The term “web of causality” refers to a conceptual framework used to understand the interconnected and complex relationships among various factors that contribute to a particular outcome. The term “web” emphasizes that causes tend not to be linear or singular but are instead interwoven. How do coaches encourage multi-valent thinking that acknowledges the complexity of situations, considering multiple perspectives and factors rather than bivalent thinking that simplifies issues into two opposing categories, which can be efficient but may miss important nuances?
Read “3 Ways to More ‘Aha Moments in Coaching” here.
Check out The Cabrera Lab Podcast with Drs. Derek and Laura Cabrera from Cornell University here.
Podcast Transcript:
[00:00:00.210] – Steve [Intro]
Welcome to the Steve Barkley Ponders Out Loud podcast. As instructional coaches and school leaders, you are tasked with guiding continuous teacher growth to create student success. This podcast looks to support you with strategies from experienced guests, as well as my own insights that I’ve gathered over the years. I’m thrilled to have you with us. Thanks for tuning in.
[00:00:30.070] – Steve
Coaching that Explores a Web of Causality. I have frequently discussed the concept of a coach being a thinking partner. I’ve written earlier about Dr. Christine Needham post, “3 Ways to More Aha Moments in Coaching.” She describes these coaching conferences having moments of sudden realization when a breakthrough occurs as a “aha” moment. There’s a sense of new knowledge being created. She describes these moments as being truly powerful and capable of leading to a change in practice. I’m often surprised when a coachee has such an aha and then tells me, “that’s a great idea!” They’re reacting as if I had shared the idea with them when most often they were sharing the idea with me. You’ll find the link to that blog and Dr. Needem’s post in the lead-in to this podcast. I recently came across another concept that will encourage my questioning skills as a thinking partner in coaching. And that concept is the web of causality. The term, “web of causality” refers to a conceptual framework used to understand the interconnected and complex relationships among various factors that contribute to a particular outcome. The term, “web” emphasizes that causes tend not to be linear or singular but are instead interwoven.
[00:02:19.240] – Steve
Here are some key elements of a web of causality. Interconnectedness. In a web of causality, various factors are interconnected. A change in one factor can influence others, creating a chain reaction that affects the overall system. Well, that pretty much sounds like a classroom to me. Another element is non-linearity. Unlike a simple cause-and-effect relationship where A leads directly to B, the web of causality suggests that causes and effects are not straightforward. Multiple causes can lead to multiple effects, and feedback loops can further complicate relationships. Another element is complexity. The web metaphor highlights the complexity of causal relationships, making it challenging to identify a single cause for a specific outcome. Instead, outcomes are seen as the result of multiple interacting causes. I use the word complexity often in describing the role of teachers. And the concept of web of causality really illustrates that complexity. It helps understand how a great lesson plan that engage students’ second period missed the mark, fifth period. It helps me understand why I need to focus on personalizing my teaching as student responses to my teaching options can vary greatly. The web of causality highlights the problem created by bivalent versus multivalent approaches to problem solving.
[00:04:21.720] – Steve
Bivalent thinking simplifies issues into two opposing categories, which can be efficient argument, but may miss important nuances. Multivalent thinking acknowledges the complexity of situations, considering multiple perspectives and factors. It encourages a more holistic and empathetic approach, fostering better problem solving and understanding. Listen in on this conversation between doctors Laura and Derek Cabrera from Cornell University. They’re speaking on the Cabrera Lab podcast, and they discuss bivalent and multivalent thinking.
[00:05:11.620] – Laura
Most people think of things as either or, that there’s not a middle ground?
[00:05:18.210] – Derek
If there was one thing, there’s a lot of things you can do to increase your cognition and increase your ability to think. And thinking, obviously, is the skill that underlies all skills. So thinking is pretty important. But there’s one thing that you need to do, if you’re going to get started to think better, is to love reality. And that sets up this distinction between your mental models and reality, and which one do I choose, right? So choose reality, not your mental models, because if you choose your mental models and you fit reality to your mental models, that’s confirmation bias. So we want to choose reality. So the first step is love reality, understand reality bias is that you have this mental model, and that mental model is a representation, but not the same thing as reality. And as soon as you’ve done that, then the next thing is to realize that most of our mental models are incredibly bivalent. Bivalent just means two veils. To think of a veil in a – what do you call those…
[00:06:33.880] – Laura
Like a wedding?
