My sympathy for this argument is edged further away by the fact that the school change movement is founded (in part) on the observation that our kids are bored and, as educators, that’s on us. Also, as I said in the post proper, if I can engage an antipathetic, compulsory audience, why can’t presenters do more to engage a sympathetic, voluntary audience?

I’ll stop dogging the ILC presenters shortly but it’s worth mentioning that the only handouts I received were PowerPoint print-outs, the sort of supplement that quickly lines recycling bins after sessions.

Well-designed handouts offer a place for the audience to engage with the content, to journal, or draw, or reflect, or read tables that are too dense for PowerPoint, all the tasks the presenters should have assigned us if they didn’t want us Tweeting away.

Yes, the purpose of my blog and Dan’s blog is very different. My blog has always been used as a tool to share information. This comes from it’s original mission to be used as a tool for sharing ideas with the teachers at three sites where I was somehow supposed to be a tech coach for everyone in just two free periods. It has continued to be a place for sharing ideas. I tend to limit the critique because I always felt it distracted from my original mission of trying to get teachers who were using no technology with their students to use some. However, as someone who is personally beyond that phase I appreciate critique blog like Dan’s.

Last week my goal was to share ideas I picked up at ILC even if they were ideas I was already using. I was writing for my readers not for me. There were sessions that were awful (about 4 out of the 15 or so sessions I attended) in terms of style and engagement, but all of them had some useful content. I thought
it was important to reflect that. I also had issues with a couple of statements made by certain presenters, but I shared those either in person or through that person’s blog.

Yes, as a presenter my registration fee was waived, however I don’t consider myself or the other concurrent session presenters more that appreciated volunteers. I know it’s tough getting people to present who aren’t trying to sell a product. To make conferences better every single person on this comment thread should be submitting proposals to present on a regular basis and signing up to review proposals. One of my friends just had to review and rate couple hundred CUE proposals the other night.

On the topic of computing while listening, I don’t consider you rude if you’re blogging, Twittering, or Facebooking while I’m speaking as long as you give me a little eye contact and feedback. If you are all looking at your screens I start to wonder if I’m bombing. :-)

Yes, you may be able to multitask and talk about the presentation with your friend at the same time it is being presented and be able to concentrate. But it is rude to presume the other person next to you has the same capability.

I don’t see this equally an issue with Twitter or liveblogging, though.

I agree with Scott, however, and think you have misinterpreted Toni Morrison. There is no responsibility of a reader to appreciate and praise writing that does not resonate with them. It’s nice, however, when a good critic can explain why or why not.

Criticism is not bad behavior.

Is tweeting and conversing really not paying attention? Who’s to say that because I’m tweeting, that I’m not engaged? I’d say the opposite is true. If I’m tweeting during a presentation, I’m reaching out to others who may or may not be present, sharing the content with them, offering my take on it and encouraging them to converse with me (giving me more to think about).

Is the conversing also rude? I believe if people are distracting or loud, yes. But, how many times have you turned to the person next to you to ask a relevant question or make an engaged comment?

As for surfing, I’ve been known to “surf” during a presentation to check on facts and to refer to sites mentioned in the conversation.

Perhaps we need to not just SAY what new learning looks like, but “forgive” it when we see it.

That said, however, I still lean toward Seth Godin on this one:

“If your target audience isn’t listening, it’s not their fault, it’s yours. If one story isn’t working, change what you do, not how loudly you yell (or whine).” (Small Is the New Big, p. 14)

Toni Morrison talked about the transaction between readers and writers in her Nobel Prize address in 1993 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1993/morrison-lecture.html). Her point, in an oversimplified nutshell, is that readers and writers hold equal responsibility in creating meaning.

I think the same holds true for presentations. Presenters don’t hold all of the responsibility in creating meaningful presentations. Those attending have to do their part. And quite frankly, I found behavior of the audiences pretty appalling. I don’t think any of us would tolerate tweeting, surfing and conversing during our classes by our students. In fact, I think we’d find it pretty difficult to muster the level of enthusiasm and energy needed for a dynamic presentation.

I appreciated reading Joe’s blog entries because he looks to make meaning from his experiences. His cogent, professional and gracious entries about the conference provide a useful reference to highlights and a model for professionalism.

I’m glad I attended the conference Joe went to because otherwise I’d be sad that I spent nearly $295, 9 hours of commuting time, 2 class days out of class, 1 testing day, and 5 hours catching up on work.