Blackboard is Technical Difficulties

According to Mike Caulfield, Blackboard used the following image to denote their technical difficulties during live streaming their Blackboard World conference.

CKddCNGVEAA148M.jpg-largeThere is a certain schadenfreude in the technical difficulties, similar to Bill Gates' crash of Windows 98 live on CNN.  But for me the context of the image is rather confusing.  What is Blackboard trying to tell me by showing a picture of a father glued to his phone while his son looks out the bus window?  Is dad happy to be having a day out with the little guy and mom just sent a text?  Is dad laughing at LOLcatz, the arm around the son less an embrace and more a tactile reminder that son is accounted for?  Is  Blackboard saying this check-in at work will be the last solace dad enjoys before countless trips on the Small World ride at Disney?  What is the inconvenience in this picture?  The phone is eliciting a smile; is the child the inconvenience?  Is Blackboard being somewhat meta and speaking from the perspective of the child...and if so, why the blissful look on his face?

The more time I spend looking at this image, the more troubling it becomes.  I fail to see how this particular image says anything positive about anything at all.  And in light of a Wired piece on the Reeducation of Blackboard that misses the tenor of the EdTech world (example: a non-ironic subhead Students are Consumers Too), Blackboard's tone-deafness seems systemic.  Jay Bhatt is about to roll out a *new and improved* Blackboard.  It promises advancement, but Blackboard has a history of rolling out extensions, applications and interfaces that gloss over the inherent problems of providing space for education to grow organically in the digital.  The history of Blackboard leads me to believe this new roll-out will be another magenta filter on a pretty picture that gets more troublesome the more it is analyzed.


#ED1to1: Learning in Asynchronous Sequence

From July 15-17, a number of formal courses and informal spaces are converging around #ed1to1 to look specifically at Audrey Watters' (25 Years Ago) The First School 1 to 1 Laptop Program, but more generally to consider how different groups of learners with different objectives and different environments can coalesce in a similar space for the purposes of knowledge growth and diffusion.  Bonnie Stewart at UPEI was kind enough to drive the organization, and Laura Gogia of VCU has incorporated it into the Twitter Journal Club, on which there is excellent writing this week at Hybrid Pedagogy.

Within Seattle Pacific's EDTC6104 (Digital Learning Environments), this provides us multiple opportunities.  First, as the course is designed to provide students the scaffolding to create an action plan for development/use/adoption/reconsideration of a digital learning strategy, looking at the history of a topic at the forefront of K-12 conversation is a great opportunity to mix history, theory, pedagogy and criticism.  Secondly, the use of social media in an asynchronous fashion, mostly via Twitter, is a unique look at how practitioner scholarship can flourish outside traditional confines.  Third, this is an opportunity to gain insight from others who are in the middle of change initiatives or technological implementations; Bonnie has provided a Google Document for people to briefly share projects they are working on and what the pros and cons have been.  For our purposes at SPU, sharing briefly here and expanding in personal blog spaces is a great opportunity.

There are many more benefits to this sort of emergent and exploratory scholarship.  Determining who to follow in the social media landscape is difficult; a project like #ED1to1 provides some immediate focus on people who are in similar situations but different environments, creating a catalyst for topical discussion but divergent perspectives or viewpoints.  While Twitter is but a 140 character window into a person, it provides a springboard into many avenues (the resources people share, the contents people write, the memes people enjoy).  Bonnie noted in her #et4online plenary that her scholarship looks to find the *sweet spot* between Twitter as an academic space and Twitter as pictures of what people ate for lunch.  To go back to Wenger again, this is the epitome of learning as identity management -- one of many social media spaces where our interactions can be diffuse and divergent.  While the crux of the class Ellen Dorr and I are teaching focuses on the development of an environmental action plan, we understand that such plans are not easily abstracted from an individual; thus, the perspectives and passions of teachers and learners is paramount in what we do, what we develop, and how we interact.

#ED1to1 will run through July 17, and participation is open to anyone who wishes to participate.  I look forward to seeing the conversation unfold!

Image: People Who Live in Wax Pyramids Don't Throw Matches by Alan Levine (CC BY 2.0)

Education has changed over 1000 years. It has also stayed the same.

