The stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and what should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred.

In an opinion piece in the New York Times, Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University, argues that President Obama has failed to tell the story he needed to offer in order to effectively lead the country through these turbulent times. Obama, according to Westen, campaigned under a pretty clear narrative of “hope,” but has never really fully developed or told the story that “…would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative…”

With the Iowa-tailored version of the widely viewed Did You Know? videos, Scott McLeod (with some help from XPlane and others) is trying to re-frame the dominant narrative around schooling through a modern lens. Scott’s a highly-respected colleague and a dear friend. But, while I’m on a roll in airing professional disagreements with dear colleagues/friends, I thought I’d offer a critique of the video.

Here’s the logic of the video, as best I see it:

• Computers were invented; EVERYTHING changed.
• There are a ton of cell phones being used in the world.
• There are a whole lot of people using social media (babies are tweeting in utero!).
• There’s a lot of information online.
• A lot of people own a lot of gadgets.
• Iowa is struggling to keep up.
• Lots of kids are graduating high school, but not college.
• Jobs, especially in growth areas, will require a college education.
• Iowa’s schools are struggling to keep up, too.
• Lots of low-level mental work; i.e. basic skills instruction.
• Not many kids in Iowa are taking online courses.
• Technology expenditures are down.
• Some Iowa schools have made some significant changes (1:1 computing  + virtual reality technology?), but we can do better…

More succinctly, the narrative of the video boils down to:

Lots of people are using lots of technology –> Our world is increasingly connected and our economy is increasingly “global” –> Therefore, our schools need to integrate technology more and focus on “higher-level” thinking skills.

(NOTE: that last part is admittedly sketchy; the “shift” that should “happen” is a little unclear)

I think there’s a huge gap in the logic. That is, the emphasis of the first part of the video is on social media usage and information abundance, but the second part jumps immediately to issues of education with a focus on outcomes. That Iowans are disproportionately not graduating college is evidence that Iowans are not keeping up with societal changes (with an emphasis on social media usage and information abundance)? Really?

I could nitpick various statements throughout the video, but my critique is more macro. I’ve written about this before, but, to reiterate, I think the gist of the argument is misguided. It’s the wrong story…

IF our schools need to “shift” (again, we’re left to assume that the “shift” means something much more technology-centric?), it is NOT because that will help us be more competitive in a global economy. As I wrote earlier, “If you make that argument, you have to believe that one of the fundamental purposes of schooling is, in fact, to prepare kids for the workforce.  That’s not at all something I believe.” Furthermore, this “global competitiveness” argument doesn’t resonate with the public, let alone educational policymakers. These days, I’m not sure anything resonates with educational policymakers beyond test scores, but what about something a little more immediate and obvious? What about learning? Gosh, we can all get behind learning, can’t we?

So, with learning as the focus, why do our schools need to “shift?”:

1. Because public schooling exists to prepare young people to be productive and engaged citizens in a deliberative democracy, and, increasingly, civic engagement happens in “hybrid” spaces. Despite what Malcolm Gladwell would have us believe, social media has fundamentally changed the nature of political engagement. One need only look at how the Obama campaign leveraged social media in winning the 2008 presidential election and, of course, at how social media has played a major role in political uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, etc.
2. Because computers allow young people to learn in a more integrated way through, well, computing. Want kids to learn math? Have them take a real computer science class. As Gary Stager wrote, “If mathematics is a way of making sense of the world, computing is a way of making mathematics.” Teach kids programming, and they necessarily learn logic and argumentation and math. As they improve their logic and aptitude for argumentation, watch how their writing improves. Furthermore, logic and argumentation are the basic competencies needed for deliberation. Again, from Gary Stager, “[c]omputer science should be taught as a basic skill.”
3. Because learning has ALWAYS been social and collaboration has ALWAYS been an important skill (or, more accurately, IMHO, a set of skills), but the modern Web exponentially amplifies the possibilities for collaboration and social learning.
4. Because now learners don’t always have to go to schools or libraries or anywhere specific to learn. Actually, that’s always been true, but the modern Web does change our assumptions about time and space for learning.

