1. Objectives & Outcomes are distinct concepts. Blurring of the two may create significant issues for faculty and institutions regarding curriculum, assessment, and accreditation.
2. Instructional and curriculum design strategies exist regarding the development of effective objectives and effective outcomes. Two caveats. First, when using Bloom’s Taxonomy as a strategy, remember that it’s a taxonomy *not* a hierarchy. Second, outcomes written with a focus on knowledge and comprehension are arguably inappropriate for *many* college courses.
3. Given effective objectives and outcomes, assessment becomes the focus. A framework exists to facilitate continuous improvement of assessment methods.

When you enter phrases into the Google Books Ngram Viewer, it displays a graph showing how those phrases have occurred in a corpus of books (e.g., “British English”, “English Fiction”, “French”) over the selected years.

In short? Put words or phrases into the search box, separated by commas, select a time range, and the NGram viewer displays the frequency at which each appears in the corpus of text contained in the Google Books database.  A few quick searches, with predictable results, that I did when I first experimented with the tool included: (a) groovy, (b) laptop, and (c) hillbilly.

My question, “Where does @GoogleBooks plan for this project to go in the future? And, do they realize this could be a killer app for qualitative research?”  Imagine two things.

First, rather than only laying the tool over the top of the Google Books database, enable it’s use with any database; in particular, I’m thinking in terms of a research database that contains the texts and transcripts of interviews or other qualitative research data.

Second, add algorithms that flip the search function around; rather than user input dictating the results, develop algorithms that identify the most used words *and/or* phrases.  If you’re familiar with Wordles, think something similar to what Wordle.net does but with the added feature of identifying phrases and not just individual words.

The results could be an invaluable starting point for qualitative researchers with large quantities of data.  NGram used in that manner would identify for researchers the most frequently used words or phrases which takes a significant step toward identifying recurring themes across artifacts whether it be interview transcripts, texts, or documents etc.

photo credit: -Marlith-

Technological progress makes many things obsolete: horse drawn carriages as a means of regular transportation, broadcast television or printed newspapers as a primary or sole source of news and information, tests as reliable and valid forms of assessment . . .

Wait?  What?

Yep. Tests are an anachronism of an assessment era that is or should be fading into the past.  They no longer effectively serve the purpose they were intended to serve. Why?

Testing, as we know it (and as I understand it), grew up out of the post World War II, Skinnerian era of learning and cognitive psychology.  Tests were designed to estimate indirectly what educators could not observe directly: learner performance of knowledge, skill or ability in an authentic environment.  When teaching learners to become effective engineers, mathematicians, business managers, accountants, sociologists, psychologists, or even teachers, educators of years past had limited means by which they could observe learners performing in those respective capacities.  So, tests were designed to “estimate” the knowledge, skills, or abilities (KSA’s) a learner had acquired through a designed learning activity or course.  And, because tests were in fact estimates, it became necessary to evaluate the reliability and validity of those tests.  If educators could only estimate how well someone might perform after they’ve learned, it became essential to know that the instruments used to estimate were in fact (a) measuring the KSA’s they were designed to measure (validity), and (b) measuring those KSA’s accurately in each instance and over time (reliability).

Fortunately, a wide range of technologies have made it possible, as educators, to observe directly what once could not be  observed directly: learners performing KSA’s in a more authentic environment.  We know longer have to estimate how well:

• a future nurse may diagnose/triage a new patient; advanced simulation technologies ranging from virtual environments to complex simulation dummies allow faculty nurses to observe exactly how a learner performs;
• a future historian will be able to engage others in a meaningful discourse regarding the causes of three different wars in history and how that might relate to current politics; online discussions, including “voice boards,” ably capture such an ongoing discussion of which a faculty historian can later assess learner proficiency;
• a future (and of course current) computer user will be able to incorporate general education KSA’s regarding topics like computer and technological literacy; learners can simply record their own exhibition of that knowledge as they engage a salesman at the local electronics store to make an informed purchasing decision regarding their next computer;
• a future citizen and parent will be able to write while engaging their local city council or representatives to voice their valued opinion; the online world allows learners to post their comments in online public forums and allows faculty to observe and critique that written work (and to disagree if she so chooses).
• a future forensic accountant will be able to identify “the money trail” of an alleged money launderer; computer based simulations present complex problems using advanced algorithms and large databases to generate dynamic case-based scenarios and simulations.
• ( insert your example in the comments…. and the list goes on! )

