My thoughts are on this post http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/11/24/spectacle_at_we.html?utm_source=feedburner today. Please go read the article (if you have not and then journey back here.)
In no way do I think Danah should have remained silent — in fact, if this ever were to happen again, I wish she would (or we as presenters) would speak up and find out what is going on.
My title is directed more towards the back-channel –
A year or so ago, while at a conference in the mid-west, I witnessed another back-channel incident where someone in the backchannel felt it necessary to be disruptive, rude, and also off topic at times. After the session, the speaker spoke with me about it, how it had angered him, but during the session had said nothing. And because in backchannels you can be anonymous, it never was discovered who (and this person was actually IN THE ROOM because the backchannel was NOT offered beyond the session) the disgruntled person was.
I also witnessed, with disappointment, a well-known edtech leader get disintegrated on twitter by 2 other well known leaders who happened to all be featured speakers at the same conference and watched with dismay as they stirred the pot to get others on board. The lack of professional courtesy still saddens me as well as the lack of people willing to stand up to say “hush”.
And though I don’t totally dislike backchannels — I feel at times that it gives opportunity where perhaps opportunity does not need to be given. There is enjoyment in discourse and discussion but often, as well, people just like to talk to talk and be heard and are not contributing anything to the conversation except extra lines in a chat window (in the case of back channels)
And just because you have the right to speak — does that always mean you have the need to speak?
I have not yet read the chat from Danah’s session — but I hope that at least one person spoke up to say ENOUGH.
Most of us have the freedom at times to be a part now of the backchannel but with that freedom also comes responsibility. If the backchannel is at a session or conference, for me, I think there comes the responsibility of staying on topic, behaving as respectful adults, and contributing to the discussion — or perhaps just watching and remaining silent.
Your thoughts,
Jen
I sometimes wonder what a backchannel of the average classroom would look like
.
More to the point, I believe there is a distinction that needs to be made here. Backchannel conversation at its best is public recognition of what has always been going on privately either in one’s thoughts or a shared whispered comment or note. There is value in the collaborative ideas expressed (which give extra value to the session), and I don’t know that it is wrong to appropriate express dissatisfaction when the speaker is not meeting the needs of the audience (I’ve read the transcript, and the attendees at Danah’s conference went far beyond this).
However (and this is a big however), sometimes the need to immediately feed back blocks openness to hear what is said, to try to get everything possible from the words of the presenter. This is compounded by the “blood in the water” mentality of the inconsiderate clever (a population in which I have unfortunately found myself occasionally)
It can never be forgotten that presenting is hard, consideration is essential, and learning can take place (if we are open) when we least expect it!
Hi Greg
I wonder too — what the backchannel in an average classroom would be — I also wonder what it I would hear if I could read my students minds (grins, and if I would want to!!)
Do you wonder, that because we have the options at our fingertips, that we, as an audience, have become less respectful to those who are teaching on stage??
I just wonder — in the past, when I would disagree with a speaker, I would hold my thoughts to myself. Often they would disseminate with time, and life would go on. The speaker none the wiser and myself realizing I had not made something big out of something that might have been okay to overlook.
Yet, now, with the opportunity of immediacy — we respond (often without taking the time to formulate thoughts) as the speaker has not even taken a breath to form a new sentence.
We pop out our opinion because the availability is there.
I don’t think immediate access and availability is always a blessing — I don’t believe on the other hand that it is a curse.
But I still feel –
1. Just because you CAN say something, do you really have to
2. If someone is saying something perhaps they should not, it is 100% okay to quiet them or segue back to the real discussion.
Thanks for posting –
you have made me think more.
Jen
I think things like this are going to happen when we introduce disruptive technologies like backchannels into learning situations. It is important we talk about these issues and rather than ban the backchannels themselves, talk about their use which is appropriate / constructive, and use which is not.
I had an interesting experience with a backchannel in Sep this year in Hong Kong which I need to write about… there were several aspects to it worth examining, but one of the most important ones is the degree to which the F2F audience is prepared and accepting of public criticism of a speaker’s ideas or presentation in a public venue. Backchannels are always most contenious when they involve criticism. That criticism may or may not be warranted, but the issue is, are we willing to support and defend the right / ability of others to speak out even when their views are not in line/supportive of the presenter’s views— or not.
Good thoughts. Worth more discussion.
Hello Wes,
I would enjoy reading more of what happened in Hong Kong.
I don’t mind criticism….in fact, I learn a great deal from criticism — but I don’t seem to see criticism in backchannels…I see meanness.
Perhaps because it is the anonymous option or perhaps it is the distance you have but either way I think people say things (type things) in backchannels that they would never say face to face.
And I agree that people have the right to speak….but people also have the right to think……..and for me, it seems people (in backchannel conversations) seem to speak first….when thinking just for a bit might be the wisest thing to do.
Thanks for dropping by. I do look forward to reading about Hong Kong.
Jen