The Role of Social Interaction in Learning

-->

Educators remain almost entirely baffled by the role played by social interaction in learning; fond as they are of the ‘knowledge transfer’ model of learning in which – it seems – the instructor should only have to speak in order for the student to learn. I thought it might be helpful to contrast two learning scenarios to highlight the underlying issues.

Scenario 1: 

An Instructor displays a slide titled ‘characteristics of a good leader’ on a screen, for a room full of participants. The slide contains a number of bullet-pointed items including the words ‘provides recognition’, ‘structures development’ and ‘flexes style’. The instructor reads each item and elaborates:

Instructor: So these are just some of the things you’d expect of a good leader – they’re not in any particular order… obviously it’s important for leaders to recognise the achievements of people in their team – not necessarily formal recognition – just, you know, words of encouragement. I say it’s obvious but often leaders forget… there can be so much to do… but a little recognition goes a long way. ‘Structures development’ – as a leader you will need to think about staff development… how you are going to build capability – and you might think about future needs – aligning with the business strategy, that sort of thing. ‘Flexes style’ – meaning that leaders all have a tendency to lead in certain ways – but, you know, each person in the team is an individual and will have individual needs – so leaders should be able to accommodate different needs…

Analysis:

this approach is likely to result in low levels of recall. None of the words is intrinsically distinctive (i.e. causing a significant affective response). As an example, the words ‘death by electrocution’ would likely be sufficient to be memorable in their own right – whereas the words ‘structures development’ are commonplace – indeed ‘development’ is likely a euphemism for ‘education’ which for many participants may have mildly connotations of boredom and pointlessness.

Equally there are no distinctive images on the slide likely to cause an affective response, so no visual cues for the content that may be recalled later (as with words, visual elements are analysed according to their affective elements and the affective responses stored). This is an utterly forgettable slide, in other words.

The instructor makes no attempt at storytelling. Storytelling is a format designed to add affective significance to information, thereby rendering it memorable. The words by themselves have little significance and as such are not stored. The use of repetitive, bland and abstract language actually serves to deepen their forget-ability – neither the words or the delivery are such that they would cause much reaction in the participants’ resulting in little or no likelihood of recall.

Participants are not involved in any ostensible way. There is nothing personally ‘at stake’ for the participants – for example they are not expecting to be challenged to explain what has been said at any point, or to contribute their own stories, or to compete – hence the material has no contextual affective significance: it is merely sounds.

The instructor has not actively encouraged participation; social norms for this situation strongly suggest to participants that all that is required of them is that they give the impression of attention and not interrupt unless called upon to do so.

Since participants are not contributing, the instructor's content is not explicitly a reaction to questions or concerns they have formed in their mind. By contrast, content which reinforces existing beliefs/behaviours (e.g. the belief that people should be thanked on a daily basis) will result in a positive reaction – hence be more likely to be encoded. By minimising participation, the content is not delivered as confirmation/disconfirmation of participants’ concerns and therefore causes little reaction.

Scenario 2: 

An instructor suggests that participants create a life-size drawing of a ‘good leader’ using their creative imagination to illustrate the drawing with features they feel reflect desired characteristics.

Instructor: so I’ve provided some paper and pens – you’ve got 20 minutes and then I would like to hear from you.

P1: Wow. Ok. I wasn’t expecting that!

P2: Who’s good at drawing then? (smiles)

P3: Not me – I’m rubbish – I got a ‘D’ in Art at school! (everyone laughs)

P4: Go on then – I’ll give it a go! (takes pen)

P2: Oh! Looks like we’ve got an artist among us! (laughs)

Instructor: That’s great – but I’d like everyone to make a contribution!

P3: thought I was going to get away with it then! (laughs)

…

P1: I had a brilliant manager – always encouraging me… that was the best team I worked for…

P2: How can we draw that?

P4: How about pom-poms – like a ‘cheerleader’? (everyone laughs)

P2: Yeah – draw that then!

P4: How about you draw it? (hands pen to P3)

P3: Oh, all right then (laughs, draws pom-poms)

…

Instructor: ok, so why is your drawing holding a sponge? (everyone laughs)

P4: It’s pom-poms – like a cheerleader – ‘cos they encourage people.

Instructor: great! what impact does that have?

P1: well I was saying that I had a brilliant manager when I was working in procurement – I mean the job was pretty dull – but the way she did it – she wrote me a thank-you note for this one project – I just thought it was really nice – I still have it!

Instructor: hands-up who has ever written a thank-you note for someone in their teams?

(some hands go up)

Instructor: what about this here – is that an axe!?

(everyone laughs)

P2: no – that’s just my drawing – it’s a signpost…

Instructor: Ah – I get it. What are they signposting?

