Wrong on Education

Norbert Cunningham treats Moncton to his own special treatment of education, inspired by Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail Dec. 15: "Why Alex can't add (or subtract, multiply or divide)) beginning with his recommendations on math lessons flavoured by his own style of social psychology:

There's a problem here and it's not the educational specifics. Nor, in the case of bizarre approaches to teaching math, is it just that those in charge of our education system are themselves intellectually incapable of understanding basic principles of math (i.e. 'division' in math doesn't involve conflict and doesn't need to be called 'sharing,' which is a different idea). 

Though what he really wants to attack is the whole idea of sharing (if you can't wait for it, go down to the last few paragraphs) he's going to get there by means of attacking the education system. Which he doesn't really know about - but still has strong opinions on.

What we thus get are constantly changing 'standards' (improvements, we're told) that hide the fact the system is failing. When the statistics from year to year and decade to decade cannot be reliably compared, there's only anecdotes. But gosh the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming: our school systems is neither excellent nor getting better. 

That's our Norbert - "To hell with the statistics! I have good old-fashioned (made in the 18th century) New Brunswick intuition!" Before addressing editorial writer Norbert Cunningham's concerns about the dropout rate at Canadian schools, let's look at the actual data. Here are the statistics from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada:



And lest we suppose this is a snapshot of an isolated statistic, here are some more figures regarding educational attainment in Canada:


These tables illustrated an unmitigated path of success over 20 years, an almost ceaseless advance toward greater and more equitable educational achievement in Canada. The number of drop-outs was steadily reduced from 16.6 percent in 1990 to about half of that today. The number of people with college certificates or university degrees has steadily increased.

Perhaps the concern is that Canada is not faring well internationally? It's hard to make that case. Almost half of all Canadians completed post-secondary education, the highest percentage among OECD member countries, and well above the OECD average of 28.4%. Add to that trades and vocational certification (not included in OECD numbers) and Canada fares extremely well.



Similarly, Canadian students score exceptionally well in the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment tests, or PISA. The students in our best schools - in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia - score with the best in the world - they are the best in the world. Even in Canada's less advanced provinces, including here in New Brunswick, students score even with the United States in reading and well above the U.S. in mathematics - and consistently well when compared with the rest of the world. Read the numbers for yourself. And there's more data saying the same thing.

Yes, we could do better. In particular, our record in First Nations communities is of concern; "In 2006, 41% of the Aboriginal population had post-secondary certification; only 8% had a university degree." Rural communities tend to do less well than the cities, and regions slow to adopt newer educational methodologies - notably the Maritime provinces - also fare more poorly.

So, now, with some facts at our disposal (and there are many more painting the same picture; this is hardly cherry-picking) let's examine Norbert Cunningham's concerns.

He writes (and I'll quote at length, to set the stage):

In our post-war society it became increasingly difficult for people who dropped out of school to find good work with a reasonable hope for an economically secure future. Only a few decades before, it was the norm, particularly for boys, to quit school. University was not 'for everyone.' That evolved in the 1960s. And without at least high school jobs became scarce. But dropout rates remained higher than what most caring people thought was acceptable. It was also generally treated as irrelevant that the same dropout rates were far lower than ever before. What to do? The virtually unanimous answer from newly minted experts was to assume -- never close to proven to this day -- that the persistent dropout rate was caused by flawed teaching methods. That's given us fad after fad, failure after failure.

One wonders what data - if any - Cunningham is looking at in order to draw this conclusion. While the data depict a continuously improving situation, Cunningham reports"fad after fad, failure after failure." One has to ask, what failure? Yes, to be sure, eight percent is still too high (and is only partially mitigated by people who graduate high school as adults, such as myself). But where is the fad and failure in a generation of steady improvement?

But what Cunningham is really after is the straw man argument he sets up in the previous paragraph, the assertion by "newly minted experts" that "the persistent dropout rate was caused by flawed teaching methods." This was just an assumption, he argues. "Never close to proven to this day." And, he writes,

It ignores variability in human nature, interests and abilities. Can't talk about that, it's not fair, was the ethos; everyone's capable. It wasn't 'science' or even evidence based, just dogma married to incredibly sloppy self-justifying research. Both are still thriving.

Cunningham's argument errs on two grounds. First, it is simply not true that newly minted experts simply assumed that the problem lay in teaching methods. Numerous studies exist; we could, for example, examine this report that reviews 203 peer-reviewed studies on the causes of drop-outs:

The research review identified two types of factors that predict whether students drop out or graduate from high school: factors associated with individual characteristics of students, and factors associated with the institutional characteristics of their families, schools, and communities.

Exactly the opposite of what Cunningham claims! There was research, ample research, a wide-ranging series of examinations, and they identified factors related to individual students and their surrounding communities. Yes, teaching methods would be addressed - educators have little power to control socio-economic factors. But these pedagogical changes would address individual student variability and their community.

Different studies produce varying results, but the bulk of educational research yielded similar conclusions, leading to the development of what we today call "progressive" educational policies. These are the policies widely employed in places like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia (and employed less frequently in places like New Brunswick, largely due to the protestations of people like Cunningham) and which have led - along with national advances in social equity and personal wealth - to the educational outcomes we see today.

(How does Cunningham react to proof that Canadians are the best in the world? Like this: "International ratings, such as PISA scores, become meaningless, for the problem isn't confined to Canada -- being near the top of rankings merely means you're among the best of a global crop producing increasingly impoverished yields." Never mind that absolute measurements - like literacy rates and drop-out rates - are steadily improving. There's still some mythical 'better' that only Cunningham can lead us to.)

Now we get two paragraphs of incoherent rambling (I'm sorry - but there's no other way to say it). First he argues that the putative failures were the "failure of a one-size-fits-all system to adapt to students. Quite so - but that's exactly what many of the pedagogical changes address.

Then he jumps to funding: "Could intractable dropout rates be the result of governments never (not once) putting the kind of money into education that would be required to eliminate dropping out?" Could be - but we see higher drop-out rates in Alberta, despite massive funding - the result of rural and First Nations conditions. Equity - not raw spending - is what makes the difference. 

Then he defends streaming. "We've seen bizarre, illogical efforts: 'streaming' was declared inherently 'bad' and discouraging to kids heading into a trade. Out it went, baby, bathwater and basin too. In New Brunswick that meant an end, until just recently, to even trying to teach trades." This would be a surprise to the New Brunswick Community College system - and inexplicable given the already-cited statistics showing a 50 percent increase in trades certification over the last 20 years. Discouraging streaming resulted in more trades education, not less. Because 'putting the dumb kids into trades' serves neither them, nor the trades, well at all.

Then he returns to an argument already widely accepted by today's educators: that "students are not widgets on an assembly line, each to be stamped out identically." 

The system isn't coming close to reaching all students. The path we're on fiddles with teaching methods rather than provide the resources to reach all. Lying to ourselves instead of fixing the issues or otherwise accepting reality makes only politicians and bureaucrats feel good. Few believe the lies about 'new' fads: witness decades of complaints testifying to their consistent failure. The culprits are primarily the politicians, administrators, bureaucrats and 'experts.' It's shameful. Deliberate, conscious choices have created a downward spiral of mediocrity.

After his attack on the Canadian educational system, which is doing better than most to cater to individual student needs (I actually wrote a column specifically on this a few years back - does he know that students in Edmonton, for example, can choose from any school in the city?) the reader is left wondering whether he knows what is happening in Canadian schools at all! Or even New Brunswick schools!

Perhaps he should view this video about 21st century learning in New Brunswick (from his comments we have to judge that he has never seen it). Or perhaps this brochure on the program: 

Public education in the industrial era was founded on discipline and facts. In the 21^st Century individual and societal success will be founded on creativity. Creative thinkers will be in demand to guide business innovation and to solve complex societal issues, some of global proportions.  NB3-21C is designed to produce creative problem solvers. Today, creativity trumps regurgitation of facts. Facts you can access on the internet.

This is not the system Cunningham is criticizing. And while the current government in pulling back on the progressive education program in the province (which will result, I can say confidently, in a reduction in the gains we've seen over the last few years) it has not abandoned it whole-scale and gone back to the traditional system. So what, exactly, is Cunningham criticizing? We can say confidently that he knows little to nothing about the Canadian system. My best guess is that he is probably attacking some of the American education reformers writing in the Conservative policy papers he reads from south of the border (that's just a guess - but what else could be be criticizing? A Dickens novel?).

Cunningham goes off the deep end to conclude his column:

Dump the 'experts'; dump the bureaucrats ensuring confusion about results reigns; and dump the lies to, and slander of, parents and other critics. Dump the assumptions of dogma for valid fact (and do the valid studies -- surprisingly few exist). Set curriculum and methodology locally. Real expertise does exist. Ban outside 'experts' from any contact with the system. 

One wonders what Cunningham means by an 'outside expert' - would I qualify, having lived in the province only 10 years?perhaps the people in the Department of Education who crafted the 21st century education plan would qualify, despite their focus on individual achievement and creativity. Who knows? Perhaps what he means is that curriculum and methodology should be set by the writers at the local paper. He certainly doesn't mean the teachers! Or maybe he does...

Development days that merely perpetuate a rotten system are worse than pointless. It's not as foolhardy as it may sound. It puts faith in the common sense, experience and intuition of teachers -- and goods one have plenty. They don't need, and never have, those 'experts' in universities who are using research methodology that'd earn a failure for any first year science undergrad in the next building over. I don't exaggerate. For heaven's sake, university administrators, it's time to insist on meaningful standards too. Anything less and nothing significant will change; we'll be waiting for an unlikely miracle.

Sure - depend on the teachers, he says. But make sure they don't get any of that book larnin! Because then they'll be filled with fool ideas (like, I guess, ideas from Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia? The best educational jurisdictions in the world?) 

In the end, Cunningham takes the same approach so many other pundits in the same New Brunswick newspaper have for so many years: attack anything from outside the province as unproven and untested, eschew 'science' (in favour of "common sense, experience and intuition") while at the same time attacking opponents for not being scientific (they just follow "a naive assumption"). And repeat repeat repeat the dogma of the day - that Canada's educational system is doing poorly and that it is the 'experts' that are to blame. To follow, I suppose, a "made-in-New Brunswick" approach (that just coincidentally favours some major corporations already entrenched in the province).

And he is appealing - you can see it pretty clearly if you read between the lines - to the age-old mythology that some people are just born geniuses, or gifted athletes, or musicians, or so on. That's the 'difference' (and not individual desire or creativity) that he celebrates. That's the justification, in his mind, for some people being 'gifted' and other people being 'streamed'. It's a rejection - implicit, never stated, and hence never defended - of decades of studies pointing to the socio-economic basis of educational outcomes. Cunningham believes that some people are simply better than others, that they deserve their privilege, and presumably their wealth. It's an appeal to a sort of social Darwinism that has no basis in evidence (but which lives on in the "common sense, experience and intuition" of people who have not been contaminated by 'science' and 'experts'. That's the dogma - if you note, it is repeated (repeat repeat repeat) throughout the column.

But it's wrong. If you look at the data on educational attainment - actually look at it, instead of pretending you did - you see that those nations that do well are those that practice a high degree of social equity. Read what the data says (see especially pp. 104-105 about achieving equity and improving support for weaker students). That separating and widening the difference between gifted and otherwise harms both. That even if the 'natural genius' theory is correct (though it probably isn't - more genius can be explained by hard work) the suggestion that the rich should get richer at the expense of the poor results in everybody getting poorer. Which is why - in a nutshell - the New Brunswick economy continues to struggle.