In other words, IF we are going to rethink schooling in and for the 21st Century, it should be based on what technology affords for learning. It’s that simple.

I understand that the Did You Know? videos are intended to be conversation starters. But, I think they tell the wrong story. Instead of negativity or even fear mongering (“We’re not keeping up!”), let’s tell a more positive story about affordances and possibilities.

If you’re like me, when you travel by air, you invariably pick up and read through the Skymall catalog with great interest. I find it fascinating. Mostly, though, I find myself repeatedly thinking and/or saying, “What problem does that solve?”

In other words, for most of the products I see in that catalog, I cannot imagine why they were ever invented. They’re clearly targeted at consumers with disposable income, because nobody else could possibly think that they NEED to have the product. Consider, for example, these remote control-operated flickering LED candles. As of the writing of this post, they were the featured product in the “Home Living” category of the online catalog. “A click of the remote turns all 8 Flickering LED Candles on or off at once.” Well, hallelujah! I’ve been struggling for years with that whole candle turning off problem…

Yesterday, many of the folks I follow on Twitter shared the following video

North Point\’s iBand

I suppose there’s something “neat” or “slick” about an iBand, but I couldn’t help noticing the guy who was effectively playing a tambourine using a ~$600 gadget. Furthermore, I asked myself if this band was doing something that was not possible without their iPads. Playing instruments on the iPad… what problem does that solve?

Unfortunately, I have this same (or a similar) response to much of what I see touted within the educational technology community. I see technology applied in ways that are not novel and/or that don’t add value to the learning process. In fact, I’ve been fairly vocal in my opposition to iPads as computing devices for students. I’m not entirely opposed to them. For example, if the touch screen interface affords particular learning opportunities for students with disabilities, and those affordances justify the costs, go for it. But, as currently configured, iPads are NOT real computing devices and don’t add value beyond what’s possible for the same amount of resources.

On the flip side, consider students writing in blogging platforms or in Google Docs. These writing spaces are digital and digital IS different. Instead of just simple text, students can now fairly easily compose multimedia narratives. Also, the writing process can be much more collaborative, in a real-time sense.  Hypertext replaces footnotes… etc. There are significant problems “solved” by moving writing to digital spaces. Or, more accurately, there are tremendous affordances to writing online as opposed to on paper or even in a word processor.

Thus, I hope that as educators consider integrating new technologies into the learning process they ask themselves questions about the value proposition the technologies bring to the table. Are you really addressing a problem or are you doing it just because you can?

Think about *all* the implications that come from shifting our language from learn(ing) from to learn(ing) with. (and words matter, right David Jakes?)

That’s the “shift” that has to happen. (apologies to Karl Fisch)  That’s it.

“Learning from” was often necessary when one party in the learning transaction(s) had greater access to information than the others. There are hardly any differences in access to information anymore.

“Learning with” has always been possible, but it was limited by our capacity to be in the same place(s) at the same time(s). Those limitations are all but gone now, too.

I don’t want to learn from anyone anymore, and I don’t want students to learn from me anymore. I’m willing to be a lead learner, but I want to learn with everyone.

Those with whom I network for learning purposes through Twitter, blogs, Nings, etc. are largely members of an amorphous educational technology community.  That community is fond of throwing around terms like “change” and “reform” connected to schools or education and most often the “change” or “reform” is largely related to advances in technology. The gist of the argument is that technology has changed the world we live in but not schools so schools need to catch up (or something to that effect).  Schools are becoming “dangerously irrelevant,” right Scott?

There are also frequent references to those other educators who do not “get it.”  Yet, it is never clear, at least to me, what the “it” is that other educators are supposed to “get.” There are references to School 2.0, Classroom 2.0,etc.  Significant technology integration is certainly implied, but even that is a loosely defined concept.

Many of the same individuals with whom I learn and interact online will be attending Educon 2.2. at the Science Leadership Academy (SLA) in Philadelphia this coming weekend.  That event will involve lots of conversations, largely around technology and the future of education. Chris Lehmann, the principal of SLA, has long been clear that Educon is not an educational technology conference.  In fact, the conference is guided by five axioms which you see below:

That’s not a bad starting point for framing the “it” that “others” are supposed to “get,” but like all standards, they are vague and high-minded.  I believe “we” (myself included) would all do well to think long and hard about what “it” is that “we” are aiming for and figure out a way to articulate “it.”

What troubles me more than an overall lack of an operationalized vision of the change that “we” want are the many flawed arguments made in favor of “it.” That is, to justify a vision that I argue is not clear from the start, there are a host of arguments being made within the amorphous ed. tech. community that are logically problematic. I summarize and briefly discuss some of those arguments below:

The “Digital Natives” Argument – yes, I’m well aware that “we” have largely denounced the digital natives-immigrants dichotomy, and I’m on board with that.  However, I see a new, related line of thinking that is equally problematic.  It has to do with the notion that kids are really comfortable with technology, they use it a lot, so we should bury them in it at schools too.  When the recent Kaiser Family Foundation report was released, it spread like wildfire among “our” networks/communities.  Here are the money lines: Today, 8-18 year-olds devote an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) to using entertainment media across a typical day (more than 53 hours a week).  And because they spend so much of that time ‘media multitasking’ (using more than one medium at a time), they actually manage to pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) worth of media content into those 7½ hours.

Well, there you go. Given *that*, how can we NOT make our schools more “relevant?”  HOLD ON…what’s the logic there?  Just because that’s what kids do on their own time, that’s how we should engage them in schools?  Why is that exactly?  Maybe, actually, what we need to be doing is using that evidence to argue for maximizing face-to-face time.  In fact, this gives me even more reason to argue for the “flipped classroom” model that you see discussed here.  Let’s “disrupt” or “interrupt” kids time online by, where necessary, providing content or instruction via digital means so that when they come to school they can learn to interact with each other and learn socially while face-to-face.

The Economics Argument – this is the argument based, often, in the works of (non-economists) Daniel Pink, Richard Florida, etc.  It is a big part of presentations done by folks I admire greatly, including my friend/colleague Scott McLeod.  Watch and/or listen to Scott’s presentation to the NEA and you’ll hear a lot about the changing nature of the workforce and how we need to reform schools to meet those changing needs.

I get that, kind of.  Here’s the problem.  If you make that argument, you have to believe that one of the fundamental purposes of schooling is, in fact, to prepare kids for the workforce.  That’s not at all something I believe.  For me, first and foremost, schools are in the business of preparing kids to be active, productive citizens in a deliberative democratic society.  Schooling for citizenship and deliberation, not employment.  I want to remove all references to “workplace” or “workforce” or “economy” from any and all school mission statements.

If I argue or advocate for technology integration in schools, it is based on the idea that we need to recognize that the Web is causing us to rethink what citizenship means and is increasingly becoming a space where important deliberation happens (see e.g. the ways in which social media impacted the last presidential election in this country).  We need to help kids become deliberative  and to express their ideas and thoughts in productive ways in spaces that are digital and PUBLIC.

That said, building upon my notion of maximizing face-to-face time, let’s think about ways to use school time to foster civic engagement and deliberative habits. As far as I’m concerned, every kid should be required to take a debate class.

The Business Argument – this argument was bolstered by the publishing of Disruptive Class which is based on the theory of disruptive innovation developed by of one of the book’s authors, Clayton Christensen.  The general premise there is that technology will increasingly allow us to individualize/customize learning and makes learning possible anywhere/anytime and that is an innovation that will disrupt the model of formal schooling as we know it here…unless, of course, schools figure out a way to head off that disruption at the pass.

