Since I waited all week to post, here is a week's worth of thoughts in one post. Sorry if this seems confusing, but it is an insight into how the brain works.
Steve Dembo has an interesting blog that I try to keep up with, but there was a recent entry about the pathway to becoming an expert that stuck with me. I have always struggled with this term and think that it is too loosely used (that might be the overly critical side of me). In the masses of NECC I will be labeled a newbie, maybe intermediate user. (BTW, don't you hate those technology user surveys you get at your school? On those I have to pick expert level based on the questions, which makes me feel bad like I am bragging. ) At my school, I am almost past expert and onto guru status. I am the one who is in charge of the school's website, newspaper, anything that needs to look nice to go out to parents, and emergency tech support. Of course I have to go to all technology trainings, not because I need them, but to train the staff in a user-friendly way. While most would probably feel proud of this level, it makes me sad for a couple of reasons. One reason is that I am the best in technology the school's got, that is a shame since I am no where near a expert. The second reason is that nobody else steps up, there are a few others that understand technology, but don't help others. Probably the worst part, which is selfish, is that don't have the collaborative environment that will help me grow. I guess that is why so many have turned to cyberspace for their personal learning environments.
Now onto the NECC controversy......
If you don't already know (which I can't imagine if have used the Internet in the past 5 days) NECC posted a set of regulations that required anybody recording sessions to get permission from the presenter and ISTE. Blogs, twits, and the NECC Ning set afire with postings about how unfair this policy was considering ISTE is suppose to encourage global collaboration. It was amazing to see the power of this community. Through a vigorous campaign, ISTE actually changed this policy to only require the permission of the presenter to record.
If anyone reads this, please don't hate me for what I am about to blog.... While I agree that ISTE was wrong for changing the rules at this late date, I kind of understand their position. To me it was brought forward when plans were underway to ustream as many sessions as possible and that is already on top of numerous podcasts. I think the organization was afraid of all of the endless possibilities, which is a topic we are struggling with as the ways to communicate expands. Many excused them of worrying about the profits, but on my hopeful side I think that they were worried about their presenters. These people work hard to prepare and maybe ISTE was worried that hard work would end up on YouTube or re-created for a local presentation. Even though I don't mind the conference being open, I imagine some do considering the costs of attending. Plus, ISTE deserves some credit for being as open as they are with posting all resources from sessions, supporting the lounges, the ning, and even the unplugged conference. I have never seen that at any other conference I have attended.
Lastly, my progress into 2.0---
I have been trying to reply more in Twitter. Not that I am sure if anyone cares about my 1 cents worth. I really enjoy the NECC ning because I get great advice and all of the interesting discussions. I think that I want to join more nings because of the format and collaboration.
So excited!!!!! NECC is almost here!!!!!