Why is simple instructional learning not always effective?
Simple instructional learning assumes you do not want individuals to change the parameters of the problem they are fixing or the process they are learning about. Typically this type of learning is focused on avoiding errors and ‘doing things correctly’ versus exploring deeper issues of approach, process and agile thinking. Such learning often considers the causes and effects of errors or problems arising in a process, but does not typically tackle them in any depth or challenge the broader method or process.
Why should you encourage learners to think more deeply about their own assumptions and beliefs?
Creating opportunities to challenge assumptions, the decisions made and providing feedback contributes to changes in mental models!
In truth, people have theories that they use to plan and carry out their actions. These mental models influence how they respond to everything from a simple task to a complex business decision or organisational challenge.
Examples include:
‘To get best performance from a machine you need to ensure the maintenance schedule is adhered to’
‘To improve marketing impact you need to invest in creative advertising’
‘To get the best employees, you must ensure rewards are at least in line with labour market best offers’
Sometimes these models are incorrect or dated. More challenging is that we all carry such models and theories, and yet many of us are unaware and certainly wouldn’t consider the influence they have on our everyday work behaviours and practices. You could say these are ‘private assumptions that are not genuinely self-corrective.’, and that ‘we are prisoners of our own theories’.
These concepts were created by Chris Argyris, a leading organisational trainer. He promotes the concept that creating a feedback loop in the learning process better enables learners to explore their own belief sets, and actually change mental models. This type of learning is called ‘Double-loop learning’ and is an educational concept and process that involves teaching people to think more deeply about their own assumptions and beliefs.
Double-loop learning is not about the process or method you use to complete a task, it’s more about the objectives themselves. It is about thinking about a challenge or task from different angles and existing rules are challenged or questioned. The focus is on a better result, not on simply complying with a specific set of steps to completion.
Double-loop learning allows you explore and adopt ways of ‘doing’ that actually work in different circumstances and scenario’s! The concept encourages learners to think more deeply about their assumptions and beliefs.
What should be the impact of learning design?
- Making learners active participants in their own learning is essential. Learners should not be a passive recipients of knowledge. Instead, you want an engaged learner who is thinking and questioning all the time.
- Learning should incorporate interactive and engaging elements.
- Learning should offer opportunities to work with others
- Learning tools should enable and even encourage innovative and different thinking!
How can this be applied?
The challenges of implementing this form of learning lies in the practicalities of delivery. Thee challenges and reasons for poor adoption are wide ranging and include an ageing tutor workforce, institutional culture, lack of time and resources as well as conservative approach to syllabus obligations and learning.
From a culture and capacity perspective, it is understandable that there is an ongoing battle between what is best for the students, and what is practical to deploy, vs what do we need to do to optimise pass rates in traditional awarding. The result is inevitably mixed with dissatisfaction in the industry for quality and preparedness of students, and mixed satisfaction from students with traditional qualification assessments and broader learning experience.
Research undertaken by SkillsPlay with 20 tutors identified a range of barriers including:
1. Tutor capacity for adoption
- Attitude to new / non-traditional teaching methods
- Perception of cost in time to learn new methods
- Time for practicals versus syllabus coverage
2. Learning institute capacity for adoption
- Cost of solutions (known or anticipated)
- Access to budget
- Ability / preparedness to support new technology
- Institutional positioning on game-based learning
- Historical success/ failure of previous investments
3. Positioning and influence of awarding bodies
Perhaps surprising, but a major constraint identified by the Tutors interviewed was the attitude of awarding bodies. As the organisatons responsible for qualifications and certification assurance, they are perceived to be innately conservative and to commit to a narrow governable syllabus support and assessment solutions. Replacing traditional assessment methods is challenging to delivery infrastructure, human capacity, processes and culture in awarding. Worse in real terms many harbour technical debt (legacy and dated systems), and are simply not capable of dealing with the adoption of live data from new solutions without major investment and transformation.
Feedback suggests that due to environmental circumstances, they are investing in VR. However, the technology has an abundance of practical constraints and has been seen to be used in a limited way in industry for skills development, let alone in a bustling classroom.
The solution to practical use of double-loop learning
Game-based learning has failed to meet the mark due to the inherent lack of consistency in game quality, user experience and unknown costs in production. Both technologies have traditionally suffered from the need to use costly studios to develop a good quality product. Contemporary research has shown VR to be even more demanding on educator time for specification and testing due to the innate complexity.
In direct contrast Kahoot, a simple interactive quiz platform has established a billion-dollar valuation and presence in 75% of western hemisphere schools in less than 10 years. The key….teachers can create their own quiz content using high-quality templates. The cost to use the platform is low and not a barrier. Simple.
BrightGame does the same for situational and deep-learning games. The platform offers ownership to tutors to edit, re-edit and share games with their cohort for solo and multiplay. Games can be created by tutors and industry collaborating (or even students) using the built-in 8 step game creator, choosing templates that suit their learning goals and desired player experience.
In BrightGames, tutors create scenarios and challenge students to think differently and create different strategies and tactics in response to these. The system works on the theory of constraints with limitations in time, money, resources and people at play. Further tutors can reward ‘different thinking’ and creative responses using wildcard actions and action clusters (groups of actions) that provide specific results (both rewards or negative results). Beyond supporting best practice, there are a range of tools in BrightGame that tutors can use to balance simple single-loop syllabus learning requirements with actual practical thinking and creative practice insights from the real-world. game actions and even character cards can be linked to external resources such as video clips, how-to guides and discussion papers easily.
BrightGames can be created to both reinforce learning out of the classroom as homework, or as a group experience for debate and play at set times online or in class. The sessions generate tangible results with the game engine adapting scoring to your content. Results can be aggregated and shared from personal to play teams and cohorts. This is ideal for reporting and providing tangible evidence of learning and recording learner progress.