George Siemens recently presented a keynote at the Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australasia, and Twitter was fortunate to have Gardner Campbell on hand to live-tweet the proceedings (Siemens did post his slides on SlideShare, but if you have not had the pleasure of seeing a George Siemens keynote, the slides are an augment of the conversation rather than a recitation). Titled Exploiting Emerging Technologies to Enable Employability Quality of Life, the presentation puts many existing assumptions around education and educational technology in the crosshairs.

An increasing number of pundits have taken to ringing the Education Has Not Changed klaxon, finding well-clicked bully pulpits from which to share these pithy proclamations.  Whether it's Sal Khan linking to Horace Greeley (who links to the Prussians), or Peter Levine saying it hasn't changed since the earliest universities 1000 years ago, or MIT Chancellor Eric Grimson perpetuating a false mythology of educational inertia

This has me thinking about Lee Schulman today, specifically his 1985 address to AERA that set the pieces in motion for adopting a more inclusive approach to teacher readiness, where contents and pedagogies were inextricably linked rather than siloed or imbalanced (or, in the case of the teacher testing protocols of the 1980s, eschewing both for the ever-popular classroom management).  Schulman understands how in the 1880s a teacher preparation program could be so weighted towards contents, and to an extent understands how a 1980s teacher preparation program could be so weighted towards methodology, but is troubled by the lack of link between the two; if we have grown with an understanding of pedagogy, that should not mean a sacrifice of content knowledge or expertise.

Of course, this becomes even more frustrating today, what with technology becoming as ubiquitous as pedagogy and contents, and the attempts to make TPACK borne of a theoretical framework in why and when, not what and how but too often equated to tool belts and easy application of technology.  The result is too often a third silo, a caste of technologists at the ready to deploy technology from a home base, independent of the teacher or the learners.

Schulman quotes Father Walter Ong's 1958 work Ramus, Method & the Decay of Dialogue to siphon through rhetoric and see the importance of teaching across time and history -- the etymology of Master and Doctor (the highest points of the academic profession) both come from words meaning to teach.  A bachelor was thus an apprentice teacher.  And if teaching is inextricably linked to all professions, then the idea of abstracting contents or pedagogies is a fallacy.  A doctor of anything is an expert in such a regard as to be able to assist citizens in journeying from novice to expert.

Voltolina's Henry of Germany has been conflated by many as evidence of needed change in an archaic lecture system; perhaps the issue is much deeper.

Saying education hasn't changed is certainly a way to sell product (technocentricism, competency based education, online platforms).  Perhaps it is also a signifier of a difficulty in better engaging the expectations of teacher in a rapidly changing educational framework.  Shulman notes the vast changes in expectations of a teacher between the 1880s (when a teacher credential examination was almost entirely based on content) and the 1980s (when the examination was almost entirely based on methodology).  These expectations have only continued to move towards classroom management and away from spaces of expertise, whether siloed expertise in contents or pedagogies or even a more broad expertise indicative of a Master or a Doctor.  In K-12 we see a political movement to classroom managers, and to an extent the discussions of competency based education  and letting teachers do what they do best is the higher education equivalent of diluting expertise so as to serve a framework hierarchy.  And this is antithetical to what Schulman and his contemporaries see as the value of teacher, a person whose expertise is malleable to the point of serving and facilitating a learning journey because of an ability to pull content and pedagogy together based on the needs of the situation and the environment.  Today, Mishra & Koehler have added technology to this construct, which in many ways is a further requirement and hampering on the role of teacher, but the potential affordances have reshaped and expanded on what it means to construct and create knowledge.

I have to think the education has not changed mantra is solely about the passing of contents onto individuals in search of jobs and careers.  From this perspective, it can easily seem like not much has happened -- 1,000 years ago contents were passed to students and today we do the same thing.  What a great percentage of the research on education has shown, however, is the fallacy of the contents-mediated approach; education is about transformation and social relationships and externalization and not an easy accrual of facts or an ability to take Google facts and apply them.  The shift Schulman sees to management and methodology is not an improvement but a lateral movement; he calls for seamless integration between the domains of pedagogy and content.

