Last week was our second annual Learning Design Summer Camp, an informal get together of designers, technologists, librarians, teachers, etc. We're supposed to be a representation of the thinkers who live out on the horizon of educational technology. The ones who explore the most recent innovations to ascertain their potential for teaching, learning, and research. And in a very real sense we are who we say we are. That's what makes the get together so interesting. But I did have to chuckle at how quickly we conformed to our own set of norms.
For example, the two day event featured four 90-minute panel discussions. Each panel session featured two ways to capture the back channel conversation. First, we used twitter to capture general comments and observations. (If you want to get a snapshot of what took place go to twitter and search the hashtag #ldsc09). And we also used the live question tool courtesy of Harvard Law. The Live Question tool enables anyone with the URL to post questions for the panel and to vote on the most pertinent questions with the ones receiving the most votes bubbling up to the top.
What was funny was how quickly these tools became our primary means of communication. Without being told we could not speak, or verbally ask questions or make comments, we chose collectively and without communication not to speak and instead relied solely on these electronic mediums. It was Jung's theory of the collective unconscious in action.
This was true even if it meant our question did not get addressed. I know I second guessed myself several times when the community did not vote up my question, wondering if I was completely off base with my thought or just plain daft. It was not until we were halfway through the final session when one of the exasperated among us stood up to ask a question. Though she did preface it by stating she knew she was going against practice by speaking instead of posting. An admission that drew relieved laughter from the rest of us because we were all feeling the same thing.
As an instructional designer it got me to thinking about how critical it is for us to keep this example in mind when choosing tools for teaching and learning. From a marketing perspective, and we are all marketers in some way, shape, or form, it is a classic example of how the medium does shape the message. We unconsciously chose to communicate this way because it is a large part of what our group is (technology explorers) and because the tools were presented to us as an option (we, as a group, decided it would be the option).
As designers we need to think about the audience (students) that will be using the tools we present and what the tool is unconsciously telling them to do.
For example, the two day event featured four 90-minute panel discussions. Each panel session featured two ways to capture the back channel conversation. First, we used twitter to capture general comments and observations. (If you want to get a snapshot of what took place go to twitter and search the hashtag #ldsc09). And we also used the live question tool courtesy of Harvard Law. The Live Question tool enables anyone with the URL to post questions for the panel and to vote on the most pertinent questions with the ones receiving the most votes bubbling up to the top.
What was funny was how quickly these tools became our primary means of communication. Without being told we could not speak, or verbally ask questions or make comments, we chose collectively and without communication not to speak and instead relied solely on these electronic mediums. It was Jung's theory of the collective unconscious in action.
This was true even if it meant our question did not get addressed. I know I second guessed myself several times when the community did not vote up my question, wondering if I was completely off base with my thought or just plain daft. It was not until we were halfway through the final session when one of the exasperated among us stood up to ask a question. Though she did preface it by stating she knew she was going against practice by speaking instead of posting. An admission that drew relieved laughter from the rest of us because we were all feeling the same thing.
As an instructional designer it got me to thinking about how critical it is for us to keep this example in mind when choosing tools for teaching and learning. From a marketing perspective, and we are all marketers in some way, shape, or form, it is a classic example of how the medium does shape the message. We unconsciously chose to communicate this way because it is a large part of what our group is (technology explorers) and because the tools were presented to us as an option (we, as a group, decided it would be the option).
As designers we need to think about the audience (students) that will be using the tools we present and what the tool is unconsciously telling them to do.
What we experienced makes a lot of sense given the type of audience in the room. So to a marketing person like myself, it wasn't unusual or surprising in some ways.
Couple of reasons:
- The people in the room are used to technology and using it in conferences/events. Telling that group to use Harvard's question tool or Twitter for communication is almost second nature now. For the majority of attendees at the majority of other conferences, this would be strange.
- The Harvard question tool/Twitter has almost become part of the ETS/TLT brand. A lot of attendees expect it at one of our events.
Your final paragraph is of utmost importance because there is often the temptation to assume that everyone else operates this way, and that is not good. You cannot be a good marketing person (pro or amateur) if you do not attempt to understand how the target audience thinks. Empathy - a key part of right-brain thinking, as per Daniel Pink. And you won't always have the advantage of a person speaking out like what happened at the LDSC.
I attended LDSC09 as somewhat of an outsider - i.e. not a designer or TLT person as such. Whilst I did enjoy the 2 days, I did leave feeling a little short changed by the lack of personal contact and I left with a number of questions that I really would have liked answers to. I personally did not join in on the back channels but it seems like I was perhaps the only person not to. But I think you raise a good point, and if we are focussing on the needs of the students, is relying on non-personal communication really going to fly, and do we miss teaching some of the valuable inter-personal skills that they will definitely need in their post-university working life.
Interesting phenomenon which I noticed to. I wonder if some of it was the anonymity factor. I generally notice people (including myself) don't like to ask question in front of people they don't know.
So...the larger the lecture audience, the more inhibition students may feel to ask questions. One of things I like about Live Question is that students CAN feel safe posting on a question or even just voting.
Interestingly, you could actually get the "daft" question someone is afraid to ask, but is actually spot on. Unfortunately, voting could inhibit that over time unless an instructor is careful to pick one of these little gems.
I think the other interesting factor is speaker annoyance for attendee preferences. Speakers like feedback, but the audience doesn't always want to give it. Not sure if I have an answer, but I do think it's interesting and a little amusing at times.