1. Charles Forman earned my attention with his compelling biceps.

2. Does it seem like all these presentations people point to as the uber-examples of awesomeness feature lots of slides with quick transitions and a pretty-much memorized script? Just seems like that requires the kind of rehearsal that my 5 shows a day aren’t conducive to.

3. Excuses aside, I need to improve in this area. I have Open House on Thursday and a “beyond smartboard basics” PD presentation Friday… thanks for the reminder.

Makes me think of the majority of the resources/lesson plans that I have seen out there for my “Mass Media/Public Opinion” Unit I’m currently writing. I’m baffled as to how every single day doesn’t have some kind of interesting and engaging visual. Talk about a topic just begging to be taught beyond bulleted lists and lecture.

You have hit the nail on its proverbial head, and this is the reason I attend almost NO conferences. Your experience is relived at all of them, and my time is way too valuable for such waste.

Well Dan, I did try to warn you, but I was ever so glad to meet you in person.

The talk I hear is that the Middle Schools Conference (conveniently located in Monterey) put on by both CUE (Computer Using Educators), Middle Schools, and High Schools group in December (http://www.clms.net/conferences/tech.htm) is more curriculum based, which I think you would appreciate, but I’m guessing the preso quality may be closer to the Math Conference at Asilomar, which your posts last year indicated was uneven. At least you’ll have content out of it?

This was a small conference, and that means that there is not as great a variety of topics, but it was MUCH better for networking in person. That is what I find invaluable about conferences. My husband has attended various types of transportation conferences for his job, and this seems to be a universal truth of conferences, it’s all about the meetings in the hallway with peers, and NOT the sessions (and I say that as a session presenter at ILC).

I’ll be doing my own reflection on ILC, and probably do a post with “advice” to a conference newbie like yourself (which is ridiculous considering I’ve only been doing this for like a year–but I’m a fast learner).

I’m sorry to hear that you were so disappointed with your experience at ILC. Unfortunately, reading your tweets during ILC, you did come across as a “punk kid out there in the audience, snarking about (the presenters) on his blog and on Twitter.” Now reading your blog, I have a more complete view of your opinion of the conference. However, I hope that you will take your suggestions a step further and provide feedback to the presenters. That way, when they present in the future, they will have better designed presentations and more empathy for the audience’s expectations. As your profile states, “You love to teach” and I hope that sentiment extends to other teachers.

And of course, I hope that you will present at future educational technology conferences. The topic of your presentation at CMC in Monterey looks like it would have benefited the ILC audience.

Along with Burt and Alice I hope you see you sharing your fantastic ideas at future conferences. You have lots to offer – especially for teachers who aren’t currently dy/dan blog readers. There were a few duds at ILC, but as Lee mentioned sometimes you just have to dig through so-so presentations for some good content.

Dan, I think you’re right. We need to start demanding better presentations from speakers, regardless of their background. Ineffective delivery drowns out the intended message. Keep on fighting the good fight!

I’m currently spending an hour a month with 13 eager grad students at ISU on effective presentation techniques. So far, so good. We’ll be using some of your materials in the months to come.

For next year’s UCEA Conference, I have sworn to submit a presentation proposal on ‘Really Bad Academic PowerPoint.’ We’ll see if it gets accepted!

@Lee Kolbert: Now isn’t that an interesting question!

When I wrote that, I was thinking that there needs to be a general upward adjustment in the overall expectations climate. Things that could facilitate this include:

1. Explicit mention of high expectations in proposal submission materials, accompanied by links to helpful resources and examples. Examples of what NOT to do could send a strong message!

2. Better feedback mechanisms for poor presenters, again with helpful resources and examples for next time. Wouldn’t it be cool if instead of being polite and wasting their time, more folks simply got up and left in the middle of a bad presentation? This happens some but not enough. Better evaluation forms and return of aggregated evaluation data to speakers afterward…

Could we institute a litmus test pre-proposal acceptance? That’s a question worth some more thought and discussion. One thing we could do is some legwork ahead of time regarding applicants’ past presentations. For example, I sat through a brilliant academic’s horrible presentation: great on paper, awful live. Later I found out that everyone (but me, apparently) knew he was a terrible speaker. Why did he even get invited to keynote by the conference conveners in the first place?! This would be hard to do the bigger the conference got (e.g., NECC).

