4 critical thinking mental models to use when exploring research

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

Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction

A mental model that I frequently use is the Ladder of Abstraction. It was developed by the American linguist S. I. Hayakawa in his 1939 book Language in Action.

The model describes varying levels of abstraction (up) and concreteness (down) and helps describe our language and thoughts.

The higher up the ladder you are the more abstract the idea, language or thought is. The lower you are on the ladder the more concrete the idea, language or thought is.

You can also think about the ladder as scaling out (abstracting) and scaling back in (concrete). I often use the language:

Let’s zoom out for second. Why is this connected to other projects?

OR

What does this look like in the classroom? Zoom back into the day to day experience for me.

And of course there is a parallel to the ideas of theory Vs experience.

It is helpful to note that different types of questions or interactions move dialogue up or down the ladder.

Screenshot 2018 02 03 at 4.08.31 PM

Let’s look at some simple examples based on developmental work in schools. The first few illustrate how you can use the ladder as a way to think about problem solving. You can also use the 5 Whys mental model here.

*Remember that the ideas illustrated on the ladders below would each emerge during discussion and dialogue. Each idea might unfold as different questions are posed and pondered on.

The blue example below is simple enough to see it is a not a behaviour issue but a communication issue perhaps.

PGS Inspiring Me 1

The green example suggests the link between report writing and staff wellbeing. It not just an assessment issue but something that might have a negative impact on health.

PGS Inspiring Me 2

Yellow and purple below are slightly different as they might illustrate a more general use of the ladder. Not necessarily to understand the problem, as above, but to broaden our understanding of an idea.

When we ladder down into the concrete and back up into the abstract concept we have a much more rounded sense of the idea. This makes communication much more successful as you work both ends of the ladder.

Be mindful of which end you spend time in the most when working with your ideas or with your teams. Try and strike a balance.

PGS Inspiring Me 3

PGS Inspiring Me 4

The Ladder of Abstraction is commonly used as a model for interviewing and I have used this many times  during the design thinking process. As this piece from the dschool illustrates.

Often times abstract statements are more meaningful but not as directly actionable, and the opposite is true of more specific statements. That is why you ask ‘why?’ often during interviews – in order to get toward more meaningful feelings from users rather than specific likes and dislikes, and surface layer answers.

So it is great model for your design toolkit.

Take a look at these further thinking prompts to help you move in an agile way on the ladder, by Andrew Dlugan on the Six Minutes site. A great post that is well worth a read.

Moving Down the Ladder

  1. Embrace the phrase “For example…” .
    Provide real-world tangible examples for your theories and ideas.
  2. Use sensory language.
    Help your audience see, touch, hear, taste, and smell.
  3. Be specific.
    Provide ample details.
  4. Tell stories and anecdotes.
    Stories add emotion and realism to any theory.
  5. Cite datastatistics, and case studies.
    They offer support for your theories.
  6. Feature photographs and props.
    Remember that all words are a higher level of abstraction compared to the real thing. Use the real thing.
  7. Have a strong call-to-action.
    Show your audience how to put your message into practice.
  8. Answer “How?” questions.
    Questions like “How does this work?” force you to more concrete explanations.

Moving Up the Ladder

  1. Answer “Why is this important?
    Give the deeper meaning behind the concrete facts and data.
  2. Provide the big picture.
    Explain the context and orient your audience.
  3. Reveal patterns and relationships.
    Help your audience see how the ideas connect — both to other ideas and their lives.
  4. Draw diagrams.
    Help your audience form mental models of processes, objects, etc.
  5. Use appropriate charts.
    Go beyond pure data to show trends.
  6. Reveal the lesson.
    Follow every story or case study with the key insights.
  7. Draw inferences.
    Apply sound logic to generalize from particular cases.
  8. Summarize into principles and guidelines.
    Help the audience learn from your experience by providing principles they can use.
  9. Appeal to shared ideals.
    Draw connections between your message and the ideals held by your audience, such as justice, truth, liberty, or freedom.

Let me know how you get on with this little model, a worthy addition to your toolkit. This is a core activity for me, something I keep coming back to again and again.

