There’s a good deal that could hinder a readiness to know a new challenge. Including cognitive bias, which Kendra Cherry defines as “a structured error in believing that affects the options and judgments that folks make.”
Andrea May, VP of Instructional Design Services for Dashe & Thomson, has identified what she views may be the top cognitive biases that adversely affect learning and printed individuals round the Dashe & Thomson Social Learning Blog.
Let’s think about the initial few cognitive biases and discuss the way you can counter their effect through our training design and delivery. The titles and descriptions in the biases are Ms. May’s. The commentary is mine.
1. Confirmation bias: The inclination to just accept information which confirms your point of view and reject information which does not support it.
As we have made a decision what’s “right,” we’ll stay with it even if faced with information which categorically invalidates it.
An existing trainer attended my five-day train the trainer program designed to move trainers from lecturing to facilitating participatory learning. Each day’s activities proven the restrictions of lecture and the strength of participant-centered activities. The ultimate day dedicated to obtaining the participants facilitate an interactive learning activity they’d designed themselves.
The instructions emphasized that lecture would not be allowed that the training objective must be comprehension or higher. However, this trainer decided to ignore the entire week’s work. He gave a lecture anyway also it was extremely pleased with themselves!
However, his peers, all whom had effectively designed and delivered participatory learning activities, did not permit him to accomplish it- and snacking. Our feedback was diplomatic but pointed- but he heard it.
2. Anchoring bias: The inclination to place excessive weight or importance on one little bit of information – frequently the initial little bit of information you discovered a topic.
Let’s take the thought of learning styles. David A. Kolb printed his model twenty six years ago therefore we have trained about learning styles in excess of thirty years. There are lots of disparate models and inventories, plus much more each day. If an individual doesn’t resonate together with you, there are numerous others to select from.
We have used learning style inventories to help our participants uncover or confirm how they learn. We have expected curriculum designers to make sure their training programs satisfy the needs of numerous learning styles.
Then around 2006, Ruth Clark, Frank Nguyen and John Sweller printed their cognitive load research and blew the lid off learning styles. Their book was titled: Efficiency to learn-Evidence-Based Guidelines to deal with Cognitive Load.
They found no evidence to assist the idea of different learning styles:
“Learning styles are one kind of unproductive instructional mythology pervasive inside the training profession. In the best, most learning style programs are a complete waste of sources, at worst, they lead to instructional techniques that actually retard learning.”
And so the word remains out in excess of 10 years but trainers still educate about learning styles! (I’ve partially capitulated now reference learning “preferences,” since i have have personally observed them for doing things.)