The Norwegian School of Management BI
Multiple Perspectives in Action Learning
A method for training reflection as a skill
by
Tonje Haalien
Thomas Edseth
Jørn Kristian Stensby
Senior Lecturer at BI
Student at BI,
Leadership in Action 2004
Student at BI,
Leadership in Action 2004
2
Table of Contents
Summary......................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................4
Theory ..........................................................................................................................................................5
Learning is discovering.............................................................................................................................5
Action Learning ........................................................................................................................................6
David Kolb's experimental learning circle ...........................................................................................6
Action Reflection Learning (ARL).......................................................................................................6
The action exercise ...............................................................................................................................7
Reflection..................................................................................................................................................7
The determination of "reality" is left open ...........................................................................................7
Interpretation of the interpretation........................................................................................................7
Self-reflection .......................................................................................................................................8
Quality of reflection .............................................................................................................................8
Intervention...............................................................................................................................................9
A method for training reflection as a skill ..............................................................................................10
Method flow............................................................................................................................................10
Phase 1: Synthetic exercise ................................................................................................................10
Phase 2: Spontaneous group reflection...............................................................................................11
Phase 3: Video feedback ....................................................................................................................11
Phase 4: Group reflection with a catalyst ...........................................................................................11
Phase 5: Reflection in the aquarium ...................................................................................................11
Phase 6: Logbook ...............................................................................................................................12
Experience of using the method ...............................................................................................................12
Risk-taking..............................................................................................................................................12
The long sought for meta-perspective.....................................................................................................13
The student’s discoveries........................................................................................................................14
Transferability – from discovery to application......................................................................................14
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................15
List of literature.........................................................................................................................................16
2
3
Summary
We have combined known tools and techniques for reflection, and arrived at a method which is intended
to raise the quality of reflection in learning from experience. At the same time we have wished to inspire
students to use critical reflection in their daily learning process
Our point of departure and challenge are adult students with work experience who have a desire to
develop as leaders. In our mindset a student is a leader when he is at BI, and equally a leader is a student
when he is at work. We believe that the best thing we can give students is an increased capacity for
critical reflection in order to achieve a higher degree of gainful learning from experiences of all types.
The challenge linked to this is twofold. How can we get the student to experience the usefulness of
reflection? The student must gain faith and confidence in reflection as a skill and tool for effective
learning from experience. The other part of the challenge is the quality of such reflection. Reflection is
much more than merely a summary of what took place after an experience.
The method has been developed over several years of gradual experimentation, first and foremost in
connection with the concluding programme “Leadership In Action” (LiA). LiA leads to a Bachelor of
Management at the Norwegian School of Management BI. The LiA programme is firmly based on Action
Learning and the philosophy of “Learning is Discovering”.
Before we begin implementation of the method we strive to put students in the right state of mind. We
place emphasis on their daring to give of themselves, and that they defy their anxieties and allow
themselves to let go of parts of their own perception of reality. At the same time a safe, confidencebuilding environment is a prerequisite for implementation.
The method consists of 6 phases that the students are taken through. We start with a practical exercise that
is video recorded, followed by a spontaneous group reflection. The group then sees the filmed sequence
along with observers who have performed the same exercise. A catalyst (instructor) initiates a critical
group reflection session attended by the observers. The observers are allowed to ask their questions and
provide feedback towards the end of the reflection session. In the final phase of the method an individual
reflection is performed in the students’ own logbook.
We feel it is important to make the learning process transparent so that the students themselves become
aware of how the various perspectives that are included in the method continually provide room for fresh
discoveries. The primary goal of the method is to make students better equipped to reflect critically on
their own unconscious thought patterns and those assumptions that form the basis of their actions.
In connection with last year’s LiA programme the students provided extremely positive feedback
concerning the method.
The paper is divided into three parts. First we present the theory that the method is based on, then the
method itself, and in conclusion our experiences and those of the students concerning it.
3
4
Introduction
Leadership in Action (LiA) is a compulsory Bachelor degree programme at the Norwegian School of
Management BI in Oslo. The programme includes students with up to 25 years of occupational
experience, with considerable variation in educational background and experience. However, the students
have one thing in common; they have begun the programme with the ambition of developing as leaders.
