Learning in vivo

Sustainability as emerging academic field challenges what is taught and how

If higher education graduates are to cope with society’s sustainability-challenges, universities must provide students with interactive, experiential, transformative, and real-world learning to suitably prepare them; say Brundiers, Wiek and Redman (2010). The authors undertook a synthesis of literature on sustainability education (an emerging academic field) with the view of determining how real-world learning can contribute to building key competencies in sustainability. Consensus exists that the capacity-uilding pathways of sustainability education should engage the “head, hands, and heart”.

Sustainability education is concerned with complex non-linear problems with long-term implications; that cut across economic, social, and environmental domains; not just on local but global scales; and involve high degrees of damage potential; and therefore urgency. These often manifest as a conglomerate of problems that require sophisticated “post-normal” solutions and elaborate problem-solving techniques; that challenges basic assumptions; and call for systems-thinking, anticipation, and participatory strategy-building models across established disciplines.

Key competencies in sustainability cannot be acquired by being told about sustainable development. Students need to see and work within a living learning place. They need to experience what a sustainable lifestyle means. Learning must focus on real-world problems, exposing students to corresponding real-world settings. A variety of learning models might be considered, for example project- and/or problem-based learning; service learning; and internships. However, not all real-world learning opportunities are appropriate. Some are more appropriate for extracurricular activities; whereas others do not relate well to the key features of sustainability. Brundiers, Wiek and Redman (2010: 311) present this “overview of key differences among dominant models of real-world learning formats”:

	Project-based learning	Service learning	Internship
Outcomes: what students learn/benefit	Collaborative problem-solving capacity	Education and teaching capacity	Professional working experience; career development
Practices: what students do	Collaborating with partners to develop solution approach	Educating people	Assisting or working on a professional project
Interaction with stakeholder	Two-way knowledge generation (co-production)	One-way knowledge transfer (students to community)	One-way knowledge transfer (employer to student and student to employer)
Integration of theory and practice	Explicit, supervised by faculty and stakeholder	Implicit, not supervised by faculty	Implicit, not supervised by faculty
Impacts on world	Systemic innovation	Support of social innovation and change	Modular innovation

Brundiers, K.; Wiek, A. & Redman C. L. 2010. Real-world learning opportunities in sustainability: from classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11 (4): 308-324.

The journal (IJSHE) is published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited in conjunction with Society of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future (ULSF).

Workplace-based mobile-enabled learning is gaining importance

“Work-based mobile learning is increasingly becoming one of the most important means of providing knowledge, skills and competencies to the workforce” reports Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 219). They point out that whereas traditionally on-the-job training had been prevalent, increased access to Internet and enhanced wireless communication resulted in individuals training themselves in any location of their choice.

The rudimentary model of the master-crafts-person teaching one of more apprentices worked well for many centuries. Fast-paced progress; reduced learning time and more complexity with regard to knowledge, skills and competency; resulted in a need for more rapid learning and continuous adaptation to changes.

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 229) caution those designing and implementing work-based mobile learning to consider adult learning theories such as:

• The experiential learning theory of Charles Rogers (1969) focussing on significant learning only when people actually do things. Cognitive learning according to Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) often represents knowledge of encyclopaedia nature; which become irrelevant if not complemented by affective and psychomotor dimensions. Laird’s (1985) sensory stimulation theory advocates that increased incorporation of the senses in instruction consolidates learning. Sight and sound enhances learning; as does kinaesthetic/tactile or learning-by-doing that involves actual manipulation of objects. Action learning and action research stems from these foundations.
• Adult learners bring past experiences—both positive and negative—into the new learning situation; which suggests that the learning contexts must be non-threatening. Whereas young learners can be coerced by grades; adults adapt to cope with life’s changing demands. Often work-based learning opportunities are pursued in order to take advantage of developmental, advancement or promotional opportunities. Learning therefore takes place because of its relevance to immediate needs.
• Stephen Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis (Krashen, 1987) postulates that when a person is threatened or the what is learned conflicts to the person’s existing views; then the learning would not be as fruitful as when the learning reduces perceived threats or complements existing thinking.
• Malcolm Knowles promoted andragogy as adult learning theory in the 1970ties and gained a substantial following; but not without resistance. Zemke (1984) emphasise four important aspects of andragogy, namely: (a) adults learn best if they perceive immediate value; (b) when included in the organisation more learning takes place and learners are more satisfied; (c) actually doing things (kinaesthetic learning) consolidates theory by pooling the senses; (d) and previous experiences are used to relate current learning to.
• The Characteristics of Adults as Learners (CAL) model of Patricia Cross (1981) takes into consideration both personal (such as physical—eye sight, hearing, reaction time; stage of life; experiences; cognitive development—degree of independence, decision-making, vocabulary and reasoning abilities; as well as psychological, social and cultural variables) and situational characteristics (for example, voluntary versus obligatory learning; full or part-time engagement; etc.).