Let’s say we accept the book’s premise. Then what?  It was NEVER clear to me in reading the book what it is that schools need to do in order to not get “disrupted.”  Are student-centric learning technologies that customize learning the disruption or the prescription against disruption? I may be missing that, and if so, I’m willing to listen.  But, if “we” include the “Disrupting Class” thinking in “our” arguments, “we” need to be prepared to then tie the vision of the “it” that “they” are supposed to “get” to the logic of disruptive innovation.  In other words, it’s not enough just to say that the current model of schooling is going to be disrupted.

That said, I’m not accepting the book’s premise, largely because I’m missing the last link  in the chain of logic.  I also still don’t understand why the author’s went after K-12 education and not higher education.  Higher education is a choice (to a degree). Up to a certain age, though, public schooling is mandatory.  It’s also, for most people, a public enterprise and not a profit-driven one, and I don’t think the theory of disruptive innovation works in that context.  For a more thoughtful critique of Disrupting Class, I encourage you to read this critique by Andy Zucker of the Concord Consortium.

The “Bored Kid” Anecdote – OK, @bengrey, your turn under the bus. So, lots of attention was given to the story of Aaron Iba, the now former CEO of AppJet, the company that created EtherPad.  Ben wrote about Aaron’s story here.  Lisa Nielsen wrote about it here and here.  Aaron’s story is not a new one.  And, I know Ben and Lisa and others know that.  In fact, that was pretty much their point.  Since forever, kids have been bored in schools.

Well, guess what?  For all of the Aaron’s out there, I can point to a…well…me. School worked beautifully for me.  I’m the perfect anecdote for maintaining the status quo in schools.  I loved school. I got to learn, largely by myself, and that’s what I liked.  Teachers soothed my ego and made me feel smart and great and I achieved at high levels. So, why isn’t anyone blogging about me and how schools work?

Additionally, the Gladwellian tactic of finding a case to fit an a priori belief is not compelling to me.  I think case studies can be immensely interesting and meaningful, but only if done thoroughly and systematically.  Gladwell gives us bits and pieces of his cases and, as a result, we can’t know how well that case “fits” his theory because we don’t know enough about the case.  Same with Aaron Iba. Do we really have enough information here to know the whole story? To conclude that the schooling system failed Aaron? Writing a good case study is hard to do.  When done well, though, they are deep, rich narratives that are full of meaning; they aren’t meant to be “generalizable” though.

One last question about the “bored kid” anecdote: what makes you think the “it,” the “new” school or modes of learning that you apparently have in mind though haven’t quite fully articulated will be not boring for everyone?

In sum, then, I think “we” are putting broken carts before the horses. “We” are concentrating too much on the “why change” argument without first fully and clearly articulating what it is “we” want from schools.  Furthermore, the “why change” arguments, I argue (meta?), are fundamentally flawed.

There are lots of reasons for the institution of schooling to be transformed.  Likewise, there are lots of reasons to consider the affordances of ubiquitous computing for learning.  I ask you to help me think through those reasons in ways that are well-informed and logical…especially those of you with whom I hope to have fully maximized face-to-face experiences this weekend at Educon. I look forward to deliberating with many of you there!

]]> http://edinsanity.com/2010/01/29/the-logic-of-our-arguments/feed/ 29 http://edinsanity.com/2009/12/13/scientifically-based-blog-post-1-2/ http://edinsanity.com/2009/12/13/scientifically-based-blog-post-1-2/#comments Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:09:53 +0000 Jon Becker http://edinsanity.com/?p=410 [NOTE  #1: this was originally posted on February 7, 2008.  I am re-posting it here as part of the #edublogBT idea/meme about which I wrote yesterday.] [NOTE #2: at the time, I had designs on posting a weekly blog post about educational research.  I think I got as far 4 or 5 entries before that [...]]]>

[NOTE  #1: this was originally posted on February 7, 2008.  I am re-posting it here as part of the #edublogBT idea/meme about which I wrote yesterday.]

[NOTE #2: at the time, I had designs on posting a weekly blog post about educational research.  I think I got as far 4 or 5 entries before that idea faded. I'd like to, at some point, revisit the "scientifically-based blog post" idea. I think it's a niche I can help fill.]

