|
|
Re: 1996 National Meeting
Posted:
Apr 12, 1995 3:51 PM
|
|
Michelle said:
> I agree that there *are* good sessions. I've been to a few. A very few.
And the
>ratio of good to bad sessions that I've attended is disturbingly low.
>The fact is that they're hard to find. (And generic titles is one
>reason. When three sessions have the same basic title, how do you know
>which one to attend?)
I agree with you, Michelle. I went to the conference in Boston. I think I
only stayed for the sessions I had tickets. The others, with their broad
titles, ended up to be something I was not interested in. I spent most of my
time at the booths. It's not that the booths were more informative, I would
have rather been in sessions, but if you left one it was difficult to find
another that wasn't already closed. I feel like I wasted a lot of time. I
could have received the same benefit by attending only one day.
Sunday was a real waste of time. I chose two sessions to attend. One was
canceled, the other was no where to be found. From what I could see, unless
you were attending a ticketed session, you might end up with a one-on-one
tutorial. I hope NCTM doesn't do Sundays again. I didn't mind the all day
Saturday, though.
About the extremely long lead time, I find it rather frustrating as well. I
am an author, too. I would like to be able to talk about the information I
uncovered while researching. I always end up with too much information to fit
in a book and would like to pass it on to teachers. If I submit a proposal
now on the topic I am currently researching, that information will be cold by
April of 1997 (since I am too late for the 1996 convention). I'm not saying
it would be out of date (though, it might), but *I* will be cold. By then I
will have moved on to something else and the information I was going to share
would not be in the forefront of my mind.
Sharon
ShariV@aol.com - Math Educational Author/Editor
|
|
