The Guidebooks for Student-Facilitated Discussion in Online Courses, by Shannon Wheatley Hartman, Ph.D. and Jack Byrd Jr., Ph.D. were published January 2016 from Interactivity Foundation (IF). IF offers both a 64-page student guidebook edition and a 60-page instructor guidebook, which describes their discussion process in the 3-parts. Read more about the guidebook and download the PDFs for free on Interactivity Foundation’s website here. From IF… These guidebooks offer a practical guide for students and instructors in online courses. They offer a step-by-step guide to our 3-part online discussion process:
0 Comments
The Community Heart & Soul™ Field Guide (2014) is the Orton Family Foundation’s guide to its tested and proven method of community planning and development. This step-by-step, four-phase method is designed to increase participation in local decision-making and empower residents of small towns and rural communities to shape the future of their communities in a way that upholds the unique character of each place. Community Heart & Soul is based on wide and broad participation from as many residents as possible. Whether the focus is on comprehensive planning, economic development, downtown planning, or an outside-the-box vision and action plan, Community Heart & Soul aims to reach all residents of a town for the best results: results that pay benefits over the long haul. The Community Heart & Soul Field Guide outlines a model Heart & Soul process. Each of the four phases is built around specific goals for learning, capacity building, and engagement. Together they lead to the overall project goals and outcomes. This 62-page step-by-step handbook from the Policy Consensus Institute (now Kitchen Table Democracy) walks readers through the stages of sponsoring, convening, organizing, and participating in a public policy collaborative process. Designed primarily for elected and appointed government officials and civic leaders, the guide also is useful for those who provide leaders with the staff assistance, facilitation services, and support they need to employ these approaches effectively.
The Practical Guide was developed and written by Chris Carlson, founding director of PCI and a leading authority on consensus building in the public sector. The Practical Guide to Collaborative Governance will help equip more leaders – present and future, in the public, private, and civic sectors – with the information and tools they need to bring about better governance through the use of collaborative practices, with instructions on how to: Most of the laws that govern public participation in the U.S. are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they pre-date the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public administrators and public engagement practitioners are hindered by the fact that it’s unclear if many of the best practices in participation are even allowed by the law. Making Public Participation Legal, a 2013 publication of the National Civic League (with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation), presents a valuable set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The tools and articles in Making Public Participation Legal were developed over a year by the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation — an impressive team convened and guided by Matt Leighninger, formerly of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC). Song Of A Citizen produced several series of dialogue and deliberation-related videos. The first was a series of Video Op-Eds with esteemed political philosophers, academics, and leaders of major deliberative democracy organizations. Those were filmed at various locations around the country between 2008 to 2010.
The second series features Q&A interviews with key practitioners and other experts in the dialogue and deliberation community, filmed at the NCDD Conference in October 2012. All can be found on the SoaC YouTube Channel. Song of a Citizen YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5SfcjE5O4OjdUw7Jjfvvew Tina Nabatchi’s report (2012), published by the IBM Center for The Business of Government, provides a practical assessment guide for government program managers so they can assess whether their efforts are making a difference. The report lays out evaluation steps for both the implementation and management of citizen participation initiatives as well as how to assess the impact of a particular citizen participation initiative. An appendix provides helpful worksheets, as well.
Agencies in coming years will face greater fiscal pressures and they will also face increased citizen demands for greater participation in designing and overseeing their policies and programs. Understanding how to most effectively engage citizens in their government will likely increase in importance. Nabatchi hopes this evaluation guide will be a useful framework for government managers at all levels in helping them determine the value of their citizen participation initiatives. While there is a growing body of literature and experience about how to engage the public, there are few practical tools to gauge the success of these approaches. Recognizing that local officials and staff have limited time and resources, the Institute for Local Government has created online Rapid Review Worksheets to help local governments assess how well their public engagement processes worked. Learn more and download the worksheets at www.ca-ilg.org/rapidreview. The Need for Assessing Public Engagement Local officials are increasingly using a wide range of public engagement strategies to help them inform, consult with and deliberatively engage residents on topics such as land use, budgeting, housing, sustainability, health and environment, public safety and much more. This short thread is an archive of a discussion on the NCDD forum started on July 9, 2004 by Matt Leighninger.
