Olivia Mitchell does a great job laying out what more and more presenters are going to face - if you're not already. You get to see the tops of heads and the clack of keyboards...IF..that is..the conference organizers have figured out some way to supply WiFi to the audience. WHICH THEY SHOULD!!!!Now here's the thing. I figure its going to hard enough for presenters to adapt to a living, breathing back channel - like that smoke monster from LOST - but what about trainers? Teachers?Anybody up for figuring out how a vibrant backchannel figures into instructional design? Now I'm starting to get that the whole discussion that we're having about reconfiguring conferences is converging in my mind at least, with a larger discussion about re-designing instructional design. Look at our confernces. The issues that we are bring up - how the info is presented (lecture style) - how vapid the typical assessment is (did the speaker know what they were talking about?) - is it too far of a reach to see these criticisms applied to our classes? Our training?

So I am actually generally impressed by the McKinsey Quarterly and particularly their Web site. I noticed them integrating feeds, widgets and now Twitter responses to their articles from early on. The other thing that is nice about McK Q is that it is one of those publications that goes over well with the folks upstairs. MCKQ focuses on corporate issues and they have a certain cachet when I can walk into the boss and say "see. I told you this would be important." HBR works too. I also love the fact that they footnote their stories. In this article, they lay out what they consider to be "six critical factors that determine the outcome of efforts to implement these technologies." They are:1. The transformation to a bottom-up culture needs help from the top. 2. The best uses come from users—but they require help to scale.3. What’s in the workflow is what gets used. 4. Appeal to the participants’ egos and needs—not just their wallets. 5. The right solution comes from the right participants.6. Balance the top-down and self-management of risk.From my experience, that's a pretty spot-on list.  #3 is especially important...particularly say if you happen to work in an organization whose age demographic skews older and need strong ties between what you are proposing and what they are already doing. I have this image in my head of leading a group of people thru a fog bank along a mountain path and they are help together by a thin line - that line connects all the crazy stuff I'm talking about to their reality - break the line and you lose their support.

(link)This is a really interesting article about differences in the ways that young boys and girls learn and process language. "Some careful consideration needs to made of instructional implications for boys given some of these new discoveries. Learning by listening and learning by reading are not synonymous; route-congruent factors(listening - oral presentation, reading - written response) may need to be considered when a learning gap or frank underachievement is seen, and an insistence on the availability of auditory-visual supports (reading along with books-on-tape, detailed handouts for lecture courses) should be a requirement of every classroom."Take a read for yourself - I need to dig deeper into some to the other resources mentioned in the piece - but am I alone or does this give anyone else pause about how we think about instructional design? Does anyone else wonder what else we may be missing? Anyone? Anyone?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10cCNBC Gives Financial AdviceDaily Show Full EpisodesImportant Things w/ Demetri MartinPolitical HumorJim Cramer

Wow. At least it hasn't been a whole month. In my defense, I have been a wee bit busy since I last posted. Saw some great stuff at the Federal Consortium for Virtual Worlds conference, the TTI/Vanguard re:Learning conference, trying to squeeze in time to co-write a book, see my family, do my day job oh and sleep every now and then. So, sheesh, I don't even know where to start. I will say this - my short take on virtual worlds and social media based on the interactions I've had over the past month is that #1 SoMe is well on its way to enterprise mainstream and #2 there is sufficient heat around virtual worlds for the enterprise that I believe we'll see a big uptick in exploration and adoption over the next 12-24 months.I will also bang this old drum on both these items - that if we FAIL to think differently about the learning opportunities that we can dedsign using SoMe and virtual worlds then we would be outright stupid to expect any kind of enhanced ROI from those activities. OK...just so you know, while I've been quiet on the bloggin front, I have been pinging away on the Twitter front. You can always catch me here. I also wanted to try out Wallwisher, which I think is pretty cool so check it out below:

