Real Learning in the Age of AI — Part 5

Over the last four blogs in this series, we have examined how AI is reshaping the educational landscape: the abundance of online offers, the disappearance of identifiable educators, the inflation of accreditation badges, and the rise of synthetic content that mimics expertise without embodying it.

If these blogs have made anything clear, it is this: navigating the AI-saturated learning market requires intentionality, scrutiny, and care.

But while critical assessment is essential, it does not need to be overwhelming.
In fact, with the right questions, a thoughtful evaluation can happen in under 15 minutes.

This final blog in our Real Learning in the Age of AI series offers a practical due diligence toolkit — a structured approach to assessing any online course before you invest your time, money, and trust.

It applies equally to leadership training, safeguarding courses, gender and DEI programmes, trauma-informed workshops, holistic therapy offers, governance modules, and everything in between.

The aim is simple: empower learners to make informed decisions in a market dominated by aesthetics, speed, and algorithmic production.

🌱 Why a Due Diligence Toolkit Matters

Education is not a neutral commodity. It shapes the knowledge, decisions, behaviours, and ethics of individuals and institutions. When training is shallow, decontextualised, or misinformed, the consequences extend far beyond individual disappointment. Harm can occur when:

• safeguarding frameworks misclassify or minimise harm
• trauma content is mishandled or unsafe
• leadership courses promote extractive or authoritarian practices
• DEI programmes lack structural analysis
• governance courses flatten questions of power and accountability
• holistic therapy trainings legitimise practice without competence

The underlying issue is not the rise of online learning itself — but the weakening of accountability structures.

AI has widened the gap between appearance and substance.

This toolkit is designed to close that gap.

🧭 Your 15-Minute Due Diligence Toolkit

This quick but rigorous process can be applied to any course, whether marketed by a major institution, a small consultancy, an independent educator, or an AI-driven platform.

Step 1: The Website Check (3–4 Minutes)

Is this a real learning provider, or just a polished interface?

1. Are facilitators clearly named?

If there are no identifiable educators, this is an immediate red flag.

2. Do bios include verifiable experience?

Look for genuine indicators:

• publications
• past roles
• recognisable institutions
• fieldwork or practice
• documented contributions

Avoid courses where bios are vague or generic (“international expert,” “renowned practitioner”).

3. Is the learning methodology explained?

High-quality courses articulate:

• epistemology
• teaching approach
• conceptual foundations
• how learning happens

If you only see “outcomes” and no methodology, proceed with caution.

4. Is there an organisational identity?

A real learning provider has:

• an “About” page
• a legal name
• a clear location
• identifiable staff

Absence of these elements often signals an AI-generated institute.

5. Are there ethical or safeguarding policies?

In justice-oriented fields, the absence of:

• safeguarding
• complaints mechanisms
• confidentiality policies
• data protection practices

indicates weak governance.

Step 2: The Social Media Scan (5 Minutes)

Does this provider exist in real time, with real people?

1. When were their accounts created?

If all accounts appeared within a few weeks, this may indicate a pop-up AI-driven provider.

2. How frequent and varied are the posts?

Look for:

• events
• workshops
• behind-the-scenes content
• reflections
• collaborations
• discussions

If the entire history is:

• motivational quotes
• AI graphics
• sales pitches
• abstract content with no humans

then the “provider” may be a branding operation, not an educational one.

3. Are the visuals synthetic?

AI-generated personas, stock photos, and identical visual templates suggest absence of real facilitators.

4. Are there comments from identifiable people?

Genuine engagement is a reliable indicator of community trust.

Step 3: Accreditations and Claims (3–4 Minutes)

Accreditation can be meaningful — but only if you know what you’re looking at.

1. What kind of accreditation is this?

Not all accreditation is equal. It may certify:

• organisational systems
• the learning platform
• participation only
• pedagogical design
• content coherence

Learners must understand which of these applies.

2. Can the accrediting body be verified?

Check:

• its official website
• listed accredited programmes
• review processes
• organisational history

3. Does the provider misuse logos?

Common red flags include:

• displaying logos of unrelated organisations
• showing badges of networks that do not accredit
• using design elements that mimic official seals

4. Do testimonials feel grounded?

Look for:

• specific learning insights
• identifiable contexts
• examples of real application

Generic “This course was transformative!” testimonials can be AI-generated.

Step 4: AI and Ethics Check (2–3 Minutes)

How does the provider talk about AI — and do they talk about it at all?

1. Is AI usage transparent?

Responsible providers explicitly state:

• what AI is used for
• what human oversight looks like
• what methodology guides integration

2. Does the course critically engage with AI?

Especially in governance, DEI, safeguarding, and trauma fields, ethical awareness is non-negotiable.

3. Does the course critically engage with power?

Synthetic content avoids topics like:

• colonial legacies
• patriarchal structures
• racialised or classed inequalities
• organisational politics

Absence of these lenses is a warning sign.

🧩 How to Make a Final Decision

After completing the 15-minute audit, ask:

1. Do I trust the people behind this course?

Are they real, identifiable, and accountable?

2. Does the content feel grounded in practice and lived realities?

Or does it feel generic and interchangeable?

3. Does the provider demonstrate care for learners?

Look for:

• ethics
• safeguarding
• transparency
• clear communication

4. Does this course align with my values and context?

Contextualisation is essential — especially in justice-oriented fields.

5. Would I recommend this course to someone vulnerable or new to this field?

If not, do not take it.

🌍 At the Centre for Transnational Development and Collaboration

This series is grounded in CTDC’s commitment to shaping educational ecosystems that are:

• ethically grounded
• structurally aware
• human-led
• contextually rooted
• accountable
• pedagogically rigorous
• transparent in their use of AI

As we prepare to launch CTDC Academy and our upcoming practice camps, we invite learners to apply this due diligence toolkit to our work as well. Accountability must be mutual.

In a learning landscape saturated with content, badges, and promises, we believe that real education requires depth, care, and integrity — and that learners deserve nothing less.

📩 Contact us to explore CTDC Academy, learn more about our practice camps, or discuss how your organisation can strengthen its learning systems in the age of AI.