Cunningham's commentary does a disservice to education in Canada and New Brunswick, a disservice by labeling a generation of success a "failure", but misrepresenting the state of that educational system, by attacking the people responsible for that success, and by suggesting that there is some sort of local home-spun wisdom that would result in better outcomes. Wrong, on all fronts - and next time Cunningham deigns to write on education, he should do his homework.

p.s. the local newspapers are apparently going behind a firewall some time in 2012. Most people believe it's because they want the revenue - though most such efforts lose money. I think it's to keep columns like this, and the rest of the 'coverage' in this 'newspaper' hidden from public view and the increasing volume of criticism to which it has been subjected.

p.p.s the local newspaper restricts commentary to 1000 words. Having one's own blog - and being able to link to the evidence - is a lot better.

Read More

Where the Future Lies

Responding to Durff's Blog

In a post today I summarized Bill Cushard in Mindflash as follows: If I had to summarize the best advice I could give to e-learning developers, it would be this: "here are two key lessons for learning professionals:
1. Adapt to the on-demand world.
2. Embed learning into the context of people’s work."

I also pointed to the resistance against these two trends common in the industry. I would suggest that some of the sentiments expressed in this post are the cause of such resistance. We hear time and time again comments like "s collaboration is important because it emphasizes skills, team-building, and creativity that will be necessary in any student's future." But it's hard to make such an argument stick when the nature of collaboration itself is changing.

Collaboration brings people together, usually at a set place and/or time. It focuses them on a common objective. It emphasizes conformity and uniformity, orchestration and management, pulling as one" and "all singing from the same songbook." These are precisely the trends we are seeing erode in the future of on-demand and as-needed learning.

people often talk as though the alternative to collaboration is working completely on one's own. But this is not true. We still have to communicate and interact. But we can do so while remaining independent and autonomous. This mode of working together is called 'cooperation'. Online learning of the future will be based around a cooperative model, not a collaborative one.

That's the basis behind network learning (though you have to look at it a bit more deeply than surface observations (following Cluetrain) that 'learning is a conversation'. Understanding learning as a language sees each learner as an autonomous actor comprehending and creating communicative acts.

This has nothing to do with "respond to accelerating global competition," etc., Kanuka notwithstanding. Connectivism and network learning are about augmenting individual empowerment, not accelerating the old commodity-based and management-based economy. It's not some sort of modern free trade that homogenizes us all in a single environment. It is a fostering of diversity, a flowering of individuality.

Where this ties into the workplace is two-fold, both related to individual autonomy and diversity. First, it enables custom workplace support, where the performance support system is tailored to your interests and your resources. This in turn allows each individual to make a *unique* contribution to the production or value chain - people cease being interchangeable parts and begin becoming essential individual elements of the ecosystem.

So much of the writing I see about e-learning, whether present systems or future trends, seems to be focused on some sort of 'business reality' that the proponents seem to believe will prevail. That's probably why most of the pundits, even Siemens, write what are essentially 'business' books.

But the more they are pulled into the old language of 'competition', 'reducing barriers', 'productivity', 'collaboration', and other management-style ideology, the more they miss the actual revolutionary potential of these new systems, both for work and for learning.

p.s. the more I see blog posts citing 'traditional literature' to the exclusion of all else, the more disappointed I become. Don't be led down this garden path into believing that only academic literature is worthwhile. If you want to write about connectivism and network learning, the most important (not to mention original) work lies outside academia, not within.

Read More

Taking Responsibility for the State of Society

What has been most offensive about the media coverage of the Occupy movement has been the misrepresentation of both the issues that have prompted the protests and the response of the Occupy movement. We have yet another example of such coverage in (where else?) our local newspaper.

Martin Latulippe ("CSP, social entrepreneur and engaged citizen") is given an NB Business Journal column in order to tell us that he has been following the Occupy protests, and that while he is in favour of "these different demonstrations of indignation" he finds it difficult to understand "the absence of accountability among some demonstrators and the somewhat denigrating discourse aimed at people who spent their life honestly building their wealth."



While I applaud his effort to frame the discourse in the first few paragraphs, it should be pointed out right at the outset that many of the demonstrators observe that the richest in society have not been honest in building their wealth, that they very often skirt the limit of the law, if not overtly falling over it, and that they demonstrate time and again a tendency to ignore rules and regulations, engage in corrupt practices, and sometimes engage in outright criminality, especially in the developing world.

And to the extent that these people have come by their wealth honestly, their wealth has been earned not by themselves alone, as such framing suggests, but by dint of the fact that they work within the framework of a society, one that has been supportive of their efforts to build wealth, that provides them infrastructure and security, and educates and manages an increasingly expert workforce to support these efforts. 

Latulippe deliberately misrepresents the position of the occupy movement (I say "deliberately" because nobody could have studied the movement, as he says he has, and come to the position he describes). He says the movement "attacks the 1%, proclaiming that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate, in an effort to redistribute wealth; we also here (sic) this in our province and regions."

What the Occupy movement has observed is that the wealthy typically pay taxes at a much lower rate than the rest of us. The Bank Transfer day protest, for example, pointed to the fact that institutions like the bank of America pay less tax than their employees, like the single bank teller. The banks, meanwhile, entrench their positions through questionable and offensive practices. This is not a simple effort to 'redistribute wealth". It is a clarion call for a broad-based regulation of an out-of-control industry.

"I find this discourse quite simplistic," writes Latulippe. Well of course the does! He has deliberately represented it as such. He continues, "It is as if all the underprivileged in the world were being placed under the same umbrella, by saying that they didn't have a chance and that the rich - in addition to being profiteers - were lucky and must pay the tab!" But this of course is not the Occupy Wall Street position at all! Rather, the protesters are saying quite clearly that the game is rigged in favour of the wealthy. Simple fairness would be sufficient to satisfy the bulk of OWS's demands.

Latulippe tells us he is "growing tired of hearing the same things in our media and popular discourse." Rather, he says, "Media rarely looks at the thousands of hours some of these entrepreneurs invest to create their own wealth, the many hours of sacrifice and the risks they take to achieve their dream."

Quite the opposite is true, of course. Media devotes thousands of hours and acres of column-inches to coverage of the rich and the powerful, more often than not describing the sacrifices they made, their unique expertise and insight, and of course the work they undertook on their way to the top. What the media does not describe is the fact that everybody makes sacrifices to support themselves and their family, that expertise and insight are common in society, and finally that most people these days work long hours for the bulk of their lives just in order to get by!

As for the risks - a person putting a little aside for retirement is taking a much larger risk than the banks and corporations that are bailed out or deemed "too big to fail" by the government. Nobody sees their retirement savings disappear more quickly or regularly than the average person.

As much as Latulippe would like to make it seem the opposite, the underlying message of Occupy Wall Street is that the wealthy are not special. They don't sacrifice more, they don't have special skills, they don't take greater risks, and they don't work any harder than the rest of us. Therefore they should pay their taxes and live responsibly in society, just like the rest of us. They should not have a special voice at the legislature, they should not receive preferential treatment, they should not get away with criminal conduct, and they should not be able to manage their risks on the backs of everyone else in society.

Listen to this crap from Latulipp: "I know hundreds of entrepreneurs throughout Canada and New Brunswick who, every year, find themselves facing serious workforce problems because some of their employees would rather take advantage of the system by illegally filing for employment insurance or deciding to remain on social assistance. Such practices often jeopardize the future of some businesses. But such a scourge can never be dealt with in the media or addressed by a politician without public outcry or the opposition up in arms. Defending "the big bad" rich is poorly perceived. And unfortunately it doesn't garner popular votes either!"

What Latulippe doesn't say is that these employers are paying minimum wage and campaigning for it to be lowered or eliminated, that they want to employ people only seasonably or part time, that they want to manage employee hours in such a way as to avoid paying benefits, and that they often create dangerous working conditions and lobby against safety measure that would protect workers. Nobody is living well on Employment Insurance and even less so on welfare - that a person would find it more worthwhile to break the law and live on such substandard means says a lot about how bad these jobs these hundreds of employers are offering.

What Latulippe also doesn't do here is offer actual evidence of any large numbers of people collecting Employment Insurance illegally. In order for such practice to jeopardize the prospects of hundreds of enterprises across New Brunswick, it would have to be widespread, involving thousands of employees. But there is no evidence of this. What is in fact the case is that employers here are paying such low wages and offering such poor working conditions that people would rather leave - and that's what they are doing, year after year. If these employers want their businesses to survive, they should consider paying fair wages.

And then, laughably, from Latulippe: "And yet, the reality is that there are as many rich profiteers as there are poor, but nobody wants to hear about the problems of those who keep the economy running... particularly when these problems involve people who have worked hard all their life to get where they are today." If we just run the numbers on this, given that the wealthy are one percent of society, then if even one percent of the poor are criminals, it follows from Latulippe's own reasoning that every one of the the 1% is criminal. That's probably not true either - some of the 1% were simply lucky enough to inherit their money - but it just shows how poorly reasoned Latulippe's screed has been.

He continues, "Popular culture is obsessed with painting an unkind picture of those who are financially well-off, portraying them as people who want to take advantage of others. Whether it's a Hollywood movie or in one of our Tim Hortons, we have all seen and heard the rich being denigrated."

Yes. There's a good reason for that. It's because it's true.  Time after time after time we see incidences of the financially wealthy taking advantage of the poor. That's why, for example, we see in Moncton this week a company that made $100 million last year locking out employees and then refusing to pay them money they had already earned and set aside while the dispute remains unresolved. That's what their talking about in the Tim Hortons - and if the corporations didn't do it, the people in Tims wouldn't have anything to talk about!

But Latulippe would rather have it otherwise: "It's easier to blame the 1% for all the hardships of the world and demand a share of their wealth, than to push up your sleeves and create your own happiness. The Robin Hood discourse has always sold well. But, personally, I find it appalling that some demonstrators blame only the rich and wealth, in general, for the ills of the world."

Let's remember that the Robin Hood discourse describes a gang that attacks rich people and forceably removes them of their wealth. These attacks are well-deserved - the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John are abusing the trust that has been given to them by King Richard and are oppressing the poor through means contrived and illegal simply to augment their own wealth, and causing widespread hardship and ruin in the land as a result.

We have all of this today except for the Robin Hood attacking the rich and distributing wealth to the poor. And while I know that it is a popular lament of the 1% to describe taxation as a form of theft, it is in fact the opposite of that. Nobody in the Occupy Wall Street movement is demanding the violent seizure of wealth from the rich - around the world, whether in Egypt and Tunisia, in Russia, Italy and Greece, across the United States, and in Canada, the call has been consistently to stage peaceful demonstration, to accomplish legal changes, rather than to promote armed uprising.

But Latulippe thinks the whole system is unfair - to the rich. "It's ironic that a young student who spent two months demonstrating out of an 'Occupy' camp is perceived as person with good values, whereas the young entrepreneur who worked hard during the same period to launch his business, take risks and believe in his dreams will soon be perceived as a crook, once he's succeeded!"

Let's pause and reflect on this for a moment. The person in the Occupy camp - who may be a student, but is just as likely a retired person, an unemployed, a seasonal worker, or any other member of society - is giving up their income and family life for two months in order to work toward an improvement in society. He or she is calling not only of redress of the social and economic problems being caused by the inequities in society, but also for a proper response to things threatening us all, such as the onset of global warming.

The rich person, by contrast, has spent the same time to launch his own business. Well good for him, but let's be clear that this person is working for himself during this time - entrepreneurs are not launching businesses for the good of society, they are doing it to make money. And will this person be perceived as a crook? well - sometimes. Not always - most people doing business in the community are honest, which is why they remain small businesses. There will be some, however, perceived to be crooks - because they are!

After all - if the person after working for only two months is able to support with his taxes the protestor for that same two month period, then there is something fishy going on, because no honest person makes that kind of money after only two months effort. And more often than not, the accumulation of a lot of wealth in a short amount of time is a good indication of some criminal behaviour. If I suddenly bought a new house and began riding around town in a Hummer, you'd look at me sceptically no matter where I work. But when a businessperson does this, we're supposed to just look away?

