Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Chatting

10 April 2009 by Clark 14 Comments

Last night we held the first #lrnchat, a Twitter learning chat.   As mentioned before, it was an idea from Marcia Conner based upon her previous experience with other chats and enthusiasm for Twitter. It was an interesting experience, with it’s plusses and minuses.   There were great topics, and some interesting technical issues.   The latter first:

I finally ‘graduated’ from TwitterFox (a plugin for Firefox, and a great way to start Twittering) to TweetDeck, an AIR application. It’s more sophisticated, but then it’s another application I’m running in parallel (what with iChat, Adium, and Skype all running, and now TweetDeck, Mail, and Firefox, before I’m working in any apps, I’ve got a lot of RAM and CPU cycles being sucked up.   However, I went to TweetChat, a website that provides an interface just for such chats, because it only follows your hashtag, and automatically puts it in your tweets.   That worked well.

However, what my colleague Sky (Jim Schuyler) noticed was that all those tweets were flooding the twitterverse.   In fact,   he found out about #lrnchat by a sudden flurry of tweets from some people he knew, including me and Marcia Conner (why he hadn’t seen the earlier tweets about it is a curiosity :).   That’s the downside: that all those tweets go out to your followers, who may not know what’s going on.   Harold Jarche also opined that maybe Twitter wasn’t the right tool for chatting.   It’s an interesting issue, but it’s really all about tradeoffs.   For example, Meebo is more dedicated to chat, but there’s more overhead to get hooked up (it connects all IM channels, but you’d have to be on IM).   If you’re on twitter, you saw the message and could participate. However, I admit I felt bad if anyone who watches my tweets felt inundated (let me know; valuable feedback).

I previously found it the situation that if you have new channels, new people can find ways to express themselves.   I think chat has some great affordances, as you don’t have to take turns, there can be parallel conversations going, and it doesn’t take a lot of bandwidth.   You couldn’t do it in video or audio.   There might’ve been times I wanted to draw a picture (as I did in a small TogetherLearn chat with Harold and Jay the other day).   Still, a potentially powerful channel (as I find when serving as a backchannel for a presentation).

Interestingly, the amount of activity on Twitter with #lrnchat suddenly peaking triggered some automatic signification that #lrnchat was a trend, and we got some auto-pings to fill out a definition of what #lrnchat was at What The Hashtag!   Which of course brought in some people looking for ‘action’ and to flog their personal issues.   Even in the discussion, the mention of Yammer brought in the Yammer team mentioning some of their case studies, which got a bit annoying.   The risks of popularity, I guess.

Another issue, besides tool, was whether 2 hours were too much.   While we expect some to have to drop out, or drop in late, is it useful or valuable to go that long, or would shorter be better?

However, I really liked the chat format.   As Marcia reminded us, when it gets fast, there may be too much to follow, but that you should just take the value you found.   There were some sparkling gems in the conversation, and valuable information.   It was very worthwhile.   While it may be only one channel, it certainly seems a valuable one for some (maybe those, like me, who read and/or type fast).

The topics ranged from organizational barriers to Twitter (hence the mention of Yammer as a solution maybe more appropriate for a company with more than a few people, as it has some knowledge management capabilities as well), to the value (or not) of Twitter.     We covered case studies (and the lack thereof), the nature of the necessary culture, the role of informal learning in the organization, and more.   Apparently some were able to view the archive and catch up quickly, so it’s not only a ‘you had to be there’, though I don’t know if it’s easily accessible post-hoc (going back now to both TweetChat and WTHashtag weren’t particularly useful just now).

Overall, I think the notion of having a regularly scheduled chat on learning is very valuable.   What mechanisms are the right ones, is, to me, still an open question.   So there you go: what do you think?

Comments

  1. Scottf Johnson says

    10 April 2009 at 5:16 PM

    Sorry I couldn’t be there but I just haven’t figured out the twitter/tweetchat/#lrnchat thing. Watched it happen on the computer screen but didn’t get past that. Maybe next time. I’m glad it connected and got some attention.
    Scott

  2. Loretta Donovan says

    10 April 2009 at 6:16 PM

    I tried to describe last night’s experience to a friend today. It certainly reminded her that my interests are not average.

