Feel free to comment on this article, up to a limit of 16,000 characters! (Multiple comments are OK)
On people blogging during a talk - I don't mind it at all, in fact I'd be flattered - it shows they are paying attention and interested in what I have to say.
For many, blogging actually helps them to think about what is being said. I think we have to respect that different people have different learning styles and different ways of processing information. Blogging may not work for you when you are trying to absorb a talk, but it works for others. If they were blogging about something else, then I'd take your point.
And how is blogging a talk any different from taking notes anyway?
The comment on passing notes is a straw man because it's different from blogging in two ways - 1) they are disrupting someone else's interaction with the talk and 2) it's usually not a reflection on the talk.
Good points. I was specifically thinking of the practice of blogging or commenting on a screen which everyone can see while they listen to the speaker. (But in any case, I'm not convinced that people can listen effectively and blog (or make notes) at the same time, but that's just my opinion!)
As was stated in my newsletter yesterday, a good reason to live blog is to interact with the material as it is being presented. It is well known that learning actively is more effective than merely listening passively. Live blogging helps you learn more effectively.
Also, when you blog a talk, you are responding to the speaker. As a speaker, I always read the blogged version after the talk. It helps me understand how I have been heard and to prevent mistakes and misunderstandings when I talk in the future.
The worst thing you can do is sit there in silence. Interaction helps you understand and to convey your understanding. Far from being rude, responding to the speaker is probably the most polite thing you can do. Indeed, if anything is rude, it is to listen to someone speak and to not respond at all.
Terry,
I'm a little surprised at your comment. I blogged some of the keynotes in real time during the Naace Strategic Conference. A conference that you were instrumental in organising and could not attend due to illness. My purpose was to make my 'notes' available to others such as yourself who were not there. These appeared pretty well instantaniously during the session, and were certainly there immediately afterwards. Some not at the conference placed comments quickly. Now, if the speaker had encouraged this and used the facility on screen, questions could have been raised from outside the hall, surely increasing the quality of the experience. It also provides an opportunity for the speaker to answer questions, after the session, that were never asked as time runs out.
By the way, blogging live is hard work, and it certainly DOES make you take note of what is being said since you feel a responsibility to record things accurately, otherwise you might be misrepresenting the views of the speaker and questioner. As far as the conference blog was concerned, we later integrated the audio podcast of the session into the blog post. This again added value to those that were both there and those that we not.
For those that want to look at this, it can be found at:
http://conference.naaceblogs.org/
Gareth
I agree with the learning styles comment. Taking notes helped me stay focussed in university lectures, and live blogging, sometimes even with some 'Google-jockeying'added in, helps me focus all my multi-tasking inclinations unto one topic/event.
My responses:
Stephen Downes: Yes, what you’re saying is, in effect, in the same vein as Oscar Wilde’s observation "There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about!"
Gareth Davies: Yes, it is true that I organised a conference in which blogging etc played a huge part. In fact, you may recall that I envisaged that from the outset, but didn't think we had the capacity to make it happen. So I was supremely grateful to you and Peter Ford for turning a vision into reality.: I also enjoyed blogging from the BETT show, and no doubt would have b logged from the conference had | been able to attend. However, I should like to raise 3 points:
1. As Walt Whitman said,” Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."
2 I was specifically thinking of live commenting which appears on a screen to the speaker’s audience, but obviously have used the wrong terminology. | have visions of people posting comments like “I don’t like his tie" or "Hasn't he put on weight!"
3 How far can all this be applied to a different context? Would my Hamlet scenario work, for example?
Joan Vinall-Cox:
Thanks for that, Joan. It's interesting to learn that you found it helpful, as I can imagine it *not* being helpful by being somewhat intrusive.
I'm in agreement with those who think that it's OK to make notes & listen at the same time. When I'm teaching, I always worry about the numbers of students who don't write. I start to think ... "Do they already know this? If so, why I am telling them? Are they so bored that they can't be bothered to write it?"
If, on the other hand, they start to take notes, then though they could be scripting a letter to their girlfriend or whatever, I tend to assume that they are finding what I'm saying worth writing down.
I would agree though that a pen isn't generally as noisy as a keyboard, it's hard to type quietly. Tablet PCs do have an advantage in that, I've got one, though I've found that I now type faster than I can handwrite, especially when trying to write neatly on the screen...
Thanks, Emma. I would say 2 things:
firstly, when I was a teacher I actually worried about the opposite: tha students were so intent on making notes that they weren't really listening;
secondly, regarding noise, I am currently trialling a device which lets you write on ordinary paper and convert it into word-processable text. It seems ok, although you get strange results sometimes. For example, it rendered "live blogging" as "five slogging" -- hmm, come to think of it, maybe not so far off the mark after all 
Terry, you say I am saying, "There is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about!"
Um, no: there is a very big difference between being talked *about* and talked *to*. It is the latter to which I refer.
Also, you seem unable to get past this: "I'm not convinced that people can listen effectively and blog." You mention it in separate comments.
But what evidence supports this belief? So far as I can tell, none. If taking notes hindered understanding, students and reporters the world over would be in trouble. And again, the best evidence suggests that taking notes would increase comprehension.
Hi, Stephen, I actually said it was in the same vein as that, meaning that not paying someone the respect of acknowledging them by writing down what they say is similar to regarding them as of so little importance that it's not worth your while talking about them. But you're right to underscore the important distinction between "to" and "about" -- thanks!
Regarding the second part, you're right, but then I think I'm right too! I know that for myself, I sometimes take more in if I don't make notes, because a different mental processing seems to take place. But as to whether I retainany of it....
I think that for me what seems to work is to do a lot of listening, take miniml notes whcih act as memory prompts, and (ideally) be able to watch it or listen to it again if/when I need to -- although I acknowledge that, by and large, trawling through a video or podcast for a particular bit is not as efficient as reading ones notes over again.
Commenting by HaloScan
