*** An offshoot of this discussion is a proposal for the K-12 Online Conference 2008 titled ‘Effective Criticism in 21st Century Education Technology.’ If you have a moment, please take a look at the proposal and offer feed back – your time and expertise are both appreciated. ***
NECC is the National Educational Computing Conference, an annual event put forth by the International Society for Technology in Education at which school-related folks can get together and talk technology.
It’s a big draw for the ed-tech’ers from the US and other parts of the world – particularly Australia, I think.
Back in May, Miguel Guhlin asked if I was going to make it to Texas for NECC [this was when he invented and attributed to me a line about admiring Ann Coulter, then dropped off the face of the earth when I called him on it].
I said not sure, but I probably should have just said, “Nope.” And now that NECC is underway [until July 2], those of us who follow the ed-tech blogs are getting blitzed with NECCness.
Courtesy of Dean Shareski, another wonderful guy in ed-tech with whom I mostly disagree, below is a video of the EduBloggerCon 2008, one of the early events at NECC. Fire up those Macbooks, sit on the floor and talk tech! But before you watch, here are some highlights from the 4-minute video:
- Web 2.0 helped raise money for Darfur – and the lacrosse team’s wiki went crazy!
- Let’s be “very honest with ourselves… they don’t want us to be able to communicate and connect… much of school is about control”
- “Waiting 3 years for it to click.” “What to click?” “It clicked.”
- Make note of people video-recording one another. Really, at one point two digital camcorders appear to be pointed at each other.
- Obligatory super-dooper-different’n'kool title of “The Real Unconference” with the also-obligatory discussion of professionalism.
It’s an excellent 4-minute summary of why I didn’t go to NECC – and likely won’t next year or the year after.
The EduBloggerCon is a tiny part of NECC – I understand that, as some sessions are more sensible than others – but the sheer lack of intellectual diversity [a statement which will undoubtedly be criticized as inaccurate], the techno-fandom, the 100% Process/0% Content split will keep me away. If I wanted to sit on the floor with a notebook, I’d go to a Halo 3 LAN party. At least those have HotPockets and Mountain Dew.
Time to peep the aforementioned NECC crash course:
So, NECCers, when you’re ready to take a hard look at technology initiatives, technology spending, the necessary limits of technology in a liberal arts education, the folly and incompleteness of 21st Century Learning [or whatever is fashionable at the time], the limits of Web 2.0 and the like, shoot me an e-mail and I’ll register.
Perhaps for NECC 2009, ISTE might entertain a bit more intellectual diversity in its workshops/speakers? Perhaps a few folks who inject realism into the debate?
You can shoot me an e-mail for that, too. I’m kicking myself for not trying to get on the docket for 2008.
A quick roll back to the end of December, when a blog post appeared on a leading ed-tech site and summed up the ed-tech attitude better than the treatises that come daily [as Mr. Downes says correctly, the education blogosphere's favorite topic is the education blogosphere. This is truest, I think, for ed-tech].
A teacher asks a common sense question about Web 2.0 in his art classroom – and it elicits outrage. How dare he question the value of technology?
The response, titled “Enough already.” expressed outrage at the stupidity and ignorance of a teacher who has the gall to ask “Why?”:
I’m thoroughly disgusted by this type of question:
How can an art teacher effectively incorporate technology into the classroom beyond photoshop and powerpoint? Is it even necessary for an art classroom to have all of the technological advancements of the modern age? Artists have been doing alright for hundreds of years without all of the computers, so what is the big deal?
Source: Forum – Classroom 2.0 9/12/07 4:01 PM Benjamin WorrellTechnology has changed how we communicate, collaborate, work together. It changes how creative minds feed off each other, increasing the number of connections people are able to make with one another, allowing the spread of ideas and thinking and playing. Imagine what would have happened if The Impressionists–did I mention I hate art?–hadn’t been able to share their ideas with others.
Why do we have to keep asking how technology will change how we approach teaching art or any subject? The fact is, it’s changing how people interact at the most fundamental levels OUTSIDE the classroom…you either use it, or you don’t. If you don’t then what is it about your field that is isolationist, anti-social, and insular? I ask because that’s what you’re choosing to teach.
There…another post about something I know nothing about (ART). Am I way off or what?
Thoroughly disgusted, indeed!
’tis the climate in education technology, folks, and it’s why I don’t go to NECC.
UPDATE at 12.01am EST:
I wanted to reproduce one of my comments below – it touches on one of the themes above.
… I want to talk about the imagery in the unofficial NECC logo [I made certain to include it in the post] and the irony of using that particular imagery. As background:
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2008/05/23/necc-button-winner-here-for-the-learning-revolution/
We’re coming up on the 40th anniversary of the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico. It was at those Olympics that Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists silently to indicate solidarity with the black community and black nationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_Salute
That image of Smith and Carlos served as the image for the Black Power movement for decades, and it’s still an oft-represented scene. Throw “black power” into Google Images and take a peep:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=black+power&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
Whatever one thinks of Smith’s and Carlos’s display, Black Power, nationalism, etc., is a non-issue. We can all agree that the symbolism of the fist in the air – the imagery from which that NECC logo of a fist holding a mouse and citing the ‘revolution’ draws – is one of challenge, resilience and struggle.
And it’s that ‘challenge’ bit that causes the ed-tech’ers to squirm, squeal and cry foul when it comes to them. If education technology wants to be taken seriously locally/nationally/internationally, if it wants to command professional respect, it will seek out and encourage challenges to itself.
That’s a far cry from what we’ve currently got – an echo chamber and lip service to ‘challenge’ that only seems to go one way. When you think about it, the irony of using the Smith/Carlos fist is a stark reminder of where education technology is and where it ought to be.
UPDATE at 12.52am EST:
Since the topic at hand is NECC, I thought I’d re-link to my PLN. They are still all the rage, aren’t they? Anyway…
Someone e-mailed to ask me what exactly ‘twaddle’ meant.
I don’t have OED access anymore – Good Lord, I wish I did – but I think it comes from the obscure/arcane twattle. dictionary.com says that too, but if it’s not the OED, I’m not too interested. Can one of you folks with an academic OED subscription confirm/deny?