The representation here is vile. We are being told that the rich people are the "job creators who help keep the economy rolling" while the rest of us - and especially those who protest - are ignoring our own responsibilities and simply trying to seek more of their wealth. What a load - frankly - of crap.

The rich do not create jobs, and directing more and more wealth in their direction results in a loss of jobs, not a creation of them. Societies with the greatest and most stable employment, as well as the most enduring and dependable wealth, are those societies in which there is the least disparity between rich and poor. Actual job creation is accomplished though the concerted efforts of the entire society to make the most of natural resources and trading opportunities, not through the singular largesse of some rich person working for his or her own self-interest.

What we see the rich doing, more often than not, is using their wealth not so much to create new wealth but as leverage to acquire other wealth that already exists. Sometimes this is accomplished through the purchase or acquisition of companies that actually do produce things (their new wealth will now be directed to paying the interest on the borrowing needed to acquire the business, not on new development or research). Sometimes their wealth is used as leverage against politicians to make decisions that create windfall profits. Again, this often works against the interest of the community.

Now after this blatant simplification and misrepresentation of OWS, Latulippe is going to claim some nuance for his own position. He's always there to support the disadvantaged, he says, but we must bring citizen accountability to the forefront. "Conservatives blame Liberals. Liberals blame Conservatives. The rich blame the poor, the poor blame the rich. Parents blame teachers; teachers blame parents, and so on and so forth." What he would rather see is "a box with a nice little mirror inside, so that people can look at themselves and see where the true solution really starts."

That's fair enough, and everybody should be accountable for their own part of the problem, but it follows that those causing the greatest part of the problem have the most to be accountable about, and need to make the greatest redress. And that's just it: I can accept my own responsibility while at the same time still be protesting with those of Occupy Wall Street. Indeed, taking part in these protests is actually a part of taking responsibility. It would be easier, and a lot more safe, to quietly go to work day after day and not make any waves.

But what I observe is that the damage to society being caused by the rich is  too great to allow for such luxury. We have observed the predatory and often criminal acts of the wealthy bring our society to the edge of collapse (and we may yet fall over). We have seen the inequity in society not only harm the economy and not only impair the work we are trying to do in health care and education, but also cause a great deal of hardship and harm. People lose their jobs, they lose their pensions, and the social supports like EI and pensions, into which they have paid all their lives, are being destroyed in order to subsidize the rich.

I live in a province that has at once two of the richest  families in Canada and at the same time some of the lowest levels of income in Canada, a province in which the wealth of one family is remarkably similar to the provincial debt. The prevalence and influence of wealth in provincial politics and the widespread poverty are not coincidence: one is the cause of the other. And it is a part of my responsibility, indeed, my prime responsibility as a citizen, to respond to that situation, not for my own benefit (for most surely there will be none) but for the benefit of the people of the province.

Make no mistake. More and more of the poor and the wage earners and the retired are "taking responsibility" for the state of their society. And the rich will not like that one bit. Because the poverty of society has not been caused by these people working hard and saving and sacrificing their entire lives. It has been created by the wealthy, who have manifestly and most obviously have stolen that wealth. It is not simply time to force them to give it back. It's time to reform our democracy, so that this can never happen again.

Here's the Moncton Occupy protestor, speaking out:

Read More

Replacing Email?

In response to Brian Kelly, The (Technology) Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present and Christmas Yet To Come

While my perspective is admittedly limited, and while I can almost be legitimately referred to as an old stick-in-the-mud, I think my own experience is relevant.

Currently, email is by far and away the most common way people contact me. I'll get maybe two or three phone calls in a day, zero instant messages or texts, and about 200 emails. Granted, 150 of those are not useful emails. But the remainder still dwarfs what's left.

But OK, that's just me. My mobile phone is usually turned off and lost somewhere in the house, the battery drained. I don't use an instant messaging client because ICQ never worked with MSN, which never worked with AOL, etc, etc. But I do have active Facebook and Twitter accounts (from which I'll average a couple of messages a day) and I'm not *that* technologically archaic.

My newsletter statistics tell a similar story. My website gets a lot of views on the web - almost a million page views in the last six months - and the number of email recipients of my newsletter continues to grow slowly, now over 3300 a day and around 5000 for the weekly. My Facebook friends, meanwhile, which peaked at 3000 or so, have *dropped* to 1800 - many people don't want the newsletter in their social networking. And while the OLDaily Twitter account has almost 1500 subscribers, that's still less than a third of the number subscribing to my personal account. RSS as well remains strong, with something like 5000 (or it could be 10,000 - I don't have a good count, just Google Reader stats).

What does this tell me?

There may be a lot of traffic in social networks and instant messaging, but it's personal traffic, replacing what used to be accomplished with a quick phone call. I've never really been a phone call person, and today I'm not an instant messaging person.

And there are two other observations I would make:

First, it's not clear to me at least how successful Facebook and Twitter would be without email and the web. Especially the web. Both services depended a lot - and to a certain extent still depend - on email notifications to get off the ground. I would probably never visit Facebook unless an email notification reminded me that people want to friend me, or that someone has sent me a Facebook message (the same was true of twitter until I turned it off).

Second, a significant part of the traffic on Twitter and Facebook point to those very web contents that i also send by email (journalists say that most of that traffic points to professional news content, but I'm not sure the numbers would bear that out). RSS, email and the web are all different facets of the same content, at least when email is thought of from the perspective of email lists, as opposed to quick person-to-person messages.

When Google+ came out I thought that it might be a viable alternative to web or email (I'm sure Google thought so too - a Wave that works, I can imagine them saying to themselves). But with the same sort of limitations imposed on users as those by Facebook and Twitter - the walled-garden effect, with a clampdown on links out - Google+ is also aiming for the same personal traffic as the other services. There's a lot of such traffic - the telephone was successful, and so should be these services, over time.

But people do not want to use those channels for more formal communications, no more than they want to receive advertising or music over their telephones. These communications rely on what are being represented here as 'old' technologies - email and the web. Longer and more in-depth content will continue to be transmitted over these channels (or something similar, but not something like instant messaging or social networking).

So - as Kelly asks - what will replace email and/or RSS and/or the web in the future, if not Google+? Probably our best clues are found in iPhone and iPad apps. Though these platforms are not as open as the devices of the future will be, the sort of functionality found in apps will come to characterize what we will find in web pages and email messages in general (indeed, if one were to measure the app market side by side with with social networks or instant messaging, we would be tempted to rashly predict the death of the latter!).

We need to work out some things. These apps (or at least the data they run on) have to be interoperable. Though the walled-garden works for Apple now, in a wider market it will be unsustainable. Additionally, with the proliferation of mobile content that actually does something on your device, security will have to be dramatically improved (indeed, security is the paramount reason why Apple has employed the walled garden - it keeps the incidence of spam, virii and phishing way down, unlike (say) contemporary email.

The more formal content of the future will resemble the magazine apps of today, with built-in hooks to social networks (to support back-chatter) but also to live data, analytics, interactive media, smart functionality, game-like or simulated behaviour, and other goodies I can't even begin to think of today. Like web 2.0, in other words, but without the sensation of being tied together with duct tape and Javascript.

And while in some cases these new products are being displayed on completely new platforms (like iOS or Android) they will also be displayed on the good-old-web and delivered via RSS, email or personal subscription (which for all practical purposes are in this context indistinguishable from each other). They will not be displayed on the Facebook, Twitter or Google+ 'platforms', no more than you would read a magazine by radio.

People creating email, web and RSS products are already well into the design of corresponding apps. As these apps gain in popularity, the numbers of the 'traditional' services will decline. But the numbers in social networks or instant messages won't increase correspondingly - because social networks and instant messaging are not replacing email, the web and RSS, no matter what the numbers seem to show.

Read More

A Little Space for Me and Mine

A local writer and editor of the teen section in our newspaper, Isabelle Agnew has gotten herself into hot water in the letters section of the newspaper by penning a column in which she admits she's a pagan and asserts that she finds Christmas greetings offensive.

"My issue," she writes, "is when I'm buying a coffee and they wish me well for Christmas or when it's completely generalized, at school for example, that we all celebrate Christmas."

Or, "that people were calling the Santa Claus Parade by another name that offended me... My problem with this is that it's not a Christmas parade. If it was, all of the floats would have a Jesus, Mary and other Biblical references. But they don't."

The reaction from her readers has from "Get a life" to " I am not the least bit offended when someone wishes me Happy Yule or Happy Hanukkah" to "I am a Christian and will continue to wish people a Merry Christmas."

The bulk of the respondents have, I think, missed the point of her remarks. It is not that she is offended by the sound of someone wishing her "merry Christmas" or the idea that people would celebrate the season in their own way. It's deeper than that.

Let me make the same point by way of a digression (bear with me, it's a bit of a story, but I think it tells well).

In 1977 I was in the second of two years working at the Rideau Carleton Raceway, serving drinks and snacks in the box lounge (yes, I was underage - don't tell anyone). It was near the end of the season, which finished November 30, and by then I had come to know the box lounge regulars quite well.

I had an excellent strategy for working in a raceway - I banked my salary, and wagered my tips on the ponies. Over two years at the racetrack I had an excellent record - I broke even. It made the work a little more interesting and allowed me to have something in common with my customers.

The last day of the year one of the box lounge regulars gave me a tip, and I bet a $20 exactor on the last race and walked away with more than $250. It was my single biggest win in two years, and came at a time when I couldn't just lose it on the next race. So I walked away from the track a rich man, at least by my standards of the day.

It being found money, I decided to spread the wealth. I went for a trip into the city and found really nice presents for my family members - my four brothers, parents and other relatives. Don't ask me what they were; I have no good idea. I remember plastic and bright colours and that's about it. And I remember them costing me the bulk of my $250.

Christmas came and I spread my presents under the Christmas tree, mixed unobtrusively with the others, waiting to surprise my relations with my generosity. But the presents were unwrapped and set aside with the others with scarcely even a remark. Nobody expressed surprise, nobody expressed gratitude, nobody thought anything of it at all.

The year following, and the years thereafter, I was living on my own, still earning a minimum wage, still desperate for hours of employment, living on the bad side of the poverty line, and counting every penny. I remember drafting a monthly budget that totaled less than $150. And so when Christmas 1978 came around there was not a chance in the world I was spending any money on Christmas presents.

The reaction from my brothers was, I guess not surprisingly, "if you're not getting us anything, we're not getting you anything" (my parents could be counted on for $20 or more in my Christmas card every year until well into my 30s). And in the many years following, that has been the attitude of almost everyone I've ever met.

Indeed, the once exception to this is remarkable. In 1988 (or so) I was invited to a Christmas dinner by Moira Brown and Sam Proskin, colleagues form the Graduate Students' Association who wore their faith on their sleeves and whose generosity was overt. Despite my being very clear no presents were expected or would be exchanged, they ensured I had extra presents, including a nice black-and-white sweater (this one) I own to this day.

So, for me, the giving and receiving of presents has never since been a part of the Christmas season. Nor do I exchange gifts for birthdays or other events. It's no longer part of my culture. That's not to say I no longer give gifts; I have on occasion surprised people with my largesse. But I don't give gifts on a schedule; I don't give gifts because it's expected.

So what does this have to do with people wishing me a merry Christmas?

Well - it's not the act of people wishing people a merry Christmas. I have no problem with this, and I'm sure Isabelle Agnew doesn't either. Rather (and I deduce this from the way she has expressed her point) it's the expectation that what would be wished is a 'merry Christmas' (or even a 'happy holiday'), as though this is what everyone celebrates this time of the year.

Like Isabelle Agnew, I don't celebrate Christmas. Unlike most people, I don't celebrate anything this time of the year, not even Yule or Solstice or whatever. I take the days off because I'm required to by my employer (when I was in the food industry I always worked Christmas and New Years) and generally spend the time working on some project or another (this year I'm setting up a local newspaper cooperative ).

