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…