FILAMER CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

Deregulated Status-CHED
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Roxas Avenue, Roxas City, 5800, Philippines
Tel. No. (036) 6212-317; Fax No (036) 6213-075
Website: http:/www.filamer.edu.ph

EDUC 402
(Advanced Sociological and Psychological Foundations of Education)

DR. Jonathan P. Leal July 10, 2020

Propesor

Ms.Divine Grace D. Degala Ms. Margie Bacud

Reporter Reporter

‘Double loop Learning’

By: Chris Argyris

Chris Argyris was born in Nework, New Jersey on July 16, 1923 and grew up in Irvington,
New Jersey. During the Second World War he joined the Signal Corps in the U.S. Army
eventually becoming a Second Lieutenant (Elkjaer 2000). He went to university at Clark,
where he came into contact with Kurt Lewin (Lewin had begun the Research Center for
Group Dynamics at M.I.T.). He graduated with a degree in Psychology (1947). He went on to
gain an MA in Psychology and Economics from Kansas University (1949), and a Ph.D. in
Organizational Behavior from Cornell University (he was supervised by William F. Whyte)
in 1951. In a distinguished career Chris Argyris has been a faculty member at Yale
University (1951-1971) where he served as the Beach Professor of Administrative Science
and Chairperson of the department; and the James Bryant Conant Professor of Education
and Organizational Behavior at Harvard University (1971- ). As well as making a significant
contribution to the literature Chris Argyris was known as a dedicated and committed
teacher. Argyris was also a director of the Monitor Company in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 Double loop Learning – is an educational concept and process that involves

teaching people to think more deeply about their own assumptions and beliefs. It was
created by Chris Argyris, a leading organizational trainer, in the mid-1980’s, and
developed over the next decade into an effective tools.

 Double loop theory is based upon a “theory of action” perspective outlined by

Argyris & Schon (1974). This perspective examines reality from the point of view of human
beings as actors. Changes in values, behavior, leadership, and helping others, are all part of,
and informed by, the actors’ theory of action. An important aspect of the theory is the
distinction between an individual’s espoused theory and their “theory-in-use” (what they
actually do); bringing these two into congruence is a primary concern of double loop
learning. Typically, interaction with others is necessary to identify the conflict.
 Argyris (1976) proposes double loop learning theory which pertains to learning to
change underlying values and assumptions. The focus of the theory is on solving problems
that are complex and ill-structured and which change as problem-solving advances.
 For Argyris and Schö n (1978) learning involves the detection and correction of
error. Where something goes wrong, it is suggested, an initial port of call for many people is
to look for another strategy that will address and work within the governing variables. In
other words, given or chosen goals, values, plans and rules are operationalized rather than
questioned. According to Argyris and Schö n (1974), this is single-loop learning. An
alternative response is to question to governing variables themselves, to subject them to
critical scrutiny. This they describe as double-loop learning. Such learning may then lead
to an alteration in the governing variables and, thus, a shift in the way in which strategies
and consequences are framed. Thus, when they came to explore the nature of
organizational learning. This is how Argyris and Schö n (1978: 2-3) described the process in
the context of organizational learning:
When the error detected and corrected permits the organization to carry on its
present policies or achieve its presents objectives, then that error-and-correction process
is single-loop learning. Single-loop learning is like a thermostat that learns when it is too
hot or too cold and turns the heat on or off. The thermostat can perform this task because it
can receive information (the temperature of the room) and take corrective action. Double-
loop learning occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the
modification of an organization’s underlying norms, policies and objectives.
Single-loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks and, to
a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on ‘techniques and
making techniques more efficient’ (Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87) Any reflection is directed
toward making the strategy more effective. Double-loop learning, in contrast, ‘involves
questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie actual goals and
strategies (op. cit.). In many respects the distinction at work here is the one used
by Aristotle, when exploring technical and practical thought. The former involves
following routines and some sort of preset plan – and is both less risky for the individual
and the organization, and affords greater control. The latter is more creative and reflexive,
and involves consideration notions of the good. Reflection here is more fundamental: the
basic assumptions behind ideas or policies are confronted… hypotheses are publicly
tested… processes are disconfirmable not self-seeking (Argyris 1982: 103-4).

 There are four basic steps in the action theory learning process:
(1) discovery of espoused and theory-in-use,
(2) invention of new meanings,
(3) production of new actions, and
(4) generalization of results.

Double loop learning involves applying each of these steps to itself. In double loop learning,
assumptions underlying current views are questioned and hypotheses about behavior
tested publically. The end result of double loop learning should be increased effectiveness
in decision-making and better acceptance of failures and mistakes.

Application

Double loop learning is a theory of personal change that is oriented towards professional
education, especially leadership in organizations. It has been applied in the context
of management development .

Example
Here are two examples from Argyris (1976, p16). A teacher who believes that she has a
class of “stupid” students will communicate expectations such that the children behave
stupidly. She confirms her theory by asking them questions and eliciting stupid answers or
puts them in situations where they behave stupidly. The theory-in-use is self-fulfilling.
Similarly, a manager who believes his subordinates are passive, dependent and require
authoritarian guidance rewards dependent and submissive behavior. He tests his theory by
posing challenges for employees and eliciting dependent outcomes. In order to break this
congruency, the teacher or manager would need to engage in open loop learning in which
they delibrately disconfirm their theory-in-use.
Principles
Effective problem-solving about interpersonal or technical issues requires frequent public
testing of theories-in-use.
Double loop learning requires learning situations in which participants can examine and
experiment with their theories of action.

Single-loop learning exists when things are taken for granted and where strategies for
managing error remain within governing variables.
Double-loop learning involves questioning the governing variables themselves, and
subjecting them to scrutiny, thus allowing space for alteration and a shift in the way
strategies and consequences are framed.

Argyris also proposes two models that describe features of theories-in-use that either
inhibit or enhance double-loop learning:
Model I involves making inferences about another person’s behaviour without checking
whether they are valid, and is shaped by an implicit disposition to winning and avoiding
embarrassment.
Model II includes the views and experiences of participants rather than seeking to impose
a view on a situation, is dialogical, encourages open communication and participation, and
emphasises common goals and shared leadership.

According to Argyris, Model II increases the likelihood of double-loop learning while Model
I inhibits it. Furthermore, he asserts most people will espouse Model II. Argyris then
contextualises the models using Organisational Learning Systems, and proposes
Organisational II Learning System (O-II) as preferable to Organisational I Learning System
(O-I), where the former seeks to maximise client participation with a methodology based
on rationality and honesty over the latter, (self-reinforcing, inhibiting, defensive, and acts
against long-term organisational interests).

Perhaps, what I will take away from analysing these learning theories, the size of these
loopholes and the models above, is the importance of noticing how open we are to change,
how we deal with unintended outcomes, and a greater understanding of the extent to
which our values actually govern our actions as opposed to the extent to which
we espouse them to have done.