Chris, interesting perspective. I guess I was thinking that when you’re ‘doing’, your output is richer than what can be auto marked (except perhaps in a simulation/scenario), so people need to be in the loop. I want assignments to produce artifacts and reflections, as I think that’s a more natural reflection of tasks *after* learning. I don’t mind peer review, tho’ that needs facilitation as well, I think. I agree that bad mentoring/coaching and conversations don’t help, so the quality matters. But I think even in formal skill-based (not necessarily role-based, though implicitly if you’re doing contextualized tasks you are doing a role), people in the loop is likely a necessity (at least as yet). Thanks as always for the thoughtful feedback.

I do lots of things — and learn while doing them — with no one around. Computers can make doing experiences even richer.

Replacing “doing” with “conversation” doesn’t help much. Computers can carry on conversations too, and poorly as they do that, there’s a lot to criticize in what people say in learning contexts as well.

I think people become essential when you replace “doing (a skill)” with “being (a role).” That’s when mentors, especially ones with credentials in a community of practice, and peers, with like-minded career goals, become critical.