Reflecting on the traditional conference format

I’m doing a Masters in Education and Training. I’ve also produced a lot of events in my time. Mini-conferences. Webinars. Workshops. And standard lectures.

It’s always occurred to me that many of these rely on old-fashioned one-way communication. There’s a lot written in educational literature about different learning philosophies. Once thing is clear. Broadcast teaching is less than optimal and yet it still pervades. With that in mind, something I’d like to research as part of my studies is the traditional conference format and its role in meaningful learning. I’ll call this, “An action research inquiry into the traditional conference format and its role in meaningful learning.”

Introduction

In January 2022, I commenced a role at LXA (“Learning Experience Alliance”). LXA produces events, white papers and best practice guides which focus on the professions of sales and marketing operations and technology. My remit is to reposition LXA as an education business, as opposed to an events and media business. This includes reframing our events as meaningful learning experiences.

As a professional, I’ve had the opportunity to attend and speak at numerous conferences geared toward marketing practice. Conferences represent sources of knowledge and inspiration for many professionals (Ravn & Elsborg, 2011). As an educator, I observe that the communication that takes place at conferences falls short due to the progression of rote conference presentations with poorly designed slides that facilitate one-way dissemination of information.

Research Aims

Within the sales and marketing community, attending a full-day conference is a common avenue for professional development. However, many professional conferences consist of a series of 20–30-minute presentations that render participants passive, followed by 5–10 minutes of questions and answers.

Considering what is known about learning & development, this leaves a question mark over learning efficacy. I see huge potential to reimagine the conference format to facilitate more meaningful learning. To do so aligns my values as an educator with my profession as an event producer. In my experiences attending and speaking at events, pumping out presentation content without meaningful engagement should not be the upper limit of an event’s educational objectives.

I’d like to focus my research on what can be done to make events more meaningful learning experiences. The goal of this research will be to deepen my understanding of educational practice at conferences by examining how to engage event participants and increase their learning. As an output, I would like to produce a toolkit for event organisers that will empower them to produce events that act as a forum for real learning, mutual inspiration and human flourishing.

Literature review

To address how to improve events as meaningful learning experiences, there are several strands of research that need to be examined. This includes searching the literature for studies on conferences as forums for learning, exploring the relationship between domain expertise and pedagogy and exploring how learning theory can be applied to the conference model to improve learning outcomes.

The current situation: Evaluating the traditional conference format

(Ravn, 2007) notes that the literature is “curiously silent” on the learning opportunities wasted when presentations are bundled into a conference for professionals to attend. Indeed, while there has been research in every other domain of education, the conference, viewed as a forum for learning, stills largely considers the role of learners as passive receivers of information (Ravn & Elsborg, 2011).

Critiquing the format of research conferences, (Graham & Kormanik, 2004) observe that communication falls short due to one-way dissemination of information. More generally, the assumptions about learning underlying the traditional conference are those of the transfer model, well-known from classroom teaching (Illeris et al., 2004).

The idea of the classroom lecture as a vehicle of learning has long been critiqued. For example, the prevalent notion of the classroom lecture was that knowledge was transmitted into the minds of learners who were empty vessels ready to passively receive knowledge (Freire, 1972: Dialogue, Praxis and Education). Or, the mind as a “tabula rasa”, or blank slate upon which to write new information about the world (Pinker, 2003) or empty knowledge containers (Illeris et al., 2004). While it has long been accepted that these views of learning are not helpful, the conference and its reliance on PowerPoint presentations still rely on this simplistic theory of learning. Further, (Tufte, 2006) condemns PowerPoint by saying that it is neither content-oriented nor audience-oriented but rather presenter oriented.

Another critique of the conference format is that there can be little to no opportunity for substantive and meaningful interaction. (Graham & Kormanik, 2004) observe that three questions at the end of forty-five minutes of presentations or comments exchanged while moving between talks do not embody meaningful dialogue.

Why is the traditional conference problematic? The relationship between content and pedagogy

In education, the lecture has been regarded as “an accomplishment — bringing together a

very particular constellation of speaker, space, technology, audience and attention” (Craig & Amernic, 2006). In this setting, the role of the speaker and the relationship between their subject matter expertise and pedagogical knowledge deserves attention.

(Kemp et al., n.d.) address this in a published dialogue among educators on the relative importance of content and pedagogy. The dialogue concludes that both content and instruction are foundational when guided by learner needs. And yet, while event and conference speakers may be domain, they may have not considered the role of teaching. If the goal of a conference session is to educate, then it’s not possible to separate content from instruction (Kemp et al., n.d.). In many conferences, this is what happens. (Ravn, 2007) observes that conference programmes indicate several assumptions:

- Knowledge is held by the experts. Delegates have virtually nothing to contribute.

- People attend to receive the experts’ knowledge.

- Experts communicate their knowledge by speaking it and showing PowerPoint presentations.