So, in a significant number of instances, it is no longer necessary to estimate how well a learner may perform or exhibit KSA’s of a given discipline; the behavior can be observed much more directly in contexts that possess a good measure of authenticity.

From an educational perspective, continuing to embrace tests/exams/quizzes as a significant means of assessment is an anachronism; the usefulness of those tools has been displaced by technology.  In fact, it is possible to argue from a psychometric perspective that continued reliance on test-like instruments to *estimate* a learners performance rather than observing the actual performance is inherently less valid and less reliable.

The differences lie in the level of specificity each provides and the relationship of each to assessment methods and instructional activities.  Failure to understand and accommodate the differences can restrict academic freedom of faculty and complicate institutional efforts to manage curriculum and assessment.

Using the course I teach – COSC 1401 Introduction to Computers – I want to briefly illustrate the difference and the relationship between a learning outcome and a learning objective. 

OUTCOME

9. Demonstrate proficiency in the use of word processing, spreadsheet, database, and presentation applications.

OBJECTIVE

Given plain text of an existing research paper with 3-5 references cited in the bibliography, students will be able to format with 80% accuracy a MS Word document according to MLA guidelines including all document specifications (margins, headers, footers, use of styles, tab stops etc.) and use of the reference manager to manage the formatting of the bibliography.

The learning outcome provides a high level view of what a student will be able to accomplish by the end of the course; it points all faculty in the same direction.  However, from the learning outcome, do you have an idea of specific activities to be engaged?  or specific assessment methods that will be used? No.  In my opinion, that vagueness of learning outcomes is what enables a coherent curriculum while permitting academic freedom.  Both of those are critical to the profession.

In contrast, the objective is much more specific and serves to clarify, in part, what the outcome means.  From the objective, I believe you likely have a very good idea of the specific activities students will be engaging, and I believe you can easily begin to envision the assessment process as well.  If interested, feel free to describe the specific activities and assessment process in the comments.

Certainly, a number of learning objectives defined within the course may support and facilitate one learning outcome; that’s clear from the fact that there’s other tasks that must be addressed to be considered proficient in “word processing,” and there’s also tasks that must be addressed regarding spreadsheets, presentation software and databases.

The difference between an outcome and an objective is critical. Why?

Learning outcomes should be specified, at the very least, by institutions; that creates a coherent curriculum.  However, the development of learning objectives belongs in the hands of faculty or, at most, groups of faculty within an institution.  If the two are not clearly delineated, the terms “outcomes” and “objectives” may be (and are being, in some instances) used interchangeably.   That misplaces the  locus of control for the development of outcomes and objectives.  Institutions or, worse yet, accrediting or regulatory agencies specifying outcomes that are more akin to objectives creates a much more prescriptive curriculum than what is intended or desired.  That begins to restrict academic freedom and erode the professional creativity and responsibility of faculty, making the curriculum development process much more difficult.

Second, there should be many more objectives (tasks and assessments) IN a course than learning outcomes OF a course.  Without clear delineation between an outcome and an objective, the mission of professionals at varying points in the curriculum development process becomes clouded.  Without clarity in the differences between an outcome and an objective, a group charged with writing high level outcomes may quickly digress into writing objectives – thinking in terms of what activities and assessments could or should be included in a course.  That potentially leaves the curriculum development process with too many course outcomes that are actually objectives, and those objectives may be poorly written in an effort to not imply specific activities or assessment methods.