Thanks for the interesting question. I’ll be thinking about this all day, I’m sure!

@Scott – I like where you are going, and I think you have identified two of the issues. I think more is needed than helpful presentation hints. Anyone with Google can find a million helpful tips. And a litmus test? That flies in the face of human behavior.

I see this is a three-pronged problem. Yes, presentations need to be better AND the selection process needs to be better. But the third point not being talked about is that trade show demographics may make this impossible.

The second point is a particularly hard one. How are you going to make people say what they think? Even Dan, a notoriously outspoken blogger, didn’t name names. He thought 14 of 18 sessions were bad, but didn’t name them, nor the four he thought were worth it. Of course not, he doesn’t want to look like a mean guy. Who does? Most of us wouldn’t do it either, unless we are being asked by a friend.

How does that help anyone make a decision about going or not going to see these presenters? But there’s no way that I would ask Dan to name names, except in private, and even then he might not choose to tell me everything he thought. So how would the “next” conference organizer ever find out what Dan (and everyone else) really thinks? How would a session goer find out?

Most conference evaluation instruments are not well constructed, and the data not well used. And how does this co-exist with a blind selection process? It doesn’t!

Conference presentations are selected by a method that has its roots in academia, and it doesn’t work. I wrote about this here
http://blog.genyes.com/index.php/2008/03/30/conference-20-session-selection/

Finally, the third point — most conferences like this that are trade show/conference combos attract about 50% newcomers. That’s why the sessions called, “Fifty Free Fabulous Web Sites” will outdraw more thoughtful sessions EVERY time. We (meaning those of us who have actually heard of Google) can lament this, but we can’t deny it.

The few that catch the fever and come back for more, or actually change their practice (imagine that!) are not going to want to sit through that again, and will eventually stop going to sessions. They’ve taken the first step into a new way of thinking.

It seems to me that the big question is where people go and what people do that helps them with that second, third, or tenth step. Since the numbers of these people aren’t as large as the newcomers (think of a funnel), a trade show is not going to be effective. It’s just the wrong place.

“So we’re comfortable rating products and corporations but not individual persons or presentations, is that it? We’re okay making lists of great posts or Delicious bookmarks or blogrolls but only for the positive, not the negative?” – Scott

We aren’t comfortable rating ANYTHING in education! How many bad educational software reviews have you ever seen? “Oh, they mean well” is not an excuse for bad educational practice.

@Dean -No. Although someone may be a bad presenter, I don’t believe that translates to being a bad teacher. As a matter of fact, I would venture to guess the opposite. That it takes a really good teacher to a) venture out and attend conferences in the first place and b) to be willing to share with others in their field. Being able to present clearly and effectively is quite a task that takes practice. Presenting to adults is not the same as teaching students.

It would be a good idea to provide feedback to presenters and yes, Scott, I think most like the feedback and adjust accordingly. I know I do. BUT, I don’t think a live rating site would be a good idea at all. I think new presenters would be intimidated and it would prevent them from venturing out. Don’t you think people would tend to “vote” only when they have something negative to say anyway?

I think if we push out the not-so-perfect, we’d end up seeing the same people presenting all the time. These would be the people who already have a “following” or are already well known. I for one, am tired of hearing Mr. WinterName’s same presentations. I appreciate new blood. Even if the experience isn’t so perfect.

Not everyone is so thick-skinned but that doesn’t mean feedback can’t be handled more discreetly and tactfully.

Not to aim this at anyone in particular (because I’m guilty of this myself) but I think sometimes we forget what it’s like to be new at something and its easy to be overly critical.

Emotional attachment to our ideas is what makes us human. I would agree that no one benefits if all that is given is positive feedback or no feedback at all. However, feedback is most useful when it is constructive. If I don’t know you and after my presentation you come up to me and say, “Your presentation sucked because….” I imagine a few thoughts would pop into my mind. These might include, “Who’s this guy and what makes him the official expert?” Immediately, I would be turned off to any feedback you might provide, regardless of its quality, because you dismissed the emotional connection to my idea. Since it was originally my idea, chances are I feel quite strongly about it.

