Learning in vivo

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.