You only have to look at mp3 players and the iPod effect to see what I mean.

I have had a fair amount of experience (mostly positive) with back-channel technology. More important, however, is that, through my past connection with the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS), I have had even MORE experience with evaluating the technology in a prodigious number of settings. Much of this work was launched by Jay Nunamaker; but many of the really good papers on evaluation come from the efforts of his colleague, Robert Briggs. These guys have done excellent work, first sorting out when things work from when they do not work and then trying to get to the heart of WHY they did or did not work. I do not dispute the value of your own personal experiences, but the objective literature is definitely worth reading.

On the education side I have PARC to thank for giving me some really good exposure to the most embattled trenches. PARC has formed an excellent relationship with the Association of California School Superintendents and Administrators, and those guys are all-too-willing to let us know about the realities of urban setting at all levels. Again, there is both good news and bad when it comes to bringing technology into those settings. Much of this is now documented in the literature of the professional societies for educators; but my own familiarity comes more from word-of-mouth. The most important thing I have learned is that embracing a technology is never a solution in itself. The problems about the ineffectiveness of so many of today’s classroom experiences need to be addressed within a scope that goes way beyond where your optimistic thoughts currently lead you. The good news is that, at least in California, for all of the burdens of budgetary and regulatory constraints, they ARE being addressed; and they are being addressed by people whose awareness of technology is impressively perceptive.

They are no longer experimental, they have already become an integral part of many of the conferences/workshops/seminars I attend. And I see immense value in their being used in secondary and higher education.

If you visit urban secondary school classrooms, quite often there is a complete breakdown in the traditional authority structures. Peer recognition and respect is all that rules. As society we have three choices: One, to push back and seek to reimpose historical authority. Two, to do the normal apathetic thing and not care. Three, to try and motivate the youth.

You know I’m an optimist. So I want to try option 3. I think hecklebots and back-channels are wonderful opportunities for us to do this. I guess your students don’t tend to have a motivation problem; maybe they also have a higher respect for authority than is the case in urban secondary school classrooms.

I do think of the consequences. But my perception of the consequences is different from yours. If we don’t embrace techniques such as back-channels, my fear is that we will continue to foster an underclass, continue to disenfranchise students unnecessarily.

Back-channels are cool, but they are not about being cool. The technology per se is not new, it is older than the mobile phone. In the conferences I go to, much of what I see (in back-channel usage) is constructive and valuable to the community. And peer pressure ensures that misuse stays at a minimum.

This is another illustration of my favorite motto: Think about the consequences before you pull the switch!

don’t you think the hecklebot would be a great active listening device, and using it a type of complementary or multi-tasking (depending what you call it) that would indeed change people’s behaviour in the direction JP identifies- towards everyone being peers in the sense of conversing equally actively?