On the other hand, if you were to approach me after a session and say, “Hey I liked what you had to say about such-and-such, but have you ever thought about…” I would probably be a heck of a lot more receptive to what you have to say. Chances are I would also improve future presentations by incorporating your ideas. The only difference is that you validated the emotional connection to my idea and treated me as an equal.

Perhaps I am a “flabby, stubborn educator,” but I have found that few moments of graciousness can go a long way towards providing effective, constructive feedback.

Dan – I was just proposing a compromise about who to critique in public. Even with a waived registration, most presenters are still paying to attend, or in the same boat as most attendees, as most have their expenses paid by their employer.

And yes, we should expect better. The question is… is there a way to engineer such an outcome?

I don’t have specific knowledge of ILC. But if it is like similar conferences then very few of the presenters “get paid” to present.

As sylvia martinez said, usually only the keynote gets any real money. The rest of the presenters just get their registration fees waived.

And of course, here in lies one of the problems.

Who is making money from education conferences? The venues and most of the money they make comes from rooms and meals. So the venue will let almost anyone present, ’cause each presenter still earns them money. And teachers come to these things for many reasons and the presentations are frequently not the main reason. So a conference with a lot of dead wood is often still successful.

I know it is shocking, but some teachers look forward to going to conferences as “paid vacations” of a sort. I know one conference around here is very popular because a) timing – three of four weeks before Christmas, b) location – close to a major shopping areas, c) cost – the school will pay for it, and d) easy – you can go to one session and have that satisfy a teacher growth goal.

I wish the presentations as a whole were better too, but I just don’t see it happening. But there are always one or two that are great.

I learned about delicious at the conference I mentioned above. That changed my life. Yes learning that one thing was worth 2.5 days.

I attended the conference and I read a lot of blogs. I am intrigued by the differences between your blog, Dan and the blog of Joe Wood on that topic. One might think that the two of you attended very different conferences.

Toni Morrison talked about the transaction between readers and writers in her Nobel Prize address in 1993 (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1993/morrison-lecture.html). Her point, in an oversimplified nutshell, is that readers and writers hold equal responsibility in creating meaning.

I think the same holds true for presentations. Presenters don’t hold all of the responsibility in creating meaningful presentations. Those attending have to do their part. And quite frankly, I found behavior of the audiences pretty appalling. I don’t think any of us would tolerate tweeting, surfing and conversing during our classes by our students. In fact, I think we’d find it pretty difficult to muster the level of enthusiasm and energy needed for a dynamic presentation.

I appreciated reading Joe’s blog entries because he looks to make meaning from his experiences. His cogent, professional and gracious entries about the conference provide a useful reference to highlights and a model for professionalism.

I’m glad I attended the conference Joe went to because otherwise I’d be sad that I spent nearly $295, 9 hours of commuting time, 2 class days out of class, 1 testing day, and 5 hours catching up on work.

I think our interpretation of what is rude needs to be updated. Aren’t we advocating for teaching students the way they need to learn? Students are multi-taskers and yet we force them to comply to our linear view of how they should learn.

Is tweeting and conversing really not paying attention? Who’s to say that because I’m tweeting, that I’m not engaged? I’d say the opposite is true. If I’m tweeting during a presentation, I’m reaching out to others who may or may not be present, sharing the content with them, offering my take on it and encouraging them to converse with me (giving me more to think about).

Is the conversing also rude? I believe if people are distracting or loud, yes. But, how many times have you turned to the person next to you to ask a relevant question or make an engaged comment?

As for surfing, I’ve been known to “surf” during a presentation to check on facts and to refer to sites mentioned in the conversation.

Perhaps we need to not just SAY what new learning looks like, but “forgive” it when we see it.

Is the conversing also rude? I believe if people are distracting or loud, yes.

Yes, you may be able to multitask and talk about the presentation with your friend at the same time it is being presented and be able to concentrate. But it is rude to presume the other person next to you has the same capability.

I don’t see this equally an issue with Twitter or liveblogging, though.