I have been thinking about doing some presenting. 2007 seems to be shaping up as a year to do just that. To that end, I have been thinking about ways to follow up with conference attendees so that the conversation that begins during the presentation does not end once time is up. This was sparked by a webinar I attended with Will Richardson in which he used a wiki to present. I thought about how easy it would be to make changes, encourage discussion, etc. I am not one to blindly copy anyone, so I embarked on my own thought journey, and here are my current thoughts and the various options as I see them…
- PowerPoint/OpenOffice Impress/Keynote – The first and most obvious option is the standard laptop/clicker/screen presentation. I could spend lots of time preparing a rockin’ presentation to give with really colorful photos and engaging videos and loud music. It’s no secret, I can put together a snappy presentation. That seems too much like the old school. It seems very unidirectional and does not seem to support follow up. I suppose that if I were so inclined I could post the presentation to slideshare and then incorporate that into a wiki for folks to use as follow up. Still, it seems more like a look-what-I’ve-done-you-comment scenario. Useful, but appropriate in all situations?
- Second on the list is the presentation wiki. I have noticed a few folks doing this lately, and it seems like a good idea. I notice, thought, that mostly the one editing the wiki is the owner/presenter, not the crowd. I wonder if that is based on the learning curve that some conference attendees have towards editing a wiki? Or is it the sheer lack of follow up? Or could it be the nature of conversation? The latter is clearly where my thoughts have been because I rarely edit someone else’s wiki. I can not imagine being an attendee at one of David Warlick’s sessions and then editing his co-learner wiki. I know the wiki levels the playing field and that I have as much to say as anyone, but for me that is intimidating. Not only is it imtimidating, but I question the level of interaction. Sure, I get to make an edit of a wiki, but does that really become a part of the conversation? Would anyone know I contributed if all I did is fix something? Would anyone know unless they checked the revisions page? I don’t begrudge the wiki by any stretch, but if the blogosphere is all about the conversation and flow of information, a wiki seems to me still to be centered around one person. I am certainly aware of the discussion page on most wikis, but that seems tangential instead of integrated. Not sure what I really think here, just sort of rambling. As you know from earlier posts, I am a strong supporter of the wiki, but my uses are when there are a number of collaborators, not one person developing content and others just adding bits and pieces. I give kids a blank slate and the work cooperatively. Maybe I am drawing too much of a distinction here, but I see one.
- So I keep thinking back to the old days of Moonshae Isles BBS, which ran on Major BBS. I was ten years old, and this was all the 300 baud dial-up rage and there was a game called Fazuul that was text based and fun! We walked through that game together for hours at a time, all the while tying up my own phone line and not really caring because I was forging relationships in a new medium. Thinking back to those memories coupled with thinking about a new semester of teaching Latin has me pondering the use of forums (message boards) for conference presentations. Before you go accusing me of being “so web1.0″ hear me out.
Forums provide a threaded discussion, keeping conversations very linear. Now I am not saying that all conversation needs to be linear by any stretch, but forums would certainly offer a question-and-answer scenario that may prove to be very useful. Now wouldn’t it be something to take the forum and make it the center of the conference presentation? What if a locked, sticky, introductory post was the first to be shown, and then the audience is walked-through the contents. Then imagine if they could go home and walk through it themselves, and then post questions directly below it? I think that may encourage more people to participate as opposed to walking away frustrated.
I am thinking more and more that an internet forum (i.e. phpbb) would be a great way to keep the conversation going. I am thinking of one central forum with different conferences listed as the subtopics. Maybe something like this…
- NECC 2007
- Drupal
- WordPress
- ETV 2007
- Blogging
- WordPress.com
- Edublogs.org
- Podcasting
- Gcast
- Odeo
- Wikis
- Wikispaces
- Wetpaint
- SCFLTA 07
- Blogging
- etc etc
This just seems to me to be so logical and wonderful. That way if someone from a particular conference had a question about a particular piece of software, they have their own spot to go and post. I would start each conference with a new topic and blank slate. But, if attendeed wanted to, they could jump around and see what other attendees have posted under those respective topics.