I am frequently asked around this time of year whether I've got all my Christmas shopping done. I respond politely that I don't do Christmas shopping, that I never buy presents. "Not even for the children?" I am asked, as though I committing some sin against nature. "Especially not for the children," I say, under my breath. For my indifference I am called a "grinch."

Generosity is simply expected this time of year. The charities work themselves up into high gear. Christmas dinners are boxed and distributed to families across the city. Teddy bears are collected; Toys for Santa "makes sure every child has a present." I never contribute to such efforts, and if I am ever heard to remark that such generosity would be better distributed across the entire year rather than for a few days in December I am thought of as a wet blanket.

What offends me - and I think this is at the heart of Agnew's point - is the expectation that there will be presents given and received at this time of the year.

Now I don't know whether Agnew distributes presents - she celebrates Yule, so she may well - but her objection to the idea of Christmas is the same as mine. It is the expectation that everyone will celebrate Christmas that is offensive. The suggestion that a common community holiday parade might without a change of meaning be referred to as a Christmas parade.

I have no problem with people celebrating Christmas, and I have no problem with them wishing each other 'merry Christmas', nor even do I have a problem with people wishing me a 'merry Christmas' - but I do have a problem with them expecting me to celebrate Christmas, just as I have a problem with them expecting me to give presents at this time of the year.

If I read Isabelle Agnew right (and I'm pretty sure I do), she's saying, "Don't take my religiosity for granted." Just as I would be saying, "Don't take my generosity for granted."

One of the typicalities of the dominant culture is that it does not even realize that it is dominant. This is so much so with the celebration of Christmas that every little challenge is perceived as an "attack on Christmas," as though any challenge to such a widely-entrenched celebration could be even remotely meaningful. Dominant cultures trample on other cultures without even being aware that they exist.

What I do during the holiday season - even if it's nothing - is meaningful. It has a right to exist, not as an aberration that needs explaining, but as an ordinary state of affairs that ought to be countenanced at least as possible by the majority culture. When you act and talk as though no alternative to the mainstream could even be considered, you go beyond the celebration of your heritage, and into the obliteration of mine.

What we who are not a part of the mainstream ask is just a little space in which to be allowed to exist. Saying "have a happy holiday" instead of "merry Christmas" at least allows that I might be of a faith different from yours. Asking for a charitable donation whenever it's convenient rather than "at this special time of the year" allows for the possibility that this time of year might not be special to me.

For my own part, I wish people every happiness and warmth in the embrace of whatever faith or belief they profess. I wish them satisfaction and success in their endeavours, whatever they may be. I ask nothing in return of them, except that they travel peaceably the road of life and leave a little space on it for me and mine, so we may live harmoniously together.

Read More

Musability

This morning I read a short item from Mashable describing some predictions being made for the next five year by IBM. Among more workaday predictions we've heard elsewhere - that biometrics will become mainstream, for example, or that mobile computing will end the digital divide - is a prediction that demands more attention: that mind reading will become a practical technology.

This seems more the stuff of science fiction than it does a practical reflection on the future of work. However, the technology itself is not science fiction. The technology already exists to allow a person to control the movement of a cube on the screen through the exercise of thought alone. As we design input devices of greater and greater sensitivity, phenomena that once appeared to us to be only mental - our thoughts and dreams, for example - will begin to appear as physical manifestations.

Musing ('mental using') will become commonplace. Musability will become an important science, as these interfaces will need to be able to support action without distracting us - if you think it's dangerous to drive while talking on a mobile phone, imagine how dangerous it will be to drive while interfacing with a poorly designed muser agent.

Most likely we will first experience these interfaces as games. We will play at rotating the cube or dropping the objects into the correct containers all the while adapting to new skills our children (or their children) will take for granted. These mental environments will become as real to us - and as important a part of our every day lives - as places like Facebook and Twitter and World of Warcraft are today. It will, indeed, be difficult to imagine what the world was like before people were connected mentally.

It is tempting at first to see such devices as replacing our current control panels and input screens. And there is an advantage to be found in mental control of physical devices. For example, we can with training speed our reaction times. Or we can, through visualization, execute movements that might be difficult physically, such as balancing an object or reproducing an image. Mental controls also reduce the distraction physical movements create while driving or executing some other motor operation.

Musing, however, has the potential to have a much wider impact. The possibility of subsonic broadcast through, say, a tiny transmitter implanted in our ears, or through optical displays embedded in a contact lens, enables two-way communication. A person could interact with another person or device in an entirely inconspicuous manner. The clerk at the counter who smiles and welcomes you by name may be communicating with a complex computer program that tells her everything she needs to know in the time it takes the two of you to shake hands.

Or you may be communicating with each other subvocally. When you walk up to the counter your request has been prepared by your own computer system and is transmitted to her with a thought. She receives a short mental message acknowledging receipt and nods to you in response, while subsonically expressing her thanks for your patronage. Meanwhile your status - and your thoughts - are relayed instantly to other members of your workgroup, who receive them as updates as they participate in meetings or tasks of their own.

It seems like a small thing, internal communication instead of external. But as our machines become more able to respond to our thoughts, these communications will enable complex tasks to be performed by teams of people working in concert. Highly sensitive operations, like computer chip design or brain surgery, for example, will be performed entirely by thought, by operators working in fully immersive environments imagining their way through an environment. Close your eyes and picture yourself attaching neurons to each other - that's what it will feel like to you as nanobots perform the actual physical labour.

While it is tempting to linger on the practical and technical aspects of musability, these will seem superficial when considered against the social changes wrought by such intimate communications. It may be hard to imagine today technologies such as email and texting to be slow and cumbersome, but that is how it will feel to a muser. And the immediacy of such communications will change the way we relate to each other. Social organizations will become much more personal, and the idea that "it's just business" will be relegated to an age when you didn't know - or could pretend you didn't know - how people would feel when you worked with them.

Practical musing technology may still be five years away, and the rise of what the new version of Wired will call "Muser Nation" may be a generation to come, but just as we can see how network technologies have had a profound impact on today's social organizations, weakening the dominance of the hierarchies and resulting in the rise of asymmetrical warfare, people power and crowdsourcing, so also the mentally connected society will experience a fundamental change. It is hopeful - but maybe not unrealistic - to talk of moving beyond mere communicating to an ethos of caring.

Two factors would bring such a future into being. First, we would need a science that allowed us to share not just vocalized thoughts but also our experiences, emotions and feelings. Such a science would be technically possible; the major question is rather whether it would be socially acceptable. And second, a mechanization of work such that the bulk of physical labour were performed mentally, through musable interfaces. In such a case, the practice of 'work' as we know it today becomes less like labour and more like art. In such an environment, we would in order to become engaged, and the level of engagement becomes directly proportional to the emotional fulfillment we receive.

It is perhaps difficult today to imagine a society in which we work for something other than the bread on our table and the roof over our heads, but a combination of abundance energy and mental computation make a reorganization of the underlying economics a necessity. The less demand there is in society for physical labour, the more unfair and less efficient a distribution of wealth based on labour will become. And so as we transition into a post-wealth society, and as public access to the necessities of life become commonplace, new currencies of community and well-being will become paramount.

Read More

Online Newspaper Software

Drupal & Hosted Drupal

Newspapers Running on Drupal
This is a demo site showcasing newspapers running on Drupal, a popular open source content management system. These are sites set up using Drupal and then expanded with various modules. There are four newspaper-specific Drupal module packages:
* NodeStream - publish content in newspaper style
* OpenPublish - OpenPublish is an online news platform that emphasizes visitor engagement and ease of content creation. uses automatic tagging
* ProsePoint - online newspaper with configurable sections
* Managing News - Tracks news through RSS feeds and displays where each event is happening on a map

Prose Point Express
This site hosts newspapers - looks like Drupal but I would have to confirm. Modules for facebook like and Disqus comments. Content organized into 'channels'. Separate (and useful) upload for photos. 'promoted story' sider on main page. You can adjust layouts, etc. I was editing fine but then lost the 'control menu'. 
Here's a demo of our site
Hosted service, plans at $19, $39, $99 / month
For an overview, see the case study

Joomla (+K2) and Wordpress newspaper packages - still looking.

Major Commercial

PageSuite
Commercial software, pricing not available, demo not functioning. Focus on subscription, scheduling, advertising and analytics. It looks like there's support for the newer apps. There's a glossy PDF-style magazine publisher.

PressSmart
Suite of products for newspapers, including ePortal and emobile. CMS, templates, classifieds, and cloud hosting, among other features. Major professional suite. I've contacted them for a demo and pricing. Update ePortal Standard Features (US$ 600 per month - includes hosting on Cloud infrastructure) plus extras for additional features. Some examples: http://www.flcourier.com, http://www.thenews24x7.com/

ZMags
Apears to be more of a commerce server, but has something they call online newspaper software. The 'demo' is a video touting ecommerce solutions. A photo of a glossy PDF-style magazine appears. Example: Reboot.


Small Commercial

Flexportal
Newspaper and portal software written in C (which means more installation problems but much better speed). System information here. Available as a hosted solution, or they'll install it on our servers.Demo here is a bit cluttered. Another demo. Here's another example, which is better. Another example. The usual stories, classifieds, layout editor, user management and discussion list, RSS support, and sections, no indication of social features.

Bulletlink
Templates and allarently free hosting, $59/month. Here's an example. Here's another. No demo mode available.

Bondware
Newspaper website software. Demo version.
It looks a bit like WordPress (definitely PHP). Templates would have to be rewritten, as they're not very good. Demo site admin accessed. Here's a 'submit article' page. Note: you have to buy 'epostage' to send emails! $145 monthly (it's broken down into components, like 'core', 'polls', 'calendar', 'newsletter' etc. plus another $550 setup fee). Here's a sample story.

EZY Media
Services include software 'packs' (eg., starter pack ($295), newspaper website ($295), the works ($3K) etc). Hosting starting at $30/month. Here's a demo of the newspaper template. Various link errors on the site. In which case you get a "Page Not Fount" error. Some samples here and here's another.

Tech Cruiser
Newspaper and magazine turnkey hosting. $99 setup fee in some cases, $39/month hosting. Here's a demo site. Here's another. No examples of customer websites provided.


Django

Django
This Python application framework was designed specifically for newsrooms. Some examples: http://www.lawrence.com, Washington Post, LJWorld. An option is a site like Django-CMS, which bundles Django with a CMS and extensions, including newspaper extensions. Here's a demo. See also DjangoSites - some example of newspaper sites

Penny Press 
This is a Django newspaper adaptation.

A resource article on Drupal versus Django

Other Open Source

Props
Open source software available from Sourceforge; PHP and MySQL; not updated since 2008. Example available here and here.

Read More

The Right Mix

My response to Jon Dron, And so it ends...

Interesting reflections and I appreciate the comments and the participation.

It's easy enough technically to implement some sort of collaborative filtering or reputation management system, but the result would conflict with the objectives of the design of the MOOC.

To over-generalize, things that pull out one (best post, most reputable writer, etc) out of many are exactly the sort of things I wish to avoid. I think you sense this - you write "A single view of any course is always going to be a compromise that suits some and not others" - but my response is to attempt to avoid the single view.

This makes the parcelling or highlighting problem an order of magnitude more difficult. Basically, it amounts to wanting a way to do it for each participant, but also to provide each participant maximal choice, and a reasonable but not excessive amount of homophily.

I think a tag system is an excellent alternative, but simple keyword tagging is clumsy and ineffective - it depends far too much on what you are calling soft technologies (and specifically, the act of applying the tag) and means the only resources available are self-selected materials.

I do have a 'topics' system that preserves the best of tags but greatly automates the process, but I've been frustrated by some technical difficulties. It requires a lot of caching, and my cache system has its issues (if comments haven't been appearing when you make them on posts, it's because I'm still trying to make the topic system work).

I don't think a parcelling system will be by itself sufficient, however. I'm not even sure it's necessary. I think that the problem of participation lies elsewhere. Because we could send a post with only a small number of resources to people, which would be easily manageable, and participation would still decrease.