For example, imagine the objective in my example above being listed as an outcome and worded as, “Format a word processing document according to MLA guidelines.”  It’s too specific to be an effective learning outcome, and it’s not specific enough to be an effective learning objective.  Combine that with the additional poorly worded objectives necessary to address additional word processing tasks plus all of the tasks necessary for the other applications.  The result is at least 8-9 poorly worded objectives being listed as outcomes in lieu of the single learning outcome noted in the example. Of course, 30-40+ “outcomes” is unwieldy, so some will be removed from the curriculum leaving a confusing mish-mash* of objectives and outcomes to define the scope of a course.  Basically, it becomes a mess. (*mish-mash is a technical term in this instance.)

Further yet, with all of that confusion, imagine the difficulty imposed on institutions regarding assessment and accountability responsibilities.  Faculty reporting samples of assessment results of all course outcomes over a given period of time (4-5 years) is a manageable, necessary (yet still time consuming) process.  How difficult or impossible does that responsibility become with 20+ mish-mashed, poorly worded objectives rather than 7-8 well written outcomes each supported by well written, faculty developed objectives?

AND, all of those issues precede the issue of developing effective learning objectives.  That’s another, related-yet-separate ball of wax.

Long version and a few issues are described below.  After I explain all of this, please comment and tell me what sort of things I don’t know about QM or licensing issues etc that preclude an institution from doing this ;-)

Several posts, tweets and conversations over the past week prompted what is probably not a new/unique idea

• Barry Dahl tweeted . . .
  So, the alternative title for this post is: “Why so many versions of the same online course?” Many institutions have as many versions of an online course as they have faculty teaching that online course.  Why?  Faculty typically develop their own course content, so 14 faculty teaching ENGL 1301 online for a community college means that community college has 14 uniquely developed online versions of the course.  I’ve encountered only a few instances in which institutions strategically develop online course materials to be distributed to all faculty teaching the course.
• I had a conversation with a friend that will be teaching adjunct for the first time at a community college. She commented how much work she has to do to figure out the course for the first time, and that’s even with her having extensive teaching experience.  It’s STILL a new course and a great deal of preparation.
• I noticed an institution that lists the courses and faculty developers that have received QM certification for their courses.  I wondered how much was spent on the QM review and know that only one course and group of students each semester will benefit from that quality review.

The Plan.  Given an course that has received QM Certification, offer the faculty developer of the course a nominal fee per semester for the rights to distribute that version of the course to every faculty member – adjunct and full time – that is teaching the course for the college – online or on campus. Faculty using the course have license to edit or modify the course as needed, and it may be copied from one semester to the next, but that copy must be reported and licensed.

The Benefits.  First, for less than the salary cost of one course section, every faculty member teaching the course has access to use a QM certified course.  That likely improves the online content available to students in a great number of courses; certainly, that won’t be true in every instance, many faculty develop high quality courses worthy of QM certification.  However, at the very least, providing the QM certified course will (a) allow experienced faculty an opportunity to add more high quality content to an existing, quality course, and (b) more importantly, provide a greatly needed resource available to adjunct faculty.  Providing adjuncts with online course materials for use in on campus or online courses would be a tremendous improvement over the predominant “Here’s-a-textbook-and-an-institutional-syllabi-for-the-course” approach to providing resources to adjuncts.  IF even 50% of the adjuncts teaching ENGL 1301 begins using the QM certified course, the quality of instruction for that course will improve as those faculty focus more on actually teaching rather than trying to scope, sequence, and develop course materials.

Second, the issue sidesteps the sticky IPR issue and finds a win-win-win for everyone involved.  This idea immediately raises the question of ownership, “Who owns the developed online course in the first place?” Faculty will immediately tell you it’s their course; they developed it.  However, institutions may answer that question differently.  Institutional intellectual property policies become critical, and if the faculty member leveraged any institutional equipment or resources while developing the course, the institution may have a legitimate “work for hire” claim to the course.  Rather than trying to work those out, the institution licenses the course at a very reasonable cost which increases the return on that investment; the faculty member receives additional compensation for licensing the course; and other faculty get a tremendous head start for making online content available to their students or a resource to add additional high quality content to their course.