The essence of ‘twaddle’ is… something silly, unnecessary, useless, trivial, etc. It’s surprising how many words we have that evoke their meaning when said aloud even if one has never heard that word before.
Say it out loud – twaddle. Doesn’t it sound like something not to be taken seriously?
And, I learned early on that as I trudged through life, I’d need as many variations on the words “nonsense” and “bullshit” as I could find – so I committed ‘twaddle’ to memory.
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 61 comments… read them below or add one }
Dean Shareski 07.01.08 at 9:04 pm
Actually there was quite a lot of discussion about lack of intellectual diversity. Most want to be pushed, challenged. This was actually a less than satisfying day in many respects. This isn’t likely the place to find a great deal of diversity in that respect. Certainly not in ways you’d like. It’s largely an echo chamber. Which is okay sometimes. Hopefully my aggregator would indicate different which is why I read you since I disagree with some of what you say, not all.
You’re right, the people here represented about 5% of the NECC crowd at most. Unfortunately for you I guess is they are the most vocal and have an online presence.
I disagree with much of the emphasis I see on tools and stuff and certainly don’t claim to have all the answers and likely never will.
In terms of speakers/sessions, while you might have a boat load of thinkers that might challenge and add intellectual diversity, consider that for better for worse it is a technology conference and it’s unlikely they would either want to present or be asked to unless there was some link.
PS. I’m guessing the “wonderful” adjective was sarastic? I’m a little slow.
Dean Shareski 07.01.08 at 9:10 pm
Thought I’d save you the trouble. This is where your new readers might come from.
http://twitter.com/shareski/statuses/848063891
Let the discussion begin.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.01.08 at 9:21 pm
Dean,
First, I’d like to hit your PS – it wasn’t sarcastic at all. One thing that stands out with ed-tech’ers [again, this is my opinion] is that they’re far more pleasant people than in other areas of education. I truly enjoy talking with ed-techers; good attitudes, boundless energy, largely pleasant. One thing NECC looks like is a lot of fun.
You know, I can disagree with the majority professionally and still think they’re good folks.
I’m glad that NECC reflected a bit. I could see the pre-complaining [I don't mean that in a negative way] before NECC started, and I hoped that some would grab onto this.
“consider that for better for worse it is a technology conference and it’s unlikely they would either want to present or be asked to unless there was some link.”
They need it whether they want it or not. We all do – just as you said at the beginning of your comment, being pushed/challenged is important. I would use “need” rather than “want,” though.
And of course there would be a link. Consider, for example, Mark Bauerlein’s new book – it’s certainly stirring up the ed-tech world whether they like it or not, and a session on such a topic is most certainly relevant.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.01.08 at 9:23 pm
Dean, Round 2,
Hi, guys! I don’t use Twitter for a host of reasons. I do, however, follow the Twitterizing/etc. of others on occasion.
I lament that calling for honest, hard reflection – some good, some bad, as with all things – is so much of a betrayal as to warrant ‘throwing under the bus,’ but let’s talk about it. It might just make NECC 2009 that much stronger.
stephanie anderson 07.01.08 at 9:44 pm
I am at NECC. As a full time English and History teacher I would just like to give my two cents- If I am looking for area content I go to NCTE, NCSS or my state events in California. I go to NECC to learn how to get to my students is a more effective way. I think you need to take it for what it is- and what you make of it. I find some of yor attitude a little insulting. There were about 13000 (est) people at NECC this year- we weren’t all there to hear ourselves. In fact most of us were there to learn something. I did.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.01.08 at 9:50 pm
Stephanie,
And the “push back” begins – from a BlackBerry no less! Very NECC. [Sorry, just having a bit of fun.]
You may have found my attitude insulting. It might not feel entirely dissimilar to how insulted I feel when teachers use public funds to sit around playing techno-summer camp.
I’m all for professional meet’n'greets – as Dean said, that echo chamber isn’t always a terrible thing – but I find ‘I learned something’ to be an awfully low bar.
I think that the education technology industry can do much, much better – the talent and motivation are both there.
Angela Stevens 07.01.08 at 10:09 pm
Matthew,
I think had you attended NECC this year, you would have been pleasantly surprised at the number of sessions that concentrated on pedagogy. Most sessions I attended stressed the importance of not using technology tools just for the sake of using them.
Have I been 100% satisfied with everything I have heard and seen while at NECC? Certainly not, but attending the conference has allowed me to meet others with similar professional backgrounds and discuss educational obstacles, professional development, pedagogy, and yes, technology. I have also been afforded the time to think and reflect without being interrupted by phone calls, e-mails, etc. for work related assistance (which is something we can all use to recharge).
Another bonus has been hearing from educators from around the world (Qatar, Canada, Scotland, Wales, Australia, etc.) discuss their educational policies and approach toward tech integration.
I am certain if you follow educational blogs you are getting “blitz with NECCness”, but instead of criticizing the conference and those who attend it, perhaps you might want to be impressed by the fervor these educators have for improving education for our students.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.01.08 at 10:24 pm
Angela,
“I am certain if you follow educational blogs you are getting “blitz with NECCness”, but instead of criticizing the conference and those who attend it, perhaps you might want to be impressed by the fervor these educators have for improving education for our students.”
As I said before, the ed-tech crowd seems to have boundless energy and motivation. That’s a very good thing, and I can’t imagine where education technology would be without that level of commitment from its practitioners. I am impressed, and I’ve said that over and over again.
I hope that NECC participants engage in honest dialog after the conference to see what can be added/dropped and tweaked for 2009.
Steve Ransom 07.01.08 at 10:39 pm
Matthew,
This is one of the few blogs that I have read where the author actually responds and tries to carry on a conversation. So many ed blogs that I have left comments on in efforts to have a conversation have been left unanswered. It is as if the very edubloggers that seem to push and value “conversation” can’t seem to carry one on themselves. I don’t think that they really want to have conversations at all. Rather, they seem quite interested in their technorati rankings, their number of comments, their clustrmaps, and the like. Thanks for the intelligent responses that you offer and the model of conversation that can be achieved.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.01.08 at 10:51 pm
Steve,
I know exactly what you mean about conversation – I don’t really see the point of posting any sort of analysis without following it up and discussing it. I think we’d all agree that this is how we solve problems, but I rarely see folks follow through with it.