That's why, in my talk on engagement this week, I tried to explore the various things that would cause people to commit to doing things. I don't think any of the formulae are quite right yet. And nothing will be perfect - people take these courses in their spare time, which means they may stop for any reason at any time.

I don't think the answer will be a _simple_ thing, like badges, levels, competition, rewards, etc. - I expect it means getting the basic design (open, connected, interactive) right, plus providing focus (attractors, parcelation, personalization), and then stimulating actions (signs and symbols, loyalty, campaigns, progress indicators, etc).

Read More

How to Get the Most out of a Conference

MS-Word version -- PDF Version

EDUCAUSE has this habit of creating placeholders for its posts and then sending RSS feeds composed solely of those placeholders. Maybe the content will be filled later, maybe it's just a program entry and will never be fleshed out, but RSS readers like me will never know; we see nothing but the headlines (and sometimes not even that!) that leave only tantalizing glimpses.

This is the case for an entry that came out today, How to Get the Most out of the Conference. By 'the Conference' I assume they mean one of the EDUCAUSE conferences, but even that useful tidbit is missing from the entry. So I am left to speculate about what could have been.

I once started a post, How to Attend a Conference. It was just a stub of a post. Yet now as I see the headline I am reminded of that unfinished project. I have attended dozens, nay, hundreds! of conferences, a guest, a presenter, a panelist, and a keynote. So I know something about how to attend a conference.

Selecting

The same conference every year? Some people (maybe even most people) go to the same conference every year. I know I was that way with the NAWeb conferences. It's a good thing if you can do it - you get to know the people and know the format. The second time at a conference (or at a venue) is always more productive than the first.

But if you can only attend one conference a year, make it a different conference every year. It's harder and less comfortable, but each conference is its own community and you'll get a lot more out of seeing many different communities than the same community every time.

Keeping track. What conferences are actually happening? It's easy to focus on the content of blog posts and tweets and to overlook the venue (often it's indicated with nothing but a hashtag). It's a good idea to keep track of what contents other people you read are attending. Make a list.

Many fields have someone who keeps a comprehensive list of conferences. In educational technology, Clayton R. Wright provides this valuable service, issuing a new document every six months. In philosophy PhilEvents does the job. It's better to find a list specific to the discipline, but if all else fails, Conference Alerts provides generic versions for many other fields.

How you score these conferences (if you score them at all) is up to you. Some indicators of a good conference for you are:
- the volume of Twitter comments and blog posts from people you know
- presentations from authors you have read and enjoyed
- topics that are fascinating to you (but which you don't know a lot about)



Submitting a Proposal

For many people, the only way to attend a conference is to be presenting a paper or talk at the conference. It's a sad state of affairs, and has resulted in a bloated number of conference papers and talks, but it can't be helped for now.

Conference Guides. Many conferences will have detailed guides on how to submit a proposal. Read them. They will help even if you are looking at a different conference. The ASCD conference proposal guide, for example, offers review guides that will apply to almost any conference you apply to:
- how well does the proposal relate to the conference theme and strands?
- is the proposal content of current interest or a hot topic?
- has the proposal content been implemented?
- is the proposal an innovative solution, or does it offer a fresh treatment?
- does the proposal address or support solving significant problems in education?
- is the outcome or takeaway clearly defined?

Often, conferences will look for proposals in a specific format. The Pythian conference proposal guide, for example, specifies a list of sections your proposal must contain. So follow the list! The same guide also points to a number of reasons proposals fail:
- the title and/or abstract too vague, ambiguous or unclear
- the premise is unbelievable
- the abstract is too short and doesn't describe the talk
- too much material has been presented for a single talk
- it's a sales pitch
- it assumes reviewers are familiar with your work

The proposal. It's actually pretty easy to get a proposal accepted. But (to my mind) the trick is, make the proposal specific to the conference. Don't just submit some paper you've written. Taylor your proposal to the needs of the conference. Then, in your proposal, talk specifically about the proposal. Don't try to 'set the stage' - the conference theme does that.

Typically, a proposal follos the format of 'problem-response':

- problem - draws from published literature relevant to the conference theme, identifies a question to be answered, identifies a 'pain point' reported by customers or clients, or describes a proposition made by someone else you wish to refute. The more specific the better. Don't just give a generic description; identify instances of the problem.

- response - responds to the problem. There are many ways to do this; the best is to offer some concrete evidence of a solution. For example, you may have developed a tool that addresses such a problem. The response will consist not only of a description of the tool, but also an account of how the tool was employed in practice, and evidence from that experience that the problem was addressed.

Test your proposal with your colleagues (I don't recommend putting them online ahead of the selection process because it may impede the process - I personally prefer openness but many conference organizers do not, and may react badly).

Submission: Submit several proposals but be reasonable. It's better to submit several proposals instead of just one in a season, to ensure that you are accepted. But don't submit dozens if you're only going to one conference; it takes time and effort to review a proposal and it's unfair to organizers if there's no real chance you'll actually attend the conference.

Invited Speakers

If you are an invited speaker, do the same thing. There's nothing worse than a speaker who gives the same canned presentation to every conference they attend. I've seen a number of talks like that, and though they are very polished, they're sterile. The presenter hasn't talked with the audience, he or she has talked to the audience.

Any speaker will have a repertoire of content they rely on - I'm not going to go into a conference and do a completely original work on constructivism - it's just not part of what I do and would require several years to develop the expertise before I could talk on it. So there are slides I will use more than once, themes (like 'groups and networks') I will return to and discuss. That's expected (and if you are being invited, people will be disappointed if you don't do the thing that got you there).

But - as they say - localize. How does what you offer tie in to the theme the conference presenters what to talk about? If you are an invited presenter especially, you have an obligation to do some research ahead of the talk - what is the topic, who are the 'big names' in that topic (and who may also have been invited to speak alongside you), what specific objectives are the conference organizers trying to achieve?

Here's an example of a talk I gave in Mexico. Notice that the slides address the conference theme exactly. I am telling the conference organizers I am taking their needs seriously and trying to address them. I describe my own work in the field, and then at the end, show how it meets their objectives.

Here's another example. I was asked to speak at a conference in Belgium, at the Flemish Parliament. I took the venue as my starting point; the organizers wanted a talk on openness, and the audience consisted of managers and decision-makers, so I described a policy framework for open learning.

One more example. I was asked to do an online presentation on the topic of student engagement. I didn't really know the group I was talking to, so I did some background reading on the topic engagement itself. I discovered that the conference organizers had written and presented on engagement. This gave me a basis in literature I could refer to. I found a problem related to engagement in my own work, mapped it to what the organizers had written in their paper, and made some comments.

Here's a case where I dropped the ball. I was invited to speak to Empire State College, in Saratoga Springs. Really nice people, very dedicated and very engaged. I didn't realize that the college was already committed to open and online education, so the first part of my talk, where I presented the standard advocacy argument, was unnecessary and (frankly) a bit insulting to them. If I had done my research ahead of time, I would have found the considerable common ground we have, and been abot to craft a much more compelling presentation.

Invited speakers will also have to prepare an abstract and specify any special requirements (regular speakers are generally stuck with a small room and a standard issue digital projector). I always ask for internet access at the podium (because I like to be able to show people things). I rarely ask for sound, but if you plan to play videos, ask for room sound - people will not be able to hear your laptop speakers.

Planning Your Travel
 
So you're proposal have been accepted (I knew it would be!) and you are planning to attend the conference. You will want to plan your travel as far ahead of time as possible. This is not so much to save money; you can get good airfares and hotel rates almost up to the point of departure. It's to give you options and choices that may not be available closer to the event.

If you have to fly to the conference, book this first. If you're taking the train, you also want to book this first. If you're driving or taking the bus you can basically skip this step.

Arrival. When I plan airfare I always plan to arrive a full day ahead of the conference. That is, if the conference starts on the 10th, I arrive in the city and at the hotel the evening of the 8th. Yes, it's an extra day. But in my mind, it's the most important day, and especially if you're travelling internationally, a day you can't afford to skip. Here's why:
 - it's "jet lag day". I actually call it that. The first day in a new city is rough, even one just a couple time zones away. It gives you a chance to at least begin to get your sleep schedule on track. If you're lucky, the conference will begin the afternoon or evening of the first day, which gives you a bit more time.

- it gives you a chance to get to know the area, to find convenience stores, good pubs, rail and bus services, attractions you may want to visit. You should also explore the conference venue.
- this is an excellent time to localize your presentation. Now that you're in the city, you can get a feel for the place, take photos, and try to get a sense of where your organizers are coming from.
- and most importantly - if you miss a connection or your flight is delayed or cancelled, you won't miss half the conference! You are much more likely to be there when the conference starts (with all your luggage, which might also take an extra day in transit).

Departure. When you leave is up to you, but unless you absolutely have to, leave no sooner than the day after the conference ends, rather than the day of the conference. This is because conference participants often have ad hoc post-conference meetings, and if you have a planed tyo catch, you won't be able to take part in them.

I also prefer to leave one or two days in the city for myself (if it's a city I visit often, this doesn't really apply). It's really nice to be able to explore a new city, and best to do it after the stress of the conference has passed. This is typically done at my own expense. Your employer should never be asked to pay for these extra days, and most all employers will refuse to pay the amount. But if you pay the extra expenses (which won't be that large) yourself, few employers will say no - especially when they realize you can save hundreds of dollars on airfare by staying a couple of days.

Flight times: Do not schedule morning departures. I repeat, do not schedule morning departures. I never leave sooner than 11:00 a.m. or so. Airports are an absolute zoo in the morning, because most travellers get up early and travel first thing in the morning.

And when you're returning home from a strange country in an airport you've never been to, you don't want to be getting up at three or four in the morning, hoping you get a cab or a train, going to an airport in chaos, and trying to get onto your flight without losing half your stuff. Book a noon flight, have a nice breakfast, pack at a leisurely pace, arrive at the airport awake, and - this is the best part - you still arrive at your destination at a reasonable hour.

The Hotel. Stay at the conference hotel. Yes, it may be a bit more expensive. Maybe even a lot more expensive. But it's many times more convenient:
- You won't be paying extra money for a taxi, or spending time walking back and forth
- You can take a nap, take a break or get some work done in the space of a 1-hour period
- You can charge your gear without having to stand guard over it
- You have a place for meetings or after-hours gatherings

Book your hotel as soon as you can, so you can get space in the days before and after the conference. Often other conferences will occupy the hotel, and space may be at a premium. But if you book well ahead, you can get a room at a reasonable rate. Also, when booking, be sure to mention the conference, and attempt to get conference rates.

Travel Agencies. If your organization has a travel agency, use that agency, because your organization may require it, but also because they may have bulk purchasing arrangements with airlines and hotels. But be careful - they may also work within constraints, such as the cost of a hotel room. Don't let them put you in a box on the outskirts of the city! (Yes, it has happened to me). Pay the extra your self, if you have to, to be put into the right hotel. Also, be very clear about your departure time preferences and seat section preferences (I really recommend window seats, because you're never disturbed, and you have a bulkhead to lean on and use as a pillow).

If you're not using a travel agency, check seat prices at both the airline and a agency site like Expedia (I always use expedia.ca when I book my own flights, and in Europe I've found lastminute.com has excellent rates, far cheaper than anything I can get in North America). If you can, try to use an agency to book the hotel. Booking directly is often a lot more expensive than booking through an agency.

Fly economy. Your students or employers are paying for the flight, and even if some company is paying for it, they're writing it off as tax deductions. I call business class 'subsidy class' - the rich receiving subsidies from the poor in order to fly in greater ease. Don't patronize that system.

