I just don’t know what exactly. So, mostly as stream of consciousness and in chronological order…

*This started when Lisa Thumann tweeted about a keynote speaker at BLC ’10 who referred to the so-called “10,000 hour rule” for mastery or expertise.

*I asked her if the speaker had a warrant for that knowledge claim beyond Malcolm Gladwell (who I knew wrote about this in Outliers).

*She confirmed that the speaker did, in fact, cite Gladwell in connection with the “10,000 hour rule.”

*George Siemens chimed in with a more learned take on the situation and linked to a research handbook and a related blog post where he commented with some information relevant to the “10,000 hour rule.”

*The post itself is interesting as an exercise in research and pushed me to think about how to create an activity for doctoral students in educational leadership wherein they identify a commonly accepted “fact” and trace it back through the literature to see if that fact holds up.

*In the meantime, I recently learned about yolink. I don’t exactly know what it is other than it seems to be like Google alerts, only better. So, I took yolink on a test ride. I created an alert for [10,000 hours Gladwell].

*In the first day, I got an alert with three blog posts: One, two, three, and one web link.

*On the second day, I got one web link.

That web link from the second alert is most telling. Granted it’s a website about horse racing tips, but the author writes:

“While not famous amongst the general public in his own right, Gladwell is a New York Times bestselling author whose research on extraordinarily successful people led him to come up with the 10,000 Hour Rule.”

So, apparently, Gladwell came up with the 10,000 hour rule. Ha! Hardly.

I have little to no subject matter expertise here (irony?), but if you read the comment from George Siemens to which I linked above, and work through some of the information, you can learn pretty quickly that all Gladwell did was synthesize selected research about mastery and expertise. There’s nothing inherently wrong with syntheses of research. But, there are problems when research is selectively chosen for a synthesis with no explanation of how that research was selected. And, furthermore, there are problems when the person(s) who conduct syntheses of research are cited as THE source of the findings.

We can quibble about the quality of Gladwell’s work, and I’m on record with a negative take on some of his work. But, what I won’t stand for are individuals given a stage and a big audience (of educators!) who point to Gladwell as the source of the research. Malcolm Gladwell did NOT come up with the 10,000 hour rule.

So, again, I don’t know what this is all about and why it has me all worked up. But, there’s something here…something about, but not limited to, research, original sources, crap-detection and, well, expertise.

Help me make meaning of this?

Earlier this week, I attended a two-day meeting in Washington D.C. for a federal grant for which I am the evaluator.  Ultimately, the meeting was useful.  However, I only got to that point after a day and a half of presentation after presentation.

None of the presenters came anywhere close to Presentation Zen.  To be fair, though, some of the presenters were tasked with delivering procedural information; i.e. “here’s what you need to do…”  The content of their presentation needed to be transmitted and I don’t even think Jerry Seinfeld could have engaged an audience around the topic.

In the case of this meeting, there was real value in the grantees coming together face-to-face.  We had a lot to share with and learn from each other.  However, because we had to sit through so many presentations, there was very little time for the grantees to interact.

There is a simple solution to this problem.  All of the “presentations” could have been recorded/captured/archived (even with their brutally unpleasant PowerPoint slides) and posted to the Web a week or two before the meeting.  There are plenty of  free and REALLY easy ways to do this.  Then, those attending the meetings could have watched/listened to the presentations ahead of time, but on their own time and at their own pace.  The meeting time, then, could have been more interactive; i.e. there would have been much more time for Q&A and discussions.  This would have maximized the face-to-face time.

I think anybody who is in the position of having to “deliver content” (in many cases, that’s simply what has to happen) should strongly consider turning that content into a Web-based, digital video.  From there, the time that would otherwise have been spent with the attendees “sitting and getting” could be devoted to face-to-face discussions.  Classroom teachers could do this.  In fact, some innovative teachers in Colorado already do it!  School principals could use this approach for faculty meetings.  Imagine, my dear teacher readers, more time at a faculty meeting for some actual conversations/discussions with your colleagues.

