GUEST POST: Enhancing Employee Onboarding Through Dual Coding and Spacing

By James Davis

James Davis holds a B.S. in Interdisciplinary Studies with a minor in Cybersecurity Applications (Summa Cum Laude), as well as an M.S. in Cybersecurity Management and Policy (With Distinction) from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, FL. Currently, he is in his final year of study towards a Doctorate in Education in Leadership and Learning in Organizations at Vanderbilt University. He is employed as the Head of Events and Experiential Programs for Cisco overseeing the planning and execution of several high-profile programs.

A new job, with a new company, is an exciting time. In many cases, the person hired has been selected over dozens, even hundreds, of other applicants. Therefore, after surviving The Hunger Games of the jobs market, it is natural a newly hired employee would want to demonstrate the choice to hire them was the right one. Similarly, the enterprise would want to welcome the new employee and convince them they made the right decision in choosing to work for the company. But finding the best candidate is only part of the process to build an effective workforce. The onboarding process is crucial to the employment experience and must be thoughtfully planned for maximum effectiveness. Before I continue, I must draw a distinction between onboarding and orientation. When I speak of onboarding, I am referring to the process of providing information and skills training required to perform a role or task. I am not referring to the administrative elements associated with human resources, such as payroll and benefit forms, setting up a new email address, and ordering business cards.

The onboarding process at some organizations can be relatively unstructured. See if this sounds familiar. You’re placed in a random conference room for five to six hours per day with binders of information, client pitch decks, and various other materials to read. The remaining two-three hours each day are spent with your new team of colleagues. For a couple of weeks, you engage in a largely self-guided process trying to mentally cram information about the policies, procedures, applications, organizational structure, and expectations of employment. At the end of the brief onboarding period, it is assumed you have learned everything needed to successfully perform as an employee. This type of onboarding, one I have certainly experienced, is more about speed than knowledge and is an unrealistic expectation for employees. Afterwards, new employees often spend the next several weeks asking their colleagues for help, thereby impacting enterprise efficiency by taking them away from their work responsibilities. We need to overhaul the onboarding process to make it more supportive of learning and retention of information. Below, I suggest incorporating two well-known and empirically researched learning theories to improve the effectiveness of the employee onboarding process.

Image from Pixabay

Dual Coding

Onboarding is about presenting information we want the employee to learn. Therefore, let us first examine dual coding theory as a potential method to enhance the way information is shared. Dual coding theory (DCT) was first proposed in the 1970s by University of Western Ontario professor Allan Paivio. DCT suggests that information which is stored in memory via two codes may result in improved comprehension and recall versus information stored via a single code (1, 2, 3). Think back to middle-school biology. We learned that one area of the brain is adept at verbal information processing, while another manages processing of representation (non-verbal) information. While verbal and non-verbal information, the two codes of DCT, may each individually result in learning, it is when the two are used in concert that greater learning effectiveness occurs (Liu et al., 2020). Further, according to the theory, information should be remembered twice as well than when only a single code is used (3).

Image from Pixabay

One of the simplest methods to bring dual coding to the onboarding learning environment is by introducing computer-based learning modules with robust imagery accompanying language (2). For organizations, this would seem to be an obvious implementation where laptops are issued. Further, personal mobile devices are basically ubiquitous and there are a number of low cost, off-the-shelf applications that can be easily customized to create educational assets in conjunction with the Human Resources team for a highly cost-effective solution.

Nearly all learning requires an individual to process language. To that end, concrete language, opposed to abstract language, has been associated with dual coding and suggested to elicit dual coding by evoking mental imagery in the learner. For example, consider the following two statements. 1) To ensure all attendees have clear visibility of the presentation, the first row of chairs should be set at least 10 feet from the screen (concrete language). 2) To ensure all attendees have clear visibility of the presentation the aspect ratio must be considered when setting the seating area (abstract language). When reading the first statement, did you form a mental image of a screen and row of chairs set back ten feet? When reading or hearing information as the first code, using concrete language helps learners create mental images which act as the second code, thereby enhancing the information intake process and resulting in greater comprehensibility and recall (3).

Since many organizations hire employees who have prior experience, another learning theory worth mentioning is schema theory. Schema theory suggests that familiarity with material promotes comprehensibility and recall. However, a study by Sadoksi et al. (3) found that dual coding theory was better than schema theory in contributing to comprehensibility and recall. The study extended prior findings by Paivio (4) and Anderson et al. (5) and looked at the impact of concrete language used in educational texts to elicit a dual code learning situation. Based on the findings in support of dual coding, enterprises should not assume a new employee’s experience will contribute to their learning of the organization’s proprietary processes and should examine the materials provided to new employees. By increasing the amount of concrete language over abstract language, another cost-effective method of dual coding for enhanced comprehension and recall may be achieved.

One final, but important, point on dual coding is the distinction between DCT and the concept of learning styles. A somewhat largely accepted hypothesis on learning is that individuals have a singular learning style, such that a visual learner should be presented materials visually, or an auditory learner should be presented materials audibly to increase their learning. This assumption is considered a neuromyth. DCT predicts that people will learn more efficiently when presented layered, visual and non-visual, information. Unlike learning styles theory, DCT is supported by a significant amount of empirical research (1, 6).

