Ruminating on Objectives, Writing and Dangerous Things

I recently went through the ugh experience of tearing my rotator cuff (nb: do not recommend). As a result, I had to spend some time with an orthopedist and a physiotherapist. And I ended up speaking to a nutritionist too. I promise, this is not a long complaint about my woes! I just noticed specific elements in these interactions that made me reflect on my practice as an ID.?

The orthopedist examined me at the peak of my problem, when I couldn't move my arm at all. He got a history of my clumsiness, and concluded by asking if my grip was affected. But somewhere in the middle, he did also ask me to perform some actions for other diagnostic information he wanted. I figured that maybe grip was trivial compared to mobility, so?that's why it was enough to just ask? (I'm still not sure.)

Then I met the physiotherapist a couple of weeks later. She told me to correct my admittedly awful posture. I sighed and lurched upright and looked at her expectantly. She asked if my shoulders were even after that adjustment. I kind of squinted down at myself and said yes. -She snorted delicately at that display of optimism. She got up and moved me into the right position herself. Then she asked if my grip was alright. Well, deja vu.

I hesitated a bit more this time and thought to myself, but why ask me? She knows by now my physical judgments might well be crappy (as demonstrated in the shoulder business a second ago). Why not just tell me to grip something as a test so she could judge? Why ask for my read on whether it was normal? (By now I had mostly regained mobility so I could've done a test...)

And I thought, "Hmmm. Whoever trained her said 'check if the patient's grip is normal', but the trainer maybe didn't tag on 'by making the patient perform the <yadda yadda> test'". In real life terms, it made the enormous difference between her knowing something declaratively versus being a really good therapist in practice! If I were to recommend her to someone, I would likely tag on "she prescribes great exercises if you're sure you know what your problem is. Don't go for a diagnosis, though!"

And so I started thinking about learning objectives and performance conditions. But look here, what about for the self-driven learner??I keep learning stuff all the time and nobody's writing any objectives for me, let alone incomplete ones... what should I be on the look out for in how I interpret the purpose of the learning I'm doing??(A bit inelegantly phrased I know, but you know what I mean!)

And this is where the nutritionist comes in. (Don't ask, it was a jinxed time!) The nutritionist vaguely urged me to have more protein but looked at me blankly when I showed her my meal plan and asked her how to make a good substitution because she'd told me to also keep within a certain calorie cap. But I quit even trying to ask her for advice when at one point she told me to change my regimen because "abs don't look good in a sari". (Yeah, I'm still reeling from that one!). So I figured, fine, let me educate myself so I can make those judgments myself (i.e., the food choices, not the matching of muscle tone to attire).?

I'm always game to read science, but I noticed that a lot of science news that reported study findings were ghastly about setting perspective or acknowledging boundary conditions. For instance, you'd come across an article in one of our leading dailies that would report on how studies had reaffirmed that proteins fill you up and help in appetite regulation. That's fine and all good. But hello, how about bracketing that however you should still eat proteins within recommended amounts because too much can strain your kidneys? Or that supplements are not a substitute for basic good nutritional choices. -You see what I mean?

Writing which is framed poorly and incompletely makes for little pieces of knowledge - so little that they become the dangerous things that Pope warned us about (of the Alexander variety, not the Pope).

So now I'm sitting and thinking oh my gosh, apart from my dislike of indiscriminately making everything simple, and wariness of blind microlearning evangelism - what 'little pieces' are we making that a learner is bound to misuse or misinterpret for no fault of theirs? What sticks of dynamite are we cheerfully tossing out in the name of learning 'nuggets'??It's scary as hell considering the kind of content we all work with.

Framing may not be everything, but I'm increasingly convinced it's at least a huge part of good design and strong teaching.