We're hearing more and more about 'mindsets' - for example, the "innovator's mindset", an "entrepreneurial mindset", and the like. They have a mysterious origin. As Tim Stahmer suggests here, a mindset "is a way of looking at life," and thus distinct from a 'skill' which is... something different? I'm hard-pressed to see the difference. From where I sit, knowledge and skills are (at least in part) ways of looking at the world (or as Lakoff would put it, 'frames'). Yes, mindsets can be learned - but it is also important to note that they are essentially moral and political frameworks - a certain type of skill directly associated with identifying and valuing, as opposed to (say) making or producing.
This document (11 page PDF) came recommended but I think it misses the mark. It is the report from a committee of Canadian public servants who studies the future of work - how we prepare for it, how we get it, how we benefit from it - and made recommendations on hoiw to adapt. The observations are accurate enough - "the growing skills gap driven by increased automation (and) the weakened social contract between workers, employers, and governments, driven by digital technologies and the constant financialization of business decisions." But the recommendations are not sound: "an Interactive Career Platform that uses technology to help Canadians from all walks of life, and a Workforce Stewardship Policy Suite that uses the unique ability of employers to positively affect their employees’ lives." These make people dependent, when we should be helping them be independent.
This post marks the beginning of a series of posts on Brett Christensen's Performance Improvement Process model (illustrated). It begins with the distinction outlined in the title, expanded as follows: " The key difference between an opportunity and a good idea is its alignment – or not – to the individual, organizational and societal contributions that your organization exists to produce." This distinction is established by a consideration of the outcomes the idea or opportunity produces. It goes without saying that the desired outcomes vary from place to place, time to time. Christensen identifies them through a gap analysis, which I think defines them too narrowly, but is a good start to understanding the model.
Reflecting on my post from the other day, Doug Belshaw suggests that OLDaily might be classified as an 'elderblog'. This term is adapted from gaming, where an elder game is "a game where most players have completed a full playthrough and are focusing on second-order play." For me, No Man's Sky fits this - I've completed the main quests in 'Next' and have advanced to the next galaxy, where I spend my time leisurely exploring and hunting pirates. "An Act 2 game-within-a-game emerges for experienced players who have exhausted the nominal game."
This article is based on a research study (8 page PDF) arguing that unique experiences are more pleasurable. It uses this study to explain the effectiveness of games, in certain circumstances, to teach a range of skills. It then references a private school (called Quest to Learn) to expand on the discussion of gaming in learning; this is the advocacy and marketing part of the article. "The most success (i.e., larger effect sizes) incorporated specific game design elements, including collaboration, competition, role playing, and exploration and discovery." Related: a completely different interpretation of the same type of research study.
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe, Click here.
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own, you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.
Copyright 2019 Stephen Downes Contact: firstname.lastname@example.orgThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.