Developing ideas on my professional inquiry: Links to work based learning and theories of learning

Due to a very busy summer and what will be an even busier autumn term I am looking now at the first part of module 2, while I have some time! Throughout module one we looked at understanding our personal learning styles and for me, when processing a lot of information, I find that it is easier to give myself time to reflect on an idea, allow the thoughts to 'sit' with me for a while and then come back to them.   As there is so many avenues to explore in this module, I want to start by processing some ideas on the professional inquiry as a link to WBL and linking it to theories of learning.

I haven't decided on an inquiry topic but understand the importance of the inquiry being in direct correlation to my work at present.   I want to research an area that I am interested in primarily, and on an issue that I feel uninformed about.  It will help me / my colleagues / professional network gain knowledge on an area I believe is an important issue.

What has struck me is that I shouldn't limit myself to a subject I think I know the answer too but just want to prove.  I can explore an area I really need to understand further to progress in my work.

 

Peter Senge is a leader in thinking on how we conduct business today. He calls himself as 'idealistic pragmatist'.  I enjoyed reading his ideas on learning in organisations, and businesses creating a common goal to strengthen their collective knowledge.  He believes in dismantling the ideas of leaders developing goals for the business as a whole.

‘Theories and practices for the interdependent development of people and their institutions... People talk about being part of something larger than themselves, of being connected, of being generative.' (Senge 1990: 13).  

This is connected to career satisfaction described in Module one.  In my current workplace we are a group of 6 dance / musical theatre teachers. We meet every 2 weeks to discuss upcoming projects and problems we may have and generally keep up to date.  I have found that our discussions are most valuable when we all agree of the best route for the studio and want to work together to build it.

'The discipline of team learning starts with ‘dialogue’, the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine ‘thinking together’.'  (Senge 1990: 10)

It also leaves me motivated when I feel we are working to a common goal.  Teaching can be a bit of a isolating job, it's good to know I have colleagues who I can talk to; working in the same direction to promote and build the business and discuss freely any complications.  However, I have found there is a member of the team of teachers who, rightly in some respects, will not do any extra work outside of her classes as those are the hours she is getting paid.   I respect knowing your own worth and not working for free but it made me think of Axelrod's 'Prisoner's dilemma' theory from module 1.   The most effective solution to better a group situation is proven as cooperation.  We are all in the same position and to ultimately build a bigger business and busier studio we all need to promote our classes and do some extra work.  This may sound like common sense,  but I have seen it so often ignored and instead interpreted as people feeling they are being taken advantage of.

 

 Looking at methods of learning to inform my work

 

I have been looking Argyris and Schon's theory of single and double loop learning.   At first to understand the single or double loop processes, I needed to identify the 'governing variable', or we can call it the action strategy.   Again I thought of examples in my work of what I deemed productive meetings with colleagues, and tried to identify these meetings as being likeable to Models 1 or 2.  Model 1 are the groups identified as inhibiting a change to the action strategy and Model 2 are open to changing the governing variable. 

 

The governing Values of Model I are:

• Achieve the purpose as the actor defines it
• Win, do not lose
• Suppress negative feelings
• Emphasise rationality

Primary Strategies are:

• Control environment and task unilaterally
• Protect self and others unilaterally

Usually operationalised by:

• Unillustrated attributions and evaluations eg.  "You seem unmotivated"
• Advocating courses of action which discourage inquiry eg.  "Lets not talk about the past, that's over."
• Treating ones' own views as obviously correct
• Making covert attributions and evaluations
• Face-saving moves such as leaving potentially embarrassing facts unstated

Consequences include:

• Defensive relationships
• Low freedom of choice
• Reduced production of valid information
• Little public testing of ideas

 Model 2:

 

The governing values of Model II include:

• "Valid information
• Free and informed choice
• Internal commitment

Strategies include:

• Sharing control
• Participation in design and implementation of action

Operationalised by:

• Attribution and evaluation illustrated with relatively directly observable data
• Surfacing conflicting views
• encouraging public testing of evaluations

Consequences should include:

• Minimally defensive relationships
• high freedom of choice
• increased likelihood of double-loop learning"

Through looking at my journal I can identify some meetings whereby some of the attributes of model 1 single loop learning have hindered change in the process that could benefit the business and colleagues.   A critical negative behaviour I have noticed is 'face-saving' moves to leave facts unstated.   I have seen in my self and other teachers dishonesty when they have spoken about a problem, to give off the impression that it was the fault of someone else or solely the student.  

'If my behaviour is driven by my not wanting to be seen as incompetent, this may lead me to hide things from myself and others, in order to avoid feelings of incompetence.  For example, if my behaviour is driven by wanting to be competent, honest evaluation of my behaviour by myself and others would be welcome and useful.' Argyris, Putnam & McLain Smith (1985, p.  89).

This hinders double loop learning as then the process of the teacher 'or governing variable' will remain the same as they can only identify the problem with the outcome not how they got there.  

 

I am constantly learning as I am a new teacher and throughout the summer I took on teaching 20+ students 5 days a week 6 hours a day musical theatre summer camps.   At first I found the weeks incredibly tiring and difficult but, of course as time went on I began to relax and enjoy myself.  I can identify in myself some of the negative attributes of model 1 from the start of the summer.   For example, in the first week I received negative feedback from a parent.  They said that their child was not challenged enough as I spent too much time with younger students.  At the time I tried to justify to my collegues I had done everything could and with such a wide age range (6-14 yrs)  it was hard to keep everyone 100% engaged for 6 hours.   As the week went on I realised this didn't have to be the case and actually I needed another adult so I could separate the children for group work, improvisation ect.   I spoke up, explained and luckily the studio owner agreed and I had helpers for the following weeks.   I learnt that 'saving face' would not change the process and actually honesty in my own shortcomings had the most positive outcome. 

Has anyone else had experience of this defensive behaviour being ineffective at work?   I've found that with performers we try to save face a lot as the industry is so competitive no one wants to admit that they are learning too!

 

 

Bio:

Argyris, Putnam & McLain Smith (1985, p.  89) 

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm

Peter Senge  From <http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization/>

 

Argyris and Schon  http://www.aral.com.au/resources/argyris.html#a_arg_loops