Matt Crosslin spends most of this article responding to David Wiley's OELM idea, which I mention but don't necessarily endorse, but his response to George Siemens and I appears to boil down to: (a) we're not instructional designers (and, semi-implicitly, don't really understand instructional design, which surfaces in remarks like "Clean separations of course content and learning activities are generally labeled as bad pedagogy in instructional design circles"), (b) that AI training data "is mostly garbage", and (c) that AI systems are mostly junk. And he recommends that I read Audrey Watters, as though (somehow) he thinks I haven't. Now it doesn't matter that Crosslin doesn't follow my work (he says he doesn't) but if he did he'd know about my history in instructional design, the developments Siemens and I introduced to the field, and our emphasis on personal learning support as a replacement for pre-planned formal instructional design and pedagogy, something that can demonstrably be supported using AI. And which should reduce costs to effectively zero. If he wants to talk about this we can. Image: NEPC graduation rates.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