The question Siemens posts at the heart of his keynote (quality of life over employability) is central to this discussion.  When teaching is about employment, it is easier to focus on singular contents or the methods, but to remain siloed even when calling for lifelong learners with liberal arts backgrounds who are critical thinkers and can apply abstract concepts to concrete situations.  When teaching is about quality of life, this is not an indictment of employment but an understanding that public service is only a part of identity, and thus the educators who are engaging emergent technologies in the name of pedagogy and content need to be able and willing to build connections and relationships between the formal requirements of the educational system with the personal transformation of each individual.  It is a balancing act, and a treacherous one in an environment of exponential technological growth and increasing government regulation.  Much like how educators endeavor to help students own their experiences in the classroom, it is just as important to aid faculty in owning their experiences with content, pedagogy and technology.

Joining the Blog Hub

One of the unique tools we will use during EDTC 6104 is the WordPress plugin feedwordpress which allows specifically tagged blogs to appear on an aggregate site.  This creates a living artifact for our course, a resource specific to the needs of Cohort 1 in Digital Learning Environments that traces the trials and tribulations of this course.  Blog hubs have been used in a number of open courses in the past, such as Alec Couros' #etmooc as well as Teaching With WordPress at the University of British Columbia.

Alan Levine provided an excellent run-down of what people need to do to ensure their blog posts go to the hub of choice during #etmooc; Alan's writing style is personable and can make complex issues read much more easily.  His words will work for the purposes of this course; however, I will briefly note specifically to this course what you need to do to link your blog to our blog hub.

Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 2.39.00 PM1.  Decide how you will distinguish your postings (category or tag).  Our plugin, feedwordpress, will recognize your blog either based on a category or a tag.  You can see I chose to utilize the category EDTC6104 for all blogs pertaining to this course, which is a preference for how I blog (tags are how I think internally, categories are how I want to be seen externally).  The URL in WordPress is for the category, the URL for tags would be

You can use whatever sort of category/tag you would like. The important thing is to remember to apply it for every blog you write for EDTC6104 (whether an assignment, something supplemental, or something you did on your own but found pertinent).  An interesting aspect of blog hubs -- months and years after the course they can remain vibrant from participants continuing to commune around the topic at the digital space!

2.  Let us know your decision!  Post in the comments here what you want to do (tag or category) and what the signifier will be.

3.  When you write your first blog, create & use the category or use the tag.  It will not appear on the blog hub immediately; the page has to be refreshed manually at this point (we are in beta), but trust that sometime that day or early the next day, you will see your blog on the main aggregate site!

We look forward to engaging your writing!

Photo - Flagstaff Big Wheels by Alan Levine (CC BY 2.0)

We Are Rockstar Educators

I have always liked Billy Joel the musician, but I gained a greater respect for his work last year when Sirius provided Joel a channel for several months as part of an event around his *residency* at Madison Square Garden.  Along with playing his catalog, Sirius opened their vault to play some of his many recorded masterclasses, one of which involved Howard Stern as the moderator.  The masterclasses and interviews provided me more lenses in which to enjoy his work and see things similar to how he saw them.  Billy Joel is not a pedagogue per se, but his knowledge base as well as the passion for his discipline are both evident and infectious.  I found listening to Joel similar to Wynton Marsalis' Jazz for Young People, although Marsalis' program has an evident pedagogical foundation (grounded around music theory).

This week, I was listening to Sirius XM when Billy Joel's All About Soul played through the car speakers.  My first thought at hearing this (or any) somewhat hit from an artist is usually one of dread:  did something bad happen to Billy Joel?  That was inevitably replaced by a joy at hearing the song for the first time in likely over a decade, new ears to engage an artifact of a bygone time.  My wife and I play a game where we try to recite lyrics to less-than-hit songs, so while the song played I fumbled to catch up with the lyrics,  failing and singing along with the excellent harmonizing background vocals instead.

Who is singing backing vocals on All About Soul?


Early 1990s sensation Color Me Badd.  Looking at that picture, lumping their work into Boy Band craze and diluting their hits to All 4 Love posits Color Me Badd as an unfriendly reminder of the loud colors and cultural largesse of pop culture pre-Grunge.  If you look into Color Me Badd's history, however, and the respect the group had from producers and R&B critics beyond the album C.M.B, the narrative is much more complex and sees Color Me Badd as a collection of respected talent falling prey to a kitschy name and appropriated first album.  Color Me Badd wasn't taking table scraps from Billy Joel on the way down; Billy Joel was working with Color Me Badd in a long tradition of rockstars and backing vocals throughout popular music.