P2: well – a good leader should identify opportunities… be there to coach people – basically help people with their career…

Instructor: good point. Has anyone experienced a manager like that?

P3: I have.

Instructor: what difference did it make?

P3: big difference. I don’t think I would be in this job without it.

…

Analysis: 

The participants are immediately, visibly excited. This excitement already ensures that the activity is memorable whatever the outcome. There are a number of reasons why participants are likely to be excited: some of the other participants they have not met, and social interaction offers the prospect of affective rewards – validation and relationship-formation to name two. The activity presents participants with the opportunity to present themselves favourably – as self-deprecating, for example, or as talented. The unusual nature of the activity ensures that it creates the strong affective response that characterises novel stimuli. Participants vocalise this reaction immediately – their shared reaction assisting in the formation of a minimal group.

Participants immediately set about seeking validation – eliciting a variety of positive reactions from the new group, from laughter to admiration. Their emotional state is heightened by the relatively significant social stakes of being introduced to a new group of people. Behaviours and vocalisations are aimed at eliciting positive feedback – behaviours such as storytelling, joking, drawing – all over which will result in a bump in self esteem if accomplished correctly.

The instructor ensures that each individual participates, since it is possible that some people will elect to ‘opt-out’ of the interaction – and this is likely to reduce recall for the experience and related information, since nothing of personal significance was ventured.

Participant 1 engages in simple storytelling – this is almost always seen as a positive contribution to a group, as stories are vehicles for important information and a way in which group member can therefore demonstrate altruism. The creative challenges necessitate deeper processing. The implicitly competitive nature of the interaction deepens the affective significance (no-one wants to come up with a ‘stupid’ idea). The ‘pom-pom’ idea is both distinctive enough and unusual enough to warrant a round of laughter – in addition the visual imagery is unusual and hence liable to result in improved recall.

The poor execution of the drawing actually adds to the memorability of the exercise. The participant challenged over the ‘sponge’ interpretation feels a sense of personal responsibility and shame – but one which plays into their overall opportunity to position themselves as self-deprecating. By challenging the significance of this item, the instructor is able to elicit further stories from the group. These stories greatly enhance the memorability for the information, for both the storyteller and the receiver. Telling a story for a group of strangers is always a ‘high stakes’ activity socially, and stories convey valuable social information that is typically related to practical application.

The bizarre illustrations - however executed - are strong memory cues, since they involve elements of personal accountability, they are linked to an exciting episode or memorable stories. Participants have no difficulty later recalling the exercise and some of the elements of the sketch - which in turn act as cues for additional information, such as the significance of a behaviour as illustrated by a story.

By challenging the group to give account of their own behaviours, the instructor presents a participants with a dilemma – they must quickly decide how raising or lowering their hand will impact their image amongst the group, and whether or not lying is a viable or desirable challenge. Consequently this leaves a lasting affective trace.

Conclusion:

The purpose of this ‘micro-analysis’ is not necessarily to advocate for the latter approach, but merely to point out how crude is our current understanding of what is really going on when people learn – and how much progress we can make when we have a grasp of the basics.

Social Learning approaches such as that proposed by Vygotsky are lamentably primitive in enabling us to understand the role played by social interaction in learning. Certainly it can help to mix more capable people with those who are less capable – but this only hints at the affective mechanics that underpins the interaction: what is the relationship between these people? What do they care about? What do they react to?

Whether or not you agree with the specifics of the analysis in the second example, it is indubitable that there is a veritable blizzard of subtle social (and therefore affective) activity taking place in the latter condition, which is largely absent in the former. If we accept the central premise that learning is a consequence of our affective responses to experiences, then we can immediately see that the two situations are radically different from a learning standpoint.

Neither am I suggesting that the latter example is a model of learning design – indeed there are some major causes for concern: whilst I have no doubt that the latter results in a more memorable experience - and one that is more likely to be recalled – it is not clear to what extent this learning will transfer into actual behaviour. Merely creating an exciting socially-charged activity in the interests of boosting recall cannot be sufficient; probably we would do better to marry this social dimension to an activity that more closely resembles the intended performance – rather than the somewhat tokenistic activity of making a sketch. Improved learning results might also be accounted for by the Levels of Processing model which predicts better recall as a result of deeper processing - so I am not suggesting this illustration constitutes experimental support for the Affective Context theory - just that there is a very different way of thinking about what is going on in these situations.

In sum, it is not enough for us to criticise the lecture format without being able to say precisely what is wrong with it – after all, I can learn perfectly well from a book if I choose to. I hope this post highlights the role played by the affective context in determining what we learn, whatever the situation.