The objective of the programme is to develop integrated learning and practise leadership in the individual
participant corresponding to the competence-related demands of the organization involved.
We are convinced that the best thing we can provide to the student and leader who wishes to achieve
awareness and develop his or her style of leadership is the capacity for critical reflection upon his or her
own acts and experiences.
The LiA programme is based on the pedagogical Action Learning programme (D. Kolb, 1984, et al.) and
ARL - Action Reflection Learning (MiL1). For many students this active form of learning is very
uncommon. When they begin studies at BI most of them have academic expectations of being filled with
theoretical knowledge which they can utilize further in case-work, projects and at the examination table.
On the contrary, Action Learning is dynamic and requires collaboration, involvement, courage and
responsible reflection by the students to reach results. This is something that is also clearly demonstrated
in the marketing of the LiA programme, and which has thus pointed to the direction which students must
expect.
Students establish groups from day one and these are utilized to compete with one another as well as
being an arena for learning. Much of the curriculum at LiA is of a nature that requires training in skills
and maturation to a greater degree than traditional teaching in order to convey meaning and learning.
Among the subjects of LiA are team leadership, anxiety as a constructive force, emotional intelligence
(EQ), self-management and coaching. More than half of the programme is taught through Action learning
at LiA Oslo.
To make things conducive to reflection we have discovered or developed appropriate action exercises and
combined these with various instruments of reflection. The action exercises copy situations from real life.
Here students must find their roles in dynamic interplay. The goal of learning is not to win the
competition but to build skills in reflecting on the process. Through reflection, dialogue and feedback we
experience development of the students’ awareness of thoughts and feelings in varying situations. We
have filmed action exercises so that students can be trained to observe their own roles and the behaviour
of others in the group. We have used a catalyst to steer focus and ask challenging questions. We have
utilized other groups as reflecting teams and let each student have a logbook to note personal reflections
and learning experiences.
As time has passed this work has developed into a method. We have chosen to call this method Multiple
Perspectives. The purpose of the method is to provide the dialogue and reflection with continually newer
perspectives, concerning both interpretation of an act but also interpretation of the interpretation.
Among other things leadership is understanding and improving the interpersonal interplay in a workplace.
The end goal is increased insight into one’s own behaviour and self-management, and to develop the
students’ repertoire of terminology and social competence. It is this in particular that students are made
aware of in their introduction to the method. The effective goal is to give students the capacity for, and
will to, adopt reflection as a tool for learning, by increasing the quality of reflection. The students are
made aware of this after implementation of the method. Students must believe that reflection is a skill and
a tool that can be used in all situations and spheres.
In Figure 1 we have summed up the surroundings in which the method has been developed.
1
MiL – Management in Lund is a centre for leadership development in Lund in Sweden.
4
5
Fig. 1: The method’s input, ingredients and desired effect
For many people reflection may have a contradictory relationship to efficiency and time pressure. In
relation to AFF's leadership surveys from 2002 (10, p. 159) only 21% of leaders replied in 1999 that they
took time for personal reflection. In 2002 the percentage was only 19.
We think that reflection is a skill that can and should be practised until it becomes an automatic reflex.
Then it will be able to function even in a busy everyday situation and contribute to important considered
thinking when demanding situations arise in working life.
This paper outlines the method we have developed, our experiences in using it and students’ feedback
concerning use of the method. In order to limit the extent of the paper we have left out a study of the
effect of leaders’ increased self-insight and capacity for reflection.
The target group for this paper is everyone who wishes to take part and make use of action learning as a
pedagogical aid. Through these writings and readers’ reactions we hope to get useful contributions to
further development of the method and to our own discoveries.
Theory
Learning is discovering
Confluent education is a view of humanity and learning philosophy that seeks to help students develop
holistically (2). Students shall not limit themselves to intellectual and physical activity but also learn to
get in touch with the feelings their work awakens in them. For the teacher this means individual care for
their students integrated in the teaching of the subject. The foundation of confluent education is the
principle: Learning is discovering.
Finding solutions to tasks and problems, both individually and in groups, holds a central position. In
addition to discussion of the subject-related issues, sharing of findings and experiences linked to the work
will take place. Discussions will create confidence, and will clarify participants’ own attitudes to their
own work. They will also provide experience of open discourse.