So, I am, at times, critical – especially with ed-tech – but there’s a purpose. I truly do hope that NECC participants can analyze this year’s sessions and identify a few holes – and then talk about how to fill those holes. I have a feeling that it would mean going beyond some of the traditional ed-tech personalities and reaching out to other disciplines/sectors.
But… that’s the way most highly-effective, valuable processes work. It’s why the best schools [or businesses] don’t just post job openings in their local paper and cross their fingers as applications come in. The best schools recruit actively, often outside traditional, safe spheres, and achieve tremendous success.
And I think that’s exactly what NECC needs to do. Open some doors, challenge itself, pull a few people in. Will they? Who knows.
mrsdurff 07.01.08 at 11:00 pm
Honestly, I would have to say not only did the bus hit it’s mark, but it is rolling over the target repeatedly.
If you don’t follow anyone on twitter how can you say you know anyone enough to know their attitude? Have you always been so bellicose?
Zero percent content is totally unfair. The participants at this NECC are talking A LOT about pedagogy. I guess you wouldn’t know that since you weren’t here.
If you want to change things, YOU have to get involved. All the more reason to present at NECC.
Oh. and I’m pushing back as a virtual attendee- very NECCy, I’m sure.
Scott McLeod 07.01.08 at 11:03 pm
Steve, many of the most popular education bloggers that I know still try very hard to respond to their comments. I think I can safely say that nearly all of us value that conversation. That said, the sheer volume of commentary can be overwhelming. I will be the first to confess that, as much as I would like to comment and respond to as many of my readers as possible, it’s awfully difficult for me to keep up. I’m well-meaning; there’s just other stuff that needs to be done too (like my job!). I’m a fairly popular blog – about 3,000 visitors per day – but nowhere near the top of the blogosphere. I can’t imagine what it’s like for people getting 20,000 visits per day.
I’m always hesitant to attribute intent to others, particularly without knowing them or interacting with them on a regular basis. I admire Matthew’s interaction with his commenters too, but please don’t paint the rest of us with too broad a brush. Thanks.
Matthew, thanks for thinking that we ed tech bloggers are good people and also pushing us a little!
Matthew K. Tabor 07.01.08 at 11:16 pm
Mrs. Durff,
“If you don’t follow anyone on twitter how can you say you know anyone enough to know their attitude?”
I do follow others on Twitter – a few regularly, more on special occasions. Also, I think that there are far better ways to evaluate one’s attitude than their Twitter activity.
“Zero percent content is totally unfair.”
Zero percent isn’t meant to be fair; the 100% Process/0% Content split is a bit of hyperbole.
“If you want to change things, YOU have to get involved.”
I am involved, though not in the traditional ways that many ed-tech’ers are.
“All the more reason to present at NECC.”
I would very much like to present at NECC 2009, and I should have tried to make it happen this year. As schedules have fallen, it would likely have gotten canceled anyway. Such is life!
“Oh. and I’m pushing back as a virtual attendee- very NECCy, I’m sure.”
NECC has some neat features – including this discussion right here that’s a result of Dean’s Twitterized rallying cry. That so many ed-tech’ers can hop into a discussion so quickly is a great thing.
I didn’t realize that you were a virtual attendee – I heard you on a podcast yesterday and thought you were there on the scene.
I’d like to address one other thing… and will shortly… but I’d like to hit Scott’s comment first.
mrsdurff 07.01.08 at 11:25 pm
Thought I was there! Another good laugh tonight from the other coast! (The other came from another virtual attendee on the west coast). Thanks for a good laugh!
Matthew K. Tabor 07.01.08 at 11:25 pm
Scott,
Some of you guys are almost superhuman. The sheer volume of stuff you get on your site – and W. Fryer’s, and W. Richardson’s, and S. Downes’ – is striking. That you guys get to so much of it is impressive.
We also have to remember that most blogs aren’t terribly prolific, and comment responses are one of the first things to go.
I can’t speak for Steve here, but I’ve noticed that when ed-tech’ers push boundaries, they tend to clam up. These are the times when we desperately need conversation – discussion of criticism, real analysis, etc. Too many times we’re on the precipice of something terribly important – and the conversation fizzles.
“there’s just other stuff that needs to be done too (like my job!).”
Don’t forget fantasy baseball!
“thanks for thinking that we ed tech bloggers are good people and also pushing us a little!”
Absolutely – one of the joys of education discussion is that [most of the time] everyone involved has a good heart.
Scott McLeod 07.01.08 at 11:32 pm
I’ve said this before, but one of the most valuable skills that students gain (or I gained, at least) in law school is the ability to have long, knockdown, dragout discussions in which everyone vehemently disagrees with each other but no one takes it personally and even can go out for a beer together afterward. That’s useful and, like you, I wish it were more prevalent sometimes in the blogosphere ’cause I’d like to see a few spirited, engaged (but polite) disagreements.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.01.08 at 11:57 pm
As promised, I wanted to address one of Mrs. Durff’s points.
“Have you always been so bellicose?”
The short answer is “probably.” The longer answer is more interesting. I want to talk about the imagery in the unofficial NECC logo [I made certain to include it in the post] and the irony of using that particular imagery. As background:
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2008/05/23/necc-button-winner-here-for-the-learning-revolution/
We’re coming up on the 40th anniversary of the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico. It was at those Olympics that Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists silently to indicate solidarity with the black community and black nationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_Salute
That image of Smith and Carlos served as the image for the Black Power movement for decades, and it’s still an oft-represented scene. Throw “black power” into Google Images and take a peep:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=black+power&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
Whatever one thinks of Smith’s and Carlos’s display, Black Power, nationalism, etc., is a non-issue. We can all agree that the symbolism of the fist in the air – the imagery from which that NECC logo of a fist holding a mouse and citing the ‘revolution’ draws – is one of challenge, resilience and struggle.
And it’s that ‘challenge’ bit that causes the ed-tech’ers to squirm, squeal and cry foul when it comes to them. If education technology wants to be taken seriously locally/nationally/internationally, if it wants to command professional respect, it will seek out and encourage challenges to itself.
