I think this platform is less about connecting students to service learning opportunities and more about the transcript. After all, the very first sentence of the article states, " In project-based and competency-based learning there is a focus on how one demonstrates learning." And "Treedom is about being a complete learning solution focused on feedback, relationships, and metrics—a platform where students get statement pieces that are part of that larger portfolio pursuit." But that's just my impression. Anyhow, the platform -
If virtual Instructor Led Training (vILT) is in fact the outcome in workplace learning, I would consider it to be pretty significant: "Moving forward, the focus will still be on virtual learning. We estimate that 70% of learning will continue to be virtual in the future. People do appreciate in-person learning, and they want to be back in the classroom. The difference now is that, instead of in-person learning being a default approach, there needs to be a very good reason to go back in the classroom." Additionally, if most learning in the workplace is online, then aren't we failing students by preparing them with mainly in-person learning up until that point? After all, as this article describes, the experiences of and the skills needed for the two types of learning are very different.
This article is focused on crime and punishment, not learning, and doesn't consider anything other than human-mediated interventions (so no AI-delivered verdicts and sentences here), but it does raise the question of what sort of 'educational' interventions are ethical. Consider, for example, a type of neuro-technology that eliminates in convicted criminals any desires to commit crimes. Would it be appropriate to use this? Would it be better if pain is also applied, so the criminal feels remorse? Would it be reasonable to apply the procedure before any crime is committed? Perhaps only for at-risk students? I would imagine our ethical intuitions would be strong around these cases. They should also inform what we think about education in general - if, say, we require students to learn certain things, then how is this different from the neuro-technology?
Moving from distance learning to learning distanced: Building human capabilities in times of disruption and social distancing
Erv Lessel, Amy A. Titus, Deanne B. Watts, Chief Learning Officer, 2021/03/12
This article looks at a couple of reports from Deloitte, 2021's The Social Enterprise in a World Disrupted and last June's Human inside: How capabilities can unleash business performance. According to Deloitte, "few organizations have focused on developing multiple capabilities... most organizations targeted only leaders and high-potential workers for development versus investing in building the learning ecosystem to develop the workforce at large." That sounds familiar. Learning organizations, write the authors, should "move beyond formal learning (i.e., courses delivered virtually or e-learning) to informal and experiential learning at a distance that emphasizes team and social learning." Of course, we've been hearing all this for years. What would convince leaders to focus less on learning for themselves and more on providing quality learning opportunities for the workforce at large?
I'm not saying this is great; I'm not saying it's terrible. I just want to flag this as something that exists, to give readers a feel for what's out there. HomeRoom is a newly launched learning app that selects and presents articles based on what you tell them are your "professional hopes, dreams, nightmares." It also allows you to "read alongside smart people in your role who are working on the same things." Does this solve the problem of workplace learning? Probably not. But it's an interesting idea. It's still in the startup stage. Blog. Via ProductHunt.
David Jones will tell us that, yes, the little things matter, and provides with two examples: using precise dates in course schedules, and linking to specific resources in course contents. He argues that the reason why these little things are overlooked is, first, because of the re usability paradox, which makes more specific resources less usable, and second, the black-box nature of most LMSs. Both are good explanations, but they obscure the main reason: the little things are the hardest to do (and the technology doesn't help at all). In fact, better technology design makes these little things easy. For example: if you know the course start date (and you do, right?) then you can design reusable contents to calculate precise dates relative to that start date. Doing the little things right is what the technology should do, allowing designers to focus on the big things.
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 2021 Stephen Downes Contact: firstname.lastname@example.orgThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.