Nils Magne Grendstad says it as follows: “Discovering is also becoming self-aware, or becoming aware
of something. When I realize what I have discovered, it is as if I see everything in a greater perspective,
or I see the depth of the matter, or I see what the discovery means. Perhaps we can also say that we see
what we have discovered in a better and better light. Or that we make the same discovery at a higher and
higher level. It is as if we are moving in an upward spiral. (2, p. 35)
5
6
It is required that one should not immediately accept or reject what one discovers, regardless of what one
thinks or feels at that moment in time. Only after a period of reflection and processing, in which it is
important to put into words what has emerged, can one decide the value of what has been discovered. (2,
p. 143)
Confluent education is intended to develop the human being as a whole, and the teacher functions as a
catalyst who shall assist students in making discoveries. We find the same view and role in Action
Learning
Action Learning
Many theoreticians have investigated the relationship between action and learning.. Reg Revans (7) is
regarded as the father of Action Learning. In this paper we have prioritized using David Kolb, Chris
Argyris and Gregory Bateson.
David Kolb's experimental learning circle
Kolb’s learning circle (see Fig. 1) is the one we have utilized most in LiA. Kolb (1984) argues that
learning is a circular process that includes four stages. The first stage the learner must go through is a
concrete experience. The next stage is reflective observation where the learner regards the experience
from so many perspectives as possible and reflects upon what it means. The data generated through
reflective observation are the point of departure for developing abstract concepts. The learner attempts to
structure and generalize his experiences, and conceptualize these in new theories and hypotheses. These
will again be the point of departure for further active experimentation. It is now that the learner will use
what he has learned to make new decisions and perform new actions. Thereafter follow new experiences
and a new round of the learning circle.
Fig. 1, Kolb's learning circle
Action Reflection Learning (ARL)
According to MiL Action Learning was not precise enough in relation to the way they worked. MiL did
not wish to put focus on the experience (action). They wanted to focus on the experience involved and
what it might mean in a here and now situation and in the daily reality of the participants (3, p. 294). They
concentrated on ARL,
Action + Reflection = Learning
Reflection became a primary concept and the trademark of MiL’s learning philosophy, but with more
critical reflection (as is utilized by Kolb) than the usual more passive conceptual interpretation of the act
of reflection. Thus, when we were going to train our students’ skills in reflection, MiL’s experiences of
ARL became a source of inspiration.
6
7
The action exercise
Kolb's experimental learning circle and ARL both start with a sensation, experience or action. Thereafter
this is reflected upon. In our training situation for reflection in groups it is necessary to create such an
experience or action. We define such an action here as a synthetic action because it is constructed for a
learning purpose. An experience or action which actually happens in real life we choose to call a real
action.
Sanford (1981) thinks that development takes place primarily when leaders attempt to handle the real
challenges in life: Those problems that they are really concerned about in such a way that the intellect,
belief and feelings are involved. Even the more experimental forms of classroom training such as case
studies or role play remain hypothetical and cannot produce the level of reality that is required for
development (6, p. 170). We believe that synthetic exercises can provide a good point of departure for
development. However, that depends on what students wish to develop, both regarding training in
reflection and subject-related gain. An exercise must have both a clear purpose in relation to learning
objectives and necessarily be communicated.
In his article “The art of discovery” (Bruner, 1974) Bruner points out that many discovery educationalists
are not so concerned with what their students discover, as long as they discover something. He placed
emphasis on the fact that the concept of ‘discovery’ had been formulated to emphasize the importance of
personal initiative, independence and goal-orientation.
Our challenge is to select good areas of focus from our syllabus at LiA as goals for discovery. We are
clear about what the purpose of the exercises is and which skills we wish students to develop.
Reflection
The determination of "reality" is left open
Reflection is the process of looking back at a concrete experience in order to interpret the experience and
understand its meaning. There is a critical link between the concrete experience, its interpretation and
future action. It is intended to help the performer to see and understand how one’s own knowledge is
constructed. (1, p. 31)
The person reflecting attempts to understand the meaning of situations, events and ideas by observing and
describing. The performer changes perspective and takes in various viewpoints, turns and twists them,
and puts what is happening in relation to his previous experience (3, p. 296). Interpretation requires a
considerate assessment of obsevations and experiences from a row of varying points of view. This
presupposes a certain degree of time, openness and tolerance regarding uncertainty as well as creativity
(3, p. 347). This process of working towards the most possible different interpretations of an experience is
called a horizontal reflection by Alvesson (3).