Your travel budget: travel can be expensive, especially if you're not prepared for the extra costs ahead of time. Make a budget (or at least keep one in your head) and be prepared:
- airfare (plus taxes, and be ready for luggage and other fees at the airport)
- international fees - check ahead - many countries charge western travellers at the airport to enter or leave the country
- taxi or (far better) train to the airport (it's better to take the train because trains rarely get stuck in traffic, and they're typically a quarter of the cost)
- food - you will want coffee and snacks while you're travelling (and maybe a DVD, if you're me). Plan ahead. I would have starved on my recent trip to Oslo had I not looked it up and discovered that it's one of the most expensive cities in the world (Oslo - who knoew?).
- tips - customs vary in different countries, but basically, if you interact with a human for anything more than a minute or two, you should be prepared (and happy!) to pay a tip
- internet access - if you travel a lot, have a current account on t-mobile or boingo (I use boingo.com); hotel internet is either free or ridiculously expensive - plan ahead how you will access internet on site (don't depend on conference wifi; I repeat, don't depend on conference wifi, especially if you have to do things like finish your presentation or do online banking).
- booze - if you plan to drink, make a budget and stick to it - booze in bars (especially conference hotel bars) can be really expensive (in Oslo, my $50 beer budget was consumed in four beers in one night - and that was at places that can only be called dives).
- souvenirs - you will want branded t-shirts, plaques or ornaments, local food (check what you're allowed to bring home)



Travel Gear

The other major expense of conference travel is travel gear. Fortunately, you can manage most of the costs by planning ahead. It's often a good idea to make a list (or to at least have a list in mind) as you prepare for conference travel.

Conference Kit. I have a 'conference kit' that is my essential conference gear, and which mostly stays in its own place at home between conferences (actually, I store it in the suitcase, so I don't even have to pack it!). The conference kit contains most of the personal items I might need on the road:
- electric toothbrush, small travel toothpaste tubes, soap, comb or brush, wash cloth, travel-sized shampoo and conditioner (I use Pert so I only have one bottle), disposable razors, sunscreen - you might not need all of these, but it's really nice to have your own toiletries, so you know how your hair and skin will react
- daytime cold medicine, NeoCitran (great for sleeping on the plane!), Imodium or rehydration salts, Ibutrophin or Tylenol, Strepsils and Fisherman's Friends, Polysporin (very important to treat cuts in tropical regions), Gaviscon and Rolaids
- your own prescription medicine - bring the original bottles or copies of the prescription

Travel Documents. You will need your passport (and possibly a Visa - check before you travel (I once had to scamper to get an Australian visa while in transit in Toronto!)), flight tickets, and hotel bookings. Bring your driver's license (but not your car keys!), credit cards and bank cards (you can use ATMs almost everywhere in the world; don't bother with travellers' cheques, and don't travel with a wad of cash).

I have an old blue passport case (I got it as a speaker's gift about ten years ago) I use to hold my travel documents (there's a zippered case for the passport and a string I can use to make sure it's attached to my body). Then, make a copy of every document and store it in a separate case. If you lose your passport (like I did once) having a spare copy will save you from huge problems (as it did for me).

When you are traveling, don't put everything on one place (when my camera bag was stolen in Spain I lost nothing but the cameras - but I heard people in the police station talking about how they had lost everything when their bag was stolen). I put travel documents in the passport case, money and cards in a wallet (front pocket only) and another secret location, electronics in another bag, etc. I once lost all my music gear from an airline seat pouch when someone swiped it while I was in the washroom - now I keep a backup iPod nano and earbuds in a separate location.

Note: these warning apply equally if you're travelling half way around the world or if you're travelling to a nearby city. Loss can happen anywhere, and it's when we get comfortable that we're the most vulnerable.

Vaccines. Check the CDC page for recommended vaccines. If you can, you should get a Twinrix vaccine against Hepatitus A and B if you're going to be doing any large amount of travel at all. If you are travelling in the country or to tropical regions, be sure to bring and use bug spray (like Deep Woods Off).

Electronics. I travel with a MacBook Pro, an iPad, and an iPod (with a backup Nano). These have of course their power cords (each neatly coiled) and connecting wires (I have two baggies containing essential cords - chargers for iPods and Pads, earbuds, USB connectors, adapters for digital projectors). If you're travelling overseas, check the power supply requirements, and purchase an adapter. I also bring an extension cord or power bar.

My cameras are in a separate bag (of course!), and I bring my nice camera, a small compact back-up, and chargers and USB connectors for each. I have a nice microphone so I can record audio (both cameras record HD video). I also use a Sony Walkman to record conversations, street sounds, background noises, and whatever. It's also a local radio receiver and backup iPod!

You might ask, why don't I travel with one computer, one MP3 player, and one camera, and skip the rest. It's all about having the right tool for the job. A computer's a lot easier to use than an an iPad, but the iPad is great for crowded conference audience seats (I don't know why conference organizers don't provide tables, but they often don't). The compact camera is great for the bar or busy areas where you wouldn't want a big camera, but if you want really nice photos (as I do) you want the really nice camera. And having more than one device is great for long airplane trips, because between them you have hours and hours of entertainment!

Note: power in the Americas is 110 volts, and elsewhere is 220 volts. Most of your gear will work with both (check the tiny print on the charger, power cord, or adapter - if you see 110-220 v you're OK). Some things won't! I've blown up a number of power bars!

Clothing - bring extra socks and underwear, and economize on pants and shirts. It's always wise to bring a sweater. When travelling to a cold country I wear the coat in transit (some guides say you should pack them, but coats are really bulky) and use it as a pillow (up against the bulkhead of my window seat). If you're giving a talk, have clothes designated especially for your talk - wear nice clothes when you present, even if it's informal. You're on stage. Be professional.

The Rest - I travel with a Cpap because I have sleep apnea, so I have to make sure there's always electricity where I'm sleeping (yes, sometimes organizers forget you need power, so make sure ahead of time). I also travel with my own prescription meds. I bring a travel alarm clock. And I bring my own coffee machine, coffee, filters and whitener, because you can't get good coffee anywhere!

Luggage. Don't use suitcases, and be prepared to walk with your luggage without a baggage cart. I use upright luggage, like this. I have one larger bag I check-in, and another smaller bag as carry-on. Then I have my computer shoulder bag. I use a bungie cord to loops the smaller luggage to the back of the large luggage, so I can pull the two of them with one hand (matched sets will also have straps that join the two together). I either carry my computer bag over my shoulder or use another bungie cord to attach it to the tall luggage. The idea is that I can be pulling everything with one hand, and have the other hand free (for a coffee, for a phone, for my travel documents, etc.).

Preparing for the Conference

A conference comes and goes in an instant. Even a long conference might only be four days long - most are only one or two days. You won't have time to find your feet, even if you're arriving early.

Research the conference. Who will be there? What will they be talking about? As much as possible, scan the program, look for people (especially keynotes) talking about things that are interesting to you, and look them up on Google. Do this before the conference! Sometimes it's nice to be surprised by someone you weren't expecting, but the experience is so much more rewarding if you know where they're coming from.

You also want to be looking at the program to see which sessions you want to attend. You don't have to decide right away (but if you do, create your own schedule and put it on your iPad or computer - it will be really hard to find this information at the conference itself, because they almost never post big signs with the conference program on it (they just assume everyone has their program).

Find the chatter. These days every conference has a backchannel (where or not the organizers want one). The backchannel is typically indicated with a hashtag. If you don't know the hashtag, search for the conference on Twitter. Or use a Google site:Twitter search, like this. Or just include 'hashtag' in your search, like this. If you still can't find one, ask people you know. If nobody knows, create a hashtag of your own, and put up a blog post with the name of the conference, the year, the URL, and your proposed hashtag (don't forget to Tweet using the hashtag too).

The hashtag chatter will not only highlight talks to attend and issues that are current, it will be a guide to the unofficial activities associated with the conference. If people are meeting at a pub, or getting together in an open hotel room, it will show up in the chatter (use reasonable safety precautions when travelling to new places in strange cities). It will point you to resources and background materials. Being linked to the chatter ahead of time will prepare you to get the greatest advantage of the backchannel during the conference.

Prepare your talk. It goes without saying, I suppose, but it can be the last thing you're thinking about when travelling overseas. You want to do as much as you can ahead of time, but remember, your presentation is a creation of the moment. Plan on making changes, adding local content, and more.

Mostly what I do ahead of time is to assemble resources. This is especially important if the hotel has a bad internet connection. I'll have copies of papers I want to quote in my digital library, copies of all my previous slide presentations, sometimes even downloaded versions of web pages (I just use the browser - it downloads the site and copies of all the images on the site). Sometimes I download video clips (using DownloadHelper). One day I want to use videos for my sldies instead of static images, but I need to get better at that.

It's also good to create an outline. If you have a good abstract, this has already been done for you. Now you can fill it out. The principles I've described before work really well for presentations. Sometimes I create an entire outline first; other times I have the outline in my mind and just author the detailed version slide by slide. The less experienced you are the more you'll need to prepare (on the bright side, once you've done this a few hundred times, you can create an interesting engaging original presentation in a few minutes right before the talk).

Create Your Presentation Page - I should do this ahead of time a lot more than I do. But what you should do is to create a web page for your presentation. This page will constitute the permanent record of your presentation, but for now it's a planning document. Your presentation page can be a blog post, a wiki page, or any other internet presence. I really recommend that it be a page rather than something transient like a blog post or social network status update. This will be an archive; treat it seriously. (In my view everyone should create their own presentation page - the fact that most people still don't is a matter of some astonishment to me).

When your proposal is first accepted, post your abstract and links to any background material you may be looking at. Especially if your talk is going to be controversial, make sure your summaries and readings are available for people to see. So - for example - when someone says you "didn't understand" their paper, you can point to your summary and ask, which part was wrong (in my case, probably nothing - but I get the "didn't understand' sour grapes a lot).

Here's a good example of what I mean. Note that even before I even arrived in Utrecht I had the background work done, and more importantly, posted online for comments and feedback. It's useful in multiple ways - like when someone says "oh he just got mad and did it in the last minute" you can point to this work and make it clear that you had in fact planned this all along (and can hardly be accused of springing a surprise attack on someone). Here's the completed presentation page of the talk finished after the event (yeah, I know it's not beautiful - but it's a great archive of the talk).

Publicize your presentation - use the conference hashtag and post a link to your presentation page on Twitter. Give people a way to give you comments (don't be disappointed if you don't get any - people talk a lot about how interactive the web is, but there's a lot less actual feedback on things than you might think). Be prepared to add to your presentation right up to the day of the event.

Practice your talk. Seasoned hands have probably forgotten that people need to do this, but people who are new to the whole concept of giving talks at conferences should strive to practice their talk in front of a live audience. Don't read your talk, even in practice. Make sure you have notes, so you don't lose your place or forget what you wanted to say. But even when you practice your talk, just glance at your notes to find your place, and then speak without reading your notes.

Why? Three reasons. First, you want to hone the art of interacting with your audience, and you can't interact with them if you're staring at your notes. When you speak, you want to be looking at them, not your presentation. Second, practising this way will help you remember your presentation. It forces you to think about what you're saying, and not to merely recite it. And third, you'll get feedback and probably a lot of support. People will tell you it's a good talk, or how to make it better.

I still do this, especially when I'm trying out an entirely new line of argument. My Speaking in LOLcats presentation was first delivered to a small conference in Richmond Hill, and then to an online course. Of course, this would have been a lot better done the other way around. Online talks are great ways to hone your conference presentations - just do a Google hangout and have people join you. Or here, I presented first to an online class (same class, different year) and then next to an international conference.

Writing Your Paper. Some conferences will require that you provide a written paper for the presentation. This means that you may be committed to having a presentation (and paper!) completely planned before you have all the information you need. That can't be helped, and you should strive to accommodate them.

Do it this way: prepare the presentation and slides first. Practice your talk a few times, if you need. Ideally you want to actually give your talk first, but if you can't, rely on the practice. Delay as long as you can, pulling your resources together, assembling your articles, links and diagrams. Then, use the presentation outline as your essay outline. How you proceed at this point is up to you, but I sit down and do it in one draft. Maybe not necessarily start to finish (as I type this paper, for example, the organization is chronological, but I'm adding sections as I think of them).

