I'm beginning to warm to Nick Shackleton-Jones's Affective Context Theory, not the title particularly - it's accurate but rather off-putting - but the idea. Essentially what Nick is saying (assuming of course I've got it right) is that we remember much more when we are emotionally engaged in some way - we are under pressure to solve a problem, we are shocked or surprised, we are excited by a new idea, we perceive a threat or an opportunity, we really care about something.
I don't feel qualified to provide a detailed review of affective context theory - better to read Nick's posting for that. But I'm sure that many l&d professionals will be able to identify with the basic idea - after all, we've all struggled at times to get through to audiences who just don't care enough about what we have to say to give the subject their full attention. Without engagement, not just intellectually but emotionally, most of the message will go no further than working memory.
There are important implications. When we push a learning intervention at someone, usually in the form of a course, we cannot guarantee that there is an appropriate affective context for learning. So, if we want our intervention to be effective and not just tick boxes, we have to take deliberate steps to emotionally engage our audience, something we referred to in the 60-minute masters as "hook learners in emotionally". That's hard work, but an essential prerequisite for effective learning.
When a person decides for themselves that they need to know something, because that knowledge (or skill) is necessary for them to achieve some objective, then they already have an ideal affective context for learning. Rather than having a learning intervention pushed at them, they 'pull' what they need, typically by finding an appropriate resource. There's no need for the resource to attempt to stimulate emotional engagement, because the job's done. That means the resource can be simple and to the point, the more so the better.
When I mention 'affective context theory' to people, which I have been doing recently, then I typically get back that look that says,"I'm bracing myself for some complex, indigestible psycho nonsense". When I talk about 'courses and resources', on the other hand, light bulbs start flashing.
Nick's approach is to provide resources wherever possible, to shift the emphasis from push to pull. Where the organisation does find it necessary to push an idea home, then he uses the course as a vehicle for stimulating emotional engagement, not for passing over knowledge. Courses are for stories, scenarios, simulations and discussions; resources are where you go to find the information you need to follow up on your interest. Courses and resources - it even rhymes.
Emotional engagement can increase learning through increased retention but 'emotional' is a big, dangerous word. I have sat through hundreds of films and been emotionally engaged, often to the point of tears, but this state 'one hour plus of suspension of disbelief' has resulted in low levels of retention. I remember very little of full length feature films and TV programmes. Emotional engagement is different from the more important 'psychological attention' and 'elaboration', because it's reactive. It is often difficult to really reflect and elaborate knowledge when overwhelmed by emotional engagement. A good example is 'jokes'. I've heard thousands of brilliant jokes, have laughed like a drain to many, but remember hardly any.
ReplyDeleteHi Donald - yes, I have been worried about this kind of interpretation as you will see from my original posts - so thanks for bringing it up ;o) There is a difference between emotion as 'happy/sad/angry' and affective context: the best analogy I can think of is taste as 'sweet/sour/bitter' and your experience of food. If you are eating at your favorite restaurant and I say 'So how does it taste, Donald - sweet, sour, bitter...?'I think you get the point. This is why I use the example of chess-playing: what are the emotional cues around a specific position?
ReplyDeleteIn relation to your example: the raw emotional impact of a movie is only one aspect of a multi-dimensional affective context. Nevertheless, I suspect that if I ask you about a movie a day, a week or a month later you are most likely to recall the emotional highlights. This is a testable prediction and one I would bet money on.
Equally, if you see a movie about the holocaust it may move you, whilst if you are Jewish with grandparents who died in concentration camps I suspect you may remember a good deal more (i.e. personal relevance is a factor in how we encode affective context). An everyday example might be better: I remember interesting ideas or episodes at learning conferences - someone not involved in learning probably won't. I also think that learner involvement is essential if people are to learn, for the reasons above. I don't think any of this is especially controversial, what I am providing is an explanatory framework.