Action Learning in Schools Reframing Teachers' Pro... - (Chapter 2 Positioning Action Learning)

Chapter 2
1111
2
Positioning action learning
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31 Each manager learned not only much about coal mining by discussing
4 his experiences of it with others who were then urged to discuss their
5 own, but he also learned about himself, and why he said the kinds of
6 things he did say; why he felt as he did about the things he did say;
7 why he felt as he did about the decisions as a manager that he could be
8 seen by his own staff and colleagues to take – even if they were bad ones.
Action learning, in other words by being question-based rather than
9 answer-based (as in most other training) tells managers a lot about
20111 themselves; they begin to see how it is that their own personality is
1 stamped upon the mine they are appointed to run.
2 (Revans, 1982b: 66)
3
4
5 When Reg Revans, the founder of action learning, wrote these words in
6 1982 he was arguing that the most valuable type of learning for mine
7 managers involved them reflecting upon workplace experiences and sharing
8 these insights with other managers to help each of them interpret and
9 inform their experiences. This is how action learning started over seventy
Copyright © 2009. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved.
30111 years ago – by having a small group of people, who worked in similar
1 occupations, give opinions on each other’s work-related issues and problems.
2 Moreover, workplace learning is not just about reflection on experiences, as
3 learning from experience means ‘action and reflection; one gets to understand
4 by doing and to do by understanding’ (Revans, 1983b: 49). Emphatically,
5 Revans italicised ‘and’ because of the essential interplay between the ‘doing’
6 (the action) and ‘thinking about the consequences of doing’ (the reflection)
7 to maximise workplace learning.
8 Reflection is a process that helps develop meaning from experiences. If
9 you don’t reflect, then what you learn from your experiences is limited. This
40111 interplay between reflection and experience also resonates with earlier ideas
1 in Dewey’s theory of learning through experience (Dewey, 1933) and later
2 in Kolb’s notion of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). While the notion of
3 rethinking actions was first mentioned by Aristotle over two thousand years
44111 ago, Dewey (1933) was the first to highlight the value of reflection as a way
Aubusson, P., Ewing, R., Hoban, G., & Hoban, G. F. (2009). Action learning in schools : Reframing teachers' professional learning
and development. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' targe
Created from hanuvn on 2020-08-18 23:35:35.
6 Action Learning in Schools
1111 of thinking about a problematic situation that needs to be resolved: ‘The

2 function of reflective thought is, therefore, to transform a situation in
3 which there is experienced obscurity, doubt, conflict, disturbance of some
4 sort, into a situation that is clear, coherent, settled, harmonious’ (Dewey,
5 1933: 100–1).
6 Although Revans first wrote about action learning in October 1945 in
7 a report commissioned by the Mining Association of Great Britain, he also
8 acknowledged that many of the key ideas underpinning action learning can
9 be found in the writings of Aristotle two thousand years earlier: ‘Life, as
1011 Aristotle still reminds some of us, is made up of action as well as of reflection’
1 (Revans, 1983b: 50). What Revans did, however, in his original writings,
2 was not only re-emphasise the age-old importance of learning through action
31 and reflection, but demonstrate how it could operate in the workplace. He
4 initially did this by establishing small groups of coal-mine managers to
5 work together to solve each other’s operational and management problems
6 (Revans, 1983b).
7 As this shows, action learning originated in business settings and has
8 evolved in different forms over the last seventy years. It has only been used
9 in schools in the last two decades. The purpose of this chapter, therefore,
20111 is to explain the origins of action learning in business settings, clarify what
1 it is, and introduce how it can be used in schools for teachers’ professional
2 learning. Since most action learning studies have been conducted in business
3 settings, many of the references in this chapter will come from the literature
4 of this context.
5 This chapter is presented in four sections. First, we will discuss how
6 different conceptualisations of teaching align with different forms of teacher
7 learning. Second, three different forms of teacher learning will be explained.
8 In this section we will clarify the differences between three common phrases
9 used in the teacher learning literature – ‘professional development/in-service’,
30111 ‘continuous professional development’ and ‘professional learning’. Importantly,

1 we will also articulate the difference between two professional learning
2 frameworks – action learning and action research. Third, examples of action
3 learning will be provided to show that it has already had widespread use in
4 many non-educational settings. Finally, this chapter will argue that teachers
5 should be encouraged to use action learning in schools.