 So when have you ever paid a couple hundred dollar registration fee to hang out in a fairly intimate setting with the likes of Will Wright, Brenda Brathwaite, and Vint Cerf not to EVEN mention hanging with the likes of @rasebastian, @mrch0mp3ers, @oxala75, @busynessgirll, @quinnovator, @peterasmith, @mkfrie, @koreenolbrish, @smartinx, @RVAfoodie, @spydeesense and @wwickha1? (sorry if I am missing people - and I know I am)Well the Innovations in e-Learning conference really delivered. Super awesome shout out to @chrisstjohn  for his UNBELIEVABLE work in getting truly world-class speakers. The Twitter back channel was also in full effect and be sure to check out #iel09 for the archive of tweets. There are a number of really good blog posts already summarizing the conference and I'll link to those below, I did want to pass along some of my general impressions though: Wow, what an engaged audience. Really. Even if this conference didn't have the largest percentage of people Tweeting (that award probably goes to 3DTLC), it was an incredibly engaged and interested audience. Great speakers. Seriously, when Vint Cerf got to the part in his talk when he mentioned that in his  free time he was working on re-building TCP/IP so that it would work at interplanetary distances or when Will Wright blew threw his keynote, explaining his game design process, at an insane pace-shattering the Twitter API along the way-this was classic stuff. Great logistics - Kelley Shillingburg and the George Mason Team had it all working from WiFi access to food/drink to parking...never underestimate the power of those details to wreck an otherwise great time. No selling. Now I'm not talking about an expo floor, I actually like those..I'm talking about the fact that I can't remember seeing one speaker that I came away from their talk thinking "well at least I know what their company sells" as the main point.    At least one pre-con workshop that actually produced something. Mine didn't but that's my fault not my attendees.Brenda Brathwaite's workshop actually produced game design storyboards that were then put out for a popular vote but also a "critic's choice" judged by Brenda, Alicia Sanchez and Will Wright. I love this idea of actually producing something. I made the mistake of not making sure that everyone coming to my workshop knew to bring their computers so we could actually walk people thru some Social Media exercises - my bad, will re-configure that for next year. An informal talk at the GMU coffee shop also resulted in the creation of the Black Swan Society (stop by and join!)  - dedicated to the sharing of ideas around Black Swans that can impact our learning world. Thanks truckloads to my brother from another mother Aaron Silvers (@mrch0mp3ers) for setting this up. Also kudos to the attendees like @koreenolbrish who weren't afraid to go up to Robert Scoble  after his session and say thanks but maybe you missed the mark a bit with that one...he knew it and was gracious about getting less than positive feedback (the guy is some kind of bizarre carbon-based information processing machine)...and yes, hi Peter (@peterasmith)! So that's it, a great conference for not a lot of money, great conversations (still ongoing) and some amazing interactions with people you never think you're going to meet (did you know Will Wright and I are both from Atlanta?).  Well done DAU and well done GMU. Blog posts (please help me and add others in the comments):IEL09: 12 take-awaysIn the Middle of the Curve: Wendy did AMAZING work live blogging much of the conference! My Conference Recap: Innovations in e-LearningMeeting your IdolsConferencing Reflections

All I've done is be a loyal customer Cingular and then you. I've actually DEFENDED you to people who ragged on your coverage (honestly your coverage isn't that great at my house but I'm willing to live with that). I was pretty happy when the iPhone came out and it was on your service because it meant I didn't have to switch. Now though, you can suck it.Honest to pete. I hope you die like the dinsaurs. I have been paying bills to freaking idiots for over 12 years. TWELVE YEARS YOU DOLTS. Did you think I didn't have another service I could switch to? Of course I could you dolts but now when the iPhone 3GS comes out, you treat me like I've only been a customer for like a year. So instead of selling me the iPhone 3GS (32GB BTW) for $299 - you want to bang me like a rented goalie for $499!! And the galling part is the condescending douchebag language you use when you propose this royal screwing:"As a valued AT&T customer, AT&T can offer you an early iPhone upgrade with a new 2-yr commitment and an $18 upgrade fee. You may qualify for a standard iPhone upgrade on 02/06/2010."Ooh really? Be still my beating heart. You know what's really awesome? The $18 addtl. screwing. Did you guys laugh when you thought that one up? Lovely. Corporate douchebags. Money-grubbing ass monkeys. Hard-headed, non-customer understanding, grab every dollar while you can pig bangers. (sorry pigs). So my reward for being a loyal customer for over a decade is to only get SCREWED for $200 extra over some new schmuck who could walk in and sign up today?! Is that how you read it? Well guess what ass-hats? Guess how much of my money you're getting? Zero. Zip. Nada. Nil. Nothing. Gonna spend that money on something else. So instead of you making $200 more off me, you make nothing. How's that for some fancy math you knuckle-dragging shitheads? Oh, let me tell you what else doesn't bother me one freakin' bit - don't write in and start telling me about subsidizing hardware costs or anything like it - you know how much I care? That's right - NOT AT FREAKIN' ALL. Guess who picked your business/revenue model? That's right - your dumbass, 20th century thinking cavemen of an executive corps. So I really don't care how much you subsidize a phone for - guess what it looks like to me? It looks to me like someone who has never ben a customer to AT&T can get a better deal than me. Why don't you just include a note in my next bill that says "thx for all your business Mark, suck it."I hope you go the way of Sprint even the way of the 'real' AT&T. Or AOL. Or the Rocky Mountain News. I hope you get the feeling that you're a dinosaur and you're looking up into the sky one night and you see this big meteor streaking down and you're all like "I wonder if that meteor will change my life?" Yeah, I hope it does. Hey! AT&T marketing/PR hacks - did you hear the audience when they mentioned AT&T from the stage at WWDC 2009? Groans, moans and boos. Awesome job fellas. No really. In light of that, way to treat loyal customers. I CANNOT WAIT until Apple dumps you or opens the iPhone up to other carriers like Verizon. Guess what will happen then you turd-munching idiots? I'll be gone. Then you won't just be out my $200 but every other payment for the rest of my life. Rest assured too that I'll spend part of the rest of my life telling everybody about how bad you suck. Have a nice day douchebags.