That’s a far cry from what we’ve currently got – an echo chamber and lip service to ‘challenge’ that only seems to go one way. When you think about it, the irony of using the Smith/Carlos fist is a stark reminder of where education technology is and where it ought to be.
diane 07.01.08 at 11:58 pm
Matthew,
This is my first NECC. I haven’t been at any keynotes, will attend only a few of the presentations (though I will certainly access links to their content after the fact).
NECC is overwhelming. There is too much information for me to process in real time – I need to reflect, ponder, choose the bits & pieces that will work for me personally & professionally.
I am here for the conversations, the unanticipated connections with people, the unscripted but intense discussions that aren’t possible in a structured environment.
I couldn’t have predicted that Dean Shareski, Al Upton, Dean Groom, and Derrall Garrison would be kindred spirits. Our conversations ranged far and wide. No one workshop could have contained the diversity.
I am neither expert nor guru. But I’ve met people who value my opinion and that’s very powerful. It might not be your NECC, but it’s mine. And it means a great deal to me.
Jenny Luca 07.01.08 at 11:59 pm
Hi Matthew,
I’m very interested in reading you often now that I’ve discovered you through this post. I’m new to the edublogger world but have been energised and excited through my involvement. I’m more excited about the possibilities for education now than I have been for many years. I was feeling stale but now look at things with fresh eyes. I don’t consider myself a tech geek, far from it, but I do think our teaching can benefit from the experiences technology can enable in our classrooms. My focus remains strongly on how the learning of my students can improve as a result of using technology- I’m not such a zealot that I think it’s the be all and end all of everything that can be achieved in classrooms. I am concerned about the echo chamber effect of working in these networks and welcome the opportunity to read you and others who will challenge my thinking.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.02.08 at 12:14 am
Diane,
It’s got to be huge – a look at each day’s schedules shows that there’s way more than any one person could take in. It’s unfortunate that so much will be left untouched, but logistics are logistics, I suppose.
One thing that seems to work quite well with NECC is the social experience. Your testimony here echoes [in a good way] what I’ve read in the past and likely what I’ll read in coming months.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.02.08 at 12:28 am
Jenny,
I’ve been on your site once or twice before through links and both times I forgot to add you to Google reader! This time I didn’t forget.
Thanks for the kind comments – they’re most welcome. I try to fill my RSS reader with people who push, pull, kick, bite, scream and inform/, as long as they can do it all and take it all with a smile and a strong sense of purpose. Now, if we could bring some of that to NECC 2009, we might get somewhere. That challenge, that clash of intellectual diversity, is how we progress.
Wesley Fryer 07.02.08 at 1:16 am
Matthew:
I’d encourage you to watch and listen to Chris Lehmann’s presentation from NECC today. It was a great session that focused much more on pedagogy and constructivist teaching than technology and technology tools.
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/?p=2848
The energy in the room and the Ustream backchannel was very exciting– Chris had us brainstorming using “Understanding By Design” and I think we came up with some great ideas. It was and is wonderful to hear the refreshing passion of Chris as a school principal amidst the test-focused emphasis of NCLB here in most U.S. public school systems.
I’m sorry to hear you couldn’t attend NECC and would encourage you to do so in the future if possible. Certainly there is too much focus on tools, but there ARE lots of folks focusing on learning. The vendor floor can seem like a boat show (to quote Gary Stager) but it is also important to see and understand what is “out there” and what our schools can and should or should not purchase.
If you have not already I would encourage you to consider submitting a proposal for the 2008 K-12 Online Conference. You have a clear passion for education and positive educational change, and a great way to channel that passion (IMHO, of course) is to share your ideas with the global audience participating in the free K-12 Online Conference. You’ll find a link to the proposal form on our 2nd call post, and the deadline is July 11th. I hope you’ll join in our K-12 Online conversations this year.
http://k12onlineconference.org/?p=221
Matthew K. Tabor 07.02.08 at 1:36 am
Wes,
I’m listening to Chris Lehman’s bit on uStream as I type this – it’s excellent that these things are made available so quickly.
You’ve hit on one of the items I mentioned before – lack of intellectual diversity. You mention ‘constructivist teaching’ as if we all think it’s a positive thing or ‘best practice.’ I don’t; I’m not a constructivist. I deviate quite a bit from the ed-tech party line on constructivism, or, as Lehman put it today, the “teaching kids” as opposed to “teaching subjects.”
It’s not that I’m un-”caring” or in-”authentic,” to cite him again; I just have a very different approach than what is fashionable re: technology and teaching.
NECC is, it seems, quite heavy on constructivism. It’s heavy on NCLB criticism, it’s light on criticism of the profession. I’m not a 1:1 guy, either.
Some of us deviate.
Many thanks for the link to the K-12 Online Conference – I hadn’t come across the proposal page before. 10 days is a tight window, especially with a few other obligations, but I may be able to throw something together that would add value to the Conference.
Ed. Techie 07.02.08 at 1:47 am
The thing I find interesting is that you can summarize NECC over the past three years with “Blogs, Podcasts, RSS, & Secondlife” – for 3 years now (and the first year was a year later than the rest of the real world) – basically the same stuff – seems like some new thinking needs to take place – evolve the discussion a bit. Its getting a little dated
-
Kyle Stevens 07.02.08 at 1:55 am
Matthew
I find your blog entry not just slightly of base, but uniformed to be polite.
This is my second time attending NECC and a large distinction of this conference when compared to last year is the high number of sessions focusing on professional development. A quick search using the schedule planner via the NECC website lists thirty-eight such sessions.
http://center.uoregon.edu/ISTE/NECC2008/program/search_results.php?selection_id=42820783
That aside, as someone who lists a background in consultin, I would trust that you know that networking with those in your field is an important part of personal growth. Many conference attendees use Twitter to hold conversations during the school year, myself included. What NECC allows is a single opportunity, rather than attending multiple conferences at a higher cost, to meet face to face with our peers. During these face to face meetings I have had the opportunity to personally thank many of the people who have provided me with guidance throughout the past several years. Additioally, I have been able to collaborate and exchange ideas with those same individuals as well as expand my personal learning network.