Four aspects to take into consideration when designing mobile work-based learning (p. 233):

1. Explain why specific matters (for example commands, functions, and operations) are being taught.
2. Make instructions task-orientated and contextualise learning activities within performance requirements.
3. Keep in mind the potential wide variety of learner backgrounds and make provision in instructions for various levels and types of previous experience.
4. Make use of the self-directedness of adults and enable learners to discover things for themselves; but provide guidance and corrective assistance where necessary.

Auer, M.E.; Edwards, A & Zutin, D.G. 2011. Online laboratories in interactive mobile learning environments, pp. 119-248. In N Pachler, C Pimmer & J Seipold (Eds). 2011. Work-based Mobile Learning — concepts and cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Enabling distant laboratory learning via mobile technologies

“Online laboratories are necessary for distance or mobile learning for the same reason laboratory practices are important in traditional educational settings” reports Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 229). They observe that although there appear to be general agreement that laboratory experience is necessary; there is little consensus about what the basic objectives thereof are. They further report (p. 223) that during the four years 1993 to 1997 only 6.5 per cent of the articles published in the Journal of Engineering Education used laboratory as keyword; and during the subsequent four years 1998 to 2002 even less, namely 5.2 per cent. Little has been published about what laboratory experience is expected to accomplish, with no specific objectives or outcomes stated.

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 222) assert that “synchronous active interaction with experiments and problem-solving helps individual or collaborative learners directly acquire applicable knowledge that can be used in practical situations, which is why pedagogical theory and practice considers laboratory experimentation an essential part of the educational process, particularly in the sciences and engineering”. Online access to remote laboratories through Internet is gaining importance. The domain of Online Engineering is an interdisciplinary field comprising engineering, computing and telematics catering for live interactive engineering activities such as “programming, design, control, observation, measuring, sensing, and maintenance” to both remote and localised users (p. 222).

Auer, Edwards and Zutin (2011: 224) differentiate three kinds of engineering laboratories:

• The development laboratory is used by practicing engineers to obtain experimental data in order to answer specific questions and/or to design and develop products. Furthermore to ascertain if a specific design performs as it is intended.
• The research laboratory serves to seek broader and new additions to knowledge to generalise and systemise.
• The educational or instructional laboratory serves to allow undergraduates to learn what they as graduates would be assumed to understand and know.

Web-based laboratories were introduced in 1996 by universities in undergraduate engineering education. The field of remote engineering since matured; the number of remote laboratories dramatically increased; and the range of disciplines in which remote laboratories used expanded. The need for remote access to experimentation and for flexibility with regard to time and place of laboratory access are powerful motivators — “Anytime and anyplace learning is presently revolutionising learning in the workplace” (p. 226). Developments of mobile technology further accelerated advancements.

Auer, M.E.; Edwards, A & Zutin, D.G. 2011. Online laboratories in interactive mobile learning environments, pp. 119-248. In N Pachler, C Pimmer & J Seipold (Eds). 2011. Work-based Mobile Learning — concepts and cases. Oxford: Peter Lang.

Are computer games constructive tools to foster learning?

Konstantin Mitgutsch (2012: 572) shares “insights into the experience-based process of learning and its recursive motion, structures, and patterns”—“the recursive process of experiencing unknown situations and of restructuring former experiences”. He starts (p. 571) by asking the blog title question and by indicating it “reaches back to the roots of the institutionalization of education in general”. He continues to indicate that “ludologists, educators, psychologists, anthropologists, and philosophers” in the 18^th and 19^th centuries recognised and promoted the potential of playing. He adds that “players achieve an enormous amount of information through playing digital games”.

Digital games have been capturing academic interest since the early 1980s. Initially the dominant focus of research had been on risks and environmental effects. In contrast the focus of contemporary research shifted to the “positive and beneficial aspects of playing”—“A frequently applied term used to describe learning in games is digital game-based learning (DGBL)” (Mitgutsch, 2012: 572-3). He quotes the Federation of American Scientists (2006: 3) believes that “computer games are a constructive tool to foster learning”:

The success of complex video games demonstrates games can teach higher-order thinking skills such as strategic thinking, interpretative analysis, problem solving, plan formulation and execution, and adaptation to rapid change.

Although the PC-games industry develop and sell games that foster learning, it must be kept in mind that the focus is on profits and market preferences, rather than on an educational rationale. Mitgutsch (2012: 574-5) summarises literature that focus on reasons why computer games engage learners as well as several aspects that support the learning process.

Learning “is often reduced to an act of acquiring” while it is often overlooked “that every learning process starts with a particular experience of something”—people cannot necessary “choose to make a particular experience like” ordering from a catalogue; instead experience happens (Mitgutsch, 2012: 575). John Dewey in 1916 pointed out that learning from experience entails making backward and forward connections between what is done/tried and what is gained as result—it is not a linear act of acquiring; but rather “a circular process of suffering, doing, experimenting, transferring, and playing”. Games offer exploratory territories and therefore serve as powerful learning enablers.

Mitgutsch, K. 2012. Learning through play – a delicate matter: experience-based recursive learning in computer games, Chapter 36, pp. 571 - 584. [Retrieved 25 June 2012 from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2534141vvm55m32/fulltext.pdf] in J. Fromme & A. Unger (eds). 2012. Computer Games and New Media Cultures—A Handbook of Digital Games Studies. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media. Retrieved 25 June 2012 from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-94-007-2776-2/#section=1083651&page=1

Does experience-taking offer a means of simulated learning?

Encounters with fictional characters offer the potential exposure “a diverse array of personalities, perspectives, events, outcomes, and realizations” remark Geoff Kaufman and Lisa Libby (2012: 1). Literature allows the imaginary transportation to other places; to other times; into characters with personality traits different from us; or the engagement in actions or the holding of ideas that are being aspired to. Biographies and fictional tales allow for the experiencing of life journeys of other people, which in turn may be an eye opener to the minds, struggles, achievements of individuals form diverse backgrounds. However, what is described here by no means happen automatically. On the contrary, it is required that the reader move beyond being a mere reader or spectator. It requires connecting to characters to such an extent that one step “into their proverbial shoes and experience the story from their perspective” (2012: 2), essentially to image becoming the characters while being in the world of the narrative. Kaufman and Libby (2012: 1) identify this as experience-taking and define the concept as “the imaginative process of spontaneously assuming the identity of a character in a narrative and simulating that character’s thoughts, emotions, behaviors, goals, and traits as if they were one’s own”. They undertook research to explore which factors facilitate and which impede experience-taking. They also demonstrate the influential impact experience-taking may have on the self-concepts, goals and actions of engaged readers. They further differentiate experience-taking from perspective-taking.

Kaufman and Libby (citing Oatley 1999, 2012: 2) suggests that experience-taking occurs when “readers simulate the events of a narrative as though they were a particular character in the story world, adopting the character’s mindset and perspective as the story progresses rather than orienting themselves as an observer or evaluator of the character”. In order to succeed in experience-taking, the reader need to set aside key aspects of own identity—“such as their beliefs, memories, personality traits and ingroup affiliations—and instead assume the identity of a protagonist, accepting the character’s decisions, outcomes, and reactions as their own” (Kaufman & Libby, 2012: 2).

It is suggested, based on the prediction and research findings of Kaufman and Libby (2012), that the better a simulation is capable to evoke experience-taking and to enable the participant to mimic the character’s subjective experience, the better is the potential of adapting self-concept, attitudes, and behaviour.

Kaufman, G. F.; Libby, L. K. 2012. Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Mar 26.

Visit also: 'Losing Yourself' in a Fictional Character Can Affect Your Real Life

Oatley, K. 1999. Meetings of minds: Dialogue, sympathy, and identification, in reading fiction. Poetics, 26, 439–454. doi:10.1016/S0304-422X(99)00011-X

Avoid interferance in learning through attentive design

It is important for curriculum developers to understanding how the random assignment of learning activities and incongruent information can negatively affect learning. In particular, as the demand for simulations grows, so does the need for careful curriculum development in order to maximize learning. It is important to consider how learning is acquired and how information is retained in order to maximise the positive transfer of learning while minimising potential obstacles that may disrupt understanding.

Clapper (2011) highlights four important phases of learning:

1. Inquire phase — The aim of this phase is to facilitate the transferring in of frames of reference or schemata derived from past experiences related to the subject and knowledge accumulated. It is essential to keep in mind that while high-load prior work can impose a strain on working memory and will interfere with learning; successful transferring in of knowledge from prior work that is later found to be consistent with new learning results in positive learning transfer.
2. Gather phase — The aim of this phase is to enable the collection of information from various teaching and learning activities.
3. Process phase — During this phase information gathered is processed and synthesised. Once the information has been internalised through teaching and learning activities and reflection then positive learning transfer occurs.
4. Apply phase — The aim of this phase is to facilitate the transfer out of new knowledge to real-life settings. It is often the most difficult phase of learning.

Reflection-in-action is important throughout the four phases. Reflection-in-action involves stop and think to replay the experience (returning to); attending to the feelings evoked by the experience; and re-evaluating the experience in order to transfer the learning or move on. Learning designers and facilitators should be vigilant that learning environments may be creating interference and/or unintentionally providing conflicting information.

Clapper, T.C. 2011, May. Interference in learning: what curriculum developers need to know. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 7(3), e77-e80.

Learning in Work and the Community (LiWC)

Learning in the Workplace and Community (LiWC) is, according to Victoria University, "an umbrella term that encompasses the many models and integrated approaches to teaching, learning and assessment that involve learning in and through the workplace and community. These LiWC models and approaches may include but are not limited to, projects in a workplace, practical, co-operative and clinical placements, fieldwork, simulated learning environments, apprenticeships, traineeships or internships and enterprise initiatives."

Tweets enrich learning from work

Tweet-sharing presents a potentially powerful means of spreading learning derived from work experiences for students during prerequisite in vivo learning; for members of a community of practice; for participants in a learning through work programme; etc. Download Academic tweeting to learn MG29Jan-4Feb2010 What do readers of this post think of the idea? Could tweets and re-tweets become the material for reflective practice?

Reflective practice for collective learning

Raelin (2000: 101) calls "the process of public reflection" reflective practice; it is a community of inquiry and creates a collective identity. He defines reflection as "the practice of periodically stepping back to ponder the meaning to self and others in one's immediate environment about what has transpired. It illuminates what has been experienced by both self and others, providing a basic for future education", he adds.

Raelin (2000: 101-2) emphasises learning dialogues, as element of reflective practice, taking place in the security of trustworthy peers based on the direct experiences of work. Raelin (p. 103) refers to Plato's statement that 'the unexamined life isn't worth living' meaning that others need to be included in the examination of life experiences. It is more than collective naval gazing; it isintorspection midst of practice and in the presence of others.

"Reflective practitioners 'reinvest' in learning by participating in continuing education" and "engage in problem posing as much as problem solving, continually expand[ing] their solution database rather than select the first solution that works, view inconsistencies as opportunities rather than inconveniences, and enjoy reflecting back on their decision making rather than sealing off debate" (Raelin 2000: 105). Four explicit reflective practices that can be used each on its own or combined are presented by Raelin (2000: 115-145):

1. Learning teams

Work-based learning often involves action learning in teams. Co-workers undertake projects together, discuss dilemmas of work actions, as well as "the application or misapplication of concepts and theories to these actions" (p. 115). The learning device is to pose questions to one another.