***

Might as well start right at the top of my own pecking order. To me, one of the very best, if not the best, articles I have read is called, Factors Affecting Technology Uses In Schools: An Ecological Perspective, by Yong Zhao and Kenneth A. Frank from Michigan State University. This well-designed, mixed methods study examined teacher and student use of computers from an ecological perspective. The authors start by referencing the introduction of zebra mussels into Lake St. Clair. The mussels were first introduced in 1988, and by 1990, they could be found in all of the Great Lakes. In fact, in a very short period of time, the introduction of the zebra mussel has caused tremendous ecological change in the Great Lakes. While recognizing that computers and zebra mussels are very different, the authors imply that their goal is to understand why “computer uses” as an invading species have not caused disruption to the schooling organization.

Their first major finding confirms some of my own empirical conclusions; the vast majority of the variance in computer use exists WITHIN schools, not between schools. I think that’s a really important but rarely understood finding. One of the many implications is that we are much more likely to be able to identify high-end computer using teachers than high-end schools. Schools are not the right unit of analysis in examining differences in technology use. Other findings:

• Teachers niche in the ecosystem – English teachers were much more likely to use computers than their peers.
• Teacher / Ecosystem Interaction – teachers who reported feeling pressure and support from colleagues were more likely to use computers more. Also, where there were too many competing invading species (other “programs” or “innovations”), computer use suffered.
• Teacher-Computer Predisposition for Compatibility – teachers who found computers to be more compatible with pedagogical beliefs and practices used computers more.
• Opportunities for Mutual Adaptation – teachers that had more time to “play around” with computers used them more for teaching/learning.

Overall, the authors found great support for the ecological framework. I think the study is framed beautifully, carried out well and reported eloquently. Most importantly, the findings resonate with my own empirical understandings of technology integration. I’d love to hear your thoughts…

I blogged.

For Wes Fryer.

Because I’m trying to steal the attention of his vast audience.

Click here to see the post if you’d like.

photo credit: AchimH

[NOTE: thanks to Scott McLeod for dreaming up this idea three years ago.  This is my contribution to Leadership Day 2009.  The Leadership posts I've already seen are great, and the collection of posts will ultimately make for an important and interesting contribution to the field of educational leadership.]

I have a doctorate in Politics and Education and when I’m asked what that means, I usually speak to a definition of politics I’ve “borrowed” (re-mixed?) from an adjunct professor with whom I took a course while in graduate school.  Dr. Dale Snauwaert, an adjunct professor at TC at the time, wrote about politics as the intersection of power and justice.  Combining my interests in the politics of education and educational technology, I’ve written much about justice and educational technology (see e.g. this article).  I have not, however, written much about power and educational technology…until now.

In my courses on the politics of education, I guide our exploration of power with two questions: (1) who has power? and (2) how is power organized/distributed?  Much has been written about who has power in the area of educational technology, though there’s more that needs to be written.  Today, though, I explore what I believe to be a major obstacle to school reform through the lens of educational technology: how power is distributed around educational technology.

Educational governance is ultimately about control and how that control is (or is not) partitioned among the various stakeholders matters immensely. I argue that in education, the system is multi-layered and overly partitioned.  I compare our educational system to onions and silos.

“The way authority is structured and exercised shapes the intellectual and moral character of the school, thereby profoundly influencing student development” (Snauwaert, 1993).

ONIONS

The U.S. education system is like an onion in that it has many levels and the more you try to peel away at those layers, the more you start to tear up.

Policy decisions are made by federal, state, and local education agencies.  Even locally, decisions are made at the district, school, department and classroom level.

In addition to aiding or hindering quality education, there are many consequences to the multilayered system, including the phenomenon of mutual adaptation (which I’ve written about here).  As McLaughlin wrote in an article in 1990 about school reform, “…it is exceedingly difficult for policy to change practice, especially across levels of government” (p. 12).

