In a few recent weekly newsletters I have been exploring some mental models for interrogating research. These mental models are a handy set of structures and ideas to apply to any research you might be exploring.
With growing access to research in education we need to be better equipped to think in a critical and creative way about what is shared. The emphasis on evidence informed decisions means there is a need for more critical thinking tools or models like I share below.
Correlation does not imply causation
The example of research that started me down this path was some of the emerging research findings into learning spaces from Melbourne University led by Dr. Wesley Imms.
In particular how they have been reported – take this quote from Dr Imms:
we’ve found a very strong correlation between innovative learning environments, high levels of deep learning and high-quality teaching.
The first mental model we might use is: ‘Correlation does not imply causation.’ This is directly related to the quote from Dr. Wesley Imms. We might safely assume his words were chosen carefully.
What does ‘Correlation does not imply causation‘ mean? Well just because we have innovative learning environments and we have observable high levels of deep learning and high quality teaching, it does not necessarily mean these positive outcomes were caused by the innovative learning environments.
Cause and effect is much harder to capture and that is why research continues.
Check out these Spurious Correlations for a more alternative explanation of this mental model.
The Hawthorne Effect
Some other related mental models we can deploy here are things like the Hawthorne Effect. This explains that sometimes the effect of an intervention is because observation (paying attention to people) alters behaviour positively. An ongoing research challenge I imagine.
Gambler’s Fallacy
Gambler’s Fallacy, also related to statistics, is the belief that future probabilities are influenced by past events. “Although this has not worked in the past I am sure it is bound to work this time around.” This is similar to the model of Path Dependency.
Randomness
One final one is the mental model of Randomness as explained by Farnam Street: “much of the world is composed of random, non-sequential, non-ordered events. We are “fooled” by random effects when we attribute causality to things that are actually outside of our control.”
Remember the idea with all of these mental models is to build up a bank that we can draw from at any time to help interrogate and explain situations we are in.
There are plenty more to use – feel free to share any other thinking tools and mental models to use when exploring research in the comments below.
I use these types of mental models all the time when I am working with leadership teams on development projects. I hope you have found these four a useful addition to your critical thinking toolkit.
#28daysofwriting
Photo by Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash