## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Initial performance decline is normal**: When establishing new routines, student performance temporarily drops due to cognitive overload > - **Persistence through difficulty required**: Consistent practice and adherence to new procedures eventually leads to significant improvements > - **Infrastructure alignment necessary**: Full potential only achieved when all supporting systems adapted to new approach ## Definition **Valley of Latent Potential**: The challenging transition period where initial efforts implementing new routines don't immediately yield visible success, but consistent practice eventually leads to breakthrough improvements. ## Connected To [[Routines]] | [[Mini-Whiteboards]] | [[Standardisation]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Fluency]] --- ## The valley concept ![[ValleyofLatentPotential.png|500]] The valley of latent potential describes the pattern where improvement initially requires performance decline before breakthrough success emerges (Clear, 2018). This concept applies across domains from habit formation to skill acquisition to organisational change. New routines feel clunky, time-consuming, and inefficient. Students need multiple attempts to get procedures right, and learning may temporarily slow down. This feels like failure but is normal transition. Once established, routines become automatic and improve learning efficiency, classroom management, and student engagement. The valley is necessary, not avoidable. New habits require approximately 66 days on average to become automatic, with substantial individual variation (18-254 days) depending on habit complexity (Lally, van Jaarsveld, Potts, & Wardle, 2010). During this acquisition period, performance on the target behaviour often dips before improving. ## Why performance initially declines Conscious attention to procedures consumes working memory that was previously devoted to content (Cowan, 2001; Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). Students must consciously think about procedure steps. Working memory occupied by routine requirements means less mental capacity is available for content learning. Mistakes and confusion increase initially. During initial learning, controlled processing demands substantial cognitive resources (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977). New routines require conscious monitoring and deliberate execution, creating extraneous cognitive load that temporarily reduces performance (Sweller et al., 2019). Only through repeated practice do procedures become automatic, freeing working memory for content learning (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). New expectations feel artificial and forced. Students resist changes to established patterns. Teacher confidence wavers during this difficult period. Temptation to abandon the new approach increases. ## Historical example: shipping containers Pre-1960s shipping loaded goods in sacks, barrels, and boxes by dockworkers, a method that seemed optimal to experienced shippers. Standardised containers initially seemed terrible: they could not optimally arrange different-shaped goods, half-empty containers appeared wasteful, they required unpacking and rearranging at every harbour, and they did not align with existing ship designs. Attempts to integrate containers without changing supporting infrastructure failed. Only after aligning the entire delivery chain (packaging, ship design, harbours, handling equipment) was full potential realised (Levinson, 2006). Standardised shipping containers initially appeared inefficient compared to traditional loading methods (Levinson, 2006). Early adopters experienced performance declines during transition. Success only came after comprehensive system redesign: purpose-built container ships, redesigned harbours with specialised cranes, standardised container dimensions, and new logistics software. The valley period lasted years, but breakthrough success transformed global trade. Like shipping containers, new teaching practices require system-wide alignment to achieve full benefits. ## Common examples in teaching Mini-whiteboard implementation often creates an initial valley. Setup time feels excessive, students struggle with routine steps, behaviour management challenges increase, and learning pace appears to slow. The breakthrough brings rapid whole-class assessment, immediate feedback, higher engagement, and better learning data. New participation routines follow a similar pattern. Students resist changed expectations, the teacher feels awkward with new scripts, procedures feel forced and unnatural, and some students continue old patterns. The breakthrough brings increased participation, better classroom culture, improved learning outcomes, and reduced behaviour issues. ## Success factors Understanding that initial difficulty is normal and temporary (not a sign of failure) helps maintain commitment. Deliberate rehearsal of procedures until they become habitual for both teacher and students is required. Ensuring all supporting systems and expectations work together coherently enables full benefits. Allowing sufficient time (typically several weeks) for routines to become automatic prevents premature abandonment. Routines become habitual through context-dependent repetition (Wood & Neal, 2007). The transition from effortful to automatic processing follows predictable patterns but requires sustained practice through the difficult initial phase. ## References Clear, J. (2018). *Atomic habits: An easy and proven way to build good habits and break bad ones*. Penguin Random House. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922 Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. *Psychological Review*, 102(2), 211-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211 Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. *European Journal of Social Psychology*, 40(6), 998-1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674 Levinson, M. (2006). *The box: How the shipping container made the world smaller and the world economy bigger*. Princeton University Press. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. *Psychological Review*, 84(1), 1-66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. *Psychological Review*, 114(4), 843-863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843