Cognitive science and learning theory vs. my text books

Pondered on Wednesday June 6, 2007

A short time ago I worked with a guy who could talk about “cognitive science” and “learning theory” all the live long day. Luckily I liked this guy (I still like ya Dave). Dave and I worked in a little university department that supported online eduction.

Now as much as I wanted to care about applying these ideas I was far more interested in creating better online experiences, how sites get noticed and how to create demand for a product. Dave would loose me halfway into the conversation. Then I began taking online courses. I started to care about the interaction in a discussion forum and the absolute inconvenience of an online textbook.

Luckily my most recent online course did not require the purchase of an online textbook. I had already forked money over for a printed version on Amazon but I was glad to know that I would not be paying for an ebook by default. So one issue was solved but another issue kept rearing its ugly head. Text books can be, well, “textbooky”. What I mean is that they are dry and no matter how much you want to learn the content it can be a struggle to grasp concepts while dragging through the academic speak.

In a desperate move to grasp an object-oriented concept while taking a Java course I picked up a funny looking book from O’Reilly called “Head First Java”. It was full of grade school looking graphics and lots of stock photos from the 50’s showing Ward and June Cleaver types eating up OOP concepts. It was ridiculous looking. Magically it made sense. This wasn’t an accident.

Out of curiosity I read bits of the introduction to “Head First Object-Oriented Analysis and Design” in Borders the other night. I started to see a little image of Dave floating over my head when I read “we tell stories using casual language” and “we make it visual”. Hmmm do I hear “images in instruction” and “longitudinal case studies”? In one section the folks at Head First Labs explain how unless your brain believes something is important it won’t engage. I can attest to this because on a weekly basis I have to argue with my brain to comply and read.

Me: “OK lets try that again. That made no sense.”
My brain: “Don’t you want a snack? We could perish this is taking so long.”
Me: “No, no damn snack. Read it again dammit.”
My brain: “OK if you say so.”
Me reading: For each of the objects, the name of the class…
My brain: “What about a graham cracker? I think for sure if I had a graham cracker I would care about this diagramming blah blah.”
Me: “OK. What about later we go to the bookstore and look at that fun book?”
My brain: “Deal. I like the cartoons and how I feel like I am chatting with someone.”

OK thats a little goofy (and it may look like I suffer from split personality) but I truly believe that the writers at Head First Labs “get it”. People who create instruction could learn a lot from the form and function applied in the Head First series no matter what subject is taught.

What were they thinking?

danr
thought on Thursday June 7, 2007

My brain always wants a cookie.

Add your thoughts