Knowledge media face an awkward chasm between theories.
The old theory was naive transmissionism: "I'll convey this knowledge by telling you about it." That's effectively books' learning model.
But we know that model's wrong: learning is an active process of assimilation.
Conversation
Books (and videos and lectures) sometimes work anyway, but because the learner's doing the heavy lifting—making connections, posing & answering questions, etc
In apprenticeships and great classrooms, the new theory (constructivism) operates: teachers foster active assimilation.
2
3
49
But what's the equivalent of a "book" which was composed using an effective theory of how its reader will learn? We don't know.
It's a rock and a hard place: we know the old theory's wrong; we don't know how to make media which operate under our new theories.
Exciting times.
19
11
80
Is that a future for AR/VR? Ability to create any environment, interact, start/stop, and use data to gauge learning progress.
1
1
I don’t think the rendering modality is the high order bit. To believe that, I’d need a persuasive theory of why 2D dynamic platforms can‘t produce the media we desire, and I havent heard one.
I'm not a VR hype fanboi, but I think sticking to 2D really does limit our conception of how learning is a full-time sensor, playful, interactive experience. Agree that "rendering" as such isn't a high order bit; but it's hard to explore new interactive, engaging media in just 2D
1
2
The downside limitations of text and 2d presentation (and information architectures that assume linear flow) vary for different subjects, but almost universally, the inability to "jump" or "zoom" across references in a way that preserves context is very limiting.
1
2
Show replies