The term mental model refers to elements of your memory or experience that have resulted in the creation of a predictable pattern in your learning system that you use as a filter or a lens for your observations of the world (Reason, 2010). Our brains are always looking for patterns; understanding patterns of weather, predators, and gravitational pull has helped us avoid extinction and maximize our own survivability. As humans observe these patterns, we look for symmetry and order (Reason, 2010). Thus, your experiences will ultimately shape your mental models.
Let’s think about how mental models are formed for some of the common elements that exist in teaching. One person’s mental model might revolve around the notion of a grand lecturer with pearls of wisdom flowing extemporaneously. He may see students gathering at the lecturer’s feet, attempting to model the behavior, and supporting the scholarship. Another mental model of teaching may be where the act of teaching revolves more around supporting the learning pursuits of others and creating stimulating learning opportunities. Neither mental model is necessarily wrong. They’re just very different. A student could go to school and experience both types of instructors yet come away with a very different mental model for the word teaching. Once again, this is complicated stuff, because two people could go through the same experience and establish very different mental models.
Current Learning Context
Thoughts about the learning context can vary dramatically. Thus, I refer to this portion as a current learning context, because in every instance of trying to establish a vision, it is a learning process. The current learning context will always have a significant effect on the ability to establish a particular vision. It can be extraordinarily comprehensive and include virtually any variable associated with the current situation where learning is happening and vision is being constructed (Hall, 2007).
For example, if the community pledged financial support for a school and the school received a special commendation from the state for improvement on testing, a retreat for establishing a school improvement plan for the next five years would probably be done in relative comfort, joy, and contentment. Conversely, if the school had recently gone through yet another round of failure and was being threatened by the state in terms of potential takeovers, a summer retreat to save the school by establishing a new school improvement plan would represent a very different learning context. While the goal in both situations is to establish a plan and a vision for the future, the context changes the challenge so dramatically that it shapes the experience as a result.
Consider a school community that has consistently served a blue- collar community with conservative political perspectives in a region where jobs have steadily been lost. These outside factors create a local context that affects the school’s vision. Other contextual factors include the size of the school and, to some degree, its physical makeup. Dark, dreary working conditions would indeed affect the context. Multiple decades of success or failure could also create a contextual expectation of achievement, or lack thereof.
While history may be somewhat episodic, the creation of a context speaks to longer standing issues in place due to a confluence of variables. Context, in many respects, is the most static of the three essential components. Yet, as time goes on, different historical elements shape how we see our history, and we can always adjust how we think about our experiences. Our mental models can likewise be challenged, and we can adopt new perspectives about the prevailing mental models in a particular situation or institution.
History, Mental Models, and Current Learning Context Working Together
So how do you make all of this fit together? It’s not hard to imagine how bringing together personal histories, mental models, and the current learning context can be complicated, even if it makes a great deal of sense in terms of establishing a vision. Furthermore, there may be disagreement about what the current learning context is all about. Some may see it as comfortable and interesting, while others may be in a state of panic.
The best way to respond to these differences in history, mental model, and current learning context is to acknowledge them as directly as possible. Have you ever been part of a strategic planning process where the facilitator spends a great deal of time talking about what people remember about the institution or about their values and beliefs? Even though these are important objectives in and of themselves, exploring everyone’s background and articulating everyone’s values and beliefs are really about clarifying both the history and the mental models developed in the institution. Therefore, it’s extraordinarily important that, whenever possible, leaders talk about both collective and individual recollections of history, especially in relation to school issues. By having these conversations, schools can better differentiate the personalities and perspectives of any staff and can help clarify those differences whenever possible.
Strategies for Today: Leading for Excellence and Fulfillment
Having this neurological understanding as a principal is helpful in dealing with almost everyone in the school. Keep in mind that if you’re twenty years older than the person you’re trying to communicate with, you undoubtedly have a different mental model and a different history. You may be interpreting the cultural contexts quite differently. As a result, your ability to connect and be consistent with a vision isn’t easy. That said, it isn’t impossible, and by talking those issues through, you put yourself in a much better position to reach clarity.
In addition to considering history, mental models, and current learning context, there are various strategies to help make the process of establishing a vision easier.
Clarify Recollections of Individual and Institutional History
You may have been advised in the past that knowing the school’s history would be an enormous advantage to you in helping direct its future. This is indeed sage advice, but now we know it’s important because in order for our brains to even get close to having a collective vision, we have to understand how the similarities and differences and the individual or institutional history can shape that vision process (Braine, 2009; Kouzes & Posner, 2009).
This step can be instituted both informally and formally. Unfortunately, if it isn’t done formally, I’ve found that people can work right alongside others for years and not realize the many unique attributes they bring to the institution. Taking time to talk through one another’s history is beneficial because the more background information you gather about others, the better you can guess how they may respond in certain situations. Sharing memories of institutional histories is also extremely valuable. As you listen to long-standing veterans describe past change initiatives, you can often learn an awful lot about the vision process. You’ll hear them describing not only the change or innovation effort but also their mental models regarding the innovation.
As a leader, you should be very explicit about describing mental models associated with a particular change issue. For example, if a new mathematics program is being instituted and teachers are being retrained, it is important for the staff to clarify their current mental models in relation to math issues. What do they think about the content area? Do they dread it? What do they think about the approach they’re being asked to embrace? What do they see when they imagine themselves implementing this new material? Harvesting the details of what’s currently in the hearts and minds of those who will lead an innovation is extraordinarily helpful. Keep in mind that this reflective process can potentially be very illuminating for the participants themselves, because in many cases, they’re carrying around mental models they may not have consciously thought about over the years.
In California, I once heard secondary teachers talk about block scheduling. One teacher asked the others, “Do you remember that? They had us vote on that. We were arguing about whether or not to go with the block schedule or an A/B schedule. As if it mattered. They were going to do whatever they wanted anyway, and the vote percentages were stacked in favor of administration. I mean, don’t get me wrong. I like the block schedule. But that sure was a difficult time.”
Even though the teacher seemed somewhat positive about the alternative schedule, he didn’t make the connection between the use of time and either type of improvement. It’s clear there was suspicion regarding the administration and confusion over