6
7
Conceptions of teaching
8
9 There is a relationship between the nature of teaching and the type of
40111 teacher learning required. From extensive research with teachers in Chicago
1 in the 1980s, Wise et al. (1984) deduced several different conceptions of
2 teaching that necessitate different forms of teacher learning. One conception
3 of teaching suggests that it is a ‘craft’, meaning that the knowledge base
44111 for teaching is fixed and has little to do with varying contexts. This conception
Positioning action learning 7
1111 implies that teaching is about the delivery of prescribed knowledge and, if
2 teachers can learn enough knowledge about their practice, then it can be
3 ‘mastered’. If this is the case, then teachers can learn about their practice
4 ‘bit by bit’. This can occur from brief after-school workshops providing
5 different chunks of knowledge about teaching in classrooms.
6 A different conception of teaching requires a different type of teacher
7 learning. When teaching is viewed as a profession, it implies that the body
8 of knowledge is not fixed, and that what teachers do in classrooms depends
9 on a myriad of factors. This means that teaching is more than the delivery
1011 of prescribed knowledge using a range of strategies, but is ‘a dynamic
1 relationship that changes with different students and contexts’ (Hoban,
2 2000b: 165). Having a conception of teaching as a profession means that
31 classroom decisions are about many ‘holistic judgements’ every day (Day,
4 1999). It means that teaching involves complex decision-making, whereby
5
6 the teacher must draw upon not only a body of professional knowledge
7 and skill, but also a set of personal resources that are uniquely defined
8 and expressed by the personality of the teacher, and his or her individual
9 and collective interactions with students.
20111 (Wise et al., 1984: 8)
1
2 Hoyle and John (1995) note that there are three characteristics of being
3 a professional – having knowledge, autonomy and responsibility. This is
4 because
5
6 professionals work in uncertain situations in which judgement is more
7 than routine, it is essential to effective practice that they should be free
8 from bureaucratic and political constraints to act on judgements made
9 in the best interests (as they see them) of the clients.
30111 (Hoyle and John, 1995: 77)

1
2 According to McLaughlin (1997: 89), there are six implications for teacher
3 learning if they are to be treated as professionals:
4
5 • increasing opportunities for professional dialogue;
6 • reducing teachers’ professional isolation;
7 • providing a rich menu of nested opportunities for learning and discourse;
8 • connecting professional development opportunities to meaningful content
9 and change efforts;
40111 • creating an environment of professional safety and trust; and
1 • restructuring time, space and scale within schools.
2
3 In effect, she was talking about schools as learning environments for teachers,
44111 so that they can learn more about their own professional contexts. The same
1111 point was clearly stated by Sarason (1990), who argued that schools are
2 primarily designed and organised to encourage student learning, with little
3 consideration for teacher learning. He contended that, ‘whatever factors,
4 variables, and ambience are conducive for the growth, development, and
5 self-regard of a school’s staff are precisely those that are crucial to obtaining
6 the same consequences for students in a classroom’ (Sarason, 1990: 154). To
7 consider why schools should be reorganised to encourage long-term teacher
8 learning necessitates understanding the common forms of workplace learning
9 available.
1011
1
Forms of teacher learning
2
31 The terms ‘professional development’, ‘continuing professional development’,
4 ‘in-service training’ and ‘professional learning’ have been used interchangeably
5 in the teacher learning literature (Craft, 2000). We believe that this has led
6 to some confusion about the characteristics, benefits and usefulness of these
7 different forms of teacher learning. For this reason we distinguish between
8 three types of teacher learning in an attempt to identify their strengths and
9 weaknesses and to explain how they can be used for different reasons and
20111 contexts. While teacher learning can occur in all forms, a deeper and more
1 sustained form of learning that can lead to a change in practice is more
2 likely to occur in professional learning than in the other two forms. Although
3 there are examples of teacher learning that use combinations of these forms,
4 they will be treated separately to highlight their distinctive features; however,
5 they are not mutually exclusive.
6
7
Professional development/in-service programme
8
9 The traditional model of teacher learning in schools for the past fifty years
30111 or more has been one of presenting generalised knowledge for teachers
1 to apply in their classrooms in order to solve specific problems of practice
2 (Day, 1999). This form of teacher learning is usually termed a ‘professional
3 development programme’ and often involves a one-off after-school ‘workshop’
4 or one-day ‘inservice course’ (Hoban and Erickson, 2004). The content of
5 teacher learning is presented in a relatively brief period of time such as in
6 one or two hours after school, and teachers usually have little responsibility
7 in deciding what is presented. The intention is to package the ‘accepted
8 knowledge’ of a field in a predetermined brief course, with the expectation
9 that practitioners will apply that knowledge in a sensible and proficient
40111 manner when they return to their classroom. Moreover, the content of a
1 professional development programme is usually predetermined and, hence,
2 the word ‘programme’ is apt. This traditional ‘stand and deliver’ or ‘training’
3 model for teacher learning has been the source of substantial debate over
44111 the years, leading to well-known phrases such as the ‘theory–practice divide’.
1111 The model has also been labelled as a ‘technical rational’ approach by Schön
2 (1983), whereby ‘professional activity consists in instrumental problem solving
3 made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique’ (Schön,
4 1983: 21). He argued that this has been the dominant epistemological view
5 of the relationship between formal, disciplinary knowledge and practice for
6 most of the twentieth century.
7 Traditional professional development has been criticised because it often
8 lacks any systematic support in a school setting to sustain teacher learning
9 after the presentation of the workshop or in-service course. For example,
1011 Fullan argued that:
1
2 Professional development for teachers has a poor track record because it
31 lacks a theoretical base and coherent focus. On the one hand, professional
4 development is treated as a vague panacea . . . on the other hand,
5 professional development is defined too narrowly and becomes artificially
6 detached from ‘real-time’ learning. It becomes the workshop, or possibly
7 an on-going series of professional development sessions. In either case,
8 it fails to have a sustained cumulative impact.
9 (Fullan, 1993: 253)
20111
1 Professional development programmes usually occur in the form of a one-
2 off training event, school development day or presentation. This is best
3 exemplified in the typical ‘after-school workshop’, which is common in school
4 settings today. These are a low-cost form of teacher learning, as no teacher
5
release time is involved and information can be packaged and presented to
6
a group of teachers in one hit, with little follow-up support. Hence, the
7
main factor of this form of teacher learning is the presentation of new infor-
8
9 mation or content to teachers, with little consideration for the context in
which they need to apply this new knowledge. Professional development,
30111
1 however, can enhance teacher learning, especially if the content of the
2 workshop matches the teachers’ prior knowledge or is complementary to
3 their existing practices. Although there may be some follow-up discussions
4 after the workshop, these are usually ad hoc and do not normally lead to
5 substantive change in practice. Other researchers also have concurred about
6 the inadequacy of one-off workshops to promote teacher learning (Fullan,
7 1982; 1993). In agreement, Day (1999) maintains that ‘professional develop-
8 ment opportunities must provide a range of learning experiences which
9 encourage teachers to reflect upon and inquire into their thinking and practice
40111 through interaction between their own and others’ experiences’ (Day, 1999:
1 201). In some cases, schools may organise their own follow-up support, such
2 as teachers providing feedback to each other and organising ongoing
3 discussions, but this scenario is rare. If teacher learning occurs from a one-
44111 off training workshop, it usually reinforces or extends existing practice.
1111 According to Sachs and Logan (1990), a conventional, in-service workshop

2 does not empower teachers to generate their own knowledge:
3
4 Rather than initiating programmes that are intellectually challenging
5 and rigorous, inservice education, with some exceptions, has reproduced
6 current practice by catering for teachers’ preoccupation with ‘practicality’
7 and ‘relevance.’ One consequence is that teachers’ professional knowledge
8 is being controlled, devalued and deskilled.
9 (Sachs and Logan, 1990: 479)
1011
1 In summary, a one-off workshop or professional development day rarely
2 results in a substantive change in practice.
