Thursday, March 11, 2004
Please post your comments below or email me.
This morning's session was experimental. Participants were alerted up front that we were hosting a conversation, not a presentation. The content of a presentation is predetermined; we were shooting for a more impromptu, free-flowing experience. I've wanted to experiment with webinars that are less instructor-centric for some time.
The experiment backfired because no one was monitoring discussion questions from the audience. A spurious side-conversation on the discussion board about LMS, simulations, and other Macromedia products obscured questions directed to us for answers. We did address most of the written questions; it's the questions during the session that we failed to acknowledge.
Side conversations are a meaningful way to learn, especially if the primary flow is not serving those conversing. In the future, we'll have separate areas for these to take place.
We really needed to continuously take the audience's termperature.
By muting participant audio, we effectively cut participants out of the conversation. Furthermore, our content did not meet the needs of our audience, which seemed to be more in search of how-to than big picture.
Participant evaluations of quality were Excellent 5, Good 21, Aveerge 9, and Poor 3. By my standards, this is sub-par performance. I'm not giving up on the form, but I look forward to improving our execution.
We'll post a link to the recorded version once we get it. And this discussion will move up to the top of Internet Time Blog once a few more voices chime in. In the meantime, please do leave a comment or question below. How did things feel from your end?
This morning's session was experimental. Participants were alerted up front that we were hosting a conversation, not a presentation. The content of a presentation is predetermined; we were shooting for a more impromptu, free-flowing experience. I've wanted to experiment with webinars that are less instructor-centric for some time.
The experiment backfired because no one was monitoring discussion questions from the audience. A spurious side-conversation on the discussion board about LMS, simulations, and other Macromedia products obscured questions directed to us for answers. We did address most of the written questions; it's the questions during the session that we failed to acknowledge.
Side conversations are a meaningful way to learn, especially if the primary flow is not serving those conversing. In the future, we'll have separate areas for these to take place.
We really needed to continuously take the audience's termperature.
By muting participant audio, we effectively cut participants out of the conversation. Furthermore, our content did not meet the needs of our audience, which seemed to be more in search of how-to than big picture.
Participant evaluations of quality were Excellent 5, Good 21, Aveerge 9, and Poor 3. By my standards, this is sub-par performance. I'm not giving up on the form, but I look forward to improving our execution.
We'll post a link to the recorded version once we get it. And this discussion will move up to the top of Internet Time Blog once a few more voices chime in. In the meantime, please do leave a comment or question below. How did things feel from your end?
BETA | jay 3/11/2004 11:28:00 PM| WRITE JAY |
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Damn. I just looked at the first few minutes of the recording of the event. What I had envisioned as video is tiny -- two little postage stamps for Mark and me. What's worse, the images change only about once a second. Instead of a flow, the viewer gets the impression of seeing lots of separate photos, often capturing weird expressions. As a result, the photos don't seem in sync with the audio, giving the effect of a dubbed movie.
Since we didn't use PowerPoint, the recording is one large blob with no ability to fast forward or back. This makes it next to useless for viewing after the face (unless you've got a lot of patience) or chunking.
Post a Comment
<< Home