A colleague at NIIT recently presented internally a course on agile principles that was created for one of our clients. I liked the way it was designed. It did, however, use a resource that is often controversial for learning practitioners: the course structure relied on an analogy. Instead of teaching agile principles in the relevant setting (work), the course was set in a different scenario from where these skills might be actually used (say, an adventure trip). With many people involved in the conversation, it soon turned into a wider debate on whether analogies are a valid resource for learning.
Empiricism vs Rationalism?
There were probably more opinions in the debate covering a lot of middle ground, but for the purposes of this article I will group them into the following. The labels are my own choice.
Phenomenological: because you don't know how transferrable skills will be from one situation to another, you should assume by default learners will not transfer and train them to use skills in the relevant environment.
Cognitivist: although learning in specific settings is the most efficient approach, learners are likely to infer schemes they will be able to apply to other situations. Because there will never be two situations that are identical, developing mental models and applying them should be the goal of learning.
If you're reading this, you might think both ends of the (just-made-up) spectrum aren't necessarily incompatible. I would agree with you, but the question remains as to what extent skills can be generalised; and how useful/wasteful it is to try to develop them outside the relevant environment. In addition to the following:
What about concepts that are hard to grasp? Can analogies help make the complicated simple?
What about situations with delayed consequences? It might take some time to see the advantages of abiding by the law, but that doesn't make learning to do so any less relevant.
If analogies don't work, why are they at the very core of human culture? Why have they survived thousands of years and civilizations?
DO ANALOGIES WORK OR NOT?
I spent some time reviewing available evidence on the matter which you can review in the final section of this article (special thanks to Gregg Collins for his contributions).
My conclusion:
Analogies are probably overused in learning and we know very little about how the brain forms mental schemes to apply known skills in new situations.
Learning is more impactful when it happens in the relevant context.
However:
There is evidence showing analogies can help shape behaviours under certain circumstances; when they work, they can be incredibly impactful.
The fact that transferring skills from one situation to another is a rare event doesn't make it any less desirable.
how to use analogies
I landed on a checklist: should you use an analogy? If you are wondering, ask yourself the following questions.
Is the concept hard to grasp for learners? Do not use analogies if what you are teaching is simple, your learners are already skilled in the matter, or they are highly capable in abstract thinking. In any of these cases you may be overcomplicating things. Consider also whether learners actually need to have a deep understanding of the matter in order to perform the required behaviour; if they don't, go with the simplest approach.
Is the skill you are training highly context-dependent? Can you expect good performance in a given situation will be generalised to future situations? (If you are not sure, find someone with hands-on experience). If the answer is no, you may be training skills that will never be effectively used. In this case, why are you not using the real context?
Will learners find the connection between analogy and reality evident? If analogy and reality are too different, learners may not be able to make a connection. Because mental patterns may vary between audiences, make sure that learners see the connection by using analogies that are evident and describe it explicitly: don't expect they will figure it out by themselves. A specific procedure known as analogical encoding has been used successfully to create connections from examples to reality by starting with a comparison between two different situations.
Will the analogy resonate with the learner's cultural background? Stories, objects, characters, etc. have a different connotation depending on your cultural background. Classic examples are black and white for Western and Asian people, but there are many more. Be especially wary of analogies when creating learning for cross-cultural backgrounds.
Are you addressing a topic towards which learners might show resistance, or have negative feelings? Without any intent of promoting passive-aggressive attitudes: it is sometimes easier to solve problems when we take some distance from them. It's a lot easier to fix your neighbour's problems than it is to fix your own. If you are addressing a topic that is controversial or might prompt self-defensiveness, it might be easier to think of it in a different context. Analogies in this case can help draw initial conclusions before taking a stab at the core matter.
What's your experience with analogies? Can you think of any examples of one that worked/didn't work? Love to hear about your experience!
references
Analogies can speed up the motor learning process.
Analogical Problem Solving
Critical Thinking: Why Is It So Hard to Teach?
Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding.
Teaching and Learning with Analogies.
The role of analogies and metaphors in learning science.
Transfer of Learning and Teaching: A Review of Transfer Theories and Effective Instructional Practices
Comentarios