Life Before the Backchannel?
Does anyone remember it? I honestly can’t, but realized this week that I have been taking it for granted. Before there was Twitter, I used chat, email, BBS’s and even an email pager with a QWERTY keyboard to keep conversation flowing while I observed meetings and presentations. I can’t imagine life without a Backchannel! Thursday I ran an advisory board meeting with global participation. There were about a dozen attendees, half online through Elluminate, and half in our board room.
When the session ended, I expected comments in the room to center on the content and discussion. One of the first things mentioned was the backchannel chat running in Elluminate. They didn’t understand how anyone could teach using Elluminate with such strong distractions. I explained there were better ways to moderate the discussion, and that I had let the conversation flow. In an instructional setting, I would probably have requested hands raised when people wanted to speak, and would have done more polling. They could not believe the way some of the speakers were able to talk and also respond to comments in the chat.
When I returned to my desk, I had more email asking about the chat and describing it as distracting and irritating. I started to look at it from an outsider’s perspective. It has been so long since I’ve been without the backchannel, that I just take it for granted as a part of learning. But now, I’m wondering if there’s a better way to introduce it to people who aren’t familiar with it. I tried to describe it as similar to checking your email during a meeting, but I don’t think that made sense to them.
I remember when I introduced a former colleague to chat. She questioned why I typed in short bursts instead of full paragraphs. I explained that it was habit and I was just used to that type of conversation flow. It seems more authentic to me for people to read my thoughts as they come, rather than sitting around waiting for a complete paragraph. I’ll save that for the blogs and discussion boards!
So I guess I’m wondering how to describe it to others, as well as how to show the value and promote it so others will use it. How can I do a better job of looking at it from an outsider’s view? How do I teach instructors how to use it successfully to further engage learners?
April 26th, 2008 at 9:10 am
I frame it in terms of parallel learning. This is when all
kinds of interactions among and between students, instructors, the media, and the environment in distance education courses are considered. You can read more about it here:
http://tinyurl.com/43zj4w
April 26th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I’ve had similar experiences working with faculty members and students who are new to teaching / learning in web conf. environments like eluminate. Always lots of distraction for them, in fact they seem to spend more time sorting the chat than engaging with the main presenter. Which sometimes may not be all that bad.
I have found that introducing the pieces of a web conf. tool one at a time, and discussing their use, sharing perspectives, smooths out some of the concerns. I will usually have a session where I pose a few questions, show a video, something like that…a conversation starter…then spend time in the chat window only…no voice. This seems to really help folks who are new to this kind of synchronous interaction. Once the novelty wears off and they are more comfortable with use…it’s not much of a distraction.
But, like you said…some up front structure (hand raising) can go a long way too. Simply sharing expectations for use can also help.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Jen,
A couple thoughts. First, I imagine this is more problematic if you have a broad range of audience familiarity with the subject. IF there are some well-versed in the topic and others not so well versed, the latter group could be frustrated in trying to simultaneously follow two trains of thought at the same time. Second, I am increasingly convinced that it is not really possible to do both chat and the the main discussion at the same level you can do one of the two. I’ve seen some studies (none of which I can quote, unfortunately) that suggest humans do lose a not-insignificant level of deep comprehension when trying to multi-task. We’ve all likely felt that with time and practice we have gotten good at it, but I think there is a cost…
April 27th, 2008 at 7:19 am
I remember the backchannel being very distracting. However, I was in a Web 2.0 class and git used to it pretty quick - because we had to.
When you use a combination like Skype and Ustream, its easy to close one window and ignore the backchannel if you want.
If a presentation starts to lag, the backchannel actually can continue and keep the learning going. I find I now look at both w/o too much problem. At certain points, I tend to focus on the presentation or the backchannel, whichever is engaging me at the time.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Dave M., that’s a great point, and one I brought up after the session. I told the people in the board room that it’s physically impossible for the brain to attend to multiple simultaneous stimuli like that. It’s great to have an MD confirm it for me! I had to do research for a workshop I was asked to do on “Multi-tasking 101.” I ended up tossing out all the materials given to me by the company and starting from scratch. I do believe you can learn to balance it and I think I have some great feedback here to help others. I’m so glad so many of you complained. I would have completely neglected this as an issue.
April 28th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Does multitasking make me stupid and slow? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711/multitasking , I believe it does, but it’s hard to stop.
I love the backchannel, but I fully realize that it’s at the expense of the forechannel. An active back-channel can certainly be a sign of a poorly implemented session. The presenter is yammering on and so we find something else to do. What amuses me is my own embrace of the backchannel is a simultaneous surrende of my goal to lead highly interactive sessions. Sure, some of my students (or me) can do both well - but they’d (I’d) do one better…
Does backchannel help my students learn better? Parallel learning and all? Possibly. But, perhaps it’s like the text book. If I don’t excel at organizing learning activities, I can always fall back on the text book. If I don’t lead a fully engaging session, then backchannel give folks something to do that can help their learning until I get my enlightened educator groove back.
Of course, backchannel can make up for the limitations of the online environment. Even with full-duplex audio, we loose alot of the subverbal and nonverbal communication that happens face to face. Backchannel can fill in there. Simultaneously, it’s an access limiter. Some folks find the information overload inhibiting and distracting and will lose out from education opportunity if I count on the backchannel to do my job for me.
I’ve found the mixed online/f2f format to be awkward. There seems to me an organic heirarchy where the f2f components gets an authority over the online component. The online portion of mixed webinars/webconferences get discounted by the f2f participants.
So, is someone new or resistant to the backchannel in need of our help, or are they wisely resistant to their inevitable seduction and effectiveness impairment.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I’m in my early 60’s and it’s been my recent experience that I can’t pay attention to multiple things very well. I’m pretty sure I mixed and matched fairly well when younger … but, um, I don’t recollect those experiences fully.
Greg’s note to the Atlantic article is right on for me. I can choose where I put my attention - and where I’m not attending … well, mark me absent. Read the newspaper *and* listen to the radio? For me it’s one or the other. And the online/f2f split Greg mentions also rings true for me.
Personally, I think that reading e-mail (IM-ing, Twittering) in meetings is bad practice. It’s rude, and when I’m reading mail I’m not participating. Maybe I shouldn’t be in the meeting? Maybe the meeting isn’t needed. Maybe the work is better done in a different venue. Maybe.
On conference calls I’ve moved to taking notes. It keeps me engaged. YMMV.
-Bill A
April 29th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Based on the course that I just finished with Alec Couros, the backchannel held just as many learning opportunities as the actual presentation, because we were reflecting on the presentation as it was happening and opening up new lines of discussion that are usually missed in the formal learning setting. At first, the backchannel can be very distracting, but it becomes an addiction because you quickly see how much more you can get out of a session by multi-tasking. I think people need to experience it a number of times though before they can feel the full effects of it. Otherwise they leave with the feeling that it is just a distraction. Good luck.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Enjoyed this post and thought I’d share a quick thought. This semester was the first where my students got really engaged in using Twitter. What surprised me the most was how they used it so much during class. This was a classroom filled with doctoral students and their intense use of Twitter to drive back channel discussion was unreal. I can honestly say that I have finally felt the power of the back channel in a real learning environment. Being able to see their thoughts before me in my Twitter stream created a much more engaged learning community.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:23 am
I read the brain likely has a working short-term memory and then assembled into more complex knowlefge structures like auditory and visual yesterday and thought it applicable here. When the auditory and visual are complimentary, then learning is more efficient.
I agree back channel conversations die down once the novelty goes away. There is a group who has been meeting once a week via Wimba (like Elluminate) for 3 years now and all the same people. There is at most 5 off topic items and 20 on topic over the whole meeting. There is another group with a constant influx of new people for the same amount of time. It is a constant barrage of back channel posts.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
[...] makes some good observations and raises some questions about conveying the usefulness of a backchannel during presentations and meetings. It’s apropos as I was just having a very similar [...]
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Hey folks “the” backchannel (as if there is one and only one) is neutral in value- it is neither good or bad, and is a vehicle.
What makes it “good” or “bad” are what people do there– and what we have here is typical of people generalizing a larger conclusion (”backchannels are rude distractions” or “backchannels are the best thing since X) based on their personal experiences. But thats a normal path.
There is always not only “a” backchannel, but multiple channels in any human interaction. I think it is more interesting what is going on in our expectations of the “front channel” being a single communicator who by virtue of having the microphone deserves undivided attention? The being “rude” argument carries no weight for me; I am not in the audience to be “nice” or “polite”.
Most of our professional communication via a single speaker is content that can easily be delivered via other means than one voice, or one set of bullet slides. To me, that is where we need to look more closely at the way we share information, and we seem forever fixated on the lecture mode.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 am
We had a backchannel debate at our annual conference when a colleague was asked 3 times not to type during a session (see http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2008/05/making-connecti.html)
It made me realise that, like you, I take the backchannel for granted but for some people it is really _alien_ idea to the point of being rude almost.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 am
[...] Jones blogged about her experience with backchannels during conferences and meetings. Her observation was that if you’re not familiar with [...]
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:33 am
[...] blog posts reflecting on and analyzing the phenomenon of the backchannel (e.g. Chris Lott and Jennifer Jones) prompted me to write a consideration and proposal on the TTIX 2008 blog. My post there summarizes [...]