Conversation

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.
5
21
89
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
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