Conversations about content delivery

Inside content delivery systems, there is usually talk about what's being offered among the observant consumers of the content. The community of learners develops an understanding of which teachers to take the class from, which session to sit in before lunch, which book covers the material better or which presenter has better visuals. There's evidence of consumer sophistication and vigilance at the level of style and branding. The assessments are typically made about entertainment value and the attributes of effective advertising.

PLE 2.0 will breed a new level of consumer sophistication. The buzz about content providers will focus more on the harmful and helpful effects the content has on ongoing learning. Observers will use an expanded range of criteria to assess the impacts of the content delivery. The talk among learners (DIT) will raise the bar on which content is free of harmful side effects, debilitating impacts and lingering toxicity. Here are some possible talking points in future conversations among content-savvy learners:
  • Pretext of the content: "That content is harmful because it assumes I know nothing about this already, treats me like a newbie and belittles my comprehension". "This content is great because it speaks to what I already grasp and utilize in my own world from this subject area".
  • Purpose of the content: "That content is offered like there is no reason to bother learning it other than it's interesting to the presenter - so what!". "This content gives me a great sense of what's the use of knowing this and of what's the incentive to work at deepening my understanding of it".
  • Context of the content: "That content appears to be coming from some kind of arrogance, condescension and intolerance that puts me down and makes me feel small". "This content comes from a place of compassion for me, empathy with me and support for my endeavors".
  • Limitations of the content: "That content presumes to tell the whole story, leaves nothing out and expects me to passively swallow it hook, line and sinker". "This content mentions its limitations and gives me a sense of what's missing, debatable and yet to be resolved".
  • Strategy of the content: "That content stirs up my objections by seeming straightforward while manipulating my emotions, motivations and allegiances". "This content indirectly invites me to join it's outlook, share its intentions and value it's agenda".
  • Tradeoffs in the content: "That content goes to one extreme, presents a one-sided viewpoint and dismisses any other considerations". "This content reveals tradeoffs in reaching its conclusion, explores what else needs to be kept in balance with it and values a diversity of viewpoints to be truly effective".
  • Subjectivity in the content: "That content comes across like propagandistic brainwashing to get me to drink the Kool Aid without question". "This content reveals the presenter's personal bias and seems both transparent and trustworthy while respecting me to make up my own mind about it".
When conversations between learners take on this level of sophistication, PLE 2.0's will be safeguarded against harm from content. Learning will be kept "up and running" by vetting the content with criteria like these. Something that is offered as informative, accurate or expert will be challenged for the potential disruption it could induce in self-directed learning. The Do-It-Together conversations will nurture the DIY learning.

No comments:

Post a Comment