Reflections on my own Learning

In the past few weeks, I've been on a steep learning curve for Flash & AS3. I've modified and reused a couple of games, and took days to figure out the main interface; still have to figure out how all these components communicate with each other. All the while still on track towards Java certification.

Coming up for air recently, I had a few observations.

• The learning process is non-linear. Yes, maybe it would have been more efficient to pick up ONE book and go through it step-by-step. Yes, perhaps I should have learned Flash before diving into ActionScript 3 -- but I didn't. For whatever reason, I choose to start with AS3 (because I knew some Java and wanted to do something cool and didn't want to mess with animation techniques) and then went back and learned Flash. Learning Flash then felt relevant and it went very fast.
• Learning is ad hoc. This goes with the non-linear. Ad hoc is often used to mean improvised and impromptu. However, I like the alternate dictionary definition: "concerned or dealing with a specific subject, purpose, or end." I learn what I need when I need it, and by googling specific phrases, searching through my books, or trying it multiple ways until it works -- somehow I find the answer -- or decide to do something different.
• Learning is appreciative & problem-based. I learn when I'm trying to solve a particular problem. Problem: How do I get this thing to work right? Appreciative Inquiry: How do I do it better? Is this the best mechanic to use?
• Learning needs multiple examples. This to me is *the* most important point. By using multiple examples, multiple analogies, multiple tools can I formulate a solution. I learn primarily by example then an understanding why those examples work. Through examples I can create my own models and my own theories on particular subjects. Through the use of salient examples (bringing out key points), I can improve my ability to learn quicker.
  

Providing multiple salient examples allows learners to understand what is important and allows learners to create their own mental models. Then perhaps, in contrasting those models with an experts point-of-view we learn more. We have to engage with the material, provide elaborations and understandings that are relevant to us.

How does one create the design of learning space to reflect this?

It's a conflict, no? We're suppose to teach a specific thing, a specific model. Everyone must have the same picture in their heads (industrial view of learning). How do we accommodate their background, their experience as adults? Experiences that often ameliorate understandings of what is taught? Perhaps what we need to teach is creating a common language around a set of experiences from which we build our models. Then use theories and expert models to push the boundaries of the problem space, to imagine something different.

Here's the rub -- it takes time to learn in this way -- more time than is usually allotted. I'm learning by doing, learning by example, and learning deeply. And it's slow going. But in this case, I'm not just learning, I'm changing how I think of myself in relation to my work. Reconfiguring those brain cells is hard work. Not quite there yet -- wish me speed so I can make my self-imposed deadline of graduating in May 2009.

Learning Design (Training Design? eTech Design?)

Recently while catching up on my blogreader, I came across Tony Karrer's post on Training Design: eLearning Technology writing about how his training design has been changing over the years. It got me thinking about this Masters project and how I have been trying to come up with a instructional design process that made sense to me. Design to me is like a tag cloud, intially more of an intuitive process that gets refined over time.

Maybe you start with learners, topic, technology (the design challenge) and each of those words has metadata assoicated with it: tags. These tags bring up other concepts/words -- yes just like using del.ic.io.us. From this it is a winnowing/refining process... anyways...i was quite fuzzy in my post on his blog (actually am still fuzzy.) As you move through the metadata you make a path, a schema. From there emerges your personal design process -- maybe you can abstract into a model at this point. I've since refined my thinking a little and came up with this picture -- that currently makes sense to me. See below:


All I'm really trying to communicate is that perhaps we think too linearly about a process that is essentially non-linear -- given all the new web 2.0 technologies that are out there -- we scan, skim, and pop! through data, and sometimes we dive. Are our design processes any different?