Again, we need to maximize face-to-face time.

photo credit: markhillary

This past weekend, I had a wonderful opportunity to lead a conversation/session at Educon 2.1.  I had planned a 20-25 minute presentation to be followed by small-group and whole-group discussions.  But, at the last minute, I decided to scrap the presentation part and let the folks in the room talk.  At the wiki developed for the session, you can see the premise of the discussion.  The conversations were really good, though we never really got beyond the first question.

Using my Tablet PC, I recorded some of the ideas that seemed to resonate with the folks in the room and that struck me as particularly interesting.  Here are those ideas:

Additionally, one of the attendees was using Inspiration to document the conversation at her table.  Here’s what she came up with:

I’d love to get your thoughts.  Please comment here and/0r (if you really want to be 2.0ish) add your thoughts to the wiki.

There’s been a slightly disconnected conversation within/across my learning network/environment about conferences, presentations, etc. At the risk of sending you away, here are some posts I’ve read:

• Dan Meyer blogged and Tweeted from and about ILC and was his usual critical (though I think constructively critical) self.
• Sylvia Martinez, I learned through her comments to Dan, had written a while ago about how conference presenters might be better selected.
• Ben Grey very recently wrote about the power of conferences.
• Then, today, David Warlick wondered if the availability of a Ning site along with pre-conference handouts would stop people from attending conferences.

Most of what I’ve been reading can be pretty well summarized thusly: conferences are important learning opportunities because the f-2-f conversations (especially the informal/unplanned ones) that happen are great, but, for the most part, the presentations suck.

That statement about sums up my experiences as well, especially at “academic” conferences (what a ridiculous distinction, BTW).

So, here I go thinking “out loud” about the sort of conferences I’d like to attend (NOTE: this thinking is mostly related to ed. tech. conferences, but many of the ideas are applicable to any sort of conference).  In general terms, if I could have read what you are going to present, I don’t need to hear and see you tell me what you’ve written.  Also, if you could have “delivered” your presentation by publishing it on the Web (see e.g. K12Online), you might want to re-think what you’re doing at the conference.  More specifically:

*No keynote or featured speaker presentations by anyone who has recently written a book. Along the lines of Dan Meyer’s “cover the stuff I can’t Google,” if I can read the book, I don’t need to sit and listen to you summarize it.

*More moderated panel discussions and/or point/counterpoint sessions. If I have to just sit there and listen, I’m much more inclined to listen to people speaking with each other spontaneously.  Wouldn’t you enjoy listening to a point/counterpoint with Gary Stager and…well…anybody and everybody?

*No more large-scale demonstration sessions (especially of the “How I used Google Earth in my classroom!” variety). In addition to the vendor exhibit halls (hey, someone’s gotta fund the conference and give away swag), have a massive project demonstration room.  Think Poster Session 2.0.  Allow me to walk around from booth to booth and to converse with the folks about their projects and to view their various (digital, print, etc.) project artifacts.  All I’d need ahead of time is abstracts of the projects and I’d know which booths I’d want to visit/explore and at least one or two beginning questions.  This, BTW, might also be a good place to involve students. If there were students at the booths to talk about their involvement in the projects, I’d love to talk to them about it and I think they’d be more comfortable in the more intimate setting than in front of hundreds of people at once.

*Figure out ways to facilitate discussion/conversations. For example, perhaps offer fewer but longer sessions.  Then, IF the person(s) assigned to lead the session choose(s) to make a presentation, he/she/they must leave equal time for discussion about the presentation.  Also, configure the rooms so that they are more suitable to discussion/conversations. If I have to stare at the back of people’s heads, you’ve lost me before the session even begins.

Essentially, I think those that organize conferences MUST figure out what they can do that either can’t be done online or that can be done better or differently f-2-f.  To that end, it seems to me that the root of the word “conference” is confer.  And, according to Dictionary.com, to confer means “to consult together; compare opinions; carry on a discussion or deliberation.”  That’s what I want to do at f-2-f conferences.  In 2009, I’m headed to Educon 2.1, VSTE, CoSN, AERA, NECC…think I’ll get what I want?

Any other thoughts on how to improve conferences?