[00:06:34.970] – Derek
Yeah, like in a wedding.
[00:06:35.800] – Laura
Or like a welder’s mask?
[00:06:37.490] – Derek
Sure. Yeah, any veil that comes down over your face, right? So bivalent is like two veils. In the veil, maybe you had a red veil and a white veil. And so you’re going to see the world with a red tinge, or you’re going to see the world with a white tinge or something like that. But bivalent means that you have two veils that are, right? Most of our mental models, most of our thinking has been taught to be bivalent. Both taught and incentivized. So it’s something we learn in school, and it’s something that we’re incentivized in school and work to be bivalent. And that would be fine, except for most of reality is multivalent, meaning there are many veils, not just red and white or black and white or whatever. There’s a whole universe of color, metaphorically speaking. So if we understand that, that our mental models, our thinking tends to be bivalent and reality tends to be multivalent, well, that’s a big deal because that means that most of our mental models are going to wind up short. So if we can just change that one thing, that’s the next step.
[00:07:58.810] – Derek
Love reality, then Then focus on bivalency, and then you can get into the more technical aspects of cognition and metacognition and DSRP and all that stuff.
[00:08:09.840] – Laura
It’s hard to see that your mental models are bivalent when everything around us is pushing bivalency. These false either or choices that are in advertising, they’re in politics, they’re in academia. A leads to B, and that’s the only way it is. There’s all of these things around us that if we’re not thinking about it, we’re just going to go with that norm, that flow. I guess the point is to be conscious about that and say, well, maybe there’s a third option. Maybe there’s a shade of gray here.
[00:08:54.450] – Steve
You’ll find the link to the entire Cabrera Lab podcast in this podcast best lead-in. Teachers recognizing the diverse factors that influence learning can lead to a more personalized and differentiated instruction. Teachers can better address the unique needs, strengths, and challenges of each student, taking into account the student’s background, learning styles, and external circumstances. Consider a teacher approaching Coaching an instructional coach about a student who consistently hands in assignments late. With a bivalent thought process, the teacher might initially think in binary terms. This student is either lazy or doesn’t care about their work. This approach tends to simplify the situation into a dichotomy. Either the student is motivated or not, responsible or irresponsible. The teacher’s response might be to enforce stricter deadlines or implement penalties for late submissions, assuming that the student’s behavior can be changed with consequences. With a multivalent thinking approach, a teacher would consider a range of possible factors contributing to the student’s behavior of handing in their assignments late. This teacher might explore questions like, is the student experiencing difficulties at home that affect their ability to complete work on time? Does the student have organizational challenges or issues with time management?
[00:10:54.050] – Steve
Are there specific subjects where the student struggles more than others, impacting their motivation? Could the student be facing mental health issues or stress that affect their performance? Are there gaps in the student’s understanding of the material that make it harder for them to complete a requirements? This teacher might decide to have a private conversation with the student to better understand their situation. The teacher may also collaborate with the school counselor or learning support teacher. Based on what the teacher learns, she might consider providing additional support or accommodations, or to adjust deadlines to be more flexible. While bivalent thinking can sometimes lead to quick decisions, it often oversimplifies complex issues and can result in misunderstandings or unfair judgments. Multivalent thinking leads to a more comprehensive understanding. It allows the teacher to address underlying issues more effectively, providing support that is tailored to the student’s specific needs. With a more empathetic and supportive environment students can be encouraged to overcome challenges. Educators often balance these two modes of thinking, using bivalent thinking for straightforward issues and multivalent thinking for more complex situations that require deeper analysis and understanding. There’s a question that I’m often asking myself when coaching, and sometimes I ask it out loud.
[00:12:46.380] – Steve
I’m wondering what I don’t know. I’m wondering what I don’t know. That question can open me to more multivalent considerations. I know I need to be careful not to take a bivalent approach in my read of the educator I’m coaching, and encourage that educator to have the same caution. Let me know if you tried that question. I’m wondering what I don’t know. If you did, what did you find? I’d love to hear. You can always reach me at barkleypd.com. Thanks for listening.
[00:13:34.140] – Steve [Outro]
Thanks for listening, folks. I’d love to hear what you’re pondering. You can find me on Twitter or LinkedIn at Steve Barkley, or send me your questions and find my videos and blogs at barkleypd.com.