During reflection the performer plays on his interpretation repetoire. A person’s interpretation repertoire
consists of the person’s theories, basic assumptions, metaphors, vocabulary and knowledge. It marks the
boundary of what an individual can do with his experiences, sensations and observations (3, pp. 350-351)
In order to have a reflective view of the interplay between empiri and interpretations, breadth and
variation in in the interpretation repertoire are required. In this way one will prevent a specific theory
(metaphor, expectation) from becoming too dominating. The determination of “reality” will be kept open
for a while (3, p. 353).
Interpretation of the interpretation
Argyris and Schőn (1974) describe the progressive process of making observations, collecting
information, making assumptions and deciding on actions as a comparison with climbing up a "Ladder of
inference" (see Fig. 2). In their research Argyris and Schőn found that most people have a tendency to
climb this ladder too fast.
7
8
Fig. 2, The Ladder of Inference, Argyris and Schőn (1974)
Reflection means that one first interprets a phenomenon, thereafter examining one’s own interpretations.
Meta-thinking may be viewed as interpretation of the interpretation. The performer has then started a
vertical reflection. One examines the use of language, perspectives, metaphors, and holistic perceptions,
which lay down guidelines for one’s own thinking and interpretation in relation to “reality”. Interpretation
of the interpretation means that one attempts to understand this understanding, what it involves and what
it lacks in terms of type of dimensions (3, p. 349). In his reflection the performer becomes aware of his
steps up the “Ladder of Inference” and is given an opportunity to examine his concealed, taken for
granted, assumptions.
Self-reflection
Two critical elements of self-reflection are the ability to criticize one’s own thought processes and to
participate in one’s own feelings. Argyris’s Ladder of Inference shows the necessity of critical selfreflection.
Keeping a logbook helps you to reflect upon experiences, to look at how you think about them and preregard future experiences before you enter into them (Raelin 2000).
Cognitive strategies in self-management describe the need to work on one’s thoughts and attitudes
concerning what one does, particularly those thoughts and attitudes that result in mental resistance. What
Burns (1999) calls dysfunctional thoughts are thoughts that are not based on realistic assessments of
possibilities and obstacles, but which instead are characterized by the fact that one is biased (8, p. 102).
Quality of reflection
Alvesson (3, p. 348) maintains that it is important to attempt to control the prerequisites for reflection so
that one can achieve good quality in such an activity. Here quality may be defined as the degree of critical
testing and re-testing of previous mindsets.
He thinks that reflection is not something that can be subordinated to pedagogical technology.
Nevertheless, he thinks that it may be fruitful to point out how reflection may be provided with a certain
primary systematization (3, p. 356).
It is knowledge-related contributions that are based on various points of departure that are particularly
valuable. Reflection arises when the various elements – the phenomenon, interpretation of this and
interpretation of interpretation are played off against one another. It is in the relationship and the point of
intersection between these that reflection arises (3, p. 357).
8
9
When reflection takes place in the form of dialogue in a group, one gets widely varying points of
departure and a greater collective interpretation repertoire. Another circumstance that can improve the
quality of reflection is that it is supported by an outside group that intervenes in the process.
Intervention
Socrates placed emphasis on asking questions that could turn the attention of those he was conversing
with in a certain direction. By doing this he wished to awaken their attention in the direction of what he
thought was of significance for them to discover (2, p. 23).
Sewerin’s primary idea is that handledaren (translation: the instructor) should think and act on the basis
of an area, a field of interest and knowledge that is radically different from what the participants think and
base their actions on. The instructor shall frustrate the learning process and create a field of tension
between himself and the group, where new ideas, behaviour patterns and sets of attitudes can be born. He
must keep a variety of perspectives alive and intervene on the basis of subjects and relations with a
feeling of timing and the possibilities inherent in the situation. Through his distance he shall be flexible,
vary his thoughts and actions, and see that the group really does learn from collaboration and attacks new
problems from new perspectives. At the same time the instructor must see to it that learning events are
looked after and support the group’s ability to handle relational problems itself. Sometimes there will be a
need for the instructor to give a mini-lecture (Just In Time Teaching) (3, pp. 203-221).
