I am seeking your comments on the conference. Feedback has been good, but I am always looking for ways to improve the event for next year. Please don't use this discussion for comments about the free June event. I'll open a separate discussion for that in a few weeks.

Please let me know what you thought was good, and where improvements could be made. Please do be as specific as you can - but not personal. Speakers have feelings too, and many are part of this group.

Many thanks


Views: 103

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It was probably my choice of sessions, but I found day 2 miles better than day 1. While Tony Buzan gave a 'feelgood' start to the conference, George Siemens was challenging - both in terms of the scope he was asking us to think in, and actually following the many ideas he sparked off. A great speaker to start the second day. And the final session, especially the shy and retiring Mr Clark, sent some of us out wanting to kick over some tables, so that was well-timed. I'm glad it wasn't all vision stuff, though, and I found some sessions with issues I could relate to tomorrow without having to try and influence people three layers of hierarchy above me.
Hi Don, my first time at the LT conference and it far exceeded my expectations. My only critique is that in each of the rooms we could hear the other speakers which was fairly distracting and sometimes meant that we couldn't hear them.
Thanks for the feedback, Barbara. This has been picked up by others, too. I'm going to investigate ways of tackling this for the next event.
I feel that I should be providing feedback on weighty issues of our times but there were a couple of seemingly minor points that really lifted the conference for me. I’m new to the field (late career amendment rather than change) and have been to a few conferences since Sep last year. Learning Technologies stood out not only for all the obvious stuff about quality of content but also because strangers spoke to each other. It started with Tony Buzan’s group interaction and continued through the excellent session in the pub and, I hope, through the on-line community up to the June gathering. There seemed to be considerably less inhibition in people initiating conversations around the biscuits than I’ve come across previously and the conference was so much more effective for it. We are too experienced (?) to fall for blatant bonding tricks but a bit of serious interaction went a long way. Cheers, Jim:)
This is my third LT conference and I always come away feeling refreshed. A lot of other conferences focus too much on the wizardry of the technology rather than its contribution to learning. The presentations tend to be more focussed, but in line with what Karyn Romeis, we do tend to be seeing the same faces on the stage.
I was pleasantly surprised. It was great to hear what people were doing, and I saved days of research time from listening to the experience of others. I came into the office this morning and wrote up my thoughts on my sharepoint blog - a first! I added links etc. I know what companies I want to speak to and am enjoying some creative thinking time, planning a project that might lend itself to collaborative working. I thought my sons were geniuses, now I'm learning that this stuff isn't really that hard!
Many thanks
I am new to this field. I found the conference good on many levels. Firstly it was great to meet people in the same situation as us (situation perhaps not being the correct word, but on the same level). By far the best thing for me was the fact it generated ideas, and has given us the oppurtunity to modify thoughts on what we should be doing.

All the sessions I attended gave me ideas that I hope to be able to use, the ones I missed.

It might be worth holding a workshop session on learning technology to get everyone involved, but this may take up valuable time, though may be fun and informative.


Liked the 3D world examples. Well put together with the whole group. Nice timing. I also liked the BBC presentation on their use of social media. Great presentation. The length of presentations set at 20 mins was a terrific idea and well appreciated. Would have been nice to have had access to a participants list (or other method) and knowing who was who without staring at their name badge.
Missed Don Clark and who usually led some great presentations the past two years. Great presenter, always managed to add some controversy and colour to the event.
My first point is along the lines of speakers. Clive has blogged that it would be quite good to track down some of the young blood that is setting the world alight with UGC to stir up the mix a bit. I think that's quite a good plan. I would also like to hear from someone (perhaps from a developing country) who faces challenges we wouldn't dream of and has found creative/innovative ways of dealing with them. It might help us to appreciate what we have, while also challenging us to be more innovative and proactive.

My second has to do with debate. For example, I (and I'm not alone in this) differ quite sharply from Itiel's concept of what constitutes learning. However, at the end of a session, there isn't really time to engage in debate, only to ask questions of the expert on the stage. Perhaps if we had fewer sessions with longer question times, or if we had a backchannel on every session, or perhaps a debate between two adherents of different views.

My third point arises out of my second...could we have a session on 'what constitutes learning' in June? I'm going right this minute to check if there is a discussion along those lines on here, and, if there isn't, I'm going to start one!
Agree with foleywi's suggestion re attendees' profiles. I think I commented on this point last year. How about using Attendr? George Siemens uses it for his online conferences. An additional good thing about it is you can show who you already know and who you would like to meet, so you can hook up with people you want to chat to.
This is my third time at the Learning Technologies & as ever, I found it to be a useful "oasis" in a busy year to allow for some focussed thinking time. The real highlights for me were the Keynotes. Tony Buzan's session was informative, stimulating and engaging; George Siemens' session was excellent - very thought provoking. It really got me thinking about how to redefine L+D to meet the challenges he presented. The final keynote was also facisnating - 3 very different styles & some very interesting & challenging views.

In common with some of the other comments here, I would have welcomed more time/opportunity for discussion & debate. I acknowledge that there are logistical issues with this given the numbers involved, but we're supposed to be creative right?



Sponsor promotion

LSG Sponsors

© 2021   Created by Donald H Taylor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service