In the recent TLT meeting, Kevin was invited to share his thoughts. One of his comments made was “In 20 years, none, NONE of the technology we are using now for education will still be there.
As obvious as it sounds, I’ve never actually thought about the implication of that fact. First of all, it is clear that what’s important for us education technologist is not what we happen to be familiar with but whether we are able to quickly grasp the idea of new technology and make good use of them. Secondly, it is important to be well informed on all competing trends and the communities behind them so we can ride on the right one and direct it to good destinations.
The innovation, or at least the intention to innovate, of the meeting itself fits the theme. Folks at ETS are already very familiar with the new communication tools used in conferences and meetings and I’d say these cases are mostly successful stories on how these tools help us connect better. Those who are still new to the scene, come to one of our major conferences (#LDSC09 or #tltsym09) and experiences a totally different level of live interaction.
Some of my trainings were totally based on oral and aural means; they emphasized close face-to-face communication, 100% single-task attention without multitasking, and memorization. Even note-taking was considered distracting to the presenter and the note taker. As powerful and effective these forms of communication can be in their own right, they are not always suitable in our modern society. Nowadays we value collective group inputs, discussion, getting ideas from multiple inspirations, frequent interaction, and multi-tasking. If we allow a meeting participant to use notes instead of his memory, is it all that strange to see a group of participants collaborate on a meeting wiki during the meeting? And does it really matter whether the ideas are exchanged on wiki, twitter, IM, Text, Live Question Tool, etc.?
On the other hand, just as we now see note-taking as a sign of taking the meeting seriously, one day we may expect people to use these tools actively. It is not necessary true that if a person is not taking notes, she is not actively participating in the meeting. However, if meetings evolve into a real-time, interactive form of communication, a person not using any of these tools may actually miss a lot in the event.
If our meetings are to go into the new ear, we will likely see some changes, and changes by definition are something we are not used to. For example, active participants may be reading and typing at their laptops instead of looking at the presenter in a live event. The reason people sit in the back of the venue may be for wireless signal reception’s sake.
Of course, as long as our society allows free will, it is impractical to expect every single mind to actively participate. People learn to nod back to the presenter without really listening. Note-takers can doodle, or write down the words presented mindlessly. People could chat with their buddies about something irrelevant to the meeting. The tools are not the real problem. Otherwise, we would feel very justified to use the eyelid holders as in Clockwork Orange, or a milder approach, wireless signal blockers. The real issue is always the mind. What motivates people to participate? What’s the real purpose of a meeting? What are people’s concerns about when, where, how the meetings are conducted?
I see myself as an innovator, or at least an adaptor of innovations, and I make efforts to be open-minded while being mindful on what works, and the necessary costs of the changes. For me, it’s been, and will continue to be, a journey that defines what it means to be relevant in the modern day.