 First, Harold Jarche is wicked smart. Second, I feel kinda dumb because the post that I want to talk about was published in January of 2008. Don't know how I missed it. It's the kind of post that makes me want to back to grad school. Wicked smart post and wicked smart comments. The post in question is First, we kill the curriculum. One of the main reasons that I love this post so much is because it dares to think big. I love this line "Our education system needs to drop the whole notion of subjects and content mastery and move to process-oriented learning." Maybe it does (I happen to agree) and maybe it doesn't but THANK YOU HAROLD for bringing the Big Thought. Harold's point in the post, if I may be so bold, seems to be that given the change being wrought by the Internet and the Web should be pushing us into a fundamental re-examination of such foundational items as the notion of curriculum. Damn right we should. Gary Woodill of Brandon Hall Research, presented a terrific webinar on The History of the Classroom as a Learning Technology. Gary wins me over by including in his discussion, vital parts of the context surrounding the use of classrooms. This includes looking at the ways in which humans learned before the dawn of the classroom - a phenomena that some people in the learning/training industry seem to think never happened. It also includes talking about such authors as Michel Foucault and such linked predecessors as Monitorial Schools. You don't believe that the classroom originated as a technology focused on control of students, then you need to read some. I'm not saying that classrooms are evil per se but that we need to understand them as a technology, as a practice and look at their impact on the learning/education process - just as we need to understand the role of curriculum. Don't believe me yet that we a systematic review of how we teach (at least in the U.S.)? Look at some of the quotes from a 2005 speech that Bill Gates gave to the National Governor's Association:"When we looked at the millions of students that our high schools are not preparing for higher education - and we looked at the damaging impact that has on their lives - we came to a painful conclusion: America’s high schools are obsolete. By obsolete, I mean that our high schools - even when they’re working exactly as designed - cannot teach our kids what they need to know today.  Training the workforce of tomorrow with the high schools of today is like trying to teach kids about today’s computers on a 50-year-old mainframe. It’s the wrong tool for the times. Our high schools were designed fifty years ago to meet the needs of another age.  Until we design them to meet the needs of the 21st century, we will keep limiting - even ruining - the lives of millions of Americans every year. Today, only one-third of our students graduate from high school ready for college, work, and citizenship. The other two-thirds, most of them low-income and minority students, are tracked into courses that won’t ever get them ready for college or prepare them for a family-wage job - no matter how well the students learn or the teachers teach.  This isn’t an accident or a flaw in the system; it is the system."This is a guy who wasn't looking to pick a fight or run for office. This was a businessman who was telling the Governor's that their systems of education were not producing students that he would hire to work at his company. Also note that his point is that we can't fix it because its not broken. Its functioning perfectly - to achieve 50 year old goals. That's not good enough.    Someone, I can't remember who (if you can find the link, please put in the comments) wrote a post about how we have failed to consider how the impact of tools such as Blackboard have colored how we actually create training. That if you have a tool that uses a drop-down, hierarchical menu for creating a course - then by default you end up with a linear, lock step course. Think of the Mighty LMS. Read this description of the Panopticon and tell me you see no great resemblance. So do we need to consider whether or not we continue with our current structure of curriculum and classroom and LMS and tools designed by people who may or may not know anything of education and/or learning yet whose tools we use to shape those very moments? We must if we think we will ever see any fundamental change in our system. You know people used to think that newspapers were immortal and that record companies were all-powerful and that the Big Three would always dominate and that computers would never replace typewriters. Let's not go too far down that road again. Thanks Harold.   

Just listening to "Made to Stick" this morning and LOVE this passage (cuz its just so damn true):"Contrast the "maximize shareholder value" idea with John F. Kennedy's famous 1961 call to "put a man on the moon and return him safely by the end of the decade." Simple? Yes. Unexpected? Yes. Concrete? Amazingly so. Credible? The goal seemed like science fiction, but the source was credible. Emotional? Yes. Story? In miniature. Had John F. Kennedy been a CEO, he would have said, "Our mission is to become the international leader in the space industry through maximum team-centered innovation and strategically targeted aerospace initiatives." Seriously. Can we just talk to each other like we're humans?