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
Books work because "heavy lifting" happens even on the most basic level of reading/listening (see Surfing Uncertainty). I think there are countless, domain-dependent ways to enhance learning, constructivism is sometimes useful, sometimes limiting.
1
1
Replying to
You're right: I oversimplified. Lots of relevant "new theories." For me, the key idea is recognizing that the default path for our media operate on known-ineffective theory. The important thing is to *ask the question*—to actually have an operative theory. Which theory? Depends.
Replying to
I've tried to come up with a coherent and useful map of instructional theories but still feel like the best we can do is pattern match the learning experience. But certainly worth highlighting patterns that effectively break the mold, like your work.
2