Maria ...
The JRR Tolkien piece on the 'degrees of freedom'/ agency in applications (high) and allegories (tends to zero) is very instructive. And from the footprints that we and many others have created so far, and taken into a range of conversations, its clear that learners have a keen, instinctual feel for pedagogy (or heutagogy - if you must), and a keen, instinctual aversion to the abstractions of pedagogical discourse.
In the Nested Narratives project (which overlaps with footprints to some extent - see the link to the BJELT paper, here, for details) we got students to engage in complex layers of reflective practice (using prompted narratives), which they loved, but only because they learnt reflective practice by doing, not by instruction. All we told them was that we wanted them to tell us stories about something they had learnt which was important to them - no mention of pedagogy, and we deliberately did not mention 'reflection', as they had told us they would tell us stories only on condition that it would involve no reflection, and no critical thinking - both of which they found deadly boring.
So ... why are we constructing a footprints tool that is immersed in abstract pedagogical discourse? - a good question. (Best answer I have, and its a poor one, is that we started off this developmental process as researchers, exploring the wonders of pedagogical, psychological, neurological, ecological, sociological, etc discourses - particularly me - I love the stuff!).
However ... tools of 'mapping and consent' (involving real choice) must ensure that there are some clear entry points into 'doing' footprints that are unencumbered by the requirement to first learn pedagogical abstraction - alongside entry points for the specialists who want to engage through (and with) pedagogical abstraction too, no?
Barb - if you are folllowing this thread, this might resonate with the concerns you raised about course designers who demand that participants 'learn (the technical, software skills) by doing' alongside learning the content and conceptual tools of the course itself. Food for thought.