It puzzles me why you would decline the recommendation to present your ideas at NECC. You clearly demonstrate the confidence that comes with someone who know an answer, as there is no single answer to improving eduation. Presenting no intention to attend NECC (past, present, or future) confirms my feeling that you want nothing more than to draw attention. I do not understand why you assume your proposal for presentation would be rejected. I doubt that it is because you fear being rejected by ISTE, rather it appears from your posting it is because you have nothing credible to say.
Lets assume that you do have something to say and are rejected by ISTE, I was and it is ok to admit that. A large portion of the content ideas I received these past several day, I’m a history and English teacher, have been in discussions during lunches with peers (are we allowed to eat using school money while on school business?) or during hallway discussions with the same. If you really have something of substance to add to the Ed Tech or Education in general conversation you do not need to submit a proposal, I am sure a venue can be acquired.
While Steve notes that your rebuttals are nice and separate your blog from those trying to increase their Technorati authority, I think that this posting is simply a means to increase your authority. By starting a conversation attacking the purpose of a conference, of which you have little first-hand experience, and then linking to the blogs of many attending the same conference and those with high readership this is exactly what you are trying to accomplish. If your posting is anything other than trying to increase your Technorati authority, then I missed the purpose. You do not add anything to the conversation regarding Education. You make a clear complaint but supply no alternative. Had you supplied an alternative, or even refrained from shooting down an invitation to present your alternative in person next year, I might award you credibility. Instead, your response and initial post appears to me to be similar to that of one of my freshman English students who did not read the assigned text: vague and without substance.
If you feel that you have something of substance to add to the conversation rather than simply whining about an event you do not understand, then let me know. I look forward to a real conversation.
Enjoy your day,
Kyle
Matthew K. Tabor 07.02.08 at 1:58 am
Ed. Techie,
Hear, hear!
And not only are they the same technologies, no one seems to realize that conceptually, many of our new tools are grounded in processes that are, in some cases, many centuries old. Of course, packaging some new fad in clothes that pre-dated electricity wouldn’t draw too many teachers-to-be, however true it might be.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.02.08 at 2:24 am
Kyle,
There’s no reason to be polite here – not on this site. Here, I value truth and honesty over political protocol.
Agreed – as I’ve said multiple times here, the social/networking side of NECC seems not only to be very effective, but fun, too. I don’t dispute that.
Opportunity cost, to put it simply. And I don’t remember suggesting that a proposal would be denied – if I have, I wrote that in error. That wasn’t a worry of mine, and I don’t recall assuming that I’d get a rejection. I may have written something sloppily to suggest that – if so, it was unintentional.
Kyle, you modern-day Nostradamus, you ed-tech prognosticator – how did you know that I wanted to spend my evening responding to e-mails and comments about a conference I neglected to attend?
Apologies, but I have a hard time taking that line of yours seriously.
That’s up to you and everyone else to decide.
Not sure what you mean. Admit what? But yes, let’s assume I got rejected.
I’m always open to suggestions. Schedules and opportunity cost do not always allow taking up even the best ideas, though.
There are ~25 comments so far and several hundred pageviews – and not a single link. I guess my evil plan failed!
And, for what it’s worth, my Technorati authority used to be higher. If I wanted to increase my authority – the dubious measure of ‘authority’ as it is – I would try to host a couple blog Carnivals. I’d be in the top 50 in no time.
Apologies, Kyle, but you couldn’t be more wrong.
Who ought I link to? When discussing the NECC image, should I link to Wes Fryer’s post, as Wes took part in the logo contest, or… somewhere else? To be honest, I can’t even think of a suitable second option.
Should I link to Dr. McLeod’s event coverage, or to a secondhand source of that same event? Again, there is no suitable alternative.
I could go on and on, but no need.
I’m not sure what differentiates Education with a capital E from education with a small e, but I still have to discard your comments.
I called several times for reflection/dialogue to follow NECC, and I sincerely hope that happens. And from that dialogue should alternatives come, not so much from my blog post right now. Consider how we employ problem-solving and community analysis – we would, as a group, go over what happened, then decide how it could be improved in the future. We wouldn’t just dictate from the clouds a laundry list of solutions.
Well, we/I could, but that almost never works. I like the dialogue/analytical process better – don’t we all?
And, depending on the fruits of that dialogue, I’d be more than happy to contribute in the future – as early as July 11, as per Wes’s note.
I need advance notice before the receipt of the award – I’m a bit particular. If it’s a ring, I’ll provide you my finger size; if it’s a medal, anything that goes with blue is fine, as that’s my favorite color of shirt. And, of course, pinned-on medals wreak havoc on a Brooks Brothers wardrobe, so none of that, please.
“Instead, your response and initial post appears to me to be similar to that of one of my freshman English students who did not read the assigned text: vague and without substance.”
Eep! Luckily, I’ll probably be socially-promoted anyway.
Me too – and that’s exactly why I’ve spent the evening replying to every single comment NECC participants have left on this thread. The subject is an important one, and I’m not one to engage in idle complaining.
I want dialogue, I’m calling for others to engage in dialogue, so it’s only proper that I engage it in myself – and to the fullest.
And, as always, I’m available via e-mail, phone, Skype…
Thanks for stopping by. Some parts are a bit flippant, but wouldn’t it be awfully boring if we didn’t have any fun?
mrsdurff 07.02.08 at 9:07 am
It is naive to think supression of minorities, especially people of color in the USA, is over. This is so not a non-issue.
You are not a ‘constructivist’ but fail to say what term would define you. Please delineate your ideas and/or terms.
Kyle, I had the same thought. Last night his authority was 62. A quick check places it still at 62. And Matthew there IS plenty of reason to be polite. I know I am not the most polite person in the world, but there is a certain ethical standard by which we all need to operate if we wish true discourse and collaboration. We teach it to the learners in our rooms and we model it ourselves. My network lets me know when I go outside those bounds and thank Goodness they do! Kyle is just informing you of common courtesy. Common as in common to all.
FYI: Italian made suits are of better quality.