    Overall Experience: The speed was an issue (even though you could control it a little). When I wanted to catch the drift of what one person was tweeting, I browsed to Twitter to get their posts. Some friends DM’d me to clarify points. I was never sure if anyone was responding to my comments since there wasn’t time to check.

    Knowledge Value: Above average. It’s really a matter of who’s online and what they are able to contribute based on memory and expertise. That’s what’s novel – you can’t research or make it up at this speed.

    Length: I stayed on for an hour – that was all I could muster. Can only imagine what it was like for those of you who did 2 hours. BTW when I started teaching grad students online, I had 4 guest chats each semester. I got pretty adept at moderating and using text signals for managing the conversation. Grad students are a little more polite at turn taking since there are grades at the end of the semester ;-)

    Thanks for the experience!

  3. Sky says

    10 April 2009 at 11:40 PM

    Amigo, my take was similar to yours in several ways.

    First, the “chat” was useful.

    Second, the chat was too long. After one hour, people started horning in with their own agendas and the signal-to-noise ratio went bad on us. This is because we were (in effect) chatting in a public place on a loudspeaker. I have searches active all the time that would spot a conversation like this if it mentioned my name or company, and I would also join it. By time the chat got to 90 minutes we were being joined by people who had different agendas.

    Third, the “splatter” was noticed by my followers. They only got snatches of the conversations – not the whole thing because they don’t follow everyone who was “chatting” – and they were puzzled.

    Fourth, one person did join us because of the splatter to my followers. That was good. Oh, and speaking of that, I joined the chat because you were splattering it to me!

    Fifth, Marcia was consciously trying to put real content into each of her tweets. Others were not. They were splattering and spamming. She was actually conveying information every time around. I also tried to do the same because I’m sensitive to this.

    My conclusion is that Twitter is not a substitute for a chat room. Round peg in a square hole, my friend. It needs private channels in order to be a chat room. And why use Twitter when we already have lots of chat solutions that are much richer and do not splatter all over our friends?

  4. Virginia Yonkers says

    11 April 2009 at 5:24 AM

    When trying to explain Twitter to a non-techy, I said it was like a scroll at the bottom of the news channel.

    My understanding is that it is like using headlines. I think chat is something else all together.

    I find it difficult to keep up with multi party chat. I prefer one on one chat (I use google chat).

  5. Cathy Moore says

    11 April 2009 at 6:57 AM

    If you use TweetChat, you can avoid confusing your followers by making each statement a reply to someone in the chat. Since TweetChat automatically adds the appropriate hashtag, everyone in the chat will see your “reply,” whether they follow that person or not, while most of your followers will be spared. You could do the same thing outside TweetChat by replying in the usual way and manually typing the hashtag.

    I participate in a business chat (#sbbuzz) that has a formal structure. It opens with introductions, then the leader posts a question that she has collected from participants before the chat or that they DM her doing the chat. As the conversation about one question sputters out, she posts the next.

    Near the end of the chat, she posts an announcement that it’s okay to pitch your services.

    People stay (mostly) on topic. It’s a 2-hour chat, but it doesn’t seem long because a different business chat ends 1 hour into this one, and some of those participants switch over to “our” chat, which gives it a boost.

  6. Clark says

    11 April 2009 at 12:15 PM

    Thanks for the comments.

    Cathy, your advice is what Marcia Conner added to the conversation. Though I think your @’s are still in your stream?

    Loretta, I flagged at an hour, then got a second wind, but 2 hours may be a lot.

    Scott, hope you can contribute next time.

    Sky, not sure whether twitter or not?

    Virginia, different channels for different folks, I reckon.

  7. Cathy Moore says

    11 April 2009 at 3:20 PM

    Yes, @ replies you use in the chat end up in your stream, but the only followers who see them are ones who also follow the person you replied to (unless they’ve changed their settings so they see everything you say to anyone). It’s a compromise rather than a perfect solution.