I have always found background vocals and vocalists fascinating, a space to spend my cognitive surplus.  There are historical example: Darlene Love, Lisa Fischer and others featured in the 2013 documentary 20 Feet from Stardom; gospel group The Jordanaires who backed Elvis for the majority of his career, and The New Jersey Mass Choir providing the backing for Foreigner's I Want to Know What Love Is (and later charting with their own version).  A tangent from backing as a career involves the random places where rockstars provide backing for one another:  Sting backing Dire Straits' Money for Nothing, Luther Vandross backing David Bowie's Young Americans, Toni Tennille backing both Pink Floyd and Elton John in the late 70s.  Then there are the backing trade-offs:  The Rolling Stones and The Beatles (We Love You - All You Need is Love), David Crosby and Phil Collins (Hero - Another Day in Paradise), Kenny Loggins & Michael McDonald (trading the 1985 song No Lookin' Back).  Singing and backing is a time-honored tradition of camaraderie and support amongst rockstars.

Rockstar as a term is problematic in education.  The MOOC phenomenon has led to media pundits and platform developers and their mouthpieces to view teaching from a popularity lens; those at the front of these MOOCs are purported to be regal and powerful by way of their MOOC, the performance on-camera as The Important.  Despite pushback from many of these so-called *rockstars*, the labeling continues.  George Siemens famously said of *rockstars* at the Teacher Tank via #et4online this past April

I've never understood why the hell people use the word rockstar because typically they're into drugs and alcohol, they're very unproductive, they rarely show up on time...Axl Rose keeps audiences waiting for two hours.  So when you say you have a rockstar team...

I look at this quote as an addendum to an earlier Siemens passage on 'rockstar-ism' from 2013, where he blogged,

Additionally, there has been growing creep of “rockstar-ism” in education where we look for “the person” to give us “the solution”. I’ve always been uncomfortable with the view that the answer can be brought to us by someone outside of our system. This view is appealing but completely false.

Siemens is right about the Waiting for Superman problem in regards to solutionism in education.  However, I disagree on the labeling of rockstars.  It is not that George is incorrect, but the rockstar motif is not going away.  Education is viewed by many as a delivery service, which is why people say the system needs to change because we can now Google everything.  For those of us in the profession, we have understood this for generations as seen through learning theories like constructivism, constructionism, connectivism, activity theory, social learning...learning is about transformation and supplementation rather than recitation and standardization.  We work toward providing this for our students in our localized environments and networks, and we aspire to have a reach beyond these networks to see the work seep into other spaces.  We do this in the face of a dominant paradigm ringing a klaxon of Education Hasn't Changed and Video Is The Way and Quizzes As Personalization.  We do this because we believe in education as a transformational opportunity, well above and beyond training and competency.

Over 30 years after Time Magazine named the personal computer the Man Machine of the Year, there exists a dominant hierarchy in schools and organizations where the computer can do the content work of the teacher as well as assist as a tool for assessment and management, elements beholden to locked-down and narrowly-focused learning.  There is a resistance to this approach, a negotiation borne of transformational opportunity where ownership and identity and activity are paramount, and this resistance is growing and gaining support.  And that support has come with recognition and status.  It is important to criticize the status quo, but it is just as important to be a part of the subcultures doing the good work.

Recently, Jim Groom found hope in this transformational energy, seeing it catch on outside our subcultures and silos

When Bates, Nipper, Garrison and the other giants of distance education scholarship looked at telecommunications and computing as an affordance for transformational learning, it was because of telecommunications as an opportunity for teamwork and communication heretofore impossible in the field.  The excellent work happening today is inextricably linked to this spirit of camaraderie.  The MOOC might have a media connotation of LMS courses with enrollment in the hundreds of thousands, but the urMOOCs, those borne of a connectivist spirit, are growing in number and engagement:  #rhizo15, #clmooc, #humanmooc, #moocmooc, #tvsz, and more.  OER may be in a constant negotiation with paywalls and closed access (not to mention something of a philosophical crisis), but adoption of Openness in education is making significant strides in political and user adoption.  Ownership of digital space as a means of digital identity and externalization of learning (rather than reliance on an LMS or personalized software) is a focus of many Ed-Tech architectures:  a foundation of APIs, the Domain of One's Own initiative, Federated Wiki, etc.  The practical manifestation of learning theory linked to do to learn to do is alive and well in 2015; better still, the people who are working in one part are predominantly participating in others.

