NOW
What I’m building, testing,
and trying to resolve now.
These are active pieces of work, systems, methods, and instruments that are still being developed. Some are already concrete enough to share.
ADAPTIVE LEARNING
Building a learning system that changes with the learner.
I am working on an adaptive learning platform in which the learning path is not fixed in advance for every learner.
The work explores how learner evidence can shape what happens next, the path, the level of support, and the learning experience itself.
The difficult question is not whether learning can adapt, but what should adapt, on what evidence, and how far adaptation can go without losing the coherence of the learning experience.
AI-NATIVE ASSESSMENT
What counts as credible evidence of learning when producing the answer is no longer enough?
I am developing an assessment architecture built around a different assumption: the final output alone is no longer sufficient evidence of learner capability.
The system distributes evidence across the learning journey, looking at application, judgement, process, iteration, and justification rather than relying primarily on a terminal assessment.
AI makes this problem more urgent, but it is not the whole problem. The deeper question is how we build credible evidence of what a learner can actually do.
AFTERHOLD DIAGNOSTIC
Where does learning stop turning into judgment and practice?
I am developing a diagnostic method for a familiar gap: learning has happened, the person can explain it, and yet their judgment and practice do not change.
Instead of prescribing another intervention, the method tests seven rival explanations against the evidence in a case: initial learning, performance capability, contextual transfer, context and system conditions, applied judgment, motivation, and execution.
Every working diagnosis is recorded with its strongest rival and with the observation that would separate the two. When the evidence cannot separate them, the honest answer is Unresolved.
The discipline is simple to state and hard to keep: diagnosis before intervention.
DESIGNING FROM THE INTERVAL
What changes in instructional design when evidence of formation may appear only after instruction ends?
I am developing an instructional design method derived from Afterhold.
It begins with a different boundary for design: the designer can create conditions, friction, choices, and consequences, but cannot design transformation itself.
The method therefore distinguishes between what should simply pass, what is intended to remain operative, where meaningful friction belongs, and what must remain outside the designer’s control.
The aim is not to design the learner’s transformation, but to design responsibly around the possibility of it.
THE POST-COMPLETION TEST
Did the experience merely pass, or did it become operative?
I am developing a diagnostic instrument for distinguishing passage from formation.
Instead of measuring what someone remembers or can demonstrate at the end of an intervention, the instrument moves observation beyond closure.
It follows a defined element of the intervention into a later situation and asks whether it returns as an operative capacity, shaping how the person defines the problem, sees alternatives, judges, or chooses.
The instrument does not evaluate the quality of the intervention, satisfaction, comprehension, or compliance. Those require different measures.
The question is deliberately narrow: did what happened become capable of working somewhere new?