Full Circle Associates

Tim McShane posted a very interesting message on the Online Facilitation list as part of a larger conversation about group size online. RE: [of] 150 and subgroups:

"I and a few colleagues have been studying which size of group gives optimal learning based around the Dunbar study Christopher Allan did. We have been using group sizes of 12, 24, 36 and 48 to see which gives optimal learning. The facilitation for these are in the ratio of 1:12. The original groups size was 12 but this just did not seem to create the self-regenerating community needed and contributions to the discussions were often very low or non-existent. It was interesting that on the graph Christopher produced in his piece that this was the least optimum number for a group. We are finding that a power curve applies. 20% of the number are active so larger comms increase the overall activity. The findings are overall positive the nearer the comm gets to 50 and the change to dual and tri facilitation has been positive for the tutors."

Tim's experience echoes mine, but I find I can facilitate groups up to 24 alone. That said, my friends tell me I am weirdly fast in this area. So I'm not a good test case. Regardless of my speed, co-facilitation online is often a good practice because it allows coverage and multiple perspectives when it comes to interpreting what we think people mean and moving into action to work on clarifications.

For background on the Dunbar Number, you may want to look at this post from Christopher Allen with links to his various articles and thoughtful musings on group size.