Describing D&D: what can make our message compelling? Post by mattleighninger » Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:55 am I don’t think the advocates of dialogue and deliberation at the national level have done a very good job promoting this kind of work. Most of the messages we send seem to say that D & D is worth doing because it is a Good Idea that will make the world a Better Place. That isn’t a very compelling message – not just because some people disagree, but because it doesn’t give the people who do agree an immediate reason to start doing D & D. There are all kinds of ways to make the world a Better Place, but how many of them does a person have time for, given the demands of work and family? This is an archive of a 2004 discussion on the NCDD Discussion list. This discussion on Polarization & D&D starts with Lars Hasselblad Torres’ response on July 26, 2004 to an introduction by new NCDD member David Hilditch, who wrote “I share with many of you a growing concern about the long term corrosive effects of polarization.”
Lars Hasselblad Torres:David hi :: Great to have you on this list. This “two Americas” debate that is being raised in the news these days (drawing a lot on Stanley Greenberg’s work I think) is likely to be just as live an issue after the election. Here is the transcript of a rich conversation we had on NCDD’s Discussion list in February 2010 with the subject “Conservatives and Liberals,” initiated by Pete Peterson. A big thank-you to Martin Carcasson for keeping track of these posts and sharing his archive!
All, For those who may be interested in how Conservatives see the world and public engagement, I’m linking here two recent essays. Some might remember the “Conservatives Panel” at the NCDD Conference in Austin. During the discussion, I was asked why there are so few right-wingers in the field of dialogue and deliberation. I remember fumbling out an answer that Conservatives tended to hold to certain principles or “truths”, and thus viewed the D&D field as inherently progressive – that “public engagement” efforts often ran past a discussion of “ends”, focusing on a dialogue over means. Well, I wish that Harvey Mansfield had written this piece two years ago…he’s so much smarter: http://weeklystandard.com/articles/what-obama-isnt-saying Here are some sets of principles we collected to help inform the creation of the Core Principles for Public Engagement (2009)…
Effective Deliberative Public Engagement: Nine Principles (from the National Consumer Council & Involve.org) The following comments were made over the NCDD Discussion list a few years ago when Leah Lamb posed this question: “I have been pondering about how we can actively make the D&D lexicon more familiar to the greater public? I am curious to learn about how those of you on the listserv approach describing the fields of D&D, and more specifically, how you address the complexity of the wide range of definitions and practice.”
Here are some of the great responses in his thread: I just use the term ‘dialogue’ which seems to communicate universally. Here is a wonderful summary by Geoffrey Morton-Haworth of a January 2011 discussion in NCDD’s LinkedIn group on ground rules and best practices in virtual facilitation. The discussion was started by group member Martin Pearson with the subject “Groundrules necessary to make the best of virtual meetings."
Martin wrote that he was starting to use Skype more for meetings, and asked group members if they have created specific ground rules for their own virtual meetings (like asking people to not to browse the internet while participating in the meeting). The conversation morphed into a rich discussion on best practices for virtual meetings, with over 30 comments shared. Virtual Meetings: Design with the ‘Distracted Participant’ in Mind Geoffrey Morton-Haworth posted on February 03, 2011 03:39 There has been a useful discussion in a LinkedIn group over the last few weeks. The group was the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) and the topic was “ground rules for making the best of virtual meetings”. It is an important topic since more and more of us meet and work together over the internet these days. The drawback with LinkedIn discussions, however good, is that they tend to fade away into hyper-space (I don’t think they are picked up by search engines, maybe this is accidental or maybe it is by design to ensure that such discussions remain relatively private). Therefore what follows is an attempt to distill and record this conversation. The following is a transcript of a rich discussion on consensus that occurred on NCDD’s main discussion list in March and April, 2005. This discussion was begun by Rogier Gregoire on March 20th, 2005. Enjoy!
Rogier A. Gregoire:I have been following this particular thread with interest and would like to bring to the conversation a particular insight. The discussion on whether one can have, and honor a particular point of view is critical to dialogue. What has not been considered is how easily we (within the conversation) avoid the issue of diversity as an asset. The dialogic conversation must honor diversity as an asset not just a convenience or mechanism of conversation. NCDD’s October 2010 Resource Guide on Public Engagement showcases the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation’s best collaboratively-created products (like the Core Principles for Public Engagement and the Engagement Streams Framework), as well as recognizing and directing you to a lot of the great work on public engagement that has been done by others in our field.
Created for our 2010 regional events (all attendees received a copy), this must-have guidebook was developed to share stories and resources with the dialogue and deliberation community, public managers, and anyone else with an interest in public engagement. |
Categories
All
|