This article examines the Facilitator as Mediator (FAM) methodology, which addresses conflicts between learning sponsors (management) and learning instructors. FAM encourages a “neutral party” state, where the learning instructor uses mediation techniques to position themselves as an objective, professional consultant focused on the learning tactics and outcomes of the program. This positioning allows the instructor to focus on what benefits both parties, eliminating resistance to learning, increasing adoption, and delivering targeted, measurable results.

FAM is a teacher-to-sponsor or a teacher-to-learner de-escalation strategy that can be enacted at negotiation or delivery and used in any educational context. However, its best application is in the formal context, where it gives the educator a methodology to recognize and address the conflict created by “negotiating course/class content with those that possess more power” (Taylor, 2010, p. 19) in approving the learning plan or, the conflict created by learner resistance in the facilitation process (Taylor, 2010). 

Within a formal setting like a workplace/organizational education program, there will be an intention to learn, with a structured, organized curriculum to assess (St. Clair, 2015). The educator may be highly familiar with the workforce and clearly understand what will be accepted (Taylor, 2010). Still, the management, who is farther away from the learner, may not see the proposal's value (Taylor, 2010). In this scenario, the primary FAM negotiation will be with management. The facilitator becomes an “idealistic opponent…. allowing for a spectrum of outcomes by reframing the negotiation process to position (themselves) as a trusted mediator between …upper management…and the employee learner”. 

In the classroom, a similar negotiation takes place between the facilitator and the learner, wherein the educator will use FAM to create agility in instruction, meet the room’s needs, and combat ulterior (e.g., challenging current understanding) or situational (e.g., boredom, rejection of material) resistance to learning adoption (Taylor, 2010).  FAM allows the educator to build credibility by giving the audience the "why" behind the instruction, creating buy-in and personal connection beyond the objection.

As St. Clair advised, the challenge for facilitators is to match their course to the formality of the context and to accept that their role includes that of a negotiator (2015). With negotiation, they should aim not to promote one set of interests over another but to create accommodation and balance (St. Clair, 2015).  FAM is a negotiation tool that allows the educator to negotiate, design and deliver courses that recognize management requirements or constraints, meet the expectations of formal learning structure, and facilitate the audience’s needs while recognizing and accommodating all factors. 

The development of this program adhered to what St. Clair (2015) describes as context being at the heart of learning and central to educational design. We see this through the approach taken by the team throughout the development process which centred the families in the design of the curriculum. This resulted in a flexible and dynamic curriculum that allows caregivers to access and use the twelve modules in any order, depending on their needs (Conceição et al., 2011). 

The learning context of the caregiver training is non-formal, as it is ‘primarily embedded in planned activities’ (St. Clair, 2015) taking place at various times including during various appointments as well as at home. Many of the learners had taken part in informal learning through online searches, speaking to other families, and talking to various service providers before this education was made available. This informal learning, while useful to a degree, was fragmented and could lead to misunderstanding and misinformation (Conceição et al., 2011).

The social context was an important element in developing the curriculum. Families with  CSHCN often experience caregiver fatigue, stress from dealing with the healthcare system, fear for their sick child and other challenges. Learners also differ widely in their cognitive, educational, cultural, and language backgrounds, making the development of a highly accessible and flexible curriculum a necessity of this program. 

The Bridge to Independence program is federally funded with the understanding that informed caregivers will lead to better health outcomes and lower resource usage and costs. As described by St. Clair (2015), negotiation is part of the adult educator's job. The program employed a team that included an adult educator, health experts, and others who followed the collaborative model developed by Cennamo and Kalk (2005, cited in Conceição et al., 2011). Using this model as a guide enabled the team to stay on track with the adult educator facilitating the process throughout. 

St. Clair (2015) describes creating the context for learning and then getting out of the way and this is indeed what this curriculum does; allowing families to access what they need, when they need it, to improve their children's health. 

Conceição, S. C. O., Colby, H., & Juhlmann, A. (2011). Curriculum design in health education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 130, 17–27

St. Clair, R. (2015). Creating courses for adults: Design for learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

This article pulls a lot of different aspects from the St. Clair (2015) article. One of the main connections is that it highlights the need for situated learning that incorporates a social context. In Conceição et al. (2011) the writers mention that for adult learners, social context is particularly important as adults have different motivations for learning and that cultural, language, or religious differences can impact the learning process (Conceição et al., 2011). This is why curriculum design should “ensure that the curriculum is flexible, accessible, and responsive to family needs is the main goal of the curriculum design process.” (Conceição et al., 2011, p. 21). St. Clair (2015) also highlights this when stating that its important to understand context when making curriculum decisions. 

As well, this article focuses on curriculum design in a nonformal setting, which St Clair (2015) states as learning embedded in planned activities which are intentionally engaged in by the learner. This is ideal for the context described by Conceição et al. (2011) in which families are learning to provide better coordinated care for their children, where activities are made specifically in that context given their personal situation. 

