shelby

Someone pointed out last night that the backchannel discussion wasn't as good because of the format of the presentation. When it's a Q&A people can ask whatever they want whenever they want, there's not as much need for a side conversation. That said, I was very grateful when Bolas cut the backchannel down to only 5 screens - I think it's useful a lot of the time, but to be forced to watch it all the time is unnecessary and detrimental.

I was so happy that Larissa took us outside for that discussion. I completely agree with your comments on that.

yea. more class outside!!! that was great.

as for the backchannel, i have mixed feelings about it. last night, the seminar took the format of a q&a so it seemed pointless to have a conversation going on while there was such an interactive dialog taking place in front of us. however, at the same time, i found vince's paraphrasing to be really useful in keeping track of the points we were hitting on. and yea, the absence of a powerpoint presentation shouldn't have led to full 14-screen backchannel immersion.

IMHO, the backchannel wasn't as good last night because the speaker bankrolls the program. The comments were toned down and lacked the usual spiciness.

Yeah, I don't really care for the backchannel. I find it distracting and pretty much pointless. You know, it would actually be quite nice if we could have most or all of the screens OFF--all that electronic glow gets to one after a while.

I've always thought the back channel is an interesting experiment, but ultimately, in addition to being distracting, I don't think it really augments the seminar in any significant way. I'd much rather have some system of video archiving the lectures.

and I must apologize for putting all the screens to the backchannel on wed. I was trying to see if we were getting RGB feeds to those screens, b/c bing's laptop wasn't projecting, so I switched the feed to all the screens, but then neglected to switch them back.

I completely disagree. I used to think the backchannel was awful, but I have since changed my mind. Occasionally, people get off track. I don't know why that is. It's not that hard to refrain from making stupid jokes on the backchannel. However, despite the stupid jokes, I find that people on the backchannel often throw up useful links, and during the 4View seminar I found the discussion to be downright stimulating.

Having class outside is great. But I do find that in most of my classes, having internet access is REALLY AWESOME. Because I can cross reference and fact check, and in the ZML I can quickly throw up visuals during a discussion.

Sorry, but someone had to counter point the tech hate. I mean, I love nature as much as the next hippie, but I am willing to recognize the advantages of my computer as well.

not taking an anti-technology point. i think the back channel has worked to various degrees, but I totally agree with the point about cross referencing info, etc. on the web. Why can't we do that outside?

I'd like to experiment more with different back / side channels instead of aim, maybe. I like the idea of having some sort of goal, like collaborative notes or something.

Thanks for bringing this up Shelby. Sorry I wasn't there to participate Wednesday - still recouperating from a sore throat.

Part of my work this semester is to understand how backchannel might be made better. So these are useful comments. I can imagine that 14 screens of scrolling chat would seem distracting.

I'm interested in using things like Google Jockeys to supplement the presentation, especially when the speaker doesn't have any PowerPoint. For example, maybe Kellee's fact-checking and cross-referencing might be useful for the whole group if it was on display.

Either way, I hope we can continue to experiment with these technologies and involve the speakers and all of us in ways that ultimately complement our education. Much of my interest in the backchannel is about figuring out how to take advantage of the connected laptop I have with me during class. Not checking my email, but keeping my mind actively engaged in the presentation.

But it's possible that not all folks are helped by the presence of multiple media streams. Maybe there should be a backchannel chat room that's not put up on a screen? Then people who can't participate won't be reading, distracted.

I posted a sort of "backchannel options for incoming speakers" now that we're dealing with folks outside the division - hopefully we can work on structuring the backchannel more to make it more productive for all involved. Let me know if you have any specific recommendations for any of this stuff! And I'll keep an eye on this thread.

http://interactive.usc.edu/members/jhall/archives/2005/01/backchannel_opt.html

I don't think any comments were intended as tech hate. At least on my part they were a reaction to the overall vibe I was getting that all-tech-all-the-time is always better. For a discussion of a difficult theoretical article (which was the case in our Animation class), I found it helpful that everyone was engaged with each other, not with screens.

Clearly the "back channel" has its detractors and fans. I proposed to Justin an experiment that might focus the purpose of the back channel - a small group collaboration to author a cogent, serious, do-it-like-your-grade-depended-on-it document production using SubEthaEdit or something similar.
Three or so people participating in producing an abstract of a speaker's talk and the ensuing discussion. Rather than spontaneous production of text chat - which is sometimes on-point and sometimes not - suppose there were a real goal to develop a summary of the talk as it was unfolding? I see this as a refinement of what I understand the objective of the back channel to be - documentation of the presentation.

What do you think?

Documentation of the presentation, that's a great idea. At least it's helpful when I go over the log--really a "different" lecture ever! It may become the point d'appui if people re-think afterwards without missing any detail for any coming important Wed lectures and presentations.

What ever happended to giving your full attention to the guest speaker? Since when is carrying on a side conversation an acceptable thing to do? What happened to our manners?

I wish I had saved the logs from last semester. But I recall several presentations where the speaker stopped and asked the group what was going on with that back channel that is so funny. I wonder how the professors who presented last semester feel about this.

I believe that we are ALL here (professors included) because we were the really smart kids that stared at clouds, wrote stories, drew, and made up games during class. That's how I feel when my peers are obviously multi-tasking during class or during a presentation. I don't think it's rude to multi-task.

I do think it's rude to type up really dumb jokes or ASCII pictures on the backchannel that are unrelated to the presentation. However, I think it's really awesome that our professors and our presenters are open to our experiments in multi-tasking and over-stimulation. Especially in the age of the internet, the next gen behind us are going to be so savvy at carrying on multiple conversations and multiple lines of thought simultaneously, I think it's good to experiment with this instead of putting "miss manners" restrictions on the class.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: