Teaching organizations how to learn. Part 1

Chris Argyris, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, has made significant contributions to the development of organizational learning theory and experiential learning.

Any company that aspires to succeed in the tougher business environment ...must first resolve a basic dilemma: success in the marketplace increasingly depends on learning, yet most people don’t know how to learn. What’s more, those members of the organization that many assume to be the best at learning are, in fact, not very good at it.

(Argyris, C. 1991)

Over the next couple of weeks (taking digressions where appropriate) I will examine the significance of his work (focusing in particular on single-loop and double-loop learning) on organizational learning systems.

Today however, I will begin by reminding you of the basis for Chris Argyris’ work: Constructivism.

In her comprehensive reference text Psychology of learning for instruction, Marcy Driscoll describes constructivism as having

…multiple roots in psychology and philosophy, among which are the cognitive and developmental perspectives of Piaget, the interactional and cultural emphases of Vygotsky and Bruner, the contextual nature of learning, the active learning of Dewey, the epistemological discussions of von Glasersfeld and the paradigm and scientific revolutions of Thomas Kuhn.

(1994, p.375)

Constructivism is an approach to learning based on the premise that cognition, or learning, is the result of mental construction: it is an active process in which learners construct new ideas, skills and behaviors based upon their prior and current knowledge, behavior and skill assets. The learner transforms information, constructs knowledge, and makes decisions based upon extant cognitive structures or mental models. These cognitive structures - what Roger Schank calls “scripts” in his Dynamic Memory Model (1982) - provide meaning and organization to experiences and allow the individual to go “beyond the information given” (Bruner, 1974). Even though there are numerous interpretations of constructivism, several central concepts inhabit all constructivist theories. Cunningham and Duffy (1996) identified two major similarities that are the foundation of all constructivist thought. They are that “learning is an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge” and “instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather that communicating knowledge” (1996, p.172).

Bruner’s 1966 text Toward a Theory of Instruction described the key principles of constructivism (p.225):

Table 1 Principles of constructivism

Principle		Definition
Readiness		Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn
Spiral organization	Structure.	The content must be structured so that it can be grasped by the learner.
	Sequence.	Material must be presented in the most effective sequences.
Generation		“Going beyond the information given” - Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps

Extending from these basic constructivist principles as well as from the work of other key figures in the constructivist school, Driscoll (1994) outlines five conditions for learning (p.382-3). Very much like the multiple approaches and interpretations that exist in constructivism, a number of conditions must be met for the approach to be implemented. It is useful to elaborate briefly on these conditions, as they are relevant to the learning approach discussed in the rest of this series of posts.

…and I will do this tomorrow.

____________________

References:

Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Harvard Business Review Reflections 4(2). [Internet]. Available from: http://www.velinperformance.com/downloads/chris_argyris_learning.pdf [Accessed 12 November 2008]

Bruner, J. S. (1974) Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.

Cunningham, D. J. & Duffy, T. M. (1996) Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. IN: Jonassen. D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170- 198). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Schank, R. (1982) Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.

--

What is learning?

I guess it's now time to move on to some of the "big picture" stuff and begin to outline how I characterise terms like "learning" and "e-learning."

---

In the field of organisational development, the terms ‘training’ and ‘learning’ are often used interchangeably: both broadly refer to the acquisition of new or enhanced knowledge, skills, attitudes or behaviour through the medium of instruction whether delivered by a source of information such as a text or a computer application, a teacher, or a mentor. In my opinion, the key difference between the two terms is in the reflexive nature of learning, resulting in the integration of the knowledge, skill, attitude or behaviour into the individual’s cognitive constructs - a process Lev Vygotsky called “internalisation,” which he elegantly described as “an internal reconstruction of an external operation (1978, p.56). The Information Sessions non-formal learning initiative (which I'll be discussing in future blog entries). If you've read my recent posts, you'll understand that the theoretical and methodological framework for this initiative was developed within the Constructivist pedagogical model using techniques derived from the Social- and Cognitive schools of thought, with a focus on experiential learning as defined by Kolb, Vygotsky’s social development theory as it is applied in instructional design and Donald Schön’s and Chris Argyris’s views on professional knowledge and social learning systems.

References:

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Edited by Cole, M. John-Steiner, V. Scribner, Souberman, E. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

Constructivism Pt.13: More Organizational Learning

It could be argued that components of Argyris’s and Schön’s position do not conform to the constructionist tradition, and it is possible to discern a positivist aspect to their thesis, particularly in the exposition of their notion of theory-in-use, which in my opinion exhibits characteristics of behaviourist patterns – for example B.F. Skinner’s ideas on operant conditioning in the strategies employed in single-loop learning. Similarly, it has been argued elsewhere (Easterby-Smith & Araujo, 1999) that Argyris’s and Schön’s work on Model I and Model II organisations relies too heavily on assumptions of what “good learning” (p.13) consists of, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, as Finger and Asún point out in Adult Education at the Crossroads. Learning our way out:

Unlike …Kolb’s learning cycle, where one had, so to speak, to make a mistake and reflect upon it – that is, learn by trial and error – it is now possible thanks to Argyris and Schön’s conceptualization, to learn by simply reflecting critically upon the theory-in-action. In other words, it is no longer necessary to go through the entire learning circle in order to develop the theory further. It is sufficient to readjust the theory through double-loop learning.

(pp.45-46)

References:

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Asún, M. and Finger, M. (2000) Adult Education at the Crossroads. Learning our way out, London: Zed Books.

Easterby-Smith, M. & Araujo, L. (1999) Current debates and opportunities. IN: Easterby-Smith, M. Araujo, L. & Burgoyne, J. (eds.) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, London: Sage

Constructivism Pt.12: Organizational Learning cont'd

In Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Chris Argyris and Donald Schön suggest that each member of an organisation constructs their own representation of the actual, tacit, applied organisational behaviours, also called its “theory-in-use” (1978, p.16). Argyris and Schön modelled theory-in-use to investigate its three components:

Table 1 Components of theory-in-use (after Liane Anderson, 1997)

Component	Definition
Governing variables:	Those dimensions that people are trying to keep within acceptable limits. Any action is likely to impact upon a number of such variables – thus any situation can trigger a trade-off among governing variables.
Action strategies:	The moves and plans used by people to keep their governing values within the acceptable range.
Consequences:	What occurs as a result of an action. These can be both intended - those actor believe will result - and unintended. In addition those consequences can be for the self, and/or for others.

They developed a simple three-phase model (see Figure 1) to illustrate how each of the components of theory-in-use interacts:

Figure 1 Model explaining the process of developing theories-in-use

This cognitive structure has implications for knowledge workers’ cognitive processes. Where the outcomes of the strategy align with what the individual wanted, then the theory-in-use is confirmed as there is a match between intention and outcome. However, a mismatch between intention and outcome may occur with unintended consequences. Outcomes may also not match, or even counter the person’s governing values. Argyris and Schön suggest two responses to this mismatch, and these are can be seen in the notion of single and double-loop learning. For Argyris and Schön (1978, p.2) learning involves the detection and correction of error. In single-loop learning (see Figure 2), when outcomes do not match expectation the initial reaction of knowledge workers is to employ a different strategy from their repertoire that will bring about the required consequences within the governing variable. The change is in the action only, not in the governing variable itself.

Figure 2 Single- and double-loop learning

References:

Anderson, L. (1994). Espoused theories and theories-in-use: Bridging the gap (Breaking through defensive routines with organisation development consultants). Unpublished Master of Organisational Psychology thesis, University of Qld.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.