 

 

The article I chose was by Conceição et al. (2011) on curricular design in health education. This article focused on the collaborative curriculum design (between families and educators) aimed to improve organized care curriculum for families with children with species health care needs. This article focuses on a family-oriented approach to curriculum design that incorporates social context, the learning environment, and the adult learner perspective. 

This article pulls a lot of different aspects from the St. Clair (2015) article. One of the main connections is that it highlights the need for situated learning that incorporates a social context. In Conceição et al. (2011) the writers mention that for adult learners, social context is particularly important as adults have different motivations for learning and that cultural, language, or religious differences can impact the learning process (Conceição et al., 2011). This is why curriculum design should “ensure that the curriculum is flexible, accessible, and responsive to family needs is the main goal of the curriculum design process.” (Conceição et al., 2011, p. 21). St. Clair (2015) also highlights this when stating that its important to understand context when making curriculum decisions. 

As well, this article focuses on curriculum design in a nonformal setting, which St Clair (2015) states as learning embedded in planned activities which are intentionally engaged in by the learner. This is ideal for the context described by Conceição et al. (2011) in which families are learning to provide better coordinated care for their children, where activities are made specifically in that context given their personal situation. 

 

 

              Taylor’s article connects to St. Clair’s chapter in numerous ways. Many of the examples of facilitation within the first article are examples of formal learning, which St. Clair describes as “learning that occurs in an organized and structured context” (St. Clair, 2015, pg. 56). Next, St. Clair describes organizational context, and the way in which organizations and leaders value and prioritize learning within the workplace. As St. Clair maintains, some organizations view learning as a secondary priority as compared to other areas of service or productivity. This can increase tension between stakeholders, including management and facilitators, as described in Taylor’s article: “That is to say that those who arc usually paid to be the resident "experts" at program development do not usually have the ultimate say, not only about how the course is delivered but about precisely what is delivered” (Taylor, 2010, pg. 20). This tension between the organization or management and facilitators can constrain teaching and learning. To reconcile this tension, facilitators need to focus and identify specified, desired outcomes. This helps both facilitators and management to understand the value and importance of the training on learners.  Furthermore, learners who feel their organizations don’t value learning, they may be dismissive or resistant to the training and facilitator themselves. 

              Last, St. Clair outlines the importance of facilitators working to develop a welcoming learning environment, with factors such as seating, temperature and location as key considerations. This connects to the negotiation of power between facilitators and learners, and how the learning environment can be altered to reduce resistance from learners and enhance learning and engagement. 

St. Clair, R. (2015). Creating courses for adults: Design for learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pg. 53-77.

Taylor, J. E. (2010). Facilitator as mediator: Mediating the tension between management and employee-learners. Adult Learning, 21(1/2), 19–25

 

 

By drawing on concepts from the St. Clair chapter, we can demonstrate that the learning context is illustrated by complex social and material environments. Within the organization there may be power dynamics, opposing perspectives, and conflicts that need to be navigated by the facilitator. The organizational culture and norms can greatly impact the social dynamics within the learning context. 

 

The location, participants, and curriculum each have their own limitations on teaching and learning, which then shaping the facilitator's role and affecting class/program design. The material aspects of the learning context encompass the resources, tools, and infrastructure available for teaching and learning. This may include physical spaces, technological resources, and learning materials. The facilitator needs to consider the material resources at hand to design and deliver effective learning experiences. The setting, such as a formal workplace or training room, can produce certain limitations on the facilitator, such as time or spatial restrictions due to imposed room bookings or scheduling. Stakeholders, such as management, employee-learners, and possibly other vested parties, may have differing expectations and requests that must be addressed by the facilitator. The curriculum may also influence the facilitator's approach, depending on the opportunity to develop, adjust or level of flexibility may limit the opportunities in designing learning activities.

 

Context can be significant in either empowering or restricting learning outcomes, making it vital for facilitators to approach these situations successfully. Context shapes and limits learning by swaying the dynamics between management and employee-learners, putting boundaries and expectations on the facilitator. For example, if there is a noteworthy power imbalance or a lack of trust within the organization, it can affect engagement and willingness to learn. 

 

Taylor, J. E. (2010). Facilitator as mediator: Mediating the tension between management and employee-learners. Adult Learning, 21(1/2), 19–25

 

Using St. Clair’s ideas, learning and facilitating is still a relatively young concept that needs to be continuously worked on; the difference between now and 100 years ago, where now we are teaching about financial literacy vs. teaching essentials on reading and writing before going back to the farm. Learning in all types of situations should be considered, whether its formal or informal and how the information should be delivered to the group of individuals. The facilitator should work as a mediator, understanding the goals and the values provided by the organization but understanding that the learners also have needs and wants in their jobs and have a life outside of their working hours (Taylor, 2010). Looking materials, resources at hand might be the best to use; this can be YouTube videos, podcasts or even open and welcoming spaces that allow the learner to feel safe in. Understanding that expectations and values of learning should be understood by the facilitator and management; sure, the facilitator can create the training, but management also needs to recognize the value and barriers this training might face – this could be lack of resources to use or the overall imbalance of authority in the classroom created by management. There can also be issues of positional space or the views between 2 parties that may or may not meet in the middle (Taylor 2010). The facilitator, again using mediating skills, along with understanding an learning resistance that comes out of the training, to understand the needs and values of the training itself while delivering content that is beneficial (Taylor, 2010). There also needs to be trust within the organization by all parties – understanding that the facilitator can create as much of balance and authority in the room, the learners understanding that they are there to learn, and management understanding that the learner might not value the learning as much as expected. 