    I think Twitter is a useful chat mechanism only if the chat entries would be of value to people outside the group. I think this fact can help encourage people to contribute thoughtfully.

  8. Richard Sheehy says

    13 April 2009 at 6:21 AM

    Hi Clark,
    Thanks for the summary of the chat. I was dipping and out while packing for the weekend trip. I understand Harold’s concern about being spammy to the followers not interested in the topic, but I also see the utility of spreading the word about what’s taking place. An imperfect option that came to mind was to use friendfeed. The “room” option may be a way for those not wishing to overwhelm followers and the option to send posts to twitter for those that wish to spread the seeds of the conversation.

    Just another option to ponder from an interested “lurker” from the #lrnchat.

    Cheers to all,
    Richard Sheehy

  9. Sky says

    13 April 2009 at 9:11 PM

    To Cathy Moore: You said “Yes, @ replies you use in the chat end up in your stream, but the only followers who see them are ones who also follow the person you replied to (unless they’ve changed their settings so they see everything you say to anyone). It’s a compromise rather than a perfect solution.”

    I was not aware of this, and actually I’m not sure it’s true. I thought that everything I tweeted was seen by -all- of my followers, regardless of their relationship with the people I mention. In fact, I count on it. Otherwise how could I tell my followers something like “Hey tweeps, @quinnovator told me today that the sky is green.” You’re saying that only people who already follow Clark would see my tweet? Doesn’t make sense to me.

  10. Sky says

    13 April 2009 at 9:15 PM

    Ah, I see now (by reading the Twitter help on this issue). If you start a tweet with @abc then it is treated specially. If you include @abc somewhere else (later in the tweet) it is just passed through. How odd.

  11. Cathy Moore says

    14 April 2009 at 7:07 AM

    Sky, as I think you’ve found, the symbols at the beginning of a tweet determine how public it is.

    “@JoeShmoe I agree…” = a public reply to Joe. People who follow both you and Joe will see it in their stream. People who don’t follow Joe but who go to your profile to see all your tweets will also see your reply to Joe.

    “D JoeShmoe I agree…” = a direct message to Joe. Only Joe will see it.

    If a Tweet starts with anything other than those symbols, all your followers will see it immediately. This includes tweets that have @ symbols anywhere else in them.

    Complication: If your Tweet includes a hash tag (#ourchat), then everyone who searches on that hashtag will see your tweet. For example, they’ll see your @JoeSchmoe reply even if they don’t follow Joe.

    TweetChat works by repeatedly searching for all Tweets that use the same hash tag and displaying them in the “room.” So I can reply to someone in the room that no one there follows and everyone will still see my reply. But my followers who aren’t searching on #ourchat and who don’t follow the person I’ve replied to won’t see my tweet.

    That’s why in a chat I participate by replying to the organizer, because I go to business chats organized by people that my elearning audience doesn’t usually follow.

  12. Sky says

    15 April 2009 at 9:03 AM

    From your post: “sudden flurry of tweets from some people he knew, including me and Marcia Conner (why he hadn’t seen the earlier tweets about it is a curiosity :).” LOL, I would guess that the reason I didn’t see Marcia’s tweet is that I can’t read all 500+ tweets a day that come in. And also, I’m human, so I don’t remember everything I see.

    We are all seriously information-overloaded these days!

Trackbacks

  1. Twitter is like shouting at a dinner party - Sky’s Blog says:
    16 April 2009 at 1:02 AM

    […] would see everything that I tweet, that I just didn’t believe it when Cathy Moore said (in this conversation on the Learnlets.com blog) “Yes, @ replies you use in the chat end up in your stream, but the only followers who see them […]

  2. Twitter is like shouting at a dinner party says:
    2 January 2017 at 12:38 PM

    […] would see everything that I tweet, that I just didn’t believe it when Cathy Moore said (in this conversation on the Learnlets.com blog) “Yes, @ replies you use in the chat end up in your stream, but the only followers who see them […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.