Stephen Downes

"I was at an event recently and a speaker was late so was asked to do a 20 minute slot, unscripted, no props/slides etc.," writes Andrew Jacobs. "If it happened to you, what could you do a tight 20 on?" My answer - and it should be your answer too - would be "anything". That's the different between knowledge as 'remembering' and knowledge as 'learning'. Anything I've ever heard about, I could talk about for twenty minutes simply by organizing and presenting my thoughts on the topic. Do a 'quick three' - past, present or future; my view, your view, synthesis; etc. For each six minute segment, build the case - something concrete, something general, a conclusion to be drawn (or: an odd phenomenon, a general principle, an explanation to be given). Each of these is only two minutes, and you'll be pressed for time to make the point, but try: a couple points of reference or evidence, and the point is made. Anyone can do this about anything - if they've learned how. And if they've learned how, they know how to learn about any new subject they encounter.

According to this article, " A 2024 Gallup poll found that nearly 25% of workers worry that their jobs can become obsolete because of AI, up from 15% in 2021." This would not be an issue except for the fact that we currently structure society such that, if you do not have a job, you are relegated to a life of pain and poverty. We should rethink this. Certainly, as the IBM blog suggests, lets think about reskilling. But articles like this that focus only on reskilling serve as a distraction from the larger issues. But let's also reimagine the social and corporate compact to ensure everybody earns a share of the increased productivity AI will generate. Because the changing workplace isn't the employee's problem. It's everybody's problem.

I find it interesting to juxtapose two documents, a statement from the Stanford Social Innovation Review on what it means to govern for all, and this document from the Wikimedia Movement declaring "the values, rights, relationships, and mutual responsibilities of all participants in the shared mission of this movement." There are numerous points of contrast, starting from Wikimedia's embracing of "a factual, verifiable, open, and inclusive approach to knowledge," and SSIR's failure to address the topic at all. There's the difference between 'inclusion' (in Wikimedia) and 'equity' (in SSIR). At the same time, Wikimedia embraces a 'shared vision', while SSIR limits this to fairness and consistency under the law. And, taking a few steps back, the SSIR document seems to be about the relation between us (the governors) and them (the people) while Wikimedia "entrusts decisions to the most immediate or the lowest possible level of participation". I don't think you get democracy without education, or education without democracy, but what either of those two things amount to is still very much open to debate.

This is a headline I would have considered current in around 2003 or so, but hey, educational podcasts were a good idea then and they're a good idea now. As true today as it was twenty years ago, "educational podcasts come in diverse forms, including podcasts produced by teaching practitioners for learners, by learners for teachers (for instance as summative assessment) by students for each other (for instance as peer-supportive resources) and by teachers for other teachers." What the article does point to is a resurgence of interest in podcasts (not coincidentally, I think, with the collapse of cable media, the fragmentation of streaming video services, and the toxification of social media). What it doesn't talk about is the use of an open access format (RSS) to distribute and collect free media. Image: EduTech Wiki.

Martin Weller reflects on "a way to think about post-Twitter life," bringing us the personal engagement environment, a nod back to the personal learning environment (PLE), where "you may have a main platform (eg blog), a work focused one eg LinkedIn, a personal one eg Instagram, a general one eg Threads, a course focused one eg podcasts, etc. For any one engagement activity you may post to all, one or some of these." Not quite though - a PLE was one place we could use to reach out to these other services, not merely a collection of platforms (the collection of platforms was the 'personal learning network', which is what people used in lieu of an actual functioning PLE (which never materialized).

The main takeaway from this oddly-written story is that "More media and tech companies are launching educational courses as they venture deeper into video." AI-written? You can read more about the specific Bloomberg-Emeritus project in the press release. Of course, online courses are more than just nice video presentations; you need to do something to justify the $2500 price tag. So they'll get a Bloomberg subscription too.