Steve Ransom 07.02.08 at 9:13 am
@Scott – I am only speaking from my experience. Your claims may be valid, but they are not my experience at all for the most part. And, I think you hit upon a significant problem with blogging – that of large participation. You are correct – how can one respond substantively to hundreds of comments a day? How can one carry on a conversation with hundreds of participants (not visitors)? In addition, when trying to follow and participate in many blogs, it diminishes one’s capacity to spend substantive time in blogs that merit high quality discussions with many repeated visits. However, most blogs that I read do not have hundreds of comments a day. A handful on most days. Upwards of 50 on a heavy day. That being said, most comments left are “echochamberish” at best as a number of folks here and in other blogs have been discussing. Furthermore, most responses from the authors are of the sort of “thanks for affirming my thoughts”. What I am saying is that if we are going to use the conversation attribute of blogging as a selling point for blogging, then we had better be modeling good conversation instead of Post-It style thoughts that make up some sort of grand mosaic. And, I know that this is happening – just more the exception than the rule.
@Kyle – I have enjoyed the conversational aspect of this post and although my comment was somewhat “echochamberish”, it was thoughtfully responded to, as were other comments. I find it strange that you would attribute this kind of intelligent dialog to Technorati ranking or authority. There is nothing wrong with bringing up problems and then not offering solutions. Your very response that points out everything wrong with this post offers no alternative solutions except for the implicit undertone of “tell me what I want to hear and I’ll be happy”. But, if that happened, there would be no conversation, right ;-) There is no doubt that NECC is exactly what many attendees are expecting and getting. There are substantive and challenging sessions going on. And, I personally know of folks who go there simply to get free stuff from vendors and have aspirations of winning those free software giveaways. And, let’s not forget about playing “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” at the Smart Technologies booth. Everyone has different reasons to attend NECC or to not attend. That’s okay.
“You do not add anything to the conversation regarding Education.”
This conversation is exactly an important issue that folks in education need to be talking about. These conversations are critical. So, return and further this discussion.
Steve Ransom 07.02.08 at 9:22 am
@durff – Politeness is abolutely a great attribute to be taught, sought, and valued. However, honesty does not need to be candy-coated and criticism does not need to be taken as personal attack. Malicious or hurtful intent is certainly inappropriate. Satire or sarcasm is absolutely within the bounds of healthy dialog, as is criticism… as long as such criticism is discussed in a healthy and productive manner. I would hope that this discussion continues with a high degree of critical thought and criticism of ideas. Thanks for reminding us all of that.
Brian Nelson 07.02.08 at 10:01 am
@MrsDurff
“there is a certain ethical standard by which we all need to operate if we wish true discourse and collaboration… My network lets me know when I go outside those bounds and thank Goodness they do!”
Hi MrsDurff, as part of your network, I just want to inform you that you’re outside your bounds by implying that Matthew wrote this post in an attempt to gain (virtually worthless) technorati authority! Thanks! Have a good day!
-Your network
Matthew K. Tabor 07.02.08 at 11:13 am
Mrs. Durff,
You have completely misinterpreted and misrepresented what I wrote. I never said a whit about racism or suppression; I said that our interpretation of that event was not the issue at hand. I wrote:
“Whatever one thinks of Smith’s and Carlos’s display, Black Power, nationalism, etc., is a non-issue.”
I find it very odd that I would need to declare a title, nametag or catchphrase for anything I write.
As Brian pointed out, Technorati ranking is nearly worthless and has decreasing relevance. He certainly isn’t the first in the blogosphere to make that claim. Technorati is on its way out, in my opinion.
And your quick check is an accurate one, though Jenny linked to this post today [gasp!]. 63 feels good – I can only imagine that 64 will feel even better.
As Messrs. Shareski, Warlick and others might attest from past exchanges – presumably these are guys in ed-tech whose analysis you’d trust more than mine – I’m more interested in dialogue than Technorati authority. [Also, hosting a blog Carnival or starting a meme would have been about 50x more effective].
That a handful of folks would even consider Technorati authority to be motivation for discussion is a topic worth addressing. In my opinion, that assertion/accusation lays bare some the paranoia and cliquishness/status-mongering of the education blogosphere.
I do hope that you’ll indulge me the privilege of setting the ground rules for my own website. My comment to Kyle re: politeness was to suggest that this discussion is one in which everyone could be honest without fear of offending, and that suggestion stands.
It’s worth noting that Brooks Brothers is owned by Luxottica, originally of Venice and now of Milan, both of which are in Italy. I imagine someone in that large corporation knows a bit about Italian tailoring.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.02.08 at 11:21 am
Steve,
I agree completely – I’m pleased that there’s some substantive discussion going on here, and I look forward to the post-NECC wrapups on lots of different blogs. I truly believe that it will have a positive effect on NECC 2009.
Dean Shareski 07.02.08 at 7:23 pm
Matthew,
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Some of the most prolific work in the area of educational discourse. It’s quite impressive.
You do push my thinking; in many cases mostly through your responses.
Great to see your proposal. I hope it makes it in the conference. We run a blind review committee so I’m not sure how that will work being that you’ve already published your proposal. Not saying that’s a bad thing, in fact I think it’s great and perhaps more presenters should use the feedback model you’re using.
BTW, I’m going to read Bauerlin. Who knows, we might even find we agree on more stuff. Not that that is necessarily the goal but let’s just say you’re “rubbing off on me”.
Rob 07.02.08 at 7:49 pm
Good post! I commend your efforts to engage in a 2 way dialogue for each and every comment. I occasional comment on posts by our academic EduBlogger colleagues – rarely do you get a response. comment on the blog of a teacher however and you almost always get a response.
As to the EduBlogger community – I lurk and do find useful info – however most of the dialogue of the high profile folk seems to be inter-academic. Maybe this post will prompt folk to consider if the Emperor is perhaps naked and if so what do we do about it.
Having said that going to NECC in 06 was a high point in my own learning – but an event I might not wish to repeat.
In our school technology enthusiasts are beginning to talk about how IT supports learning (duh) rather than IT as a silver bullet for all things educational – which I think is where you are trying to get a discussion started.
KarenJan 07.02.08 at 9:11 pm
Matthew,
You said, “It’s not that I’m un-”caring” or in-”authentic,” to cite him again; I just have a very different approach than what is fashionable re: technology and teaching.”