The blind square in Johari’s window (see fig 3) shows that we are unaware of features of our own
behaviour, whereas it is obvious to others who can observe it. Feedback and challenging questions from
someone who can help us to succeed may provide increased awareness. Many relevant styles of
leadership such as transformational leadership, self-leadership, relational leadership, the leader as coach,
situationally-determined leadership etc. prerequire among other things expertise such as self-awareness
and social awareness to allow performance (5). Luft (1984) thinks that groups help us to shrink the size
of the blind, hidden and unknown areas, by increasing the size of the open square (11, pp. 479-481).
Fig. 3, Johari’s window
What is needed to create a difference that makes a difference (Bateson 1972)? The first order’s change
takes place when a specific change has been identified and implemented within the same mindset. The
second order’s change takes place when the first order is not sufficient and the change requires lateral
thinking, questioning and change around the core prerequisites that form the basis of the situation
(Argyris 1982).
In Action Learning the lecturer’s role changes character and goes more in the direction of being a
catalyst. We wish to use the term ‘catalyst’ as a metaphor for the role of intervention. In the world of
9
10
chemistry a catalyst is a substance/element that accelerates a chemical process. It is involved in the
chemical mix during the process, at the same time as it can easily be withdrawn from the process and used
in a new process without remaining a part of it.
A method for training reflection as a skill
Method flow
We divide students into groups of 4 to 8 persons. We designate one group a focus group. Other groups (13 persons) are designated observer groups. Er dette riktig? Each group is asked to appoint a leader.
A catalyst accompanies the focus group through all the phases.
The way the method proceeds is set out in Fig. 5.
Fig 4, Multiple perspectives – a method for training of reflection as a skill
Phase 1: Synthetic exercise
The focus group and observer group are given a challenge in the form of a synthetically constructed
exercise. The purpose is to create a situation where problem-solving demands collaboration and
communication, later forming a basis for reflection and learning. The exercise has been constructed in
such a way that most people will have similar prerequisites to solve it, and the duration will be 10 to 30
minutes. In order to put pressure on the group, elements such as time-limits, competition and handicaps
(muteness, blindness, disablement) are used. The focus group will be filmed during the exercise and this
phase constitutes the action part within Action Learning.
The fact that the exercise is motivating and creates engagement will be decisive to profiting from it. If the
participants give of themselves, the interaction will also be as real as possible. This is crucial to getting
feedback, and possible development, around one’s own personality. Belonging to a group would seem to
have a positive effect on engagement in performance. The elements of competition and time pressure
have at times been crucial to raising the temperature during the exercise. Using handicaps forces the
10
11
group to utilize innovative thinking and improvisation. We have also observed how certain members of
the group take on other roles depending upon varying handicaps. This helps to create great dynamism in
the group during the exercise, and the leader is continually challenged in his position.
Phase 2: Spontaneous group reflection
Immediately after the exercise has ended we will make room for spontaneous group reflection. It will be
informal, spontaneous and direct, and seldom have a duration of more than 5-20 minutes. The session will
be characterized by horizontal reflection. This means that individual group members will share their
experience and interpretation of the events in the action exercise. Many events will be touched on without
going in depth, and an observing catalyst can note these factors. The catalyst shall intervene only to a
minimum. We regard this phase as important because it forms the basis for the learning situation and the
catalyst’s intervention in later phases.
Thus, during implementation of phase 1 and phase 2 the focus group and the observer group will be at
separate locations. The groups will be brought together for phase 3.
Phase 3: Video feedback
The focus group and two observer groups will watch the video recording together. All the groups have
performed the same exercise and reflected spontaneously in groups upon its performance. The observer
groups will see a new angle to the solution of the problem, something that will provide another point of
departure in subsequent reflection. We have seen that it motivates the observer groups that they
themselves have performed the same exercise they are going to observe. This also provides them with
fresh perspectives on their own performance and internal factors in their own group. During the film
showing the catalyst will have an opportunity to note the reactions of group members.