I was reminded of the onion last week at NECC, and my reflections from the conference reinforced my thinking.  The largest ed. tech. conference in the U.S. is nearly entirely classroom-focused and the conversations are nearly totally absent of policy context.  Yet, alongside NECC proper, SETDA (the umbrella organization of state education technology officers) was holding their Emerging Technologies Forum & Annual Convocation.  There was some overlap between the two events, but from my perspective, the state-level policy makers were meeting in parallel with the school and district-level folks at NECC.  Similarly, shortly after NECC, the Education Commission of the States held their annual National Forum on Educational Policy.

This sort of parellel play doesn’t advance anyone’s cause.

SILOS

Even within the same levels of decision making in education, we have a serious silo problem.  Like policymakers across levels of governance, educators within any given level exist and work within separate silos; i.e. they play in parellel.  Think of all the silos: subjects, grades, departments, etc.

One silo problem that is particularly problematic is the curriculum vs. technology distinction.  I’ve long wanted to do an examination of school district organizational charts to see how technology is related to curriculum.  I know that in some districts, they are separate departments, each with its own director.  In some districts, there is an IT department (hardware, networking, etc.) that is separate from the instructional technology folks who may or may not live/exist under the direction of the curriculum folks.

I used to do evaluation research for education technology vendors who would often tell me stories about the “curriculum witch.”  They would usually pitch their solution(s) to the technology department and come very close to making a sale only to have the “curriculum witch” show up at the 11th hour and declare the program/software/etc. inconsistent with the curriculum goals of the district.  I’m certain there has been wasteful spending across numerous districts because the “curriculum witch” never did intervene.

In Virginia, our ISTE affiliate is VSTE.  They recently moved their annual conference to an early December date.  In fact, their conference is November 30-December 2.  From December 2-December 4 is the annual conference of VAASCD, the Virginia affiliate of ASCD.  That organization is focused mostly on issues of curriculum and professional development.  That these conferences are back-to-back in different parts of the state makes it nearly impossible for anyone (myself included) to be able to attend both.  So, the technology people will meet with the technology people and the teaching/curriculum people will meet amongst themselves.  I know people who I respect greatly that lead each of these organizations and I’m not at all blaming anyone for this situation.  I’m only pointing this out as a situation that reinforces the silo problem about which I am writing.

I could go on, but I need to bring this around to Leadership Day 2009.  For me, true school reform will not happen until leaders at all levels and across the many silos get together to think about governance arrangements. Especially at a time when collaboration and communication are easier than ever, we need to work together across levels of government and annihilate the silos in our education agencies.  Tha t is a huge leadership challenge.

“The real work of learning happens in the classroom, in the interaction between teacher and student.  This interaction is affected by innumerable large and small decisions made by principals, school boards, superintendents, state legislatures, education department officials, and the federal government.  These decisions and their implementation can either aid or hinder quality education in the classroom.” (Committee for Economic Development, 1994, p. 2)

Photo Attributions:

• Leadership Day: Scott McLeod
• Onions: Darwin Bell
• Silo: Chris Knight

I blogged.

About NECC.

For the fine folks at Dell.

Check it out there.

I am part of a team of professors facilitating the learning in an Ed.D. program for a group of sitting school administrators in a local school division.  I am currently leading a module on decision-making and resource allocation within the realm of educational technology.  This Saturday, I have a pretty unique opportunity (for me at least).  To better inform the larger conversations, I’m going to take our meeting time (3-4 hours) to try to “make a case.”  What case?

Well, good question; I’m glad I asked.  What I knew when I first began planning this module was that I wanted to spend some time with the students talking about all that I’ve been talking and thinking about over the last year or so within the ed. tech. community/network.  The problem is, I haven’t quite wrapped my head around what “it” is that I’ve been talking/writing/thinking about.  “It” is about learning, technology, reform, etc.

The beauty of this Saturday is that it has provided me an opportunity to synthesize and summarize my thinking and learning.  Here are the points that will comprise the logic of the argument (i.e. “the case”) I’ll be making on Saturday (in no particular order yet).  The students will have (hopefully) read the referenced articles ahead of time:

• connectivism as a new theory of learning (Siemens, 2005)
• ubiquitous computing affords ubiquitous learning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2007)
• Rhizomatic education: advances in networking technologies render obsolete any theory of learning that involves the individual construction of knowledge and that bounds learning by place and/or time (Cormier, 2008).