Spacing Effect

Another way to enhance the effectiveness of the employee onboarding process is by incorporating spacing. Spacing, just as the word suggests, is intentional structuring of learning sessions in a temporal manner. An abundance of literature on spacing establishes the practice as an effective method of long-term retention of information (7, 8, 9).

One of the original studies on long-term learning, by Karpicke and Roediger (10), examined a series of study-test (ST) cycles of Swahili/English word pairs. Subjects were asked to study the word pairs then recall them on a test. The ST cycles were manipulated by removing correctly recalled words from either subsequent study sessions or testing attempts. The researchers concluded that when a person can recall newly learned information, repeated testing, opposed to repeated studying, enhances their learning. A more recent study by Soderstrom et al. (9) questioned whether the suggested ineffectiveness of re-studying could be improved by spacing. The researchers replicated the Karpicke and Roediger experiment adding a spacing element to the ST patterns. They concluded that re-studying of previously recalled information is effective when properly spaced.

Image from Pixabay

This begs the question, how long is proper spacing? Is it one day, two-weeks, three-months? The literature on the answer is mixed. While there is consensus that retrieval performance is worse on tests where no spacing is provided, the amount of spacing for optimal memory enhancement is unclear. A study by Cepeda et al. (7) examined spacing effects of over 150 subjects by teaching a set of facts during multiple study periods. The researchers used varied spacing gaps of 10 minutes to six months. After participants’ final learning session, they returned six-months later for a memory test. Then, one-year later, a final examination was administered to ascertain the subjects’ memory and recall of the facts. The results showed the greatest recall occurred in the group that experienced a one-month spacing gap between study sessions. Participants who had shorter gaps performed much worse than the one-month participants and those who had longer gaps performed only slightly worse. The authors concluded that while longer spacing intervals produced better retention, an optimal gap could not be determined. The authors suggested that the length of time one wishes to remember information will impact the most efficient spacing interval such that years of information retention should be preceded by a spacing gap of several months.

Another study on spacing, by Toppino, et al. (7) examined the effects of differing retrieval schedules (expanding, contracting, and uniform) on memory retention across two types of training, low-level and high-level. In low level training participants are presented items to be remembered once or a few times. High level training participants engage in multiple practice trials, cued recall tests and corrective feedback. The researchers concluded that there is a causal relationship between the level of initial training and an influence on the efficacy of retrieval schedules. In their study, low-level training accompanied by an expanding spacing schedule resulted in greater cued recall by participants. Their findings support a study-phase retrieval approach which includes prompting of previously shared information is critical. A thoughtfully cultivated, low-level training with an expending spacing schedule should be both organic and efficient in achieving the goal of setting new hires up for success and help them transition to confident employees in their new role.

Conclusion

According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the employee onboarding process should be a strategic endeavor focused on building productive, contented employees. The way an organization behaves regarding an employee’s onboarding is a crucial component of both employee’s success in their new role and long-term retention of the employment investment. A recent article in Harvard Business Review indicated that formalized onboarding improves employee retention by up to 50% as well as over 60% increased productivity among new hires (12). SHRM recommends that onboarding last a minimum of one-year (13). This recommendation lends itself to incorporating both dual coding and spacing into the employee onboarding experience. By balancing new hires’ cognitive load through dual coding and enhancing their long-term retention though spacing, enterprises may greatly improve the onboarding process which will positively contribute to new employees’ effectiveness and success, and protect the company’s human resource investment.

---

References

1. Cuevas, J. (2016). An analysis of current evidence supporting two alternat learning models: Learning styles and dual coding. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology VI(LXVIII)1, 1-13.

2. Liu, X., Liu, C-H., & Li, Y. (2020). The effects of computer-assisted learning based on dual coding theory. Symmetry (Basel), 12(5), 701-713. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12050701

3. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.291

4. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

5. Anderson, R. C, Goetz, E. T., Pichert, H. M., & Halff, H. M. (1977). Two faces of the conceptual peg hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 142-149.

6. Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1314–1314. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314

7. Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science 19(11), 1095-1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.x

8. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966-968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408

9. Soderstrom, Kerr, T. K., & Bjork, R. A. (2016). The Critical Importance of Retrieval—and Spacing—for Learning. Psychological Science, 27(2), 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615617778

10. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966-968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408

11. Toppino, T. C., Phelan, H., & Gerbier, E. (2018). Level of initial training moderates the effects of distributing practice over multiple days with expanding, contracting, and uniform schedules: Evidence for study-phase retrieval. Memory & Cognition 46(6), 969-978. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0815-7

12. Sibisi, S., & Kappers, G. (2022, April 5). Onboarding can make or break a new hire's experience. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/04/onboarding-can-make-or-break-a-new-hires-experience#:~:text=The%20average%20onboarding%20program%20lasts,reach%20their%20full%20performance%20potential.

13. Maurer, R. (2021, July 14). New employee onboarding guide. SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/new-employee-onboarding-guide.aspx