The old blog has been silent lately. It is because I am stuck – driven to distraction, so to speak. Looking back at recent blog posts, I see that I am clearly trying to crack a shared code within seemingly separate and distinct learning and instructional theories. After reading and hearing my ramblings about dynamic, personalized, coproduced, blah, blah, blah learning and instruction, a few people have raised the possibility that these learning and instructional approaches will only work for motivated self-starters – you know, the traditional "early adopters". If so, then the learner's disposition and level of motivation determine whether a less structured and more learner driven instructional model will "work"? Are these factors really part of the code?
I tend to gravitate toward the self-starter / early adopter end of the spectrum myself. The "instruction" that works best for my own learning involves: 1) discovering (on my own or with the help of others) tools and resources, 2) getting time to try, break / fix stuff on my own (a sandbox) and 3) receiving a nudge from those who have been there / done that when I get stuck. However, does this approach only work for the self-starters / early adopters who are already highly motivated to give it a go? Also, if learning or performance improvement occurs, is it due to anything you would typically consider to be "instruction"?
technorati tags:learning, instructional design