This is a brief (and relatively incomplete) response to Chris Argyris’ Double Loop theory of learning.

When I first heard the term “reflection in action” I thought of my second blog post, when I questioned how we would get perspective when we were so close to the subject. I feel like this answers my question somewhat, or proposes an answer anyway.

My second thought was, “Gee, we seem to be learning a lot about how to learn, how we’ve been learning ‘wrong’ and how to respond to what we are learning, but I don’t feel like I’m learning anything!”. It’s like I’m being told how to process the information this course provides, kbut in reality I am receiving no information in the first place.

I continued to read and (although it might have been optimistic thinking) felt I could relate to the double loop of learning. Most of my experiences are based on the single loop, a kind of trial and error leaning where elements of the education process are modified slightly until the desired outcome is achieved. I think this class is encouraging the double loop, partly because everything is so formless. It’s easier to completely change your reinterpretation of the class and its tasks than to continue on with the trial/error. This is because (in my opinion), since the parameters of our learning are so undefined, the way we learn follows a similar pattern. Then again maybe I am interpreting and applying the theory in completely the wrong way. Maybe I need to recontextualise and reconsider the points and how they apply to me, have a total gear shift in my thinking.

Again.

To be continued…

There were several interesting points in the lecture, many of which challenged the notions I had constructed for myself on what the course would entail. Adrian’s distinction between how we do things and what we know was salient and I felt as though it applied to me. He emphasised that know-how is far more valuable than know-what. In an industry as competitive as communication, it is essential to differentiate yourself. In theory, all students in this course will know/be familiar with the same material. But how you apply this knowledge, and how you behave in a workplace is what sets you apart.

The notion of a speculative curriculum both intrigued and alienated me. For me, connotations of the word “speculative” are not hugely positive, especially when they are associated with education. I suppose this reaction is based on my rather linear experience of learning, a one-way model by which I am given information and expected to absorb it, largely without question. This model is not a great one so perhaps this class symbolizes a chance for me to break free from the stereotypical, didactic forms of education I have unfortunately become accustomed to. For me, “speculative” is also associated with literature. This genre is usually classed as sci-fi and is based in a utopian or dystopian society. Fingers crossed this class will draw on the utopian side of things… Science fiction and fantasy novels are interesting reads, but can sometimes be difficult for me to get into because they are so far removed from reality as I perceive it. Will this subject similarly be too foreign for me to be compatible with?

I am divided when I think of a speculative curriculum. On the one hand, I think it is hugely applicable to my future and will aid me in my career path. For example, a speculative approach would be an asset when going for a job interview. Being able to envision how I would positively contribute to the team and being able to articulate this is essential. Perhaps it would mean I will excel at risk management because I will be able to anticipate potential issues. It enables me to visualize the future and which role I need to adopt in order to function effectively in it.

Then, the cynicism takes over. Will a speculative background work against me? My résumé is strong because of my marks, my experiences and my references. It isn’t enhanced by a speculative outlook on the world (ie I can’t list that in my qualifications). We live in a world where stability is (usually) celebrated. With so much uncertainty and the ambiguity that digital media brings, facts and figures are comforting to many. An employer wants to hear solid statements about my background, and my abilities; not that I can speculate on a number of things (perhaps this would be more useful on the stock exchange). If this course encourages me to be experimental, inquisitive, forward looking and thinking, I think I will get a lot out of it and the experience will be valuable. If it, however, is based purely on speculation and does not place any importance on facts or tangible learning, I feel as though I will leave feeling unfulfilled.

Adrian made a good point about scarcity too. Scarcity is a thing of the past. As a uni student this line of thought is not regularly encountered; money is scarce, time is scarce, many things feel fleeting and rare. But in a larger context, it is very accurate to say scarcity simply does not exist the way it used to – scarcity is scarce! I am looking to differentiate myself, to succeed I want to become an item of scarcity – a rare, hardworking, one-of-a-kind worker with unique ideas and a good work ethic. However, I do need to conform to some degree to fit in in the first place. Also, am I really differentiating myself by writing a blog when every single other person in my class is doing it too? Perhaps this is what Adrian means when he talks about know-what and know-how. While we all blog, (the “what”), the emphasis should be on the “how”.