31
4
Continuous professional development
5
6 A second form of teacher learning has been called ‘continuous professional
7 development’ (CPD) and involves a series of related workshops, in-service
8 courses, graduate courses or conferences. This form is often used to upgrade
9 qualifications by undertaking a new degree for the purpose of accreditation
20111 or a new salary increment. This sequence of professional events means that
1 teachers have the chance to try out some of the ideas in practice and then
2 possibly revisit these when they participate in follow-up courses. Also, new
3 knowledge is often introduced to teachers in the course materials or lectures,
4 and, similar to professional development, teachers have little input into the
5 content of what is presented. Sometimes ongoing workshops or meetings
6 provide opportunities for teachers from different schools to collaborate after
7 the presentations, which enhances possibilities for teacher learning. In contrast
8 to a one-off professional development workshop, continuing professional
9 development is ongoing and may have structures to provide teacher learning
30111 processes. However, the content of courses is usually predetermined. Without

1 structures to support teachers in the implementation of new ideas into the
2 school context, the chances of changing teaching practices are reduced.
3 Research conducted in school settings over the last thirty years has shown
4 that teacher learning is not a simple process (Hoban, 2002). In fact, there
5 is an increasing awareness of the complexity of school classrooms, often
6 characterised by elements of uncertainty, rapid change, value conflicts and
7 dilemmas (Fullan, 1999). Biggs (1993) argued that teachers are reluctant
8 to change their practices because what they do is related to a combination
9 of influences interacting as a ‘classroom system’ that makes change difficult
40111 to occur. He contends that ways of teaching have developed over many years
1 and are usually aligned with existing resources, assessment practices, reporting
2 procedures and policies (both school and state). For example, transmissive
3 teaching approaches, often used by high school mathematics and science
44111 teachers, are related to pressures created by a crowded, prescriptive syllabus,
1111 limited classroom resources, school reporting procedures that require specific
2 grading and having to teach five or six different classes per day. Elementary
3 teachers have different challenges. Although they usually do not have the
4 pressure of teaching to high-stakes exams, they do have the challenge of
5 teaching all subject areas, sometimes with a very prescriptive syllabus. Intro-
6 ducing a new approach to teachers, therefore, means ‘realigning’ assessment,
7 resources and existing practices. Of course, this all takes time and energy,
8 which are often in short supply in a busy school. Acknowledging the
9 challenges and pressures teachers face when attempting to change their
1011 practices requires new ways of thinking about teacher learning and a
1 willingness to move away from the simplistic ‘deliver and apply’ professional
2 development that has been prominent in schools over the last forty years
31 (Putnam and Borko, 1997; 2000).
4
5
Professional learning
6
7 A third form of teacher learning, ‘professional learning’, is not just about
8 attending a one-off workshop, as in a professional development programme,
9 or a sequence of courses or sessions, as in CPD. In contrast, it focuses on
20111 creating a learning environment in schools for teachers, including a framework
1 or structure that incorporates multiple teacher learning processes to support
2 change. Hence, professional learning is more about ‘educating teachers’ rather
3 than ‘training’ them. In Hoban’s words:
4
5 A professional development program, therefore, is usually a one-off
6 workshop or an isolated professional development day based on limited
7 conditions and processes to support teacher learning – the presentation
8 of new content over a relatively short time. In contrast, the design of
9 a professional learning framework is long term and encapsulates multiple
30111 conditions or processes for teacher learning that interrelate as a system.

1 (Hoban, 2002: 68)
2
3 In a school context, the structured teacher learning processes that support
4 ongoing teacher learning can include reflection, discussion, action in classroom
5 practice, new ideas or conceptual inputs, student feedback and working with
6 colleagues on targeted workplace projects. Distinct from professional develop-
7 ment and CPD, professional learning involves teachers taking responsibility
8 for making decisions about the content or focus of their learning. Teacher
9 learning processes are evident in all professional learning frameworks, but
40111 there may be different combinations. Encouraging their presence in a school
1 context and how they interact will be more fully discussed in the chapter
2 on ‘The dynamics of action learning’.
3 As previously stated, the forms of teacher learning sometimes overlap;
44111 however, the major differences are summarised in Table 2.1.
1111 Table 2.1 Forms of teacher learning

2
3 Forms of Features Examples
teacher learning
4
5 Professional Short, one-off training events often delivered One-off school
6 development by ‘experts’ with teachers having little workshop, school
7 /in-service responsibility to determine content and no development day or
structured teacher learning processes back in-service.
8 at school.
9
Continuous Sequence of training events such as Accreditation courses
1011 professional workshops, courses, programmes, or degree, sequence
1 development conferences, often delivered by ‘experts’, of workshops or
2 with teachers having little responsibility to conferences.