Ok, let me have it. Is my logic flawed? Looking at Tim O’Reilly’s definition of web 2.0, it seems like the trusted forum (or fora, as is the correct latin plural) is a solid web 2.0 idea. My installation of phpbb (more on that later) will not be AJAX’ed quite as much as the traditionally referred-to web 2.0 tools like Google’s App Suite, but nonetheless it fulfills the core principles of web 2.0 such as:
- Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them
- Trusting users as co-developers
- Harnessing collective intelligence
- Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I will be able to try the winning tactic out at NECC, on Tuesday, 6/26/2007, 12:30pm– 1:30pm, because I will be presenting in the Open Source Lab. The title of my presentation is Open Source Blogging Solutions for Publishing Student Writing. Needless to say, I am super nervous already!
So, dear reader, which of these tactics do you think bodes best for follow-up conversations?
Cathy Nelson says:
Chris, don’t dismiss SC’s EdTech. Not only will you have a standing room only audience, you’ll get FREE registration. Another avenue to consider is FETC. Reg is waived here too. But most important I think is the principal’s summer ledership (SACSA.org). Here is a forum to speak about web 2.0 and its use to promote collaborative learning, but also a “targeted audience” of SC administrators who DESPERATELY need to hear the message. Best, they PAY$$$ you if your proposal is accepted to present. I’ve done them all, and I really like all three. If you get a proposal accepted at any of these three, I’m pretty sure your district or school will gladly cover your travel and lodging–afterall, you’ll be representing them. I’m very impressed you’ll be in the open source lab at NECC. I’ll be sure to drop by!
28th December 2006 at 7:38 pm
crafty184 says:
Hi Cathy! Thanks for your response. I certainly have not dismissed any of the above, I just listed the conferences/events that I am already booked for for the upcoming year. I would love more suggestions as to conferences I should attempt to present at! Thanks for your words and support!
Yours,
Chris
28th December 2006 at 7:41 pm
David Warlick says:
SC Edtech is an outstanding conference.
Chris,
Don’t downplay presentation slides. Presentation software is designed for communication, and that’s what you are doing as a presenter. If you can enhance your message with images, video, sound, animation, furthering the goals of your presentation, then use PowerPoint (or whatever). It’s certainly not appropriate in all situations, but when appropriate, use the heck out of it.
As for wikis, mine have never been utilized to the degree that I would like. But you give the best reasons why, and I would suggest that the main one is that the teacher work condition is not conducive to this kind of communication. It is still very much a solitary endeavor, not one of collaboration. Still, I wrote a hack for PMWiki (the opensource wiki engine that I use) that enables attendees to create their own wiki page on the fly, but have it linked back to the online handouts.
I disagree about the wiki being about one person. However, the presentation usually is, so although wikis make a great way to share online handouts and receive some content from attendees, the main reason that I use them is to model them.
Now if you do any extended workshops, wikis may just be the thing.
I agree about the forums (fora). I usually ask attendees to use their wiki page as simply a place to post their session notes. That way, everyone’s notes are available to everyone else, each sharing aspects that were personally valuable. However, if you want people to develop ideas, adding onto each others insights, then forums are definitely the way to go. (Latin was the only foreign language I passed, because you don’t need to be able to hear well, because you don’t have to speak it.)
I like your idea about a conference discussion board. But I personally find it too centralized. Again, I said personally. What I like about blogging is that if the conference establishes a conference tag, and presenters are encouraged to have a session tag, and you have a question about a session you attended, you simply blog your question, tag it, and people will read it and respond, either through comments or through their blogs, which will be tagged appropriately — and they do this because they have turned their ears out (to the blogosphere), rather than turning them in (to a forum site). It becomes one huge and expanding discussion board, but the part that you see is very personal, depending on what you are aggregating. I’ve written about Personal Learning Networks before.
But I agree wholeheartedly with you, that discussion boards have been unfairly overlooked by the Web 2.0 conversation. It kicks in what it’s good at, idea building.
Great luck to you!
– dave –
28th December 2006 at 8:40 am
theartguy says:
Woohoo! Congrats on the NECC presentation spot, and on the response from Mr. Warlick himself. I’m looking forward to meeting him at MICCA this year.
But in response to your question, I agree about fora for the most part – they were web 2.0 before there WAS a web 2.0. They’re just not for everyone.
The web 2.0 community is sort of like a high school dance. The kids that like to organize the whole thing would probably prefer a centralized wiki. The social kids (and the ones who are always first on the dance floor) would most likely prefer a forum, and the ones with the courage to show up but not dance unless asked/dared/dragged kicking and screaming would probably prefer their own blogs.
I know there are a ton of holes in that analogy (or is that a metaphor?), as well as some crossover, but that’s roughly how I see it.
28th December 2006 at 10:54 am