Third, if the adoption rate of a licensed QM course becomes significant enough, the institution greatly reduces the task at hand in addressing course quality.  Propagating QM certified course materials via a $1500/semester cost is much more scalable than facilitating a QM review for every faculty member that teaches a course and infinitely more feasible than managing to get QM quality courses developed for or by every adjunct.

The Issues.  The primary stumbling block will be (a) any licensing issues with QM and (b) monitoring the potential for the continued use of licensed materials beyond the scope of the license.  I’m not entirely familiar with QM licensing; if anyone has insight relevant to this idea, I’d appreciate that being shared in the comments.   The institution will have to diligently monitor the continued use of the licensed material to ensure that the licensing of content from faculty developers is not abused.  What other issues might there be?

Your thoughts/comments are of interest.

The discussions focus on learners applying new knowledge regarding computer technology to make selection decisions.  For example, given new knowledge of storage and hard drives, students must choose which hard drive specifications for a new computer they are purchasing.  Students must explain their choice within the context of their personal computing needs and use habits; I refer to it as a “goldilocks” computer – it’s not too much or too little of a computer for them.  The goal is a perfectly efficient purchase that maximizes the use of every dollar spent.

The two criteria focus on students’ “knowledge & decision-making” and their level of “engagement & participation” in the online discussions.  The descriptors are in the attached PDF version of the discussion rubric.  Your feedback is of interest.

In this instance, a student procrastinated on a paper and turned in a draft that relied entirely on complex primary historical documents; the paper presented advanced analysis of those documents requiring, arguably, the proficiency of a graduate student or professional historian.  When confronted by the professor, who “voiced concerns about the integrity of the document,” the student was unable to adequately defend or discuss the contents of the paper.  A failing grade was assigned, and a seemingly thorough institutional appeals process was followed resulting in the student’s degree being delayed given the “blatant nature” of the plagiarism.

Ultimately, however,

College authorities were unable “to identify additional sources from which [the student]  material used in [his] paper, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that other parts of the paper are not [his] work,”

. . .

[The Student] was never “confronted with the source from which he was charged with plagiarizing.”

For me, that’s a significant concern.  As I commented on the TCCTA blog, if the integrity of a faculty member were challenged, a significant burden of proof would be required by an institutional review process before rendering a decision that would tarnish a professor’s academic reputation and jeopardize their future, and that burden of proof would almost absolutely require that a plagiarized document be identified for comparison.  However, as the court’s decision in this case noted,

the College’s Student Academic Honesty Code (hereinafter the Code) does not define plagiarism to require that the source of the plagiarism be specifically identified. While the faculty handbook suggests that any plagiarism charge be accompanied by “a comparison of the source document with the plagiarized document,” such a submission is not mandated by the College’s rules and regulations…

The court ruled that “compelling circumstantial evidence exists,” and as it is described in paragraph 6 of the decision, I would agree. However, I have grave concerns with having two standards for defining plagiarism in scholarly work; I believe the proficiency and academic experience of the scholar is immaterial.  I don’t want students to plagiarize, and if I believe they are, I certainly want to pursue the issue.  But, should we not value student scholarship enough that we require a significant burden of proof to support accusations of plagiarism – that we should at least require a plagiarized document be produced as we would if challenging any other scholar?  How firm is the ground on which we choose to stand if we judge a student to have plagiarized based on the judgement of faculty?

Certainly, as faculty, I value the professional judgement of faculty, but I personally would not challenge the integrity of a student unless I had a source document in hand.  I will not challenge a student’s integrity based on suspicions and circumstantial evidence – no matter how compelling; by doing so, I feel I am placing my own integrity and professionalism at risk.

First, I believe Bloom’s Taxonomy is often mis-interpreted and misapplied by educators.  Repeatedly, I have experienced educators that interpret the lower levels of thinking to be appropriate for introductory and survey level college courses and that the higher order thinking skills are appropriate for advanced, or junior, senior, and graduate level courses.  The impact of that is that early college learners in those courses are limited to only rote knowledge experiences.  Of course, that’s a problem with the implementation of Bloom’s theory and not the theory itself.  However, it’s still important given the impact that Bloom’s has on the learning experience, and it leads into a related argument…

Second, Bloom’s Taxonomy – at least in it’s popular repetitions – fails to acknowledge that learners may perform at varying levels of proficiency within each type of higher order thinking skill.  It’s not that an early college learner is incapable of application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation; they simply will not perform with an expert level of proficiency in those higher order thinking skills; they should be expected to apply, analyze, synthesize, evaluate, or create, but they will do that at a novice level.  For example, a student in a first year micro-biology class can and should be expected to apply knowledge of cell structures and epidemiology to identify a particular organism; however, the level of difficulty of the problem should be appropriate for the first year micro-biology student and not require advanced declarative or procedural knowledge which typically requires advanced study in micro-biology.

Third, technology makes possible many more avenues for students to perform and to be assessed; the range of simulations and interaction that can be created through technology enables more authentic problem solving opportunities.  Plus, the increasing demands in academia and the workplace for learners to be better prepared suggest learners need more authentic learning experiences.  The combination of those to facts indicates learners need to be performing to apply knowledge in as close to “real life” situations as possible.  This supports Dr. Sugrue’s argument that “all objectives are at the use level (that is, “performance” objectives) and that learners will practice or be assessed on the particular performance in representative task situations.” We should be observing students performing as they will need to in the future – and measure that performance, at whatever level of expertise is appropriately and reasonably expected of that learner given their prior learning experiences.  Simply “knowing” or “comprehending” something is not enough.

Perhaps classroom assessment would benefit from focusing on simply engaging learners with active, collaborative and authentic learning experiences and measuring their performance according to the level of expertise the learners should exhibit in that environment.

Currently available and developed presentations include:

• Developing Effective Learning Outcomes & Objectives
• Continuous Improvement of Assessment Methods
• STOP Calling them the Net Generation!! (Please!)
• Personal Learning Environments in the Classroom

Further, a listing of formal conference presentations and research is available for review.  Feel free to contact colleagues and clients via LinkedIn and review past recommendations.

To inquire about availability and booking for presentations focused on any topics listed on this site or to discuss ideas for a custom presentation or professional development event, please contact me via the speaking engagement inquiry form or via twitter @cmduke.

First things first : A learning outcome and a learning objective are two distinct concepts.  The delineation of the two concepts is critical to effective design of learning and assessment for a course, and subsequently, the management of assessment practices.

Assessment of learner outcomes and performance has become increasingly important in a political and accreditation environment focused on evidence, data and accountability.  While institutions work to establish procedures to ensure learner assessment results are documented, reported and used to improve instruction, the success of those improvements is dependent upon or assumes the identification of quality learning outcomes, learning objectives, and learning activities.  Effective learning experiences begin and end with assessment derived from defined outcomes and objectives.  The focus question then is, “How do we develop effective learning outcomes and objectives?”   

First, the terms “learning outcome” and “learning objective” often are used interchangeably – even by consultants and statewide educational leadership.  However, within the formal practice of assessment and instructional governance, a distinction between the two is critical.  The differences lie in the level of specificity each provides and the relationship of each to assessment methods and instructional activities.  Failure to understand and accommodate the differences can restrict academic freedom of faculty and complicate institutional efforts to manage curriculum and assessment.  Each of the differences and the implications of both are discussed in depth.