With those foundational points in place, I will demonstrate a number of the technologies.  In other words, I will show the students how I “do” networked learning. I fully intend to overwhelm them.  I am, after all, trying to “make the case.”

[NOTE: I intend to "broadcast" the event via Wimba Live Classroom.  If you want to stop by (in the virtual sense), leave me a comment so I can send you the URL.]

photo credit: Ben+Sam

There’s been a slightly disconnected conversation within/across my learning network/environment about conferences, presentations, etc. At the risk of sending you away, here are some posts I’ve read:

• Dan Meyer blogged and Tweeted from and about ILC and was his usual critical (though I think constructively critical) self.
• Sylvia Martinez, I learned through her comments to Dan, had written a while ago about how conference presenters might be better selected.
• Ben Grey very recently wrote about the power of conferences.
• Then, today, David Warlick wondered if the availability of a Ning site along with pre-conference handouts would stop people from attending conferences.

Most of what I’ve been reading can be pretty well summarized thusly: conferences are important learning opportunities because the f-2-f conversations (especially the informal/unplanned ones) that happen are great, but, for the most part, the presentations suck.

That statement about sums up my experiences as well, especially at “academic” conferences (what a ridiculous distinction, BTW).

So, here I go thinking “out loud” about the sort of conferences I’d like to attend (NOTE: this thinking is mostly related to ed. tech. conferences, but many of the ideas are applicable to any sort of conference).  In general terms, if I could have read what you are going to present, I don’t need to hear and see you tell me what you’ve written.  Also, if you could have “delivered” your presentation by publishing it on the Web (see e.g. K12Online), you might want to re-think what you’re doing at the conference.  More specifically:

*No keynote or featured speaker presentations by anyone who has recently written a book. Along the lines of Dan Meyer’s “cover the stuff I can’t Google,” if I can read the book, I don’t need to sit and listen to you summarize it.

*More moderated panel discussions and/or point/counterpoint sessions. If I have to just sit there and listen, I’m much more inclined to listen to people speaking with each other spontaneously.  Wouldn’t you enjoy listening to a point/counterpoint with Gary Stager and…well…anybody and everybody?

*No more large-scale demonstration sessions (especially of the “How I used Google Earth in my classroom!” variety). In addition to the vendor exhibit halls (hey, someone’s gotta fund the conference and give away swag), have a massive project demonstration room.  Think Poster Session 2.0.  Allow me to walk around from booth to booth and to converse with the folks about their projects and to view their various (digital, print, etc.) project artifacts.  All I’d need ahead of time is abstracts of the projects and I’d know which booths I’d want to visit/explore and at least one or two beginning questions.  This, BTW, might also be a good place to involve students. If there were students at the booths to talk about their involvement in the projects, I’d love to talk to them about it and I think they’d be more comfortable in the more intimate setting than in front of hundreds of people at once.

*Figure out ways to facilitate discussion/conversations. For example, perhaps offer fewer but longer sessions.  Then, IF the person(s) assigned to lead the session choose(s) to make a presentation, he/she/they must leave equal time for discussion about the presentation.  Also, configure the rooms so that they are more suitable to discussion/conversations. If I have to stare at the back of people’s heads, you’ve lost me before the session even begins.

Essentially, I think those that organize conferences MUST figure out what they can do that either can’t be done online or that can be done better or differently f-2-f.  To that end, it seems to me that the root of the word “conference” is confer.  And, according to Dictionary.com, to confer means “to consult together; compare opinions; carry on a discussion or deliberation.”  That’s what I want to do at f-2-f conferences.  In 2009, I’m headed to Educon 2.1, VSTE, CoSN, AERA, NECC…think I’ll get what I want?

Any other thoughts on how to improve conferences?