This works really well. My paper E-Learning 2.0, for example, was created this way. Here's the link (it was published in eLearn Magazine, was their most popular paper ever, but then they broke the link and now none of the references to it work - that is why you keep your own records!). I first presented the talk to a CIDER online workshop. I adjusted a bit and presented it in Edmonton (to many of the same people!). Then I wrote the paper.

This is really common. The purpose of conferences once upon a time was to provide a forum where people could try out their partially-formed ideas before committing them to print. Over time, with the publication of conference proceedings, the conference presentation has become ossified. But I try as much as possible to use presentations to try out new ideas. That's why it's so important that I actually talk with the audience, rather than just at them. Even if there's no question-and-answer, I can get a good sense of how it was received from their expressions, and later, from the converstaions and backchannel.

The Night Before

Charge your electronics. Make sure you have a full charge on ytour computer, iPod, iPad, camera batteries, and anything else you are bringing.

Print boarding passes. If you can (check your airline site), print your boarding pass. While you're at it, make sure you print backup copies of all your documents (if you don't have a photocopier, take a digital photo of the document and print that).

Use Google Maps. You may have done this at an earlier stage, but do it now, the night before you leave, so it will be fresh in your memory. Locate the conference venue, your hotel, and the airport. If you're taking a train from the airport, locate the train station. Print out a copy (and backup) of the street map and store it with your travel documents. Use street view and walk through your route on Google before you arrive. (Seriously - I actually do this and it makes a big difference when you arrive, and you know what your hotel looks like, because you saw it on Google maps).

Make an arrival plan. The idea is that you'll be making plans before you get there. You arrive at the airport and get on the train - what stop are you getting off at? Make sure you know. Will you be able to want to the hotel or will you need a cab? Finding taxis or trains at the airport is usually very easy, but when you arrive at a train station in the middle of the city it can be confusing. Plus, there are thieves, so if you're standing there looking lost they will zero in on you. Have a plan so that when you arrive, you know what you're doing.

Sometimes, especially when you're an invited speak, your hosts will say "don't worry, leave it to us, someone will pick you up at the airport." Don't count on this. I remember arriving in Bogota for the first time - the fight was four hours late, I arrived at 10:30 at night, and my ride had bailed. What would I have done if I had not already looked up where to find taxis at the airport (there's an official stand, but it's a bit out of the way) and known the location of my hotel?

Back up your files. I always travel with a 32 gig USB drive on my keychain. I put a copy of my presentation on it, as well as a nice reading library, all my previous presentations, and a bunch of other stuff I'll write about in another post one day. The night before you leave, make sure you've updated your USB drive with backups of all your data.

Pack your bag. Fold your clothes, make sure everything fits, and don't forget to weight your luggage. Use a luggage scale. There are always restrictions. Be sure to check your connector flights - in the middle of a long trip recently a tiny airline handling one leg of my trip tried to shake me down for excess baggage fees - but I had done my homework.



Travel

Getting to the airport. If you're travelling from home, you may have a good idea of what to expect. Since you're travelling at noon or later, the airport won't be a zoo. Plan to arrive an hour and a half early (that gives you an extra half hour for traffic, car accidents, disputes with the driver, delayed trains, whatever). Don't economize on your arrival time. Time spent at the airport is just as productive as time spent at home, so it's really silly to delay departure to the last minute in order to have more time at home.

Note: in many places you will need to arrive even earlier, up to three hours earlier, especially when travelling internationally. If you're not familiar with the airport, ask at the hotel, and then follow their advice.

I travel with checked luggage. I know that when you read travel guides they will say you should try to avoid checking your baggage, but I'm not really sure this is a wise idea, especially if you're on a trip of any length. Yes, your baggage might be delayed or even lost (though my luggage has never been permanently lost). And you have to wait at the carousel to get your baggage. But who cares! You've arrived - what's the rush?

But if you don't check your luggage you're travelling with heavy and often bulky cabin baggage. You have to lug it around the airport. You have to fight with other passengers for overhead compartment space. And the stuff you need in transit - like computers and flight documents - gets mixed up with stuff you don't need to be messing with on an airplane, like underwear. You're always rationing your liquids. Being careful to make sure you have no toe-clippers. You don't have enough room for your electronics (which you absolutely must carry on - don't risk losing them) and you can't do things like bring your own coffee machine. All this to save a few minutes at the carousel?

Have a carry-on sized carry-on. Like this.They are designed to fit into the overhead bins (if you are travelling on a small plane like a CRJ or Embraer you will have to cabin-check your carry-on - don't panic, it will be there as you leave the aircraft, but keep this in mind and keep the stuff you really need in your computer bag). Don't overstuff your bag because it won't fit into the space if you do. This may seem overly pciky but you can save yourself a lot of heartache at the check-in line or in the airplane by using the proper baggage.

As I said, arrive early. If you're going to be standing in line a long time, be sure you have something to read or listen to (an iPad is fabulous in a check-in line). If you can, print your boarding passes the night before, or otherwise, use the airport kiosk check-in. There are many options - you only need to learn them once, and then they'll save you hours every trip thereafter.

Be nice to the airline staff. Let me repeat: be nice to the airline staff. 

As you approach security, put all your pocket stuff into your coat pockets (you should almost always wear a coat when you travel, because you never know where you'll end up, airplanes can be cold, and it's good to have extra pockets). You can also toss stuff into your carry-on bag, but it's a lot harder to fish out after. Don't travel with liquids in carry-ons unless you absolutely have to. You will need to remove your computer and iPad, so when you put them in your bag, put them in last so you can easily remove them. Carry your boarding pass in your hands (if they do an extra check, they will ask you for it, so it's good to have it with you and buried inside the x-ray machine). In the United States you'll have to remove your shoes (happily that insanity has not spread beyond the American border) so prepare by untying them.

Go through security right away and go straight to your gate. I always do this in strange airports. It's important to make sure you know where your gate is as soon as possible, because you never know what's between you and your gate (in Bogota, it was an extra security check, in Oslo, there was a passport check just outside the gate).

Arrival

Remove all your clothes and put them in the dresser; when you finish with your clothing, fold it neatly and put it in your suitcase (that way, you can pack to leave in just a few minutes). Put your stuff in the bathroom where you need it. In my case, I set up the Cpap and coffee machine right away, so I can spot any problems before they happen. Check your electronics, connect to the internet (if you're using in-room internet, which I really recommend if it's not too expensive), and use Skype to call hope and tell them you've arrived safely.

(I know some people use phones. I can barely make my phone work where I live, but I have no idea how to make it work when I travel. If someone has a good guide to this, that would be nice.)

On jet-lag day, get the lay of the land, catch up on email or correspondence - if your hotel internet is awful or nonexistent, find the nearest cybercafe. Find coffee shops (unless you've brought your own coffee machine) and stores and things that might be useful. Have a nice day and relax - travel is really stressful, even when everything goes well. Putter with your presentation - see what people are writing about the conference (they will also be arriving, some of them, and you can meet up if you want).

The Conference

It has been a lot of work (less work with experience) but you're finally here. You're well rested, you've already had a look at the program and have a good idea what you want to see. You've been chatting with people online and have some contacts to meet for lunch or just a gab session, if you wish. You know when the official conference sessions are, and also when some unofficial meet-ups will take place.

The key rule now, after you've done all that planning, is to go with the flow. Let your interests and instincts guide you. Don't feel you have to do anything, feel free to change your schedule, and plan in the moment. Because you've done all that background work, you are now perfectly positioned to surf through the conference like a master.

The receptions. Personally I hate conference receptions because I'm just not a wine and cheese kind of person, but if you're an invited speaker you really should go to them. Being an invited guest at a conference isn't about the keynote - that's the least part of it, often. You're there because people want to meet you, and the receptions are the first and easiest way to do this.

If you're not the keynote, you should feel free to skip the receptions, and I often do. But you may want to look at it this way: free food! Remember, conference travel is expensive. You'll probably eat more than your meal allowance (assuming you have one). Your conference fees have paid for this food, and you ought to fill up. The receptions are a good way to do this.

Most receptions are stand-up and free-flow. I'm not very good at them, but here's what I've learned, that works reasonably well. Look for a smallish group of people (three of four or so). Approach them - they will be talking - smile and nod. Then listen and get a sense of the conversation. If it's boring or personal, move on. If it's interesting, stay, and use body language to communicate your interest (for example, nod at points you agree with). If they are welcoming, they will look at you as they speak, to include you in the conversation, and may open their stance so the group circle now includes you. Wait for a natural pause in the conversation before you interject a remark. When you comment, keep it on topic. It's ideal if it's a question that helps them carry the conversation further.

If you're speaking with a group of people at a conference and someone is hanging around at the edge of your circle, look at them, open your stance, and give them an opening - because it's probably me, and if what I've just stated doesn't work, I've got nothing!

I suppose I don't need to tell you not to get hammered at the opening reception. Just remember this: the hangover will last the rest of the conference! But again - go with the flow. I remember some all-nighters with Terry Anderson and Rory McGreal that were really important to me when I was just beginning to attend conferences.

I know a lot of people approach receptions like sharks and go into them with an express intent to gather contacts, make a good impression, pass out business cards, and all the rest of it. I don't recommend this approach; it's too stressful, and it's too artificial. I would say that your main objective would be to have some great conversations. You're meeting some really interesting people. Listen with interest, ask relevant questions, and enjoy the art of a great story. And don't just focus on the work. Talk about the venue, the local attractions, or anything else that interests you.

Finally - as I write this the concept of the 'social artist' comes to mind. I first heard it from Nancy White; she credits Etienne Wenger. When you're taking part in conversations, don't think about what you want to get from the other people, don't think about what sort of impression you're making (you know, unless there's blood dripping from your nose or something). Think, instead, about how you can help the conversation. Lead by creating a space for dialogue - ask open-ended questions, venture an opinion that could be considered, say something nice about a talk you've heard.

The keynotes. A big part of the conference fee went to pay for the keynotes, so you may as well attend their talks. Often, they'll be the best speakers (but sometimes there are some real dud - beware keynotes given by politicians or corporate sponsors). Also, the keynote speakers are one experience most people at the conference will have in common (they'll split off for the conference sessions). They set the tone for the conference, and many other speakers (including you!) will refer back to the keynotes during their own talks.

Whatever you do, don't sit there passively when the keynote is speaking. I know there was once upon a time when you showed the best honour to the keynote by paying strict attention and doing nothing else. As a frequent keynote, I can only say: please don't do this. Because I know what's happening - you start out with the best of intentions, but your mind wanders, you start thinking about other things, and then the talk is over and you can't remember a bit of it.

I strongly recommend taking notes. If you're a novice, take note as an outline - you will then be able to see the structure of the keynote's talk (and you'll see how it actually does fit the patterns I've talked about). You can learn a lot by how they have put together their remarks, even if you're not so interested in the subject matter. Also note the way they speak, the way they're communicating with the audience - learn from them, because you'll be on that podium soon enough.

Taking notes also helps you interact with the subject material. There's a very good chance that what the speaker says will be relevant to your own talk (especially if you've both tried to fit within the theme of the conference). You will want the notes for later, when you are making last minute additions to your slides. And if you're asked to give a report on the conference (something I think is a good idea, but which I don't personally do nearly often enough) the notes will be a lifesaver.

I really like the reasons outlined by Matt Thompson of Poynter of why you should live-blog, as they get to the core of thebenefits of taking notes:
- a liveblog forces you to genuinely pay attention
- it also forces you to write.
- it can be intensely engaging
- it’s a service to your readers
- it can be a service from your users
Thompson also has a really good checklist of things to do before you liveblog - have you set up, have you tested your gear, do you have the relevant facts (like speaker names, etc) handy, etc.? See also Marshall Kirkpatrick on live-blogging.

