Never mind the technology, where’s the learning?

It’s been a very busy two weeks, indeed I’ve been more ‘out’ than ‘in’ so to speak having attended a series of events and conferences, catching trains at ungodly hours and getting home late and often without a hot meal inside me. So here are five things I’ve learnt about conferences in the last two weeks.

1. There are several types of conference goers, but in the main there are two extremes, and it’s highly unlikely that a conference organiser will meet both their needs. Type one plan meticulously the optional sessions they want to attend, have high hopes of getting a lot out of those sessions, and are disappointed when their expectations are not met. Often, the session descriptions are totally accurate, but these delegates read what they want into them. So when it says the session will not cover technical issues, they still ask, “how do you install it on an XXX server?”, or “on our system we have a problem with this, how can it be solved?”. Type two, do not plan at all, they turn up and have a hazy idea of what the conference might be about, or chose sessions on the fly in the welcome coffee period. These delegates drift through the conference, probably don’t ask any questions, make comments about the standard of the lunch on the evaluation form, and when returning to school (or wherever) and are asked how the conference went, are more likely to say, “I didn’t get much out of it really, it was a waste of time”.
2. Many evaluations are not worth much to the organisers. Sure, some delegates take a long time making copious comments, most don’t. Indeed, my wife, who has just completed doctorate level research into how trainers change their practice following evaluations (nattily entitled, “Changing your trainers”), found that in the main, most course or conference evaluations poorly reflect the impact the event might or might not have on the delegate’s learning, there are simply to many nonobjective variables.
3. It doesn’t matter how good the conference programme is, first impressions and small hiccups set the tone for the whole event. I’ve some clear examples of this in the last two weeks. Venue one : The Palace in Tamworth last Monday. On the whole the venue seemed OK - funky website, relatively easy to get to, great facilities with wireless internet access etc. But the main hall, being set up for gigs meant it was painted black, had a high stage which distanced the audience from the speakers, and dim lighting except for the spots. There was a technical hitch for Windows users getting on to the wireless, and it dropped out once. Result, a rather somber mood to the whole conference and no spark to get it going, and no confidence in the wireless connection, even though it worked fine for me all day. Venue Two: The ICC in Birmingham on Tuesday. Serious money spent to give the whole ‘political party conference’ atmosphere to the event including whole wall projection facilities and speaker’s head and shoulders projected during plenaries. This made all the delegates feel they were special to be there.
4. The corollary to point three is that presentation does not mean substance. Speakers that entertain do not necessary inspire delegates to think or change their practice. Similarly, a great venue and backdrop does not make for a great conference if the speakers or discussion sessions themselves lose focus or are off point.
5. Finally, if the objectives for the conference are not tight and clear, then a good many will leave being unsure why they really came.

Conferences are difficult to get right, and even the experienced occasionally get to wrong or not quite right.

Image credit: Ian Usher

Blogged with Flock