Had a "first draft thinking" conversation with Dave Cormier yesterday about some of the side conversation/question/criticism around the K12Online Conference. Specifically, we were discussing a recent post by Stephen Downes, as well as some of our own concerns/questions/observations about the conference. Since our recording, Stephen has further elaborated on his remarks.
The goal of the conversation was to honestly hash out some of those thoughts. It’s certainly my hope that the discussion both about the conference and how to conference continues in a productive and useful manner.
The Podcast: Asking Questions About the K12Online Conference
October 19th, 2006 · 4 Comments
Tags: Blogging Community · Current Affairs · K12Online
4 responses so far ↓
Karl Fisch // Oct 20th 2006 at 10:05 pm
So much to say, so little time. As you know, I’m still relatively new at this, so my perspective is maybe still as a “newbie” - which is both good and bad. So here goes.
The conference is “a good thing.” Period. Is it perfect? Probably not, but so what? I see it as good content that is going to be easily shared with a wider audience. Yes, each of the presenters - as well as others - can publish in their own space, but the reality is that the vast majority of teachers will never visit their space. I think it’s ironic that Stephen Downes - a member of the “elite” edubloggers - is taking other “elite” edubloggers to task for trying to share ideas with others. It seems like you all are forgetting how small this sphere currently is. Shouldn’t we be trying to grow the community, to expose more teachers to these ideas? Sure, it may not be “pure” enough for the elite, but let’s get practical here - Stephen’s blog isn’t ever going to directly impact most K-12 teachers - he’s just not that approachable for most. That’s not to say that he doesn’t have great ideas, but most teachers will never pay attention to them. But they might pay attention to others that package those ideas in a different form - like the K12 Online Conference. And, to be practical again, do any of these critics realize how rare it is for most teachers to attend any conference? I think some of these folks have forgotten the realities of most teacher’s lives.
Why is it bad to become more visible? For that matter, if a few of the “consultants” involved in this did end up benefitting from this, who cares? I don’t care if they profit, as long as I - and others - learn from the experience (and, to be clear, I don’t really think that was anyone’s intent).
I think this conference is going to make the content much more approachable for a wider audience. Yes, it might be more “pure” (yes, I’m using that word again) to have them all post in their own space and then aggregate it together, but then we would most likely end up with too much content and the audience would be overwhelmed and not pay attention to it (which is what is happening right now). And, of course, I think some of you guys are missing the point again - how many other “voices” would be missed because they don’t have the knowledge of how to get included in that aggregation? I think some folks have lost sight of the barriers that prevent most teachers from joining the community. Just because we find it easy (now) to use these tools, doesn’t mean that everyone does (or will).
I also think that this conference is inclusive - inclusive in the sense of the audience. Yes, by screening the presentations the organizers did exclude some folks. (But again, for the “pure” folks, there’s still nothing to stop all those excluded from posting to post in their own space, what the “pure” folks are asking for in the first place.) But what they are accomplishing is growing the audience by making the content approachable. The conference itself will “help people get started” - most don’t really know how to do this (or don’t have the confidence). In my opinion, the “elite” are not the audience for this conference. Many will be the initial consumers and participators - but then will help spread the word to the wider audience. Assuming the sessions are as good as I think they’ll be, I’ll be using them as part of my staff development. If that’s not good enough for some folks, then they are welcome to either come provide free staff development for my staff, or pay my staff’s way to some conferences that meet with those folks’ approval.
I also think the conference will be a success because of the thinking it causes the presenters to do. Yes, we all think when we blog. But I would guess there’s another level of thinking that goes into creating these presentations. And that will help the presenters’ own learning, which will eventually help all of us. Bud, don’t you think the questions you’ve been trying to answer (like about “who’s your audience”) as you create your presentation has helped your own thinking about all this stuff? And won’t that in turn inform your future posts - which helps all of us learn? And, by the way, won’t that help your students?
As Dave said, I think the “community” will decide. If nobody likes it, it will go away. But if they do find value in it, will Stephen and others acknowledge that - or are they “smarter” than the community?
Okay, enough (probably too much). The questions that are being raised are worth thinking about, and the conference undoubtedly can be tweaked and improved. But how about we do our best to learn from the conference, to share what we learn from the conference with others, to try to use the conference to grow the community, to celebrate the great work that is being done, and to make the next iteration of the conference (should there be one) even better. And how about we take all that we learn and go out and do some good work with our students.
Bud Hunt // Oct 21st 2006 at 11:46 am
Well . . .yeah. I agree with much of what you write here — and I think I said as much in the podcast. I intend to fully embrace the conference, never didn’t, and to thank all of those who are putting it on. Repeatedly. I’ll learn as much as I can and meet lots of really interesting folks along the way. This has never been for me a question of “good” or “bad,” but I’ll certainly say, “K12Online is a good thing.” I do think, though, some of the philosophical issues raised here are worth thinking and talking about.
Quentin D'Souza // Oct 26th 2006 at 10:43 pm
IMHO - Talk about sure - dwell on - not really. I hope we still base our judgements on facts rather than conjecture.
I’m not a newbie, but I’m still learning, and that is what any professional development is about. And I didn’t have to travel across the globe to get it.
heh - what do I know anyway?
Janice Friesen // Oct 31st 2006 at 3:27 pm
I just listened to the podcast and I just want to say that I think that giving graduate credit is a way of SCAFFOLDING this learning for many teachers. They need that scaffolding to take their first steps. It is not BAD extrinsic motivation.
Also, I think that it is a great professional development experiment. All of us will be learning from each other in an organic way. Who cares who gets credit or who is paid or not paid or asked to speak at a conference or consult? That is not the point for most people who are involved and I think that if that is someone’s reason for participating then we will see it and avoid them OR we can all benefit anyway from what they are doing.
Leave a Comment