What IS your approach? Inquiring minds want to know.
Miguel Guhlin 07.03.08 at 12:31 am
Matthew, I missed your follow-up comment on the Ann Coulter comment. As soon as I saw I’d been linked (tonight), I responded.
As to the rest of your post, I do have some points to share that reflect on NECC, but that writing will have to wait until I catch up on sleep.
Wishing you well,
Miguel Guhlin
Around the Corner-MGuhlin.net
http://mguhlin.net
P. Swenson 07.03.08 at 1:21 am
Matthew, I can see why NECC would not be a great conference for you. I looked at your “about Matthew” info and noted that little of your experience is with K-12 and the college/university is fairly specialized.
I enjoy NECC although I do not go every year. I also enjoy SITE, AACTE, CUE, Educause, Merlot, and others. I cannot find enough in my personal budget to do all of these yearly and I think I would be on stimulus overload if I were to. Your opting not to attend does not make it less valuable for me. (Although it might be fun to talk with you there.) I do need to carefully weigh how I will spend my time however.
Having been a K-12 teacher, district administrator and university faculty member, I do want to clear up a misconception. Seldom do K-12 faculty (at least from California) attend these conferences on the public dime. Similarly, my huge yearly allocation of $400 in travel from my university does not do much more than cover driving to the airport and parking!Most of us select conferences on the basis of what we perceive to be the value. NECC–had I gone, my focus this year would have been on the new NETS standards and pedagogy, plus going into the “candy store” to look at the glitz and glitter while recognizing that quite often the killer app is something already in my tool box, perhaps even a good discussion.
PS
Robert 07.03.08 at 7:50 am
Matt-
I’m in agreement, as you might suspect from previous conversations we’re had here at your blog, in much of what you say.
I like educational technology. I think technology has tremendous potential for good in education. But I cringe at the zealotry of some of the hardest-core edubloggers who cling to untested assumptions (such as, and especially, the assumption that so-called “digital natives” comprise the majority of learners today) and seem to be much more involved with products and cool stuff than with the everyday lives and struggles of individual students. Indeed, some of the most strident ed tech evangelists have not even taught in the classroom for years.
I didn’t go to NECC (I’m a stay-at-home-dad this summer) but I took some time to browse the schedule. I’m sure this is typecasting, but about half the sessions looked like product placement and the other half looked like unintelligible edu-speak. (And there was some overlap.) The only image I could conjure in my mind was exactly the clip you posted above — people sitting on the floor (what’s with that? doesn’t your back hurt after a while?) with Macbooks talking breathlessly about web 2.0 or authentic assessment or whatever the buzzword du jour is.
The conference appeared to be more about the tools than the people whom those tools need to serve. Maybe that’s the intent of the conference, but I’m just not interested in that. What I am interested in is making contacts and having discussions with people who can help me teach math better to my students, using some of these tools to help — or perhaps not using the tools.
Anyway, not to write a blog post on your blog, but I’m glad if people got something useful out of NECC. But to me it seems like a place to perpetuate the edublogger echo chamber, and we need less of that. Sign me up for the skeptics discussion panel for next year and I’ll be there.
Terry Freedman 07.03.08 at 2:11 pm
Matthew, here is the OED definition of twaddle:
Senseless, silly, or trifling talk or writing; empty verbosity; dull and trashy statement or discourse; empty commonplace; prosy nonsense.
In extended sense: Something trashy or worthless; rubbish.
Is that what you wanted to say? ;-)
Matthew K. Tabor 07.03.08 at 8:43 pm
Dean,
Thanks for the kind words here – I really am pleased with the discussion not only in this thread but on other blogs and in e-mails. I think it’s going to continue to be productive.
As for the feedback model, here are my thoughts. I understand the blind proposal model, but that seems to provide for limited feedback. I’d rather work out a few kinks, as Terry pointed out, before rather than during or after. That early feedback is invaluable – it’s sort of like focus group testing for a newly-invented product. That early feedback helps tweak the product, its marketing, so both the company and consumer are happier down the road.
Plus, I trust the folks who will evaluate proposals – I think you and the others listed use sound, fair judgment, and that erases any worries anyone should have about favoritism or bias.
I’m looking forward to discussing Bauerlein through the summer. For those who haven’t come across him, his new book is titled “The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30).” Here’s a brief look at it, including a response re: the web 2.0 aspect:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138536
The provocative title will likely keep lots of ed-tech’ers away, but this is precisely the book they ought to spend the summer reading and discussing. Bauerlein is a very sharp guy – his book reviews in The New Criterion have delighted me for a few years now – and he is refreshingly honest.
If ed-tech as a sector can get past the title, talking points and secondhand analysis, I think it could benefit tremendously from the criticism.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.03.08 at 9:02 pm
Rob,
Thanks for noticing the dialogue – I really hoped to engage as many people as possible and give their comments the attention they deserved. I’ve noticed as well that teachers seem to be much better at returning comments and engaging in discussion.
I would go along with your statement about technology as a means to support learning. Too many of our projects are tech, tech, tech and have lost sight of the important content we need to instill. This is one of the elements of contructivism that I find little value in – tech, tech, tech can, in the minds of constructivists, yield proper content. I’d rather see tech that supports excellent instruction and scholarship.
I don’t know if the Emperor is naked or just shoddily-clothed, but we need to keep those possibilities in our everyday dialogue. We need the honesty.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.03.08 at 9:19 pm
KarenJan,
“What IS your approach? Inquiring minds want to know.”
Hopefully you’ll stay tuned throughout the summer – I’ll likely get into this more fully. If I had to give one line about it all, I’d say that my approach depends more on instruction, knowledge and scholarship than the related tools/processes.
Traditional, boring? Maybe, but until something else is more effective, I’ll run with it.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.03.08 at 9:31 pm
Miguel,
Thanks for stopping by – remember that you can subscribe to an RSS feed for comments for this site. I made sure to make that feature available because I dropped out of too many good chats on other sites because keeping up with the comments manually wasn’t practical.