2. Journaling

But "the journal is arguably the most endemic technique we have to enhance our self-reflection" admits Raelin (p. 124). Yet, he continues, although it is "often used as an introspective tool for personal growth, it can also serve as an aid to bring together the inner and outer parts of our lives. It offers a lens to view experience—be it before, during, or after the event under scrutiny—and it even allows further reflection on the journal entries themselves." The journal is a potent vehicle to collect private data for public learning dialogues and may include any one or more of the following:

• Logs or reports of specific factual experiences.
• Lists of observations or ideas.
• Portraits or descriptions of people or situations.
• Memoirs of personal experiences.
• Catalogues of feelings/perceptions in situations or about people.
• Intimate accounts including personal sentiments, confessions and notes.
• Dialogues recordings.
• Conceptual understandings.
• Commentary of applications of concepts.
• Social histories (stories) of issues unfolding.
• Maps of consciousness to capture the state of mind.
• Guided imagery, meditated frames of reference and/or dreams.
• Altered points of view in different contexts or timeframes.
• Contradictions or dilemmas experiences or observed.
• Inconsistencies noticed
• Surprises experiences.

3. Developmental planning

Developmental planning often linked to career development. It involves the individual interests, needs and expectations, as well as the organisational objectives and resource requirements. It is often an element of the overall organisational performance management strategy.

4. Developmental relationships

Examples of developmental relationships include coaching and mentoring.

Raelin, J.A. 2000. Work-based learning—the new frontier of management development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Learning by steps of inference

When I showed my wife Raelin's (2000: 98) ladder of inference, she replied that this is much more her way of learning than memorising or having things hammered into her brain—memorising does not work for me! There are many people that much rather learn by engaging and figuring things out, consulting resources as and when necessary.

When I did a search for a picture of a ladder I found numerous ladders of interference, for example:

• Ladder of inference model from Peter Senge's (1994) 5th Discipline Fieldbook.
• Also called by some the ladder of influence or even ladder of innocence.
• Some give the ladder of inference six steps above the surface it is standing on.
• The ladder of inference is regarded as one of the most effective tools in understanding and explaining why we so often get into conflict and fail to get resolution—it was originally articulated by Chris Argyris (acknowledged by Raelin as work-based learning tutor, for his intellectual stimulation) and popularized in Peter Senge.
• William Goelkel emphasise, in the PM Notebook, that we make decisions and take action based on what we consider to be obvious truths based on objective data, however, the problem is the data is often selected to conform to our beliefs—not truths and often not obvious to others—a feedback loop is therefore important.

This four-step ladder is available in 12 colours, with a no handrail, a left, a right or both-sides handrails.

Raelin's (2000: 98) ladder of inference comprise:

Step 4: Take action.

Step 3: Draw inferences.

Step 2: Interpret data.

Step 1: Select data.

Surface: Observe available data.

I further found this very interesting (to me) four step rock climbing device and numerous other gadgets.

Raelin, J.A. 2000. Work-based learning—the new frontier of management development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Collective work-based learning

Raelin (2000: 66-100) discusses three kinds of collective work-based learning, namely:

• Action Learning
• Community of Practice
• Action Science

Action Learning

It is an educational strategy that entails groups seeking to derive learning from real-time (in vivo) problem solving. In about 1975, after conversion to adult membership of my congregation I engaged in entry-level instruction of catechumens. At the time the notion of learning by doing got impressed upon my mind. In trying to bring about learning, I have subsequently always tried to build in activity in learning facilitation. Raelin (2000: 66-7) remarks that such activities are useful; but neither sufficient to enable conversion of theory into tacit knowledge; nor for participants/delegates to challenge and reflect on their own theoretical assumptions. Only if people take real positions; are obliged to make moral judgements and required to defend those under pressure do real learning occur. Action learning teams present itself as a means to introduce work-based learning into a work environment.

Community of Practice

Raelin (2000: 75) asserts that "communities of practice evolve as people united in a common enterprise develop a shared history as well as particular values, beliefs, ways of talking, and ways of doing things". Membership is spontaneous and through involvement with one another—mutual engagement—in the process of pursuing the same practice. Problem solving together becomes (as a community) becomes a natural social activity and meanings are informally negotiated. Often knowledge creation is tacit and practices become interpersonally instinctive. A "shared repertoire, including routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, concepts, and the like that symbolize their shared practice" (Raelin 2000: 76)emerges. Members of a community of practice often serve as gate keepers with regard to the practice.

Raelin (2000: 78) observes that facilitation might accelerate the process toward the emergence of a community of practice, but he expresses reservation if an organisation as a whole could become a community of practice—there are just too many barriers and politics. He discusses the use of Future Search (pp 24-25 of PsychDigest Vol 1 No 3; Download FutureSearch_AfronautHigherEducationlaunchpad-posternarrative) technology (p. 83), Open Space Technology (p. 84) and Virtual Team Learning (p. 85), but cautions about the latter that nobody has yet "invented a technology that replaces a pitcher of beer".