31 determine content and no structured
4 teacher learning processes back in the school.
5 Professional Long-term approach with teachers having a Action learning, action
6 learning major influence in determining the content. research, teacher
7 This form is also accompanied by a research, project-based
framework with multiple teacher learning learning, problem-
8 processes and conditions to sustain teacher based learning.
9 learning back at school.
20111
1
2
3 Some of the key ideas about professional learning, especially involving
4 reflection and community, were noted by Revans himself in describing action
5 learning, but he rarely used explicit educational terms because this was not
6 his field of expertise. In fact, many of Revans’ ideas were based on his own
7 common sense and a pragmatic approach to workplace learning. Revans
8 (1982b) noted that professional learning is not about the presentation of
9 information, as often demonstrated in training workshops, but is about the
30111 creation of a learning environment in the workplace, so that participants

1 can learn about themselves with the help of others and seek answers to
2 questions that are relevant to their needs.
3 The examples of professional learning shown in Table 2.1 – action learning,
4 action research, teacher research, problem-based learning and project-based
5 learning – are all examples of professional learning frameworks. Although
6 they have many features in common, there are some key differences that are
7 highlighted in the next section. Particular attention is given to distinguishing
8 between action learning and action research, because they are commonly
9 confused.
40111
1
Comparing action learning and action research
2
3 Both action learning and action research are examples of professional learning
44111 frameworks that evolved in the 1940s from different disciplines. Action
1111 learning originated in business management literature produced in the mid

2 1940s by Revans and focused on small groups of coal-mine managers who
3 met regularly to share experiences and seek solutions to their workplace
4 problems. As noted by Revans, ‘action learning, in simple English, becomes
5 a social process; a lot of people start to learn with and from each other and
6 a learning community comes into being’ (Revans, 1982a: 69–70). He called
7 the group of participants who meet regularly to share experiences and
8 comment on each other’s work-related issues or problems a ‘set’ that is at
9 the ‘cutting edge of every action learning programme’ (1983a: 14). He also
1011 placed the highest importance on the honest sharing of experiences, whereby
1 group discussions confirm or disconfirm personal reflections. This enables
2 action plans to crystallise for each person. Revans (1982b) stated that personal
31 honesty resulting in self-disclosure to colleagues was the most important
4 feature of an action learning set or community. This disclosure establishes
5
a trust that builds up over time between members of a set, enabling them
6
to share more personal matters and discuss both their successes and failures
7
8 in attempting to improve their practice.
9 Although Revans himself never gave a one-sentence definition of action
20111 learning, he was adamant that the social interaction among a small group
1 is the key feature that is fundamental to action learning. Other authors have
2 since provided their own definitions, as shown in the following three
3 quotations from the business literature:
4
5 Action learning is a continuous process of learning and reflection,
6 supported by colleagues, with an intention of getting things done.
7 Through action learning individuals learn with and from each other by
8 working on real problems and reflecting on their own experiences . . .
9 We know that making powerful decisions is greatly enhanced by working
30111 with others. The focus, however, is essentially on the individual . . . The
1 set enables this process to take place through concentrated group effort
2 focused on the issues of each individual.
3 (McGill and Beaty, 1995: 21)
4
5
6 Action learning builds on the relationship between reflection and action.
7 Learning by experience involves reflection, i.e. reconsidering past events,
8 making sense of our actions, and possibly finding new ways of behaving
9 at future events . . . Taking part in an action learning set provides the
40111 time and space to attend to the relationship, i.e. the link between reflec-
1 tion and learning. Set members enable their colleagues to understand,
2 explore and judge their situation as well as helping to realise underlying
3 feelings which influence behaviour.
44111 (McGill and Brockbank, 2004: 13)
1111 Action learning theory propounds that professionals will learn in the
2 most effective way by focusing on actual organisational settings, within
3 a supporting and challenging framework of enquiry, by peer group
4 interaction and where personal empowerment can be encouraged through
5 learner interdependency. It is about individuals learning from experience
6 through reflection and action, usually to solve problems at work. This
7 process, which is individually focused, uses a learning group, known as
8 a ‘set’, which provides a forum wherein the set member’s ideas can be
9 challenged within a supportive environment.