- When people seated on chairs hear the words and see the slides, they receive knowledge.

- Delegates will pick up the knowledge better if they are given just a little time for questions and discussion.

Clearly, if there is any learning theory applied the traditional conference, it is the transfer model. This offers the attendee no agency in constructing their own learning. In terms of pedagogy, the speaker or instructor, beyond creating a slide deck, is not expected to think about how they can facilitate learning situations in which deeper understanding is shaped (Kemp et al., n.d.).

Bridging the conference gap: towards the conference as a forum for meaningful learning

For learning to take place, event organisers must realise that learners have agency and are always actively engaged in constructing their worlds (Piaget, 1926). While Piaget’s observation was about children, adults have more agency and are geared towards to building knowledge via engagement (Dewey, 1997). In fact, it was Dewey who popularised learning by doing and changed the traditional notion that learning happens through lectures and memorisation. Dewey posited that people learn by engaging with topics in a way that has relevance to their life and experience. And so to move beyond the conference format as an avenue for one-way dissemination of information will require building in opportunities for engagement, reflection and also “experiential learning” which has become widely accepted as an effective approach for quality learning and education (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). How can this be achieved?

For a conference to be a forum for human co-flourishing, (Ravn & Elsborg, 2011) suggest the following design principles to stimulate learning beyond the traditional transfer model:

1. Concise presentations: Presentations should be concise, provocative and properly spaced to provide time for reflection and learning. In fact, the epitome of the modern learning conference is TED. TED talks are capped at 18 minutes because it difficult to hold audience attention for much longer than this (Gallo, 2014).
2. Active interpretation: Participants must be given opportunities to engage in active interpretation and discussion of the information presented in order to relate what they’ve learned to their own professional concerns. As noted by (Graham & Kormanik, 2004), three questions at the end a hurried research presentation does not embody meaningful dialogue.
3. Self-formulation: The conference should offer opportunities for participants to talk about the interests and experience that made them sign up for the conference. If this content is ignored, conference organisers risk producing irrelevant content and leaving participants to feel at best, bored and at worst, excluded.
4. Networking and knowledge sharing: There should be facilitated processes that help participants find people they are likely to enjoy meeting and sharing knowledge with.
5. Competent facilitation: If conference organisers want to stimulate learning in new ways, participants must interact and share knowledge. This requires good facilitator who can create a safe and friendly atmosphere conducive to learning. (Graham & Kormanik, 2004) ask the question about what it would be like if session chairs were given time and training to facilitate so that speakers and attendees have an equal voice and thereby leave more time for interaction and critical engagement with the topics.

For each of these principles, there may be multiple techniques that can be deployed. (Ravn & Elsborg, 2011) list some techniques as follows:

There is one further technique that aligns with these design principles and warrants further research. That is the role of the hackathon. Hackathons are intense, focused, idea-spawning sessions that originated in the computer programming community (Calco & Veeck, 2015). They are valued for their ability to emphasise experiential learning over passive learning (Maaravi, 2020). They engage learners to pose questions and construct their own learning. Hackathons are increasingly being used to help learners solidify their understanding of the concepts in multiple domains. Hackathons represent a valid concept for the present study since they shares characteristics with the traditional conference including a bounded population with shared goals, shared knowledge and a motivation to learn.

What is clear from this literature is that the conference, as currently envisioned, does not represent a forum for meaningful learning, mutual inspiration and actualising human potential.

While people may attend conferences to learn from domain experts, the literature is clear that while domain expertise is important, it should be separated from pedagogical best practice. In this sense, instead of criticising domain experts who wish to share their expertise, conference organisers should offer guidance to speakers in terms of how to make their presentations more concise.

Based on this analysis of the literature, I would like to extend this research by implementing these design principles at upcoming LXA events with a view to creating more meaningful learning experiences for attendees.

Research methodology

My professional challenge at LXA is to design the company’s approach to learning products. This includes organising webinars and conferences. I’d like to use these events as opportunities to apply an action research methodology which will enable me to engage with, reflect on and update my professional practice when it comes to organising events.

Elliott (1991, p. 69) explains action research as a study of a social situation with a view to improving the quality of action within it. This appeals to me as action research offers the opportunity to reflect on my current situation at LXA and put in place measures to improve its approach to conferences. Further, if the main essence of action research revolves around the researcher investigating their own practices with a view to altering it in a beneficial way (Dick 2000), then this clearly aligns with my remit at LXA.

This involves reframing the standard conference away from being about one way transmission of information to being a meaningful learning experience. This will involve investigating how events are currently managed with a view to altering them to both help the company achieve its potential, and also help LXA clients through more meaningful learning at our events.

My research will facilitate the creation of an LXA specific approach to events which can be changed and updated until the most meaningful and impactful iteration has emerged.