Action Science

When I saw this heading I have been most intrigued. Raelin (2000: 89) defines action science as "a work-based intervention strategy for helping learners increase their effectiveness is social situations through heightened awareness of their action and interaction assumptions". It is a form of 'double-loop' learning derived from becoming aware of a mismatch between your values and your actions and an internal commitment to embracing new or other. The term reflection-in-action—described as rethinking to discover how and what that has been done contributed to the expected or unexpected outcome—is preferred by some, e.g. Donald Schön (p. 90). A member of a community of practice would typically offer a frame of the situation a hand. The members collectively would then reflect upon the frame/s and start testing the underlying assumptions and reasoning processes that surface. The aim is to narrow the inconsistencies between espoused (what is advocated) theories versus theories-in-use (actual practice).

Raelin (2000: 90) agrees with Habermas's views and points out three types of knowledge:

1. Technical knowledge entails "predictions about observable events, physical or social"; may result in empirical or theoretical discourse; and "relies upon hypothetico-deductive logic".
2. Practical knowledge involves "social norms, ideals, values, and moral decisions"; that in the absence of empirical tests rely on tradition and authority. However, consensus derived through dialogue is preferred and metaphors often used to resolve contradictions. Ideally, practical discourse searches for meaning rather than trying to outlining causality.
3. Emancipatory knowledge is gained through critical self-reflection about the taken-for-granted assumptions. The validity of premises for interpretation or understanding is tested through reflective discourse.

People are often socially conditioned—Model I behaviour—which is "characterised by a need to control, maximize winning, suppress emotions, and be rational" Raelin (2000: 91) with minimal learning, but reinforcement of existing socialisation. In contrast, Model II behaviour, "is based on directly observable data" at hand and entails exchange of viewpoints—resulting in increased learning and producing of intended end-results. The table below (based Raelin 2000: 94) on serves as illustration:

	Model I behaviour	Model II behaviour
Contextual cue or triggering condition	An elderly woman is curious about the use of SMSes	Another elderly person, similar age, notices how efficient SMS communication is
Underlying assumptions	Cellphones are complex, I would not master it.	Believe it is possible to master the use of the SMS function of a cellphone
Action strategies	Is shown by a user (grandchild) what an SMS is and how to go about creating a message, sending it, receiving it, retrieving it and responding	Ask a user to demonstrate how to go about creating a message, sending it, receiving it, retrieving it and responding. Make notes how to go about and try SMSing.
Consequences in the behavioural world for learning	Promptly forgets and ask again in future when observing fellow residents of the retirement facility receiving SMSes	Master the use of the SMSes and enjoy the benefit of keeping in touch with relatives and friends

Raelin, J.A. 2000. Work-based learning—the new frontier of management development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Work-based learning model

Raelin (2000: 49-65) theorises about work-based learning firstly by comparing theory and practice modes of learning, there after explicit versus tacit forms of knowledge. He then builds a conceptual model by first looking at individual work-based learning, in terms of the two mentioned modes of learning and the two forms of knowledge:

	Explicit	Tacit
Theory:	Conceptualisation	Experimentation
Practice:	Reflection	Experience

He next turns to the organisation, as collective, and builds further on his model of work-based learning:

	Explicit	Tacit
Theory:	Applied science	Action learning
Practice:	Action science	Community of practice

Then he completes his pyramid-shape model (Raelin 2000: 64)

Raelin, J.A. 2000. Work-based learning—the new frontier of management development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Make learning arise from changing work

The maxim of the inventor of action learning, Reg Rewans, rings true: "the rate of learning must equal or exceed the rate of change" (Raelin, 2000: 1).

Rate of learning ≥Rate of Change

Managers can no longer afford to continuously react to change; in order to compete successfully—urges Raelin (2000: 2)—managers must anticipate change and make time to reflect on actions. Raelin (2000: 1) calls the "need for continuous learning" the "sine qua non of organisational development"; learning has to become a way of conduct—part of the work ethic: "continuous reflection on actual experience" (p. 2).