1011 (Gregory, 1994: 43)
1
2 For the purposes of this book, action learning in schools is defined as a
31 professional learning framework involving a small group of teachers (four to
4 eight is often recommended) who regularly reflect and share their experiences
5 as a community to help them understand or address a school-related issue,
6 dilemma, problem or project. The emphasis of action learning is on the
7 social interaction between the teachers as they share their experiences and
8 learn from each other. It should be noted that this is what teachers usually
9 value the most when they engage in any form of teacher learning. Even
20111 when teachers attend a professional development programme in the form of
1 an after-school workshop, it is commonly remarked that the most valuable
2 part is often the unplanned sharing of stories with a colleague who teaches
3 a similar subject or grade. Indeed, this sharing of experiences may not have
4 anything to do with the goals of the workshop, but teachers resonate with
5 others who experience similar challenges and issues. Action learning, therefore,
6 highlights this important aspect, the sharing of anecdotal experiences and
7 narratives with colleagues who work in, and understand, similar classroom
8 contexts (Clandinin and Connelly, 1996).
9 A key issue highlighted by Pedler (2008) and Inglis (1994) is that action
30111 learning can have different goals or foci for the members. For example, a
1 set may comprise people who have an individual focus, with each member
2 working in their own setting and bringing their own individual issues and
3 problems to the group for discussion. At the other extreme, a set may have
4 a group focus, with a specified target or an organisational problem to solve.
5 In this context, discussion in the group is focused on ways to find a solution
6 to the common issue. Alternatively, a blend or hybrid of these approaches
7 may be used. For example, a set may have a group focus, but there may be
8 a variety of ways in which an individual can interpret and focus their own
9 action learning efforts towards this group goal. In short, the outcome of
40111 action learning can be solving individual problems or shared group problems,
1 or a combination of the two.
2 In contrast, action research originated in the social sciences and was first
3 conceptualised by Kurt Lewin (1946) as a way for people in minority groups
44111 to become more aware of their situations and possible solutions. There are
1111 a variety of interpretations or emphases of action research and, like action

2 learning, these may have a group or individual focus (Stenhouse, 1979).
3 Here are three definitions of action research, as provided by key authors in
4 the field:
5
6 Action research is a form of collective self-reflective enquiry undertaken
7 by participants in the social situations in order to improve the rationality
8 and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their
9 understanding of these practices and the situations in which these
1011 practices are carried out. Groups of participants can be teachers, students,
1 principals, parents and other community members, – any group with a
2 shared concern. The approach is only action research when it is collabo-
31 rative, though it is important to realise that the action research of the
4 group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual
5 group members . . . The linking of the terms ‘action’ and ‘research’
6 highlights the essential feature of the approach: trying out ideas in
7 practice as a means of improvement and as a means of increasing
8 knowledge about the curriculum, teaching and learning.
9 (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988: 5)
20111
1 Action research is any systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers,
2 principals, school counsellors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/
3 learning environment, to gather information about the ways that their
4
particular schools operate, how they teach, and how well their students
5
learn. This information is gathered with the goals of gaining insights,
6
developing reflective practice, effecting positive changes in the school
7
8 environment (and on educational practices in general), and improving
9 student outcomes and the lives those involved.
(Mills, 2000: 6)
30111
1
2 Action research is about taking action based on research and researching
3 the action taken. Action research has been used in a variety of settings,
4 including schools, hospitals, health clinics, community agencies, govern-
5 ment units, and other environments. It can be used to enhance everyday
6 work practices to resolve specific problems, and to develop special projects
7 and programs. Action research in schools is also called practitioner
8 research, teacher inquiry or teacher research . . . Good teachers engage
9 in reflection, a key component of action research. But action research is
40111 more than reflection. It emphasises a systematic research approach that
1 is cyclical in nature, alternating between action and reflection, continu-
2 ously refining methods and interpretations based on understandings
3 developed in earlier cycles.