Group members will be given an opportunity to observe their own body language and their roles during
the action exercise.
Phase 4: Group reflection with a catalyst
The focus group will carry out a new reflection session based on the recording they have now seen. The
group will themselves control how to do this and in what way they will fill the reflection session.
The observer groups will form an outer circle around the focus group and together form what we call the
aquarium. In this phase the observer groups will only be observers of the reflection session.
In this phase the catalyst who has followed the group will be more active than previously, but adapt the
degree of intervention as needed. As a rule intervention will consist of asking open, challenging questions
in relation to focus.
There are a number of traps lying in wait for a group during such a reflection session. Typically it may be
one or more of these:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Neglects to examine feedback and statements, and jumps to conclusions
Dialogue ceases and the group gets no further
Conversation is filled with clichés, repetitions and refusals to acknowledge responsibility
Attention is only paid to the most dominating members of the group
Dispersed focus among group members
Neglects to take up weaknesses and problems
It is the purpose and task of the catalyst to prevent the group from falling into these traps.
Phase 5: Reflection in the aquarium
The observer groups will now get the opportinity to share their impressions with the focus group. “Areas
of focus” can be distributed to the observer groups before film performances in order to angle feedback in
the direction of a desired theme. Now reflection will often be of a vertical nature and the catalyst will
intervene as needed. In conclusion the individual member of the focus group will sum up his discoveries
and how these experiences can be taken back to one’s own organization.
11
12
Here we have noticed that the aquarium will often provide more feedback on the focus group’s process of
reflection and not so much on the performance of the exercise itself. We look upon this as a raising of
reflection to a higher level.
Phase 6: Logbook
The method and the phases they have been through are explained to each student. The purpose of this is to
make students aware of the changes in perspective in each phase transition and what this added to
reflection. Each student studies his own private logbook and is urged to reflect upon his discoveries. This
phase adds a temporal perspective to the method. The student is given an opportunity to compare his
thoughts, expectations and opinions from earlier logbook entries (the past) with the way he experiences
things right now (the present). This comparison and interpretation of the differences makes room for new
discoveries. Questions that are often used as optional guidelines for writing a logbook are for example the
following simple ones:
What discoveries have you made?
What will you experiment with further in the future?
However, as a point of departure we also use Schein's (1999) framework for logbook entries (1, p. 34).
This framework is called the ORJI model.
O
R
J
(Observe) My observations
(React) How did I react emotionally in relation to what I observed?
(Judgment) How can I analyze the process and make assessments in relation to
the observations?
(Intervene) How can I intervene in relation to getting something to happen?
I
By letting students attempt to answer these questions they will have a point of departure for reflection in
their logbook.
Experience of using the method
During the past two years we have received a great deal of positive feedback concerning use of the
method. The most up-to-date feedback we have concerning the method is from the third module,
“Personal and competent leadership” at LiA 25 January 2006. The day started with a one-hour challenge
to students to take risks. Thereafter all the students implemented the method three times running
employing three different action exercises. Then the students provided feedback concerning the benefit
they had gained from this day. We quote from these examples of feedback:
“Here, without asking for it, the group saw all aspects of itself. Being filmed was both
terrifying and fun. Have learned much from our own problem-solving, both from the film of
the group, but also when we saw the other groups. Here we had time for self-exploration and
to lose some of our own self-importance. … You look for questions to ask about problems that
are not there.” (A student at LiA 2005/2006)
Risk-taking
The attitude of the individual student is crucial to the degree of learning. The multi-perspective method is
a tool to provide feedback on individual interaction in the group. If there is an absence of engagement in
problem-solving the situation will appear to be play-acting more than real interplay. The method makes a
unique arena accessible for feedback and learning. However, do we want feedback on a theatre
performance? Participants must have the necessary security and confidence in the group to appear as
themselves. It is on this basis we wish to provide feedback and contribute to development.
12
13
Each phase of the method has an increased level of risk experienced in that each individual in the group
has his view of reality challenged. Both the video technique and the aquarium situation can create
palpable anxiety in the students. They express this and are marked by it.
“Filming is a bit scary… A very OK day, very instructive actually. This was a day I basically
dreaded… But it turned out to be a very positive experience. A positive day.”