Unless someone explicitly tells you that you shouldn't, feel free to take pictures of the speaker and some relevant slides (not every slide, you don't need all of them). You can use them on your own slides when you refer to the speaker's points (don't worry about the copyright, this falls squarely within fair use).

Finally, track the backchannel. I recommend something like Tweetdeck for this, so you can follow more than one thread and so you don't have to worry about reloading pages and all of that. Participate - judiciously - in the conversation. I don't think Twitter is a good place for a summary of the talk, but rather should be used to highlight good quotes, express support or opposition to arguments, and to fact-check the speaker.

The whole point here is to engage with the speaker and the subject material. Don't just sit there passively and watch the presentation as though it were television - you will be bored silly and you will learn nothing. The content during a presentation is coming at you at 300 baud, and you have a 64,000 baud mind. Use that space to learn by being active, by creating, by interacting.

If your notes are half-decent, I recommend positing them online, on your blog. Too few people do this. I like to link from my presentation to the summary, but so few people really do a summary. The best presentation summaries read like a blog post or short essay - like this. Don't try to capture everything; focus on main points - it's a summary. With any luck, the presenter will provide a recording, slides and a transcript.

A note on recording: I don't mind if you record my talks (actually, I encourage it, so I have a backup) but some people think they are protecting some big secret. So if you intend to record the entire talk, it's always a good idea to ask the presenter (at some of the larger conferences the organizers also will have to approve, because they've arranged some special deal with some company to create conference recordings - I imagine conferences like TED and Idea City are like this).

The streams. Everything I've said about engaging with the keynotes also applies to the stream speakers. Maybe even more so, because these speakers will be a lot less skilled and will have less to say.This makes it more difficult to pay attention and follow the thread of the presentation. Try to be charitable - many of the speakers will not even have read this post - they'll be jet-lagged, their presentations will be awkward, and they won't be sure of the point they're trying to make.

Because of that, feel free to be mercenary with the streams. Don't treat the program as an agenda, treat it as a buffet. Pick and choose the talks you want to see and feel free to move about. One of the great things about a conference is that you don't have to stay in the room - but to take advantage of this, you have to feel free to leave. I know it's harsh, but you didn't spend thousands of dollars to watch some guy read his slides describing how he used a website for his class of 14 people.

The hardest thing when dealing with the streams is moving from place to place.Make sure you know where all the breakout rooms are so you can dash from one to the other without searching all over for it. Sometimes you'll want to switch rooms in mid-session - conferences often schedule two or three speakers to a slot, so you may want to view the first speaker in one room and the last speaker in another room (and yes - of course it's allowed. It's not a prison).

And if none of the stream speakers is interesting to you, take a break. Catch up on email, pull together your notes for a session summary, grab a snack - whatever. Sometimes the best conference experiences are had by people hanging around in the halls during the sessions (treat these conversations just like the ones at receptions and you'll be fine you'll be fine - in general, if people are seated at a table, they want to be by themselves, but if they're standing by the bar or at a standup, they welcome interaction).

The big difference between the streams and the keynotes is that it's a lot easier to interact and have conversations during the streams. Because you're taking notes and engaged, you will be in a good position to ask questions. But ask genuine questions - try to draw out the person on a certain point or concept. If you think there's a criticism that should be made, make it - but in an empowering way. Because you're both engaged in the same pursuit of inquiry and truth. It's not a competition; you don't have to knock out some opponent.

The booths. Many conference (but by no means all) have vendor booths. I always make the time to go to as many of the booths as I can (a challenge at some of the bigger conferences). Why? Well for one thing, you'll never have to buy pens or coffee mugs again. There's also sometimes free clothes, pointers, and other trinkets. If you give them your business card (or let them scan your conference badge) you'll be added to their mailing list - but also eligible for some good door prizes.

Most importantly, though, the booths are offering products and services relevant to your area of interest. It's advertising, sure, but advertising tailored to you (or to as close an approximation of you as they can manage). You'll be able to watch demos, try out products, as questions (and even get answers!) about costs, service and support. Booths attune you to the trends in your field and suggest where the future is heading. When you're back at your institution and someone says "we're considering getting a SmartBoard" you can say "oh yes, I tried one at the conference, and..." (that actually happened for me).

I also feel free to engage with booth staff. Yes, they are often actors or people hired to represent the brand, but they are also tasked with collecting feedback. So if I disapprove of a company's business practices, I say so at their booth. If I have a specific feature I need, I ask for it. If I have a criticism of the product, I offer it. I'm always nice about it - but I'm a customer, they're a vendor, and I am using this experience to help them serve me (and society) better.

Don't collect paper brochures from booth staff; they're too heavy to fly home, and you'll never read them again anyways. Collect web site addresses.



Your Talk

Almost before you know it, the day of your talk will arrive.


Make sure ahead of time you know exactly when your talk will take place, and in what room. You wouldn't think this comes up, but I've had more last-minute scrambles than I care to count, and so now I always take the effort to get my bearings and make sure I'll be on time.

The night before (or, if you're me, at five a.m. on talk day) you're finishing your slides.

My talk often doesn't take form until this point. Yes, I have an abstract, yes, I have a plan, but I rarely know precisely what I want to say until I've arrived at the venue, gotten a feel for the place and the people, and (ideally) been able to see some of the keynotes and other talks (that's why being the opening keynote is a special challenge).

Your slides: your slides are not your speaking notes (unless you're able to work with minimal speaking notes). Your slides are a visual aid for your audience. And unless you're a very compelling speaker, your audience will rely on them to keep tack of where they are in the talk.

It's really important to take the time and effort to prepare effective slides. I recommend a visit to Presentation Zen (or Garr Reyonolds's summaries elsewhere). And notwithstanding that there are dozens and dozens of sites giving advice on slides, here are my inviolable rules:

- no more than eight lines of text per slide. Usually less. Text on images and charts count as lines of text, so don't throw up a 20-line graph. People simply can't read slides like that.

- use enough text - some people love the Lessig style, but unless you're prepared to create and time 200 slides for a half hour, don't do it. Actually, don't do it in any case. For two reasons: people who speak English as a second language will depend on the slides to follow the talk, and people reading the slides later on will want a clear message, not mysterious one-word blips.

- one major image per slide. Use the rule of thirds to size and position the image.

- dark text, light background. Otherwise, your room much be very dark in order for your slides to be visible.There's been plenty of research on colour selection; take heed of it.

- use a consistent design theme throughout; you can be creative with the design, but don't overwhelm the message with it.

Your delivery: Again, there are many sites that can help you learn how to give a good talk. This is a good comprehensive guide. We've addressed the content and outline above, so here I'll focus on the delivery.And really, there are only two major rules:

- speak clearly. This means speaking loudly enough for people to hear you, saying your words clearly and not mumbling.

- speak to the audience. Don't face the screen, don't read your notes, look at the audience and speak to them. If you can't speak to an audience like that, practice until you can.

This isn't just a conference skill, this is a life skill. It doesn't matter how good a scientist or researcher you are if you can't look people square in the eyes and explain your point of view.

One more tip: love your audience. I know that this may sound weird, but it really does work. When you love your audience, when your focus is on how well you can give your gift to them, everything else melts away. Just remember: they are there to hear you (if your a keynote, they actually invited you and paid your way - how could you not love them? How could you have any doubt that they really want to hear what you have to say?

I tried to find a good link for this but couldn't find one, which tells me that I need to write about this in more detail one day.

Why? Why have I lingered so much on your own talk at the conference? Because this is going to be one of the main ways you get the most out of the conference.
- a good talk will prompt questions and discussion, which will lead to much-needed suggestions and improvements to your ideas
- people will want to talk to you after your talk; they may offer to exchange resources, collaborate, or in some way help you do your work (and even better: give you an opportunity to help them do their work)
- your talk is like a calling card; a person who gives good, well-researched and well-presented talks will be considered for recruiting and job opportunities

You can't fake your way through a good talk. That's why they're so important. People will see the real you when you are giving a talk. And they will engage (or not) based on that. So give a great talk, and become the person everyone wants to talk to!

Archiving and Recording

I strongly recommend maintaining an archive of all your talks. On my presentation page, you can see the archives of some 288 talks I've given over the years (people keep asking me, so I must be doing something right).

- Your slides: upload a copy of your slides to Slideshare (or an equivalent slide hosting service). Save .ppt versions and .pdf versions on your website (assuming you have a website). And of course, be sure you save a copy in your own filesystem.

- Audio: it's really easy to record audio and there's no excuse for not doing it. On any computer, you can download and install Audacity; this is a free and open source program that will record hundreds of hours without a problem (seriously! I've accidentally left Audacity running over the weekend and returned to find it happily recording away).

Use a good quality microphone; as mentioned above, I use a nice Audio Technica microphone. You should use some sort of directional condenser mic for the best results. Make sure the microphone is pointed toward you when you speak (it is after all a directional mic).

Save your audio as MP3. You'll need to install LAME with Audacity to do this. Here are instructions. For audio, set the bit rate to 64 or even 32 (the default is 128) so you don't end up with huge audio files. You can store the site on your website or (better) use a free storage site like Dropbox.

- Video: it's a step up, and harder to do, but if you can, record a video of the talk. Probably the best way to do this is to use a Flip Video camera or (because they're out of production) a Kodak video camera (your regular camera will only record for 20 minutes or half an hour). I upload all my video to Blip.tv (because YouTube has size and length restrictions).

Save your archives, create a presentation page (like the ones I've been showing throughout this post), and when it's ready, Tweet it to the world and write a blog post about it.

Why? You will receive a much larger audience for your archive than you will for your presentation - some of my presentations have been viewed by thousands of people online. The archive also gives prospective conference organizers some idea of what to expect if they bring you in as a speaker. Your archive is also your calling card for prospective employers.

And best of all, if you do this, others will do it too. And that helps you get the most out of any conference you attend. Imagine what it would be like to be able to replay that really influential talk you heard? Normally, the talk comes and goes, and unless you've taken really good notes, it begins to fade. But if there's a recording, you can refresh your recollection whenever you want.



After the Conference

After the conference, you have two major resources that you want to cultivate:

- ideas - you've seen a bunch of talks, met with and talked to people, and with any luck, have been filled with ideas. It's a really good idea to ensure you're recorded them somewhere, so you can recall them in the future if you need. You could post blog summaries online; it's also a good idea to collect and save website addresses.

You will have been exposed to dozens of resources - websites, projects, applications, products. Take the time to review them at your leisure - they would make a great topic for a blog post later on, again keeping a record so you'll remember what you found. You may well find yourself installing a new application and using it for a while (or for a lifetime!).

- people - unless you're going to the same conference every year, you will have met a wealth of people. Now is the time to make sure you stay in touch with them. Depending on how you communicate with people, add them you your email address book, your Twitter follow list, your Facebook friends, or (my prefernence) your RSS reader.

You don't need to form a deep and permanent bond with all the people you meet at conferences. You can't - and even if you could, you will be introduced to their friends, and their friends, and so on. But it's OK to stay network friends with most people. You'll chat from time to time, exchange messages on social networks, and be there for them when they need the answer to a question or a suggestion for a good resource.

It is best (even if a bit idealistic) to think of the people you meet at conferences as people you can help. I'm not so good at that as I should be (though I try). But I've seen it modelled really well - people like Dave Cormier and Helene Fournier are people who seem to approach every interaction with the question, "what can I do for you?" Those are the best kind of people.

And - if you've followed the advice in this post - think about the impression you've left with other people. You knew where everything was ahead of time, because you took the time to check. People asked you for directions. You were interested in what they had to say and created a space for some really interesting conversations. Your presentation was on topic, interesting, clear and well presented. And you really interacted with your audience. And when you were at other presentations, you were interested and engaged, taking notes and (ideally) asking questions. Who wouldn't want to do more work with you?

Read More