And that brings me back to 1993 when Billy Joel asked Color Me Badd to provide backing for a single on his River of Dreams album.  This is the side of rockstars as collaborators and musicians that we should celebrate, we should negotiate.  A man who has worn the negative label of rockstar but whose love of the music is unquestioned partners with a group whose popular acclaim was replaced by critical acclaim, one partnership in a history of many across music.  These partnerships happen all the time in music; we rarely notice them, and when we do they fade into memory rather quickly, but the collaboration creates a sum greater than its parts.  And these partnerships are happening in Ed-Tech constantly; respected individuals working together, new voices invited to join in to further the discussion and start new ones.  And the result is a landscape where, in the face of declining revenue and suspended safeguards of tenure and solutionism, a rising chorus bands together to produce good work they believe in.  They forge forward and they work together because they love the music.

Negotiating the Dominant Symbols of Education - Reflection on #cccucot2015 Presentation

On June 4 I presented at the Consortium of Christian Colleges & Universities' annual Commission on Technology conference at Westmont College in Santa Barbara. This was my first 'official' conference presentation as the Director of Educational Technology & Media, and I used the opportunity to ground the experiences of inheriting a teaching/learning space within theory and literature, creating an interesting artifact that shows the practical results of a theory and cultural approach to EdTech and pedagogy.

[As of 6/5 SlideShare was not playing well; the link is here and I hope to embed soon]

Response was excellent; the CCCU COT is a hodgepodge of IT,Library and Teaching & Learning professionals, so my presentation was to a number of diverse stakeholders.  To that end, there is an effort to ground everything in an historical as well as local context, one which was picked up on by attendees who appreciated common language along with specific institutional jargon.  One of the efforts of this presentation was to push back on stereotypes of various academic silos (faculty, admin, IT) by showing commonality and shared goals; I hope I was able to achieve this.

It is an exciting time to be working in EdTech and pedagogy, and SPU is a phenomenal place with active faculty and supportive administration -- this week I sent an email to a colleague in a department asking where the academic inertia was on campus, as our correspondences had resulted not only in actionable steps but in product and development.  This is not to say there are not growing pains -- the slide show documents the struggles of visualizing an approach to teaching and learning which is contrary to the dominant visualizations and trainings of education throughout popular history.

Over the summer, we will be focused on redesigning and deploying a website with greater access, functionality and dialogue for faculty in support of their pedagogical and technological ownership.  We will also continue to work with faculty, students and administration to reconceptualize the role of the teacher and the methods of formal education, providing alternatives to popular symbols.  This ties directly to my scholarship both on rejecting the assumptions of educational and technological solutionism as well as the history of educational development and technological resource for teaching.

the Golden Age of Education that never was

Republished from edutechnicalities

The history of edutainment, a mid-20th Century portmanteau used to describe the mix of broadcast contents with an educational context, is a fascinating field, and Audrey Watters' Story of The Learning Channel is an important addition to a critical reader on the relationship of broadcast media, ownership rights and the education superstructure.  Noting how the current state of The Learning Channel TLC evokes responses of, "Remember when it was called The Learning Channel," Audrey presents the history of the infrastructure which created what was a public-public partnership between government agencies to provide satellite-based educational television (conceptualized in the 1960s, partnered with more public agencies and enacted in the early 1970s), and how public-public became public-private became private became a host of barrel-scraping reality TV fare.  It is an excellent read.

The article ends with questions to consider when engaging broadcast television, education, edutainment and the other terms and subfields that inhabit this realm:

  • Who owns the “pipes”? Who owns the means by which content is transmitted? Who owns the satellites? Who owns the spectrum? Who owns the cables? Who owns the network?
  • What do we mean by “educational content”? In particular, how has our definition of “documentary” changed over the last few decades? How does this shape what media – in form and in content – enters the classroom?
  • How have regional educational agencies and distance education providers – particularly those offering for-credit classes – been affected by the commercialization of content and delivery?
  • How has education become increasingly commercialized? How might education on the Internet and via various computer technologies be following down that very path taken by education on cable TV?

This topic intersects with my emerging research; I am thankful to Audrey for this discussion and the energy behind it.   I would like to join the conversation as part of an emergent discussion.