(A student at LiA 2005/2006)
We have seen that we succeed better with implementation of the method if we make sure to challenge the
students to take risks and chances before we start the method. We remind them that the possibilities for
growth and learning demand courage. We ensure that they are on the edge of their seats and tensely
expectant in respect of what is about to happen.
“The exercises were all very instructive – and it was extra exciting to see yourself
on film. Help … you surmount some barriers – and that’s good. You are good at
getting us going and finding good exercises.”(A student at LiA 2005/2006)
As Paul Moxnes (2000) claims in his book "Positiv Angst" (Positive Anxiety) you could say that the
teaching situation represents a threat to the individual’s “ego”, as it does in any learning-from-experience
group. When the student shows resistance in the learning situation, teaching will be little effective. As
long as the members of the group have gathered behind defence mechanisms, little new learning will
penetrate these. These two phenomena, the one that promotes learning and the situation that creates
anxiety, which from a pedagogical point of view are one and the same, will be experienced by the group
members themselves as contradictions. (9)
Here we are striving to create an atmosphere of confidence and security. As part of this we examine rules
for giving and receiving feedback. We also examine Johari’s window to create awareness of the benefits
of asking for and listening to feedback. Even on the first day at LiA groups are established that exist up to
the third module. Through a number of action exercises with subsequent reflection and feedback, a
mutual understanding is developed, and not least a group togetherness. This community and the positive
experience of conversing openly results in most of the groups creating a secure atmosphere which creates
a good arena for discovery and learning through action and reflection More group members also begin to
become familiar with this form of teaching and see the usefulness of challenging themselves in the group.
The method has been developed to consolidate a gradual increase in the experience of risk-taking and
discomfort. The purpose of this gradual approach we utilize is that a substantial number of students shall
dare to call into question some of their own convictions.
“An exhausting but splendid day. Many learned a lot and many exposed themselves more than ever
before. Reflective students; it gave the whole thing meaning. (A student at LiA 2005/2006)
The long sought for meta-perspective
Through this method we attempt to achieve a greater degree of vertical reflection in the classroom. The
purpose is to give students an increased degree of meta-perspective by having them interpret their own
interpretation.
During our attempts we have seen that the method succeeds in motivating further reflection when we go
from one phase to the next. Almost without exception the transition has shown that the intensity and
energy of reflection are stimulated. This change in perspective, which a transition of phase involves,
appears to invigorate the dialogue anew.
Particularly when the aquarium is let loose in phase 5 the dialogue becomes characterized by observations
and impressions of how the focus group has functioned during reflection. The theme is no longer marked
by the action in phase 1 but just as much by what is happening here and now, during reflection. As a rule
the observers are better able than the focus group itself to bring out the differences in the interpretations,
thus initiating more thorough reflection linked to these differences.
13
14
It is the challenge to a lecturer to create learning situations. As a catalyst we experience a subtle balance
between discovering and capturing these learning situations, at the same time as we support the group’s
ability to handle its relational challenges itself.
The student’s discoveries
What students subjectively discover in the method is an individual matter. This varies according to
students’ engagement, the formation of the action exercise and the quality of the subsequent reflection.
Nor do we expect that everyone will share their discoveries. Nevertheless, there are some themes that
frequently appear when students are asked to share their discoveries.
In the phases after the action it is often that students become aware of the frameworks they apply to
themselves during solution of the exercise. Frameworks that in reality are not present. Parallels to one’s
own organization are often submitted as examples.
“Enthralling exercises… they were very instructive, practically a shocking experience Including
among other things the limitations you put on yourself for “fear” of breaking the rules. The rules are
more important than the group.”(A student at LiA 2005/2006)
Students also often state the great variation there is between the group members’ interpretations of the
common experiences. Even this relatively simple social situation, for many appears to contain a
surprisingly large reservoir of possible interpretations and ways of experiencing the situation.
Below we see the collected feedback from students a month and a half after implementation of the
method.
Each group was asked to answer the following question:
What are the most important things you have retained concerning learning after 5 modules?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We have learnt a huge amount from all the feedback we have received in the groups.
ARL has been given a content for us, reflection, in relation to learning and action.
Take back the time we need. Stop, think, reflect in a busy everyday situation. The gap between
people. That is where the important things happen.