Second, learning outcomes for a given course or program/discipline often have long been defined by experts within the respective field, and in some cases, the learning outcomes are dictated by governing or accrediting agencies.  So, the conversation focuses on developing effective learning objectives.  Methods from the instructional design field aid in the development of effective learning objectives.  Those methods will be described and discussed followed by interactive discussion among faculty applying the method to re/develop objectives for one of their own courses.

Assessment of learner outcomes and performance has become increasingly important in a political and accreditation environment focused on evidence, data and accountability.  While institutions work to establish procedures to ensure learner assessment results are documented, reported and use to improve instruction, the demand for improving learners’ workplace readiness will drive the need for continuous improvement and innovation regarding how we assess learners.  Assessment is the beginning and the end of designing and facilitating effective learning experiences.  With that in mind, “How do we improve assessment methods to enhance the learning and teaching process?”

This conversation introduces a coherent framework of effective instruction based on instructional design theory, research, and practice.  Each element of the “Active, Collaborative & Authentic” learning framework will be introduced and practical examples of each will be described.  The discussion will then focus on the application of the framework to improve assessment methods.  First, a case study will be described regarding how the framework was applied to enhance learning activities and assessment in COSC 1401 Introduction to Computers.  Second, faculty will begin engaging the process of applying the “Active, Collaborative & Authentic” framework to identify potential innovation and improvement of assessment methods in their own courses.

A relevant and perhaps prerequisite conversation may be needed to focus on the design and development of effective outcomes and objectives (Yes, Virginia, there is a difference!).

To this point, we’ve always been a point and shoot family, for the most part.  Currently we have a Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ7; it’s a DSRL-Like body style, but it’s a point and shoot.  I want to graduate up to an interchangeable lens type camera.  Until the last several years, that’s meant a DSLR, but now I’m faced with many more options given the 4/3 and Micro 4/3 style cameras.  Before describing what I currently think we need or want, it may be better to describe how and why we use a camera.

We take a ton of pictures.  Most of them are of the kids (3 daughters, 10, 6 and 2) in every imaginable kid-type environment: playing outdoors, kids sports leagues from tee-ball to soccer to vollyeball, indoors at home in “around the house” sort of candid shots with typical lighting issues, school related events which are typically in cafetoriums with poor lighting, and a variety of portrait type pictures both indoors and out.  My wife and I are also interested in participating in a local photography club which includes a range of different types of photography: nature and landscapes to still life and macro shots.  We’ve talked about street, food (to mix this hobby with another: cooking), aerial, stereo and sports photography.  I guess there’s not really any genre of photography in which we’re not interested at this point.  I guess what we may want to photograph and how – besides family – isn’t real well defined.

We’re also in the habit of using our regular still camera for our primary video camera as well.  Carrying one device with one storage format has been proven to be very handy.  Unless I can find a very good reason to consider having a dedicated still camera and a dedicated video camera – as separate devices – I’d prefer to have a camera that does both fairly well.

At the moment, I have a great deal to learn about photography; I understand depth of field and very much want to be able to have more focal control to create the images I want: i.e. focusing on my daughter’s face with the background being slightly blurred – or at least more blurred than it is with the point and shoots to which we’re accustomed.  I’m interested in external flashes for a variety of reasons.  Having a stronger flash for low light situations (described above), being able to bounce/fill light rather than direct flash at the frame etc.  I am interested in learning more about shooting in RAW format and processing the photos.  I wouldn’t mind tinkering with Adobe Lightroom.

I’ve talked to several photographer friends about the differences between DSLRs and mirror-less cameras.  I don’t think my eye is fine tuned at this point that the LCD display in the viewfinder vs. the through the lens view will make much of a difference.  At one point, though I’m not sure it’s still true, the mirror-less formats had an advantage over DSLRs in regard to video given the direct, image to sensor, format.

