The way we learn and how brain chemistry works to consume and digest information still remains a mystery (granted with fMRIs we are able to see brain activation in different areas of the brain however to really pinpoint the how in learning is still at least a decade away)
From personal observations individuals have their custom way of learning. There are a few learning styles that have been proposed. One theory would dictate that we are broadly classified into 3 categories of learners based on our perceived sensory strength: visual, auditory, Kinesthetic (VAK model). How we interact with the world and both the sensory hardware + computation hardware that was gifted to us in our genome would guide us to prefer using sight, sound or touch as the primary means of assimilating information. (Olfactory and taste are equally important but for now I think the human vocabulary for both are too limited unless your occupation is a sommelier or chef)
So far, the concept of pedagogy is a very top down approach that focuses on one product offering — A syllabus. The delivery method by the pedagogue may vary (some interesting while most are coma inducing). However, in general the overarching direction is still very linear. Our brain on the other hand is an ADHD child that likes to jump from one concept to the next with whatever fleeting topic that catches its fancy.
There is an additional theory that I would like to propose in terms of how we learn. I would like to term it the bandgap of learning (I am plagiarizing the bandgap theory from quantum mechanics and using it on human learning). Let me explain (blatantly copying some stuff from Wikipedia):
In solid-state physics, a band gap, also called an energy gap or bandgap, is an energy range in a solid where no electron states can exist
Similarly in learning, I view it as an either or state. If we were to substitute energy gap with knowledge gap, do you not feel that sometimes you may be able to read and comprehend the words of a concept but not the concept itself?
If there is insufficient activation knowledge to push it to the understood state, the individual will resume the last band of knowledge. Only until there is sufficient activation knowledge does the individual learn the concept thoroughly. To illustrate with a simple example:
Abstract concepts such as algebra cannot be learned through simple repetition. You must try, fail through the failure obtain a new piece of information about the subject matter and that pushes the activation knowledge higher until you reach the next knowledge band (I kinda wished my animation skills would be better so I could illustrate this through a gif)
After a really long winded explanation of how learning should be, clearly there needs to be a proposal that can make learning better. The concept I have in mind is to have learning broken into ingredients. (I draw inspiration from the kitchen now). This would differ from micro learning and mini nuggets of videos that is now floating the internet like poop that does not flush. What I have in mind is even more granular. To have extremely mini bite size pieces of information that can be pieced together to form different concepts. For those familiar with cooking or the game alchemy the concept is similar. Take ingredients and match them together to create new ingredients. Over time, with enough patience (and documentation) the wealth of knowledge will be better understood.
I would like to suggest looking at wikiweb as well. That is really the concept I would like to drive towards but with much smaller bite sized pieces. How small is small? I think I would like to limit things to 2 sentences (sounds ridiculous but I think most of us have an attention span of 6 seconds). I.e if I were to learn differential calculus:
- Alphabet
- Notations (what x and y stand for)
- What happens (picture explains a thousand words. Animated pictures 1000 X 1000)
Let me know what you think of this. And this set of ideas transpired while brainstorming with friends in New York for a new learning initiative that will be rolled out.
