The first part of this series is posted here.

The third learning theory that I often go back to is the Cognitive Flexibility Theory introduced by Dr. Rand. Spiro, Dr. Paul Feltovitch, and Dr. Richard Coulson in 1988. The Cognitive Flexibility theory states that cognitive flexibility is the brain’s ability to spontaneously restructure knowledge out of its original context and use this previous learning to meet new, unknown, challenges. In fact, Rand, Feltovich, and Coulson state that applying previous knowledge out of its original context can help people get better at both the original and the new tasks.

For example, let’s say that a professionally trained ballet dancer is now suddenly expected to run a catering company. If the dancer has high cognitive flexibility, she should be able to modify and apply the principles of ballet to her new profession as a businesswoman and a chef. If the dancer is not able to make this transformation to her knowledge, or if the training provided to her is too specific to be transformed, “reductive bias” is said to have occurred. That is, the dancer’s knowledge is so specific to ballet that it has a reduced scope and can be applied to dancing only, and not to any other tasks.

Reductive bias is more common that we think. Commonly we refer to this phenomenon as “not being able to see the Forest for the trees”. Consider the following examples:

  1. In a manufacturing plant, separate trainings are provided for each individual machine the Operator has to work on, but no training is provided on how the machinery is interconnected/ work together.
  2. A junior instructional designer is provided project specific training before each of his projects, but never trained on overlying training principles or technology.
  3. An organization creates a large number of training courses every year, but does not have a single vision of learning.

The cognitive Flexibility Theory challenges me because there are two riddles to solve here: a) how to enable the individual to manipulate and evolve their existing knowledge, and: b) how to create learning content that is generic yet informative enough so that the Learner is provided the necessary information, but also assigned the freedom, empowerment, and responsibility to modify this information as they feel fit. The challenge is made more difficult as organizations usually want to train to specifics and not generalizations. This means that the information provided in training (especially e-learning), is often oversimplified to address one objective, and cannot be transferred or applied to other tasks.

The fourth and last theory I want present is also one of the newest: Dr. Marilyn Lombardi’s Authentic Learning Model (2007). This is an interesting model for the healthcare industry, as it is based on Dr. Lombardi’s experience as an associate professor at the Duke University School of Nursing. The Authentic Learning Model states that:

  1. Learning programs should be designed based on real world tasks and challenges that the Learners experience.
  2. Learning should be facilitated through the Learner’s exploration and inquiry, and not merely through the Instructor’s discourse.
  3. The training should preferably be designed as an interdisciplinary approach, integrating content from several disciplines and leading to learning beyond a specific domain.
  4. Desired performance outcome should not be limited to simple cognition. Learners should be encouraged to analyze, synthesize, evaluate and manipulate the information and finally create new learning.
  5. Learners should be encouraged to create new artefacts with their knowledge from the training, and share it with other Learners.
  6. The learning program should provide opportunities for discourse, collaboration, criticism, and reflection.