Facilitator Summary

As a facilitator you want to encourage as much free-flowing discussion as possible. But as it proceeds, you occasionally hear contributions that you think are uninformed, omit important data, or display a fundamental misunderstanding of what's being talked about. What to do? If a previously taciturn group is finally starting to catch conversational fire the last thing you want to do is douse the flames by correcting people who are speaking up for the first time. In such situations we use the Facilitator Summary, a time at the end of the session reserved for us to make some overall comments. Here we owe a debt to Ira Shor's (1997) notion of dialogic lecturing: making observations that are grounded in earlier student discussion.

Purposes

• To enable facilitators time to correct misunderstandings and factual errors expressed during a discussion
• To enable facilitators to bring omitted perspectives, ignored voices, and unacknowledged data to the attention of discussants
• To provide an opportunity for discussion conveners to add their viewpoints to the mix
• To create an opportunity for facilitators to comment on the process of the discussion: what went well, what major questions and issues emerged, how things might be improved next time, and questions to consider

How It Works

• At the start of a discussion facilitators explain to the group members that their role will be restricted to asking questions, making sure everyone has a chance to speak, and trying to keep the discussion on topic.
• They say they will be listening carefully to what's being said and that if misstatements, errors, omissions, and misunderstandings are expressed they will make a note to bring these to everyone's attention at the end of the session. They explain they will be doing this is because their main task is to keep the discussion flowing, not to keep interrupting.
• About ten minutes before time is up the facilitator intervenes to give a summary of what's been missed, misinterpreted, and misstated as well as commenting on the group's process.

When and Where It Works Well

1. Academic settings. This is very appropriate for discussions in which students are struggling to interpret and apply new material.
2. Problem-solving meetings. When people are in a brainstorming phase, tossing out multiple solutions and interpretations, they can't afford to be interrupted.
3. Training workshops. This works well when people are trying to understand what new legislation means for their work or are struggling to apply a mandatory new technique.
4. When trust has not yet developed. The summary is best suited to groups in which facilitators judge that intervening to correct a comment will silence people permanently. It becomes less necessary as trust builds.

What Users Appreciate

1. Avoiding public shaming. Those who have been in error appreciate the fact that they have not been called out and publicly humiliated by the leader.
2. Respecting truth. Those who know a contribution is wrong or reflects a fundamental misunderstanding are glad to see the instructor point this out.
3. Facilitator disclosure. Those who have been wondering what you are thinking are able to hear your judgments and perspectives.

What to Watch Out For

1. Blatant errors. Sometimes people are so far off that you have to intervene. This would be the case if someone claimed as a key fact or a central truth something you knew to be wrong or if a concept or theory was explained in a way that contradicted its true meaning. Having discussion based on a central misunderstanding isn't helpful.
2. Comments out of context. Sometimes the comments you want to make at the end of a session are so removed from the context in which the original points were made that it is difficult to recall what was actually said and why it was important.
3. The problem of recollection. Just trying to remember all the things you had hoped to point out at the end of a session can be a challenge for any facilitator.

Questions That Fit This Protocol

This is not a protocol to develop questions.