Important to have your own standpoint as a leader. Self-insight into what I stand for, my identity.
The value of feedback. Long days, exhausting exercises both positive and negative.
Reflection / creating awareness. How to learn along with others. We have learned a lot about
communication and active listening.
Communication and action. Reflection and feedback.
The course has contributed to personal development. Have looked at leadership in various
perspectives.
More use of the logbook in the course of instruction, not only at the end of the day.
Transferability – from discovery to application
By transferability here we mean how the student manages to transfer what is learned to his daily activity
so that it can be applied usefully. How does the method improve transferability? We attempt to make the
learning process transparent. After having implemented the method we go through the thinking behind
this procedure for the students. In this way we hope to increase their awareness surrounding reflection as
a skill, thus equipping them to harvest more of their experiences and take these back to their own
organizations. Perhaps some of them have reduced the blind square in Johari’s window through a new
discovery or item of feedback on how their behaviour is experienced. Goleman (4, p. 327) maintains that
the first challenge in behavioural change is not that you see the solution, but that you do not see the
problem. This may be the first step on the road to a change in behaviour.
We believe that an increased ability to reflect on experiences is the most important thing the student will
take away with him.
14
15
Conclusion
We have presented a method whose purpose is to raise the quality of reflection in a learning from
experience situation, and to inspire the use of reflection in daily life. We have wished to take the groups
into perspectives that they otherwise would merely have to imagine. Our wish has been to ensure that we
capture the students’ curiosity and motivation for a sufficient length of time for reflection and dialogue to
manifest themselves as meaningful and useful. Through the structure of the method we attempt to balance
between the students’ anxiety in relation to the learning from experience situation and their urge to go
further with their discoveries and learning.
There are three themes in particular which we have not treated in depth in this paper. However, they all
constitute criteria for success which play a major part in deciding to what degree the implementation and
quality of the method will succeed. The first area is the form and content of the introductory session
whose purpose is to get the students to give of themselves and dare to utter their opinions. We allot an
hour to do this and think that it is worth every minute.
The second theme is the design of the action exercise itself. We could have chosen to write a separate
paper directed at this field. In this area too we have made further step-by-step progress based on known
factors that have proved to function well. The third area is the catalyst’s procedure during intervention. In
order to provide optimum support for the process a form of intuition is required in this work. This is
something that requires routine and experience on the part of the catalyst. As a stage in our own learning
development in this area we have filmed the reflection sessions and subsequently reflected together on
our own performances as catalysts.
We experience action learning as demanding both for the teacher and the learners. Frustration, resistance
and a lack of engagement in students may quickly release the air from the balloon of good intentions.
However, once you have experienced surfing the wave created by active students and groups charged
with positive energy, you understand what a unique arena for learning can be created in this way. We are
continually surprised by the great degree of openness, honesty and not least solicitude for one another in
the groups. We would recommend that anyone with a positive view of humanity who wishes to support
groups and individuals in their development should use this form of teaching.
In the classroom the purpose is not that students should reach their goals by using reflection. We feel we
have succeeded if students would like to continue reflection when the allotted time has passed. A sure
indication of this is when after the subsequent break a high degree of positive energy can be registered.
This can be observed in that a continuation of reflection can be heard in the classroom and in the
surrounding zones. Or when an hour is allotted the following day for logbook entries and the students feel
that that is not time enough.
The purpose is not to help students to reach their goals but to get them started.
15
16
List of literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
D. Coghlan, T.Brannick. 2001. Doing action reasearch in your own organisation.
N.M. Grendstad. 2002. Å lære er å oppdage.
L. Rohlin m.fl. 2003. Ledarskap og lärande.
D. Goleman. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence
D. Goleman, R. Boyatzis, A. McKee. 2002. Positiv ledelse
N. Dixon. 1999. The Organizational Learning Cycle – How can we learn collectively
R. Revans. 1998. ABC of Action Learning.
T.H. Eriksen, T. Gad, Ø. Martinsen, G. Thompson. 2003. Selvledelse
P. Moxnes. 2002. Positiv Angst.
AFF's Leadership Survey 1999 and 2002.
D.R. Foresyth. 1990. Group Dynamics
16