storytelling without bothering with the steps of the prototocol. There was still value in this--the participants obviously enjoyed sharing their own stories and making connections with others.

However, we were left wondering about the appropriateness of letting untrained people loose with a protocol. Groups that took the protocol seriously seemed to get deeper into the analysis and used every bit of time. Groups that set the steps and time limits aside tended to "finish" early and didn't make the same level of connections with each other.

Next year, I will develop home group activities with an eye towards remembering the varied CFG experiences of the participants.