Many representations of the action research process exist. (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2007) encourage a four step process of planning, acting, observing and reflection. (Mertler, 2020) points out the action research is a cyclical process which involves what Parsons and Brown (cited in Mertler, 2020) describe as “observing — doing-observing-adjusting”. In this sense, I plan to complete multiple cycles of research which will allow me to hypothesise, test, observe, reflect and adjust.

Research paradigm

As my goal is to change my company’s understanding of conferences as learning experiences, I will be using a transformative research paradigm.

Epistemologically, researchers with a transformative paradigm maintain that knowledge is true if it can be turned into practice that empowers and transforms the lives of the people (Karulich, 2012). This links with my the research methodology where ideas have to be put into action in order to improve practice. My rationale for this paradigm is that in addition to knowledge creation, my research seeks to promote transformation as both an end and a means of my research. It is this capacity for reflection, questioning and change that that makes the transformative paradigm a suitable philosophical framework. I seek to transform my organisation, how we organise conferences and also attendees in terms of helping them to flourish as professionals.

Research participants

Participants in the study will include the speakers at upcoming LXA events, LXA colleagues who facilitate webinars and conferences and of course, event attendees.

Colleagues will be informed of about my approach to the research as a means of improving the LXA product. Speakers and facilitators will be signal their intent by self-selecting to participate at LXA events and choosing the follow new event procedures and/or participating in pre-event training.

Attendees who choose to attend will be offered the opportunity to complete questionnaires and participate in research interviews to evaluate the potential impact of changes on the conference format.

Data collection & implementation

To determine the efficacy of my research, I will utilise qualitative and quantitative research data.

In terms of qualitative data, the methods of data collection in action research require me to monitor my own learning as I make changes to the conference format. For this, I will maintain a reflective journal. During and after events, I will observe the speaker and facilitator performance and also audience engagement and reactions. I will complete interviews with facilitators and speakers.

I’ll also need to monitor the learning of colleagues involved in running events. This will likely mean using a sample of 4 colleagues to provide interpretive data which will be recorded using focus groups. Themes will be identified which will help to reframe events with a view to making further changes and helping colleagues understand their value proposition as it relates to creating meaningful learning experiences.

For event attendees, it makes sense to utilise evaluative questionnaires completed by conference attendees.

Ethical considerations

All research requires paying attention to the issue of research ethics. It is ethically

imperative that the risk to participants is minimised. This will require seeking consent from colleagues and speakers to participate in the research. As such, all participants will be volunteers. Staff, speakers and facilitators will be contacted by email and will have an opportunity to express an interest.

Consent will be obtained using a plain language statement which will explain the structure and aim of this research. To ensure the confidentiality of participants, data collection and storage will comply with the criteria laid out in the Data Protection Act (2018).

If you have anything to contribute to my research, I’d be happy to hear from you.

Always be learning.

Sean

APPENDIX

Calco, M., & Veeck, A. (2015). The Markathon: Adapting the Hackathon Model for an Introductory Marketing Class Project. Marketing Education Review, 25(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2015.999600

Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint Presentation Technology and the Dynamics of Teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31(3), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9017-5

Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Dover Publications.

Gallo, C. (2014). Talk like TED: The 9 public speaking secrets of the world’s top minds (First edition : March 2014). St. Martin’s Press.

Graham, P., & Kormanik, M. (2004). Bridging the conference gap: A challenge to enhance the research — practice dialogue. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 391–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000245996

Illeris, K., Reader, D., & Illeris, K. (2004). The three dimensions of learning: Contemporary learning theory in the tension field between the cognitive, the emotional and the social (2. ed). Roskilde Univ. Press [u.a.].

Isaacs, S. (1929). Review of The Child’s Conception of the World by Jean Piaget. Mind, Vol. 38, №152, 506–513.

Karulich, B. (Ed.). (2012). Selecting a research approach: Paradigm, methodology and methods. In Doing social research: A global context. McGrawHill Higher Education.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2007). Communicative action and the public sphere. In He Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 559–603).

Kemp, A. T., Blake, B., Shaw, C. C., & Preston, J. (n.d.). A CONVERSATION ABOUT CONTENT VERSUS PEDAGOGY. In Curriculum and T eaching Dialogue (Vol. 11, pp. 103–119). Information Age Publishing.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40214287

Maaravi, Y. (2020). Using hackathons to teach management consulting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(2), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1563868

Mertler, C. A. (2020). In Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (Sixth Edition). SAGE.

Paulo Freire: Dialogue, praxis and education. (n.d.). [Education]. Infed.Org: Education, Community-Building and Change. Retrieved 25 July 2022, from https://infed.org/paulo-freire-dialogue-praxis-and-education/

Pinker, S. (2003). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature (Nachdr.). Penguin.

Ravn, I. (2007). The learning conference. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(3), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590710739287

Ravn, I., & Elsborg, S. (2011). Facilitating learning at conferences. International Journal of Learning and Change, 5(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLC.2011.041873