I bet you are worn out from NECC in your home state – and, of course, from the school year as a whole. NECC or not, I think lots of people are eager to rest and recharge at about this time. I look forward to reading your NECC reflections when you’re ready.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.03.08 at 10:04 pm
P. Swenson,
I guess I’m a bit more lax with assigning labels and expertise in education – I invite you to consider the possibility that I, as well as others, know something about K-12 and have more than concentrated, specialized skillsets.
“Your opting not to attend does not make it less valuable for me.”
I never said or implied that it did, and conflating professional/scholarly value and enjoyment is something we’d do well to do without [though we'd all agree that it's best, and most memorable, when both are present]. I’m pleased that you and many others enjoy your time at NECC and similar conferences.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.03.08 at 10:19 pm
Robert,
I’ll trade in a “Digital Native” for an all-around sharp guy, or an expert in one discipline, every day of the week.
The eduspeak, most of which is untested and at the expense of traditional things with value, is what I dislike the most. Not only am I disinterested in eduspeak, but I certainly don’t want to sit on the floor as I’m subjected to it [I couldn't do that anyway - ed-tech'ers must have fewer back problems than normal folk?]. Jargon is primarily social, or a cultural thing within a profession – and since I’m not too concerned about the culture, I guess I tend to think less of some conference sessions.
The irony, to me, is that the traditional approach that I take *is* far more personal than most of the social technology out there. I would much rather link a student to 300 years of American history and identity than to 300 kids their own age. Social ed-tech types will argue that they do both, but I find their claims lacking on the scholarship/knowledge side.
I would love to see a session at NECC 2009 about tech skepticism or tech realism. Let’s start rolling around ideas on this – I like it.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.03.08 at 10:25 pm
Terry,
Yes, yes, yes! Thanks – and how did you come across OED access? I need a univ. affiliation again or something.
Miguel Guhlin 07.04.08 at 3:00 am
Matthew, I’ve looked but I’m having trouble finding your comment RSS feed. Help!
Miguel
Matthew K. Tabor 07.04.08 at 3:06 am
Miguel,
Should be right above the first comment on an individual post and below the repeat of its title:
Responses to “A Bit More Education Techno-Twaddle; Why I Avoid NECC, 2008 Edition”
RSS 2.0 RSS Feed for comments on this post.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Where the 2.0 RSS feed is a link to the comment feed. Let me know if that works or if you have trouble.
Terry Freedman 07.04.08 at 8:31 am
Re: OED access. I am in the middle of writing an article about this. I have the perfect solution, which will not help u I’m afraid. In London, our pulic library system provides access to Brittanica, OED, and a host of others. Do u have a public library system where u live? If so, it might be worth checking out what they offer in the way of online resources.
T
Miguel Guhlin 07.04.08 at 12:26 pm
Two reflections so far…
Yelp or YAWP!
http://www.mguhlin.net/archives/2008/07/entry_7326.htm
and
NECC Grateful
http://www.mguhlin.net/archives/2008/07/entry_7320.htm
Thanks for the comment RSS subscribe tip!
Miguel
Miguel Guhlin 07.04.08 at 12:28 pm
Is there an RSS feed for ALL comments left on your blog? That way, folks don’t have to subscribe by post?
And, could that be added to the RSS Subscription section in the top left sidebar of your blog?
Thanks,
Miguel
diane 07.04.08 at 3:04 pm
Matthew,
For the record, part of my expenses were covered by the company for which I do part-time online editing and facilitating.
My school district paid for NOTHING, not even my ISTE membership, yet the school and, more importantly, the students will reap many benefits from my attendance at NECC.
I connected, I shared, I learned I grew as a person and a teacher. All on my own nickel.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.04.08 at 6:42 pm
Terry,
We’ve got a public library nearby, but it’s virtually inaccessible in the summer months. Many thousands of people come to Cooperstown to vacation, and a town of 2,000 only has so many parking spaces.
I’m a casual user of JSTOR and the OED – not enough to justify a subscription, though.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.04.08 at 6:44 pm
Miguel,
Good call on the comments feed – I’ll track it down and place it on the sidebar as suggested.
Thanks for the links to your posts, I’ll follow the discussion as it unfolds.
Matthew K. Tabor 07.04.08 at 6:48 pm
Diane,
I’m glad that you were able to draw much from the conference. Like any other conference, some seem to be thrilled with others left wanting – and there’s no doubt that the experience is in large part what you make of it. Hopefully we can do some analysis to figure out how to get more bang for the buck at NECC, especially for those like you who are paying out of their own pocket.
sylvia martinez 07.06.08 at 12:15 am
Mathew,
You might like some of the research I found on why the blind review process tends to favor middle of the road session proposals. It “sounds” fair, but isn’t.
http://blog.genyes.com/index.php/2008/03/30/conference-20-session-selection/
Lee Kolbert 07.08.08 at 7:56 am
Matthew,
I read your post with interest. Never knew you exist and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. :)
As an edublogger who is just now penetrating the bloggosphere and new to NECC, being in the echo chamber was very interesting to me. Personally, I found quite a bit of diversity in these discussions, but perhaps not enough for your taste. Additionally, when people do share the same passion, what’s wrong with engaging in discussions to try to reach a solution?
May I respectfully ask this? When you said that you follow people’s Twitter streams, but you don’t Twitter yourself (I think that sounds sort of creepy and hypocritical) but can you explain that further?
Thanks!
~Lee
Matthew K. Tabor 07.08.08 at 6:02 pm
Lee,
It’s slightly odd that “respectfully” appears in the same question as “creepy and hypocritical,” but I’ll answer anyway.
Looking at Twitter exchanges can occasionally give a quick crash-course in conversations that surround a particular issue. Sometimes content on Twitter is far more candid than what people write on their blogs or leave in comments, so a brief rundown of exchanges using http://www.quotably.com can fill me in if I want to grasp the mood/tone of side-channel discussions in the course of 5 minutes.
That said, there isn’t enough value in Twitter for me to use it actively.
Lee Kolbert 07.09.08 at 11:52 am
I added “respectfully” because I respect your opinion, what you do and your right to a differing opinion. The “creepy and hypocritical” part was directed towards your actions, not at you.
Thanks for the clarification.
~Lee
Matthew K. Tabor 07.09.08 at 5:38 pm
Lee,
For most of us, what we do is who we are.