44111 (Ary et al., 2006: 538–9)
1111 In summary, while both action research and action learning involve cycles
2 of reflection and action to learn from experience, the approaches have a
3 different emphasis. The emphasis of action learning is on the social sharing
4 of personal experiences among a small group, whereas the emphasis of action
5 research is on systematic data collection that is made public. Although
6 action research can be conducted individually or in groups (as in collaborative
7 action research), action learning is always done in a group (usually of four
8 to eight people), and discussions are normally guided by a facilitator. This
9 is because the centrepiece of action learning is the team discussions whereby
1011 individuals share their personal reflections about a workplace issue or problem,
1 with the expectation that group sharing will provide additional inputs. Based
2 on these inputs, action plans devised to solve a workplace issue are
31 implemented after the meetings and then discussed again at subsequent
4 meetings in a recursive manner. This distinction between action learning
5 and action research is well explained by McGill and Beaty:
6
7 Action learning as a process is more general an approach to learning.
8
Research is not the primary aim and the project may not involve any
9
formal research at all. The individual is undertaking learning through
20111
the process of reflection in the set and therefore the process is essentially
1
2 a group process. In action research, the researcher may be a lone indi-
3 vidual, although there will inevitably be others involved in the project
4 . . . So while action learning may involve some research in the action
5 phase, it is not essentially a research-oriented venture and indeed the
6 research undertaken may use techniques quite different from those
7 advocated by action research.
8 (McGill and Beaty, 1995: 32)
9
30111
1 Table 2.2 Comparison of action research and action learning
2 Feature Action research Action learning
3
4 Founder Kurt Lewin (1946) Reg Revans (1945)
5 Structure Ongoing with cycles Ongoing with cycles
6 Emphasis ‘Research’ through systematic ‘Learning’ through team discussions
7 data collection to answer a of personal experiences
8 research question
9 Learning Plan, action, implement, evaluate Reflection, sharing, action, feedback
40111 Processes
1 Participants Individually or in a group Always in a group of 4–8 people,
2 with meetings every few weeks
3
Facilitator Not usually Usually
44111
1111 Similarly, Zuber-Skerritt (1993) maintains that action learning and action
2 research are similar in that they have cycles of action and reflection, but
3 action research is more rigorous because of its emphasis on research and
4 because it is made public: ‘the difference between action learning and action
5 research is the same as that difference between learning and research’ (Zuber-
6 Skerritt, 1993: 46). The similarities and differences between action learning
7 and action research are summarised in Table 2.2.
8 Evidence is used in both action learning and in action research; however,
9 the evidence in action research is systematic and rigorous, whereas the evidence
1011 in action learning is often more informal, such as the sharing of anecdotal
1 experiences.
2
31
The development of action learning in
4
non-educational settings
5
6 After action learning was initially tried with mining managers in England
7 in the mid 1940s, the next wave of implementation was in the 1950s in
8 the palm oil plantations of Nigeria. Local forests provided thousands of jobs,
9 with many different palm oil plantations and over a hundred small mills
20111 scattered around the city of Enugu. The problem was that many of these
1 mills were not adequately profitable. So, instead of closing down, small
2 numbers of managers were grouped together in action learning sets, as guided
3 by the Institute of Management and Productivity at the University of N’suka.
4 The outcome was that the plantation managers helped each other to become
5 more profitable and thus saved the jobs of thousands of workers. Action
6 learning was used in Nigeria as a strategy for workplace learning, especially
7 for managers, and it then spread to Egypt, India and other countries (Revans,
8 1982b).
9 In the late 1960s, ten large hospitals in London were experiencing severe
30111 management difficulties. Not only were the hospitals operating beyond
1 their budgets and the subject of many complaints from patients, but there
2 was very low morale among management staff. Between 1965 and 1969, a
3 systematic plan for managers was instigated, involving managers being placed
4 in action learning sets. The result was that the hospital managers were
5 learning about themselves and their colleagues as they collaboratively solved
6 their workplace problems and issues. Over time, the hospitals became more
7 efficient to run, morale improved, and fewer patient complaints were received.
8 Other industries that have used action learning for the workplace learning
9 of managers include the Victorian Public Service Board in Australia, engineers
40111 on the Siberian gas pipeline and executives in the General Electric Company
1 (Keys, 1996). Fundamental to all of these efforts in using action learning
2 is the bringing together of small groups of people who manage in similar
3 areas to collaboratively solve their workplace problems and issues. According
44111 to Revans:
1111 Such variations upon what must always remain the same simple idea –
2 that those with responsible jobs to do, whether managers or not, learn
3 best with and from each other when systematically brought together
4 during the doing of those jobs – are, of course, bound to deepen our
5 knowledge and understanding of this fundamental human drive.