 

Taylor, J.E. (2010). Facilitator as mediator: Mediating the tension between management and employee learners. Adult Learning, 21 (1/2), 19-25. 

In the Baumgartner, L. M., & Sandoval, C. L. article, they touch on how women are more likely than men to have experienced trauma, mental health issues, substance abuse, and homelessness, and so they are also more likely to have experiences with victimization, and problems forming relationships (p.263-264). These factors might contribute to their willingness to trust others (even teachers), particularly in a prison setting, where the staff is known for exerting authority over them, and the prison itself is bound to very rigid rules to maintain structure. This could be viewed as a constraint, and something the instructors/curriculum designers would need to keep in mind when planning activities. They might need to focus a lot more attention on reducing the power differential and attempting to include the inmates in the teaching process. Perhaps group work would be incorporated to remove the instructor’s authority. Education in the prison context focused a lot on empowerment, which involved yoga, dance, art, and other creativity classes, and as Jin mentioned, the educators encouraged participants to build authentic relationships, reflect on their past and practice new skills. 

While reflecting on their past, some women might feel comfortable bringing up past experiences of trauma. The importance for instructors in this social context to obtain training in trauma-informed practice is high and will help them to provide what they call “trauma-informed programming.” This includes training related to substance abuse and trauma, and it has positive effects on inmates and staff alike. I read the term “vicarious traumatization” which occurs when the person (possibly the instructor) hearing about trauma repeatedly begins to internalize feelings of bystander guilt, shame, self-doubt, being preoccupied with thoughts of patients outside work hours, or over-identification with the patient (having horror/rescue fantasies). I imagine this training would help to mitigate some of these occurrences from happening, as the training modules include “definitions and examples of trauma, physical and sexual abuse, the interaction between trauma and addiction, self-calming techniques, boundaries and safety, barriers to trust, and parenting” (Gillece, 2009). Having instructors who are well-versed in different forms of trauma would ultimately benefit the learners, and they would be more apt to create a safe space and hold important boundaries when discussing difficult topics. 

Finally, the social constraints I have discussed are the nature of the prison, the power differential among staff and inmates, as well as the prison rules and regulations limiting empowerment. Often the prison staff were unwelcoming and unsupportive to the prison educators because they did not feel the inmates were deserving of an education. There was also an element of fear among the inmates surrounding trusting others and building relationships, making their participation in education more difficult. Some of the material constraints were limited access to the internet and books. I feel this type of programming is very important for social change, and I hope more and more programs like it will continue. 

“Learning in context is paying attention to the interaction and intersection among people, tools, and context within learning situations (St. Clair, pg. 44). People can learn more in groups than they can individually, by instructors creating group dialogues where women are in a safe environment to speak about trials and tribulation. This allowed women, to hear others' relatable stories, listen to the personal critical evaluation of the issue, and then have a conversation and a dialogue. Women who are incarnated have unique restrictions, teaching women to be empowered in an environment that is designed to confine and minimize women. 

 This program allowed the opportunity for the connection of women with similar shared experiences. This type of program assisted women to bond and take part in a community while scaffolding ideas, networking, and problem solve at a higher level; ultimately encouraging higher participation. 

St Clair speaks to how dialogue and discussion help with the transferability of knowledge, in this program where women are then able to call on others in the room to hear opinions and expertise from the instructor, assisting with problem-based learning. 

By using the three key concepts spoken in St Clair’s chapter instructors were able to solidify learning and critical reflection once women are released and need to apply conflict resolution or problem-solving in real life. This teaching does rely on informal learning and does contain a high level of experiential learning and can be associated with accidental learning with no intention of learning.

allowing conversations to be more fluid and natural boosting participation. The nature of this type of learning is less stressful and puts less pressure on learners while making it more accessible and affordable for prisons to provide. This type of learning encourages learners to reflect inwards and use the information they have gained and apply it in practice. This can lead to longer-term changes and makes the information more valuable to the learner.

 St. Clair, R. (2015). Creating courses for adults: Design for learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 53-72.

Baumgartner, L. M., & Sandoval, C. L. (2018). “Being a presence to each other”: Adult educators who foster empowerment with incarcerated women. Adult Education Quarterly, 68(4), 263–279.