I’ve been looking at the recently released Panasonic Lumix GH2.  It’s a micro 4/3 format camera with HD video capabilities.  For how we are using and will use, for the forseeable future, a camera, does it have the capabilities and accessories that will allow us to continue to use this camera long term?  Are the available range of lenses for the format too limited?  What DSLR’s should I consider?  Does a converter like this one allow a camera like the GH2 to use Canon lenses, if needed/wanted?  Beyond the 14-42mm lens with most kits I’ve seen, I think the first additional lens I would need or want would be a telephoto lens?  If so, is 100-300mm overkill (seems like it might be), perhaps a 45-200mm?  But, I’m not even sure how long I’ll be happy with the 14-42mm lens; it may last me a while based on how we use our camera, or for all I know, I could be longing for the telephoto lens the day after I get the camera.

Any thoughts?  Suggestions?  Comments?  Advice?

The education industry, at all levels, has been inundated with the “net generation” and “digital native” rhetoric for more than a decade.  An uncountable number of conference presentations, technology initiatives, curricular changes and innovations, and faculty development projects have started with the assumption that we, as educators, are faced with a college learner of today that is radically different from the college learner of years past.  They’re just different.  Why?  Only one reason: they’ve been surrounded by ubiquitous technology their entire lives.  You’ve seen *that* presentation introduction 100x over… How many hours they surf the internet, play games, listen to music, text on their phones… blah blah blah blah.

QUESTION.  If all of that’s true, why do so many faculty have to spend so much classroom time and resources showing these technologically adept digital natives how to: submit an assignment via the LMS, set the page margins in MS Word per MLA format, enter a basic SUM() formula in Excel, do an effective search via the internet, intelligently consume web-based information, or use basic features of a library database?

ANSWER? The Net Generation really isn’t computer literate (sssshhhhhhh!).  They’re not computer literate in any meaningful sense of the phrase, at least.  This conversation addresses and deconstructs the notion of the inherently computer literate net generation learner; in short, it’s an attempt to undo over 10 years of brainwashing that has a great number of educators believing we have to change to adapt to “them.”  The educational implications for the reality of the ironically computer IL-literate “Net Generation” are discussed, and the presentation includes a report and discussion of research findings in which 350+ learners completed a one hour computer literacy assessment aligned to an internationally recognized standard for and definition of computer literacy.  80% of the students failed to achieve a passing score.  Seriously… 80%

The long and short of it is that, for me, the twitter backchannel at conferences has become damn near useless.  It’s not because Twitter’s useless or irrelevant, and it’s not because of the conference; it’s a matter of how people at conferences are using… well… not using the Twitter backchannel effectively, in my opinion.  Rather than an engaging backchannel shared by colleagues and professionals engaging each other in meaningful discourse related to conference presentations, by and large, the Twitter conference backchannels have become nothing more than a “mindlessly-broadcast-whatever-the-speaker’s-saying-channel.”  Your thoughts?

Two items stand out in my mind at the moment.

• Roger Ebert’s presentation, Remaking my Voice. [Ebert @Suntimes and @Twitter]
• Stephen Downes’ presentation, The Lecture Must Stand.

Taking the two presentations juxtaposed, there’s a stronger message for me than perhaps either of the two presentations in isolation.  I want to give this more thought, but briefly and roughly…..

For me, Ebert’s salient message is that our own human voice is an inextricable part of our own identity, and if we lose the ability to speak, from his experience, we are compelled to forge a new identity.  We are forced to “remake [our] voice.”

From Downe’s presentation, my primary take-away can be found a little more than half way through.  Lecture’s are about making a connection – on any number of different levels – between the speaker and the audience.

Taking all of that along with another presentation I viewed on Slideshare at some point in the last couple of days, a common problem with lectures is that the speaker often nullifies, sterilizes, loses, neuters their own voice… their own identity.  The lecture gets transmitted without the personality and identity of the speaker.  The speaker and their Voice become – as Ebert described – disconnected from the speaker… from the audience.  The challenge is to present – with or without technology – without losing the connection that occurs between a speaker and an audience via the speaker’s unique Voice…  Avoid other aspects of the presentation becoming “brighter than the speaker.”

Your thoughts?