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
I'm not sure that "book" is the right thing to point at, but rather: "math text" (w lemmas, exercises etc), or "philosophical dialogue" or "multicharacter narrative arc" etc
1
5
Replying to
That's interesting! What do theory of learning do you think the author of, say, a philosophical dialogue has in mind?
Replying to
Often there is a stand-in for the reader's questions—except this character is made to be wittier than the reader could be. So constructivism + how to win friends and influence people. Also something about reasonableness / reflective equilibrium
1