In 2014, Coursera announced a partnership with, a start-up launched from within Discovery Communications, whom Coursera heralded as the parent company of Discovery and Animal Planet. (Note:  in November spun off and away from the Discovery Communications paternity) At the time, I blogged about the partnership, briefly touching on the histories of Discovery and The Learning Channel, as well as the media conglomerate that would form from their 1990s merger/acquisition and growth. I framed this in the context of edutainment, which took me down a whirlwind of Disney history, resulting in scholarship on the relationship between the learning objects/resources of the OER movement, edutainment, and the 'free-as-in-beer' resources one finds in Coursera/edX/  The expansion of this research continues; at the present I am adopting a postmodern lens to look at the history of broadcast contents within education, in their utilitarian existence as well as their social/political/cultural/philosophical/power contexts too.

Continue reading the Golden Age of Education that never was

"I'm not saying..." A Postmodern & Metamodern Look at Education

On Tuesday, May 26, I spoke with Matt Crosslin and Whitney Kilgore about theoretical and philosophical lenses from which to view our practices in higher education.

This conversation began at #et4online conference in April, when I presented on research looking at the OER phenomenon from a postmodern lens.  Whitney, who is doing excellent scholarship and teaching in the world of online education, is working through a dissertation and wanted to explore philosophy and education that reaches beyond modernism.  As Matt often links his work and writing to metamodernism, this was an opportunity to engage a dialogue about theory, philosophy, dominant paradigms and manners in which to affect higher education.

The problem with a philosophy such as postmodernism is the shifting sand of its foundation:  postmodernists do stand for something but in doing so they have to point out the inefficiency and foibles of something else.  Also, postmodernism is careful to not make grandiose claims, so I often found myself making a comparison or a metaphor and immediately having to say, "I'm not saying..." in an effort not to connect the example beyond the utility of that example.

Matt and I engaged well and found many points of agreement in our camps.  It is not necessarily that postmodernism and metamodernism are at loggerheads; rather, metamodernism is an attempt to more accurately place a practical theory in lieu of hype. I understand this; postmodernism is in many cultures a buzzword rather than a philosophy, and metamodernism is a reaction.  There are examples of postmodern scholarship that would also be considered metamodern scholarship...these are not clear distinctions but rather areas or zones that overlap, and in some cases overlap heavily.

If you are looking for a brief introduction to both topics, Matt and I explore the concepts in the first 15 minutes. Between 15 and 45 we give examples and look at the state of higher education. The last 15 minutes is the space where we talk about possible futures for higher education.

I am grateful for the opportunity to explore this topic.  I hope more conversations about theory and philosophy as supplement to our respective lenses can emerge in the field; it is not vital to agree (and it is perhaps not ideal to agree), but it is helpful to understand where other people are coming from in their thinking and why they are reaching such conclusions.

___modernism(s): Lenses to View EdTech (A Google+ Hangout)

On Tuesday, May 26 at 5pm PST, I will be sitting down in a Google+ Hangout as part of "___modernism:  A discussion of philosophical lenses for higher education."  Matt Crosslin of The University of Texas at Arlington's LINK Research Lab will be discussing the lens of metamodernism, while I will be furthering my recent scholarship by talking about adopting a postmodern lens from which to view education.  Our moderator is Whitney Kilgore from iDesignEDU and PhD candidate at the University of North Texas.

Such conversations are exciting and show evidence of the EdTech field in engaging theory and philosophy as foundational to the topics and obstacles of our discipline and education's function in society.  I may not agree with metamodernism, I may not agree with postmodernism, I may not agree with pragmatism, I may not agree with critical theory, but having that lens provides perspective to the purposes of models/technologies forming today.  I greatly appreciate that Matt Crosslin identifies his work as coming from a metamodernist lens; it creates a foundation for any conversations we have regarding the tools/instruments/measurements/analytics/models we use in our professional practices.  I have put a flag in the ground regarding postmodernism; it is a useful lens from which to view both the social landscape of EdTech as well as the practical.  It might be complicated to navigate theory and philosophy at the heart of topics in EdTech, but it is wrong to pretend or believe the EdTech field to be atheoretical/aphilosophical/ahistorical/apolitical/neutral.

The conversation will stream live and you are invited; this blog post will be updated with the link to the hangout.  If you are unable to attend, the recording will be available shortly thereafter.