agregador de noticias
According to this post, Colleges and Institutes Canada has released a report describing "the programs, support services and innovations that Canadian colleges are using to increase access to post-secondary education for vulnerable groups." The report (60 page PDF) is organized as a series of 55 or so one-page articles, each describing a case where someone uses one of the services (it would make a great series of blog posts). Topics include Indigenous learners, language support for new arrivals, learning disabilities, the transition to college, mental illness and crime. "Reducing the barriers that prevent young people from entering and completing post-secondary education is key to improved self-confidence, employment success and economic prosperity."[Link] [Comment]
I've used the phrase 'free learning and control learning' in the past to highlight the same distinction, but while my terminology didn't really take off, perhaps Jane Hart's 'social learning and fauxial learning' will fare better. I'm not betting on it. But the distinction is valid, and so is the recognition that people can depend on people other than teachers to support their own learning. "Organizations can no longer exist in silos -- either internally or in relation to the external ecosystem. Cooperation and collaboration will yield greater benefits than competitiveness. Employees will no longer tolerate being treated like replaceable cogs."[Link] [Comment]
Can autodidacticism be taught? That is, can you learn how to learn for yourself? It would seem obvious that you can - for example, you can be taught to read, which is a major component of learning for yourself, you can be taught experimentation through examples such as Mythbusters, and you can be taught learning strategies, logic and inference. Most of us could be taught these at a fairly young age. I was, through a standard public school education supplemented with a voracious reading of classic literature. But, I guess, most people aren't.
Why does this matter? It matters because I have encountered yet another blog post (citing people like Paul A. Kirschner yet again) making the claim that "learners don’ t know what’ s best for them." The argument boils down to two major premises: that students can't (or won't) make good choices, and they can't (or won't) tackle difficult tasks. The slightest observation of people out there on their own actually learning (everything from digital photography to road cycling to bird-watching to home repair) refutes both points. But evidence isn't sufficient for people like the aforementioned Kirschner, who prefers to use cherrypicked facts and carefully designed studies. But this should give people pause: what is the evidence that people cannot learn how to learn for themselves? I contend that it does not exist, and that merely citing studies of people (like hairdressing students) who have not yet learned proves nothing.[Link] [Comment]
Although Tony Bates considers this book "essential reading for anyone who wants to take a professional, evidence-based approach to online learning (distance or otherwise)" he suggests that "we need a better way to disseminate this research than a 500 page printed text that only those already expert in the field are likely to access." It doesn't help that there's no open access version (at least that I could find). Moreover, writes Bates, "I groaned when I first saw the list of contributors. The same old, same old list of distance education experts with a heavy bias towards open universities."[Link] [Comment]
Tony Bates surveys some advantages and disadvantages of MOOCs. One item he focuses on is the demographics of MOOC users. "most MOOC participants are already well-educated and employed. The work by Kop and Fournier (collected here (I don’ t know why everyone cites the 2014 EdX research but ignores this earlier research)) on the population served by MOOCs also found that it was an older and well-credentialed demographic. But I wonder how relevant this is. The 1994 surveys of internet users show that the average user was North American, educated and professional. They were also overwhelmingly male. But it would have been incorrect to conclude from this data that the internet would not have a broad society-wide utility or appeal. It shows, simply, that there is a characteristic demographic that benefits from innovation earlier than everyone else.[Link] [Comment]