Raelin, J.A. 2000. Work-based learning—the new frontier of management development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Four schools of action learning

Action learning has a history of more than 60 years of practice. During the late 1920s a group of research scientists "found that meeting to question their successes and failures, in a very deliberate and precise way, and then reflecting on them together, helped them to gain insights and act more appropriately" (Rimanoczy 2007:247). The various types of action learning were organised in 1999 (p. 248) into four schools:

1. The Tacit School entail that people learn incidentally from real problems while working.
2. The Scientific School follow Lewin's action research cycle but focus on learning.
3. The Experiential School base their learning process on Kolb's learning cycle, by starting with action, followed by reflection on the action and changes to future action.
4. The Critical Reflection School does what its name implies; the reflection deepens to explore beliefs and assumptions. [Action Reflection Learning falls within this school).

Two consistent elements were found across the four schools, namely:

• Working on real problems that are ambiguous.
• Participants meet to report progress and discuss problems.

Rimanoczy, I. 2007. Action learning and action reflection learning: are they different? Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 246-256.

Action Reflection Learning & the Learning Coach

Isabel Rimanoczy enunciates that there are two different worlds of adult learning:

• The scholarly endeavour of synthesis of existing literature followed by empirical research—conceptual frameworks and theory building to explain practices.
• Practitioners within a community of practice—people daily face challenges, they employ their best judgement combining information available, conceptualisation, intuition and experience. Theoretical recommendations are seldom literally followed and practice is only occasionally converted back into theoretical frameworks, resulting in a gap between the real-life communities of practice and scholarly literature.

Action reflection learning (ARL) is an example of the second bullet—the community of practice grounded learning had only recently been coded formally as methodology. It is based on the 1940s action learning approach of Reg Revans. A group of people (set) periodically meet with the purpose to resolve work related problems—individuals table their problems and the members of the group help the individual find answers by asking questions. The implementation of a set advisor (or learning coach) evolved in that complex problems required specialist input, such as just-in-time knowledge, skills, teaching of new tools/techniques. The ARL approach has many uses, for example: improving team performance; creating post merger interventions; coaching and mentoring of individual members; designing accelerated development for young high potential entrants; organisational change; crisis intervention by task forces; developing synergy across teams; etc.

The coding of ARL practice resulted in the identification of 17 common elements, namely:

1. Taking ownership for one's learning.

2. Just in time intervention.

3. Linking.

4. Balance task/learning.

5. Questioning.

6. Guided reflection.

7. Feedback.

8. Unfamiliar environments.

9. Exchange of learnings.

10. Appreciative approach.

11. Safe environments.

12. Holistic involvement of the individual.

13. Learning and personality styles.

14. Coaching one-on-one.

15. Sequenced learning.

16. Learning coach.

17. Five system levels—professional, personal, team, organisational & business/task.

Rimanoczy, I. 2007. Action reflection learning: a learning methodology based on common sense. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(1), 43-51.

Rimanoczy, I. 2007. Action learning and action reflection learning: are they different? Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 246-256.

From simulation to action learning and reflection

Malick and Stumph (1998) distinguish between synthetic and natural experiential learning. The first they define “as learning that takes place when the action is in a venue constructed for the learning experience” and may include “cases, games, exercises and other experiences” (p. 25) that are planed and directed to provide practice, illustrate or give insight, or to apply learning. The work place where the learning will be used is a primary natural experiential learning venue. Malick and Stumpf point out that not only is the cost of natural experiential learning higher, but also is it unrealistic to expect certain aspects of learning to occur naturally. However, Mintzberg placed simulations and cases at the bottom of a scale (see figure below) of learning ‘authenticity’ and work-based action learning and reflection at the top (Mintzberg, 2005 in Gardner, Blevins and Taylor, 2006, p. 2).

Gardner, S., Blevins, A. & Taylor, T. 2006. Co-creating professional knowledge through learning partnerships: The WA Police-Edith Cowan University, ASPIRE Officer Development Program. Paper delivered at the Teaching and Learning Forum, 1-2 February 2006, The University of Western Australia. Available on Internet at: http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2006/refereed/gardner.html

Mailick, S. & Stumpf, S.A. 1998. Learning theory in the practice of management development. Westport, Connecticut: Quurum.