Posts Tagged ‘todaysmeet’
I had questions that I could not address in the limited time during my keynote as well as the panel at the end of the conference. These were from the pre-conference poll.
I wish to address these questions, but I will focus only on questions that I understand.
How to tie in GBL with small-wins or short-term rewards?
I have no idea how to do this with GBL because I have not implemented GBL with this design or intent. Nor will I ever. During the keynote I described how games could be integrated to focus on thinking skills, attitudes, values, and intrinsic motivation. These take time to develop and I would rather invest in these.
How would I use this technique if the University has a set of rules I have to follow and present?
The university (or partner university in your case) is unlikely to have rules about pedagogy. If it did, that is not a university that is looking to serve for today and tomorrow.
You know the content, context, and your learners best. The WHAT of a prescribed curriculum might be very full. The HOW is your responsibility and limited by your creativity.
Must it be IT based?
The “it” could be games or gamification. Both could be enabled with current technology or not. I gave examples of both during the keynote, so I have addressed that part of the question.
Here is the other part: ICT is a more current term than IT since the former is often more interactive and multi-way while the latter is more transmissive and about regulations.
What types of subjects are suitable for game based learning?
Any and all of them are suitable, especially if you do not limit yourself to content-based learning and expand the possibilities to include critical and creative thinking, socio-emotional learning, soft skills, attitudes and values, etc.
Can Gamification ideas be implemented not through a game but just mere teaching activity?
Gamification does not employ games; it uses deconstructed elements of games, e.g., points, levelling up, leaderboards.
Your question seems to hint at game-like instruction. There are strategies like putting the problem (assessment) first or early, and focusing on just-in-time learning instead of just-in-case front loading.
I would like to try this approach but I am afraid it might take up a lot of the class time. How do I go about it without sacrificing too much of the contact time?
Can you have a cake and not eat it? 😉
Something has to give and if it comes to that, you might have to use your judgement to see what to push out in order include something else.
How viable would it be to introduce gamification within a primary/secondary school classroom? The aim is to use gaming elements to increase engagement between the students and the teacher.
It is certainly viable, as apparent by the number of vendors and parties outside of schooling and higher education who want to do this.
Unfortunately, these groups sell you on the low-hanging fruit of “increased engagement”. Do not play this game because this is not why any technology-mediated strategy should be used.
Trying to engage is like trying to take control of light switches: You try to flip them on so that your students see the light. But they are just as easy to switch off or learners can move on to something else.
Engagement is something you do to try to help your students; empowerment is something you pass to students so they help everyone. By all means engage, but do not forget to empower. Vendors might tell you how to engage with gamification; I would rather see learners empowered by game-based learning.
how to know which game is appropirate [sic] for teaching when we don’t game?
You do not and cannot know. So play!
My replies to these questions might have a perceived tone. I assure the askers that my replies come from a good place and with good intent: I want us to collectively change and improve our practice.
Participants of the session observed how the panel and I approached the Q&A. The same tone and concern should be applied here.
I did a rough poll of my 700-strong audience. Judging from the the hands that shot up when I asked how many liked passive talks, at least half were traditionalists.
My third slide included a QR code and URL to the backchannel. I was relieved that people actually stood up or stretched out to capture the QR code. Most others just typed in the URL I provided. At least one took the trouble to tweet the URL.
I had hoped to use the backchannel a bit differently. I wanted to collect responses by sharing the backchannel URL at my BETT presentation page. I wanted to know if there were issues about flipping that I could address. I asked that question two weeks before my presentation, but there was no activity prior to my talk.
I removed that question shortly before the talk as there was little interest, fear of an unknown tool and strategy, or insufficient knowledge of content to ask questions. I replaced it with a generic “introduce yourself” statement.
When I went on stage, I discovered that I could not get ANY wifi connection. The place was so crowded that even the default access points that I had previously logged on to were either gone or unable to accommodate me. The 3G signal was so weak that it was pointless for me to tether with my jailbroken iPhone.
As a result, I could not quickly demonstrate how to use a backchannel.
But I did not need to. TodaysMeet was simple enough for the audience members to participate in the backchannel.
And participate they did. They asked questions and posted comments. They conversed with one another. They provided feedback even though I did not ask for it.
I kept my promise of answering all their questions and addressing their comments after I was done with my talk. Not immediately after as I had offline social engagements to manage first. But as soon as my last chat was over, I rushed to the speakers’ suite and let my fingers to the talking.
I cannot see any return to a traditional one-way talk. Practically all of the larger scale talks I have featured here and done since 2012 included a backchannel of some sort.
Backchannels keep me and my audience on our toes. They extend conversations beyond the time and scope of the presentation. Most importantly, they provide opportunities for more meaningful learning.
Whatever the tool, the purpose of the backchannel might be to break down the one-way street of didactic delivery by creating an additional and multi-way channel of communication.
The first consideration for a backchannel should be why you want one. This could for a number of good reasons, for example:
- getting or giving feedback
- providing an additional platform for questions & answers
- promoting parallel conversations
- capturing the essence of a blended learning session for archiving/sharing
- one-minute reflections or exit tickets
A bad reason for wanting a backchannel is to look cool or to try something for its own sake.
The second consideration might be context, which might be a mass lecture or a conference talk. These contexts have these features in common:
- information is delivered didactically
- the delivery is in one place and at one pace
- the audience is present as a requirement (in the case of a lecture)
- the audience is self-selecting (in the case of a conference or seminar)
- the content is grey or controversial enough to generate discussion
- the audience is expected to sit, listen, and wait for a limited time and opportunity to respond
Whether backchannels are the initiative of the speaker or the organizer, they are a means of getting around tight schedules and situations where efficiency seems to be valued over effectiveness.
