The professional instructional design community, which should be at the forefront of learning innovation, often falls into the familiar “teach to the objective” approach. Reducing training to linear chunks of information laced with knowledge checks and bound by pre- and post-assessments, they hope students eventually will “get it.”
Recently, many organizations have jumped onto the technology and gamification bandwagon, adding badges, gifting, virtual goods, whiz-bang graphics, and leader boards to spruce training up. The good news, for the most part, is that these techniques have improved completion rates. The overall result, however, is still the same: Learners may know a bit more, but they are not capable of doing more. Applying new technologies or the latest gimmick without applying new design strategies is like applying lipstick to a pig. It’s cute, but you still don’t want to kiss it.
Frankly, as trainers, my colleagues and I found ourselves falling into this same alluring trap. We built the first technology-enabled, Web-based simulation platform optimized for developing how-to-think workers, yet we struggled with falling back on habits and using traditional approaches to design simulations that were still creating what-to-think workers. We received rave feedback from participants—after all, who doesn’t love a good video game?—but, in fact, this approach was too shallow. In the end, we realized we needed to significantly shift our mental model regarding the purpose of training.
Here’s what we came up with: An educational program should force students to stop and think, re-evaluate their mental models, and reach their own insights into how to modify their personal thinking or behavior.
This seems obvious, but it is surprising how few programs really challenge people to stop and think. Even fewer programs ever get people to evaluate their mental models and refine them. As educators, we often get too caught up in trying to convey the right information to “address” learning objectives. In other words, educators tend to be course centric instead of brain centric. Linear design methodologies such as ADDIE or the hundreds of variations on it are good for designing courses, but they’re not good at creating experiences that are conducive to how the brain rewires around old habits. Tying this to the forgetting curve, first presented by Hermann Ebbinghaus, information retention after going through a traditional course sharply drops from 100 percent to 40 percent just after a few days and continues to decrease over time. Though objectives may have been met (knowledge acquired), participants don’t surface flaws in their own thinking and replace them with new ways of thinking. In other words, little if any behavior is improved and the organization loses an opportunity to make a difference.
What is needed is a completely new design methodology that places students in the middle of evolving situations and allows them to work outward in spirals that reflect how we learn best—by generating our own insights as a result of trial and error. This spiral approach of moving between real-world situations and foundational learning is critical to engaging the learner as he or she moves between states of clarity to valleys of uncertainty. It is this process that allows participants to recognize limiting beliefs and rewrite flawed mental models.
The Neural Coding System design framework consists of four cognitive conditions that create an optimal learning environment. It is not a step-by-step methodology or series of discrete events. Rather, it is an interconnected system of mental conditions that are created through the artful implementation of various design principles. Here are the four mental conditions:
- Optimal Tension: Just as Socrates felt it was necessary to create “a tension in the mind so individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths,” learning should cause an internal tension that evokes a desire to learn. Emotion affects everything we learn. Adults learn most and best when they feel a passion for learning and the learning process. Without that emotional engagement, new lessons fade from memory quickly. So, to ensure lessons become ingrained and eventually transferred to the job, trainers must create strong emotions to contextual relevant situations.
- Engage Mental Models: Mental models are the lenses through which people see the world and everything in it. They bring meaning to an event, fill in gaps when information is missing, and influence how individuals feel and react to others. Mental models represent how workers see themselves, other people, and the organization. A flawed mental model leads to misunderstandings, incorrect assumptions, and, often, poor decisions. Most of the time these mental models exist at the sub-conscious level so we’re not aware of the effects they have on behavior and thinking. Therefore, changing behavior requires awareness of the flaw or gap. Trainers must create situations that evoke slight levels of cognitive dissonance.
- Activate Core Abilities: When information is nicely packaged and presented in a structured manner, learners may not challenge it. As Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize recipient, explained, we spend most of our life in System 1 thinking. System 1 is gullible and biased to believe, so it prefers when information is nicely packaged. On the other hand, System 2 is skeptical and unbelieving, but unfortunately it is also lazy. So, to kick System 2 into gear, trainers must set up a situation that gives learners a reason to question.
- Surface Limiting Beliefs: An individual’s ability to make quality decisions and solve problems is directly proportional to his or her ability to suspend judgment. If we look for the root cause of failed efforts or unproductive meetings, it often is tied to the biases or fears of those involved. So, to improve quality of thought and relationships, trainers must design activities that allow individuals to surface beliefs that could be rendering them less effective.
These cognitive conditions are critical to engaging employees as they evaluate their mental models and seek to resolve gaps. Through trial and error and reflective dialogue, this approach allows them to work toward that sudden moment of convergence. It is only through self-generated insights that behavior changes.
The quality of the design can be assessed by how well it exposes flawed models and provides individuals with the opportunity to improve them. In other words, real learning = changed mental model.
Excerpt from “The Thinking Effect: Rethinking Thinking to Create Great Leaders and the New Value Worker” by Michael Vaughan (Nicholas Brealey Publishing, October 2013).
Michael Vaughan is the CEO and Managing Director of The Regis Company, whose leadership programs are designed to fundamentally change the way leaders think. Vaughan is a leading authority on serious games and business simulations and holds degrees in cognitive science and computer science from Colorado State University. For more information, visit www.thethinkingeffect.com
and http://www.regiscompany.com.
