It is interesting to me when technology can facilitate that. For the Classroom 2.0 panel we held in San Francisco recently, we used Survey Monkey to let the (albeit small) audience vote on the topics they wanted to cover out of the 10 we prepared for, and then had a discussion forum displayed on the screen where they could ask questions if they wanted (no one did, since all they had to do was to raise their hands). Seems to me that this kind of format would work really well for certain topics or kinds of sessions, where the value is in focusing vast expertise (9 panelists) on what the audience really wanted.

I also think the idea of a conference social network will be hugely interesting to continue to follow. My sense is that it went well in Shanghai, and that there is even more opportunity to leverage the connections and the forums for dialog. I *think* the presenter and audience (participants?) will really like the dialog *after* the conference, but how will they respond to having feedback before and during? Hmmmm… I sense we will have fun navigating those waters.

Also … I’ve always been pretty fed up with a talking head lecture telling me how to teach in collaborative, inquiry, project based ways, but the conference should not go away. It’s an efficient way to get an IDEA into the heads of a mass of people at once. It’s only the beginning. The conference allows me to focus 2-4 days on getting ideas, seeing what others have done. When I sit in a lecture, I’m not just listening to what the speaker is saying, I’m reflecting on what I’ve done and what I could do, tying it to what I heard in the last lecture or read in my reader earlier that day, asking what ifs. My notes tend to be related, but the ideas that are generated.

Are there better ways of doing some of this, sure. But just like all the old technologies, stand-and-deliver, conferences, books, all have their place. Do we need to mix it up a bit, yes. Do we need to do away with it, no.

As I said on Doug’s Blue Skunk blog, I think that there are times when someone with your skills and knowledge can push our thinking and that often comes in a “impart knowledge” form because our thinking just isn’t there yet.

Opening that up for conversation afterwards facilitates that thinking as we ask questions, share answers and construct our own meanings.

That model worked so well in Shanghai.

In the second session, I found myself hoping that you and Sheryl would give us insight into your own thinking on the obstacles of Web 2.0 tools in schools…but did find the session valuable in spite of that.

Ultimately, before you revamp your presenting style, keep in mind that at conferences (as opposed to in our classrooms, perhaps) your learners are accustomed to the “impart knowledge” style. It has worked for us in ways that it may not be working for kids.

We often talk about the now different needs of our students from what we required in school. But it is still the “we” that are attending professional teacher conferences, at least for now. I am all for good modeling, but I am not sure that the “immigrant” crowd is ready for the “native” style.

[For those that have read this comment, 27 down the list...wow...thanks for making it this far.]

Your last comment about planning ahead might usher in a new approach. The requirement that participants come with an idea, issue or plan for learning might help direct a conference. Whether it’s a sprinkling of open space technology, barcamp feel or traditional workshops, if participants know up front the format and the expectations that they will participate I think some really cool things can happen.

The problem is that most conference goers have a belief about what will happen just as most students and teachers have a belief about what school should look like. As teachers, we have the opportunity to build relationships and change over time. A conference doesn’t have that luxury. So again, when you show up to lead/present, most of the audience have a certain expectation about what will happen.

Making the format or learning environment explicit ahead of time, allows participants to avoid surprises. Not that serendipity can’t occur but in short time frames, I think it’s important that everyone come knowing more or less what will happen so they can focus on learning. Further, if I’m a board of education paying for someone to attend, I’d hope they’d come prepared ahead of time and come away with a clear sense of what they might do in the future.

I’m wrapping up an educause article on conferences (with Peter Tittenberger and Terry Anderson). If you’d like to have a look at the article, let me know…I can send you a draft copy.

Take care
George

My sense here is that you’ve fallen into an “or” approach to conference sessions. Great conference presenters (at least those I gain the most from) provide both content and facilitate conversations or applications. In fact, I would guess most people are unhappy with a purely process approach (why did I pay my money if I don’t get good dope from an expert?) OR pure lecture (why is this person just talking at me?)

I am also going to offer up a small defense of the “sit and git” conference sessions:

Sit and Git, Spray and Pray (whatever the clever derogatory appellation du jour for short sessions offered during professional development days or conference is), such learning opportunities ought not to be simply dismissed as ineffective and drop kicked from the educational ball field. Like classroom lectures, good short sessions can be effective in meeting specific purposes. Those include:

Introducing participants to a new concept, theory or practice with the expectation of self-directed follow-up. (What is meant by authentic assessment?)

Teaching specific, useful skills, especially if practiced within the time allotted. (How to design a good rubric.)

Bending a mindset or encouraging an action. (Assessments can be used not just for ranking students, but to actually improve the learning process.) Think of the great speakers on TED.

Concrete, even discrete, learning opportunities have a place in professional development, provided they are part of a larger profession growth plan or teacher IEP.

Quite honestly, Will, were I to hire you to come speak at my conference, I’d want more than just a conversation. I’d want some expertise, some attention-grabbing, mind altering lecture, AND some constructivist-type activities.

It’d be why your gettin’ the big bucks!

Oh, I thought the Edubloggers thing at NECC was a blast, but I enjoyed because of the social aspects and not because I took away much that was useful.

All the best,

Doug

Cary

I’ve tried to capture some of the elements of what I think “Conference 2.0″ will look like at http://edtechlive.com/Conference+2.0. I’ve been talking with CUE, IL-TCE, and NECC about implementing some of these ideas, and I think the response has been pretty positive.

I might sum up the responses above by noting that conferences in the future will benefit by having some of both styles mentioned–which don’t have to be mutually exclusive. This speaks to personal themes I’ve touched on before, but *choice* is essential here. I think having some “unconference” activities, some lecture style, and some in-between gives room for people to choose what works for them, and to grow and stretch a little.

Cheers.

Furthermore, I found that I needed time to process the information and chose to listen to others rather than contributing myself. Some way of continuing the discussion afterwards is therefore useful for those of us with slow informational digestion, whether in the form of follow-up discussions the next day (as suggested above) or some form of online discussion.

In the case of the Ning site used for the Shanghai conference, the conversation continues on the site, with discussions below each session description. From a practical point of view, it would be nice if each session had been recorded and linked in on the same page as a podcast, so people could easily revisit points made in the discussion and write more about them in the discussion board.