A third consideration is the size of the class or audience. I use backchannels at conferences where I am a keynote, plenary, or session speaker. The largest audience I have backchannelled with was 1,200. The smallest was around 50.
If you can count the number of people present with your hands and toes, you probably do not need a backchannel. That group should be small enough for you to interact closely with them.
A fourth consideration is the features of the backchannelling tool, such as:
- ease of use
- chronology of text inputs
- linear vs threaded conversations
- audience polling
- controlled access and/or message filtering
Whatever the bells and whistles, it is worth remembering that backchannelling is a social process. Often the ease of use and basic text inputs are all that are required. That is why my favourite backchannel tool at the moment is TodaysMeet.
I compared Twitter and TodaysMeet as backchannels in a previous blog entry. Note: I am not paid or otherwise supported by Twitter or TodaysMeet to mention their offerings.
When in use, TodaysMeet shows user-generated text in reverse chronology (most recent text at the top). For archiving and ease of reading, TodaysMeet offers a transcript view in forward chronology.
Both views are linear so it may be difficult to follow back and forth discussions. However, this is rarely an issue because audience members are typically multitasking (switching listening, asking, answering, responding), so responses are short.
TodaysMeet is very basic in that it does not have a monitoring or notification system. So if someone posts in the backchannel after a talk, you must keep track manually. Other backchanneling tools might alert you of a new posting.
A backchannel is meant for a select audience and members must feel they are in a safe place to share their thoughts. Tools like Pigeonhole and GoSoapBox are password or code-protected. The current iteration of TodaysMeet allows you to delete offensive or irrelevant posts.
As backchannels tend to be specific to events, it helps if the backchannels have a shelf life. Neither you nor the participants are likely to use it beyond a certain period of time. You can set what this period is (a week, a month) in TodaysMeet.
I share strategies and tips on backchannelling in Part 2 tomorrow.
I used TodaysMeet.com as backchannels for a conference presentation and a keynote in October. I will be using it again when I deliver a keynote in the Philippines in December. I have recommended it for an internal event in NTU later this month.
I used to rely on Twitter. I like Twitter for the continuity and community it can bring to an event if enough participants are already in that space.
But not everyone is on that platform or understands it. Getting folks to sign up for an account and getting their heads around tweeting, hashtags, and other Twitter conventions is confusing.
TodaysMeet does not require any accounts for the administrator and participants. You type in your name and what you want to say. That is it.
It is bare-bones text and hyperlinks, but that is all you need for a background conversation space, Q&A platform, feedback collection, etc.
I like how TodaysMeet also offers a large font projector view of ‘live’ postings and a chronological transcript view for archiving or reference.
But I miss what Twitter offers.
You are less sure who the participants are because they can choose any name. The conversations are ephemeral as they are tied to one-time or infrequent events instead of community or identity.
You might also get spam postings that you cannot remove. A few days after the conference backchannel, someone named “Facebook” left a few pro-FB comments in the backchannel even though it had nothing to do with the topic.
There does not seem to be a feed or monitoring system to be alerted when new posting are made. You have to manually visit every backchannel you create before and after they are used for an event.
That said, TodaysMeet is a good introduction to interactive talks. As a speaker, you can listen more. As a listener, you can talk more.
Here are some snippets during a keynote for an audience that was very new to backchannelling.
During the keynote, I also got my audience to participate in an online poll and think-pair-share activity. The latter leveraged on TodaysMeet to collect the “share” part of the activity. The contributions flowed fast and furious!
The audience also gave feedback even though I did not prompt them.
The most interesting, amusing, and perplexing one was this:
Given the nature of my topic (jailbreak schooling), I wondered if this was double-edged.
Was I to join Apple so that they could deal with my troublemaking? Or did I sell my ideas as well as Apple does?
Too bad I did not think of using TodaysMeet or the Q&A time to clarify!
A conference often provides vendors a way to showcase their products and services.
Old practices die hard
It is frightening to see textbook publishers still rely on book displays in the context of a mobile learning conference.
Yes, a book is a mobile technology, but the post-Gutenberg press type of books have been around since the 15th century.
I have nothing against books. I have a problem with non-progressive mindsets.
When are publishers going to take the plunge and reinvent themselves instead of cloning and milking near dry cows?
New practices have a toehold
I also wonder when ‘live’ tweeting and backchannelling will become the norm here. We were woefully short of people sharing on Twitter. A fellow tweeter remarked:
I still love Twitter!
While waiting for my turn to present, I took to Twitter to share my Google Presentation.
I wish I had the presence of mind to take a screenshot shortly after. As I was previewing my slides, I noticed that the number of concurrent viewers exploded!
Maybe I had some reach. Or maybe the title of my presentation was too juicy to resist.
Where art thou, user-centric design?
I have also learnt that not all conference apps are created equal. The one we were told to use to go paperless was locally made by a large established company.
I liked how it quickly and accurately added sessions I was interested in to my calendar. But I discovered that you had to move from portrait mode to landscape mode to navigate the programme from day to day.
It was also made for a phone and not a slate. That made already small fonts hard to read.
I could not find a way for me to update my profile’s social media settings. It was no wonder that so few signed up with the app.
Conferences need to be jailbroken too
In May, I also spoke a another conference about jailbreaking education and hinted that even conference formats could be improved.
At that conference we actually took some action at a session to make things better for us. We moved furniture about to make the environment less intimidating and more conducive for dialogue.
I wonder if conferences will evolve too. Might they be flipped? Might they be more like unconferences?