Some of your recommendations run counter to what studies in learning science have shown to be true - e.g. if you explore rather than tour, you are likely to overload working memory because you don't know exactly what to pay attention to. The correct prescription for most people would be to tour first, then explore.
More on this from the book Urban Myths About Learning and Education:
For novice learners discovery learning could never be the method, although it may be a goal. Effective educational methods should carefully and gradually help learners to move towards this goal. Van Merriënboer and Kirschner sum it up in their 2013 article as follows: First, such methods should help learners to gain some knowledge about the learning domain, because new relationships can only be discovered thanks to things you already know (what you know determines what you see, not the other way round). Second, such methods should help learners develop skills and cognitive strategies for systematically exploring and experimenting in the domain, using the rules of thumb that are useful in the domain. And third, such methods should provide support and guidance during the discovery process, and only decrease support and guidance as learners gain more expertise.
De Bruyckere, Pedro; Kirschner, Paul A.; Hulshof, Casper D.. Urban Myths about Learning and Education (pp. 51-52). Elsevier Science. Kindle Edition.
Thanks for sharing all of these insights and the underlying research! Will read further into it, as most was based on my own anecdotal experience (and through brainstorming with others)—certainly not grounded in hard peer-reviewed research. Perhaps some of it a fit for formally educated adults vs novice learners, as you suggest.
Who would have thought Hail Mary would make one think deeply about (and learn about) communication with someone/something without a common means to do so.
The Zettlekasten method is a perfect way to explore networked learning. It allows you to organize your thoughts and make all sorts of different connections. If you use a piece of software like Obsidian along with it you can literally see a graph of all your different thoughts and how they relate. I’ve just recently learned about it and it is definitely worth checking out.
The ideas you're outlining here might be under-represented, but they're not exactly new. This thinking is in line with the "constructivist" approach to learning.
Some folks to check out for elaboration on these ideas: John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, David Ausubel, and Seymour Papert.
For example, every teacher has learned about Jerome Bruner and "spiral curriculum" — a structure for teaching any subject to any child in a developmentally-appropriate way by relating it to prior knowledge and alternating between content and practice.
And they've built dozens of lessons using David Ausubel's "advanced organizers", a structured way of introducing new material that leaves space for students to explore and develop their own intuitions, but doesn't just toss them into the wilderness and hope for the best.
They've all been very influential.
Over the last 5-10 year, there's been a big trend towards more interdisciplinary learning in higher education.
My favorite way to learn is watching documentaries and online video lectures :)
Love it!
I think the best course out there is "The Mechanical Universe… And Beyond," from Caltech: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/pioneering-physics-show-mechanical-universe-now-youtube-53331
I believe that any child who watches this grows up to be a scientist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8_xPU5epJddRABXqJ5h5G0dk-XGtA5cZ
Some of your recommendations run counter to what studies in learning science have shown to be true - e.g. if you explore rather than tour, you are likely to overload working memory because you don't know exactly what to pay attention to. The correct prescription for most people would be to tour first, then explore.
More on this from the book Urban Myths About Learning and Education:
For novice learners discovery learning could never be the method, although it may be a goal. Effective educational methods should carefully and gradually help learners to move towards this goal. Van Merriënboer and Kirschner sum it up in their 2013 article as follows: First, such methods should help learners to gain some knowledge about the learning domain, because new relationships can only be discovered thanks to things you already know (what you know determines what you see, not the other way round). Second, such methods should help learners develop skills and cognitive strategies for systematically exploring and experimenting in the domain, using the rules of thumb that are useful in the domain. And third, such methods should provide support and guidance during the discovery process, and only decrease support and guidance as learners gain more expertise.
De Bruyckere, Pedro; Kirschner, Paul A.; Hulshof, Casper D.. Urban Myths about Learning and Education (pp. 51-52). Elsevier Science. Kindle Edition.
Thanks for sharing all of these insights and the underlying research! Will read further into it, as most was based on my own anecdotal experience (and through brainstorming with others)—certainly not grounded in hard peer-reviewed research. Perhaps some of it a fit for formally educated adults vs novice learners, as you suggest.
The topics you write about are so intriguing.. and your analysis is phenomenal! But the question is .. how fast could you throw the heater?
Ha! The important questions…i think fastball velocity is like fishing stories…
Who would have thought Hail Mary would make one think deeply about (and learn about) communication with someone/something without a common means to do so.
Such a brilliant book.
Highly recommend synthesis.is for kids aged 7-14!
I'm an investor, so I may be biased, but my soon-to-be newborn son will definitely be a Synthesis student in a few years!!
I’m also a biased investor whose soon to be newborn daughter will likely be in your son’s synthesis cohort!
Can’t wait!
The Zettlekasten method is a perfect way to explore networked learning. It allows you to organize your thoughts and make all sorts of different connections. If you use a piece of software like Obsidian along with it you can literally see a graph of all your different thoughts and how they relate. I’ve just recently learned about it and it is definitely worth checking out.
Is “learning new things” a hobby?
I enjoy sprinting up very steep learning curves as fast as I can:
#PowerBI
#SEO
These are two disciples that I’ve really worked to develop and learn over the past 3 years.
It has been very rewarding for a curious person like me.
www.tuttleventures.com
The ideas you're outlining here might be under-represented, but they're not exactly new. This thinking is in line with the "constructivist" approach to learning.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education)
Some folks to check out for elaboration on these ideas: John Dewey, Maria Montessori, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, David Ausubel, and Seymour Papert.
For example, every teacher has learned about Jerome Bruner and "spiral curriculum" — a structure for teaching any subject to any child in a developmentally-appropriate way by relating it to prior knowledge and alternating between content and practice.
And they've built dozens of lessons using David Ausubel's "advanced organizers", a structured way of introducing new material that leaves space for students to explore and develop their own intuitions, but doesn't just toss them into the wilderness and hope for the best.
They've all been very influential.
Over the last 5-10 year, there's been a big trend towards more interdisciplinary learning in higher education.
Some articles:
https://theconversation.com/why-the-interdisciplinary-push-in-universities-is-actually-a-dangerous-antidisciplinary-trend-175511
https://www.aldertkamp.nl/post/interdisciplinary-education-a-wave-of-the-future
The question is why haven't their ideas been translated into the classroom despite teachers being trained to use them?
There are folks who simply believe it doesn't work.
For example, see Kirschner's "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work" (2010) or E.D. Hirsch's "Why Knowledge Matters" (2016)
Kirschner paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Other folks say it hasn't really been tried, that the structure of the modern school system interferes with the approach in some way.