Normally I'm not impressed by the posts on Getting Smart, but this one captures three meta-aspects of future learning that seem right to me: equity, stident-centered learning, and real-world learning. Transforming that set of expectations into pedagogy and infrastructure is another matter, however. The article highlights a number of initiatitives, some of which at first glance seem to merit a closer look: Creative Reaction Lab in St. Louis, Careerwise in Colorado, and Paul Quinn College in Dallas (some of the others seemed more sketchy to me, so don't take any of this as an endorsement). The article summarizes a foundation-supported conference called Rethink ED.
This report (178 page PDF) is a comprehensive overview of the global impact of open educational resources, with a focus on the global south. The report suggests there is still a way to go: "The data suggests little evidence of wide acceptance of OER within the surveyed countries and, in many instances, OER initiatives feature largely as ‘projects’, without systematic integration." Similarly mixed rsults are reported in the areas of funding support, and diversity and inclusion. Against that, what little research there is provides "a clear, evidence-based rationale for how the implementation of existing OER policies could greatly reduce costs of educational material."
It is worth noting that in this, as with all of Thalheimer's work, 'learning results' are very narrowly defined, and refer strictly to content recall as demonstrated in course testing. It would be more useful, to my mind, to consider longer-term and more widely defined learning results. Case in point: I remember nothing - utterly nothing - from my Grade 10 English course with Jamie Bell. But my smile sheet would be glowing because the course had a transformative effect on me by drawing me out and having me develop my writing both for work and (especially) for pleasure. This would never show up on a test. And that's what the good courses do. The courses that focus strictly on content, to my mind, are failures, and that failure is often reflected in low student satisfaction.
This is Jane Hart's ongoing list. It's worth noting that there is no learning technology (properly So-Called) in the top 10. The top is LinkedIn Learning [Lynda], at position 13, and then Articulate at 20 and Kahoot at 21. The top tools listed here are mostly my top tools as well: YouTube, Google Search, Power Point.
The interesting part of this article isn't the 'boring technology' used by a one-person start-up, nor even the start-up itself (though I must confess I'm enthusiastic about both) but rather the fact that such technology exists. I've been thinking in recent months that innovation in technology these days might now be the exclusive domain of large enterprises with a lot of resources and expertise in fields like cloud management, database technology, user interface design, and the rest. But, maybe I was wrong to think this. It's from 2018 but appeared in O'Reilly's '4 short links' today.
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.