Emerging leaders often find this difficult as they have to step out of just thinking about their own classroom.

I firmly believe that the capacity to move up and down the Ladder of Abstraction is a key skill for any leader.

Some further reading:

Method 19 of 100: Laddering Questions | Designing the User Experience as Autodesk

How/Why Laddering | The K12 Lab Wiki | dschool 

Abstraction Laddering: Clearly Define the Problem | Autodesk 

The Ladder of Abstraction and the Public Speaker | Six Minutes 

Why Am I Talking?

I am always on the lookout for useful mental models, protocols and habits to improve the quality of dialogue and I discovered this little acronym to improve participation.

W.A.I.T = Why Am I Talking?

One of my favourite maxims and something I wrote down when I started Dialogic Learning is to “Listen twice as much as you talk.” This is based on a quote by the Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus:

We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.

One of the strengths of this and the Why Am I Talking? protocol is that it encourages us to carefully reflect on what we are sharing and think about our thinking.

Any habits and protocols that encourage us to slow down a little are really valuable at improving the quality of our dialogue and discussion.

It was hard to find the original attribution for the idea but I did come across some useful questions that you can use to elaborate further.

Questions for Reflection

The following is from a post on the The Power of TED* website.

  • Am I talking for approval and to be overly helpful? (Rescuer)
  • Am I talking to control and take charge of the situation? (Persecutor)
  • Am I talking to complain and whine about all I don’t like? (Victim)
  • What is my intention behind what I am about to say?
  • Is there a question I could ask that would help me better understand what the other person is saying and perceiving?
  • How might I simply listen and let go of my urge to talk at this moment?

Perry Holley posted last year about the WAIT habit encouraging us to ask the following questions:

  • Is this the time to share? Is what I want to share on the topic? Don’t divert the conversation away from what they are speaking about just because “that reminds me of a time when…”
  • Is it my turn to share? Are you mastering the pause?
  • Is what I want to share going to add to or subtract from what they are sharing? The temptation here is to divert the conversation from them to you.
  • If you do interject, be concise. Add value and then shut up.

Strategies to Try

Perry goes on to share a few other strategies which I have come across before and are well worth including in the mix. His titles in bold, but my explanations:

  1. Dare to be Dumb – This is all about asking questions and being open to new ideas. Often a dialogue or discussion can falter because we halt, cut down or stomp all over other people’s ideas. When we ask questions we are also much more likely to challenge assumptions in a group setting. Our curiosity should be a guide.
  2. Master the Pause – This one reminds me of running interviews during design thinking processes and also during coaching sessions. Just because it is quiet does not mean we are not thinking or engaged. Every second does not need to be filled with talk. Pausing allows others to extend their stories and contributions and sometimes reveal new ideas. Also pauses and lower volume time encourages reflection and thinking.
  3. Don’t top someone’s story – My favourite. I have been a victim of this so many times. The other person is simply waiting for their chance to speak. This is the antithesis of high-quality participation and nowhere close to a behaviour associated with rich dialogue. Story topping is the closest thing to competitive conversation.

Why Am I Talking Chart

If an acronym is not enough then here is a handy flow chart to keep us straight from Alan O’Rourke over at AudienceStack.

18956529930 6901758a35 z

When I just reviewed those questions above I wondered if you can practically be referencing those in the midst of your interactions with others? I suppose you could be but it might slow things down too much and reduce everything to an internal reflection process.

However, these structures and protocols are not meant to be explicitly used ad infinitum – I have seen groups internalise and normalise similar structures over time and with practice. That is the goal here – to have high-quality dialogue and discussion by normalising reflective participation.

Free Bonus Resource

Interested in protocols for better meetings?

Subscribe to my newsletter and get yourself a copy of my eBook on feedback, collaboration and dialogue.

Screenshot 14
  • 55 Ideas & Protocols to improve your feedback, collaboration and dialogue.
  • Practical Strategies to get the most out of every feedback experience.
  • Expert Advice to avoid typical feedback pitfalls.

Photo by Antenna on Unsplash