If brain specialization precludes generic instructional design…

Last week, I was talking about abstract implications of brain specialization for online instruction. Some on my specialized brain parts demanded concretization. Concretization takes longer than abstraction, but here it is:

Abstract speculation number 1. The specialization of brains precludes any form of generic instructional design.

Concrete example: Learning any computer language after the first. This probably applies to other forms of adult learning. Any kind of learning specializes the brain for certain kinds of transfer to new learning tasks. Different backgrounds produce different specialization.

If the specialization precludes generic instructional design, what do you do? I think Second Life provides an excellent example. A number of people are members of SL because they want to learn how to program in a virtual environment. (That is probably a subgoal learning to something like earning money, but the supergoal is not relevant to this discussion.) Instead of any specific instructional design, SL provides opportunities for self-directed learning. Cafeteria-style instruction:

Sims illustrating the procedures to produce results of common interest.
Objects containing scripts open to step by step modification.
A wiki with details of how to use the elements of the language.
An environment (WYSIWYG) in which the learner can easily see the object as it is created or the effect of the script as it is changed.
Topic-related classes that people can attend at their choosing if they believe (or find) that they can benefit from live demonstration and answers to questions.
Videos showing procedures of common interest.
Forums where people can post requests for help and get voluntary responses from people who have more experience on the relevant topic.

Second Life: http://secondlife.com/

In this environment, the learner can chose objectives and instructional methods that best fit the learner’s previous experience. The learner gets prompt feedback as to whether the choices are working. If not, other choices are available. There is no penalty for a “wrong” choice. Indeed, there is no definition for “wrong choice.”

To quote the Thinkerer: http://www.thinkerer.org/HeadView/HeadBounce.htm
“Whatever doesn’t work is a trial run.”
“The difference between a trial run and a failure lies in what you get out of it.”

So if specialization precludes generic instructional design, the situation is not a disaster. Except, perhaps, to instructional designers. A reasonable response is self-directed learning. Of course that is a kind of instructional design. Maybe even generic. But of a different genus.

When is self-directed learning indicated? My speculations: Adult and quasi-adult education. (A quasi-adult is an adolescent who will act like an adult under some circumstances.) There are two reasons for this:

Experience increases specialization.

Learning experience develops the skills needed for self-directed learning. Or at least it may do so. That might depend on the characteristics and objectives of the previous learning experiences.

There is a second criterion: Self-directed learning requires prompt and objective measures of performance. That’s why it works well in learning computer languages. But if this requirement is presently not met for some instructional objective, perhaps there is a role for instructional design. Especially in the context of online learning.

These considerations suggest two implications for online instruction:
1. Design to guide toward self-directed learning.
2. Design for cafeteria-style instruction.