6 (Revans, 1982b: 74)
7
8 Action learning continued to blossom in different workplace settings into
9 the 1990s. It was used in a wide range of settings such as:
1011
1 • executives in a textile company in Wales (Lewis, 1991);
2 • managers in a private hospital (Miller, 2003);
31 • supervisors in an electronic firm (Boddy, 1991);
4 • doctors in a hospital in England (Winkless, 1991);
5 • university students in a Diploma of Religious Education in England
6 (Robinson, 2001);
7 • insurance agents attempting to improve the quality of their service in
8 New Zealand (Schlesinger, 1991); and
9 • university students in health care education (Wade and Hammick, 1999).
20111
1 To get an understanding of how action learning has been used to promote
2 workplace learning in business contexts, two examples are explored in more
3 detail.
4
5
Example 1: Action learning in the Williams Grand Prix
6
racing team
7
8 In 1995, six foremen who worked for the Williams Grand Prix racing team
9 participated in an action learning programme for six months to improve
30111 their practice in the workplace (Giles, 1997). This included improving ways
1 to solve problems, handle discipline and build teams. Each of the foremen
2 selected their own issue/problem and had regular meetings with the other
3 members to assist each other to address their issues. There were four stages
4 in the meetings to structure support for each individual: (i) listening to the
5 individual relate their experiences and identify an issue; (ii) sharing perceptions
6 among the group to gain different insights on the issue; (iii) identifying
7 options to address the issue; and (iv) choosing the best option with an agreed
8 action plan. The range of issues raised by individuals in the group, along
9 with the action plans and outcomes, are outlined in Table 2.3.
40111 Table 2.3 shows that each foreman identified a personal issue to investigate,
1 which was discussed by the group to devise an action plan. Also, because
2 of the structured interaction from the group or set, each of the action plans
3 was different and specific to the person’s need and context. However, it can
44111 be seen from the table that some of the action learning plans were more
1111 Table 2.3 Personal issues raised by foremen in an action learning group at Williams Grand
2 Prix Engineering
3
Personal Issue What it became Actions Outcomes
4
5 Foreman A: A problem of Devised a trial Initial improvement but
6 coordinating way of coordinating then communication
7 Efficiency of running operation of the team to operate problems arose again
the 5-axis machine machine among the machine
8 a group
9
1011 Foreman B: A common Collect examples More open
1 problem of communication –
2 Uncomfortable being confident Role play in group
31 situation in being about saying People became more
4 open and honest what you think assertive and supportive
5
6 Foreman C: An issue of Define role Gaining in personal
7 responsibility confidence and helping
Time management and control Keep and analyse to define role
8 time log
9
20111 Confronting
1 situations
2
3 Foreman D: Becoming more Learning and Better control over
4 assertive and applying a more priorities and learning
People management less aggressive, appropriate people management
5 gaining liaison style skills
6 cooperation
7
8 Foreman E: Improving the Collecting views Better meeting
9 foremen’s and liaising with the structure and feeling
30111 Feeling not meetings General Manager better personally

1 consulted by
2 management
3
4 Foreman F: Defining his Analysing a time log Changing personal style
role in the new
5 What am I plant, sorting Reviewing the Delegating more
6 responsible for? sub-contract competence of the
7 issues team Becoming less stressed
8
9 Delegation Delegation
40111 (Source: Adapted from Giles, 1997)
1
2
3
44111
1111 successful than others when implemented. Whereas there was no real
2 improvement for foreman A, there was an improvement in work-related
3 issues for the other five members of the set. It should be noted that there
4 were fortnightly meetings over a six-month period, with plans devised at
5 each meeting. The plans were implemented after each meeting and then
6 discussed at the subsequent meeting (Giles, 1997).
7
8
Example 2: Action learning at MCB University Press
9
1011 In 1994, a vision for the growth of MCB University Press in the UK had
1 been formulated, and it was decided that ten members of the senior manage-
2 ment team would engage in action learning to devise plans to implement
31 the vision (Reid, 1994). Accordingly, a set of ten managers gathered together
4 to devise ways to implement the strategic vision plan. A system of meetings
5 was planned, such as a half-day and full-day meeting every month, to focus
6 on the discussion of action plans and reflections, which there then interspersed
7 with workshops on a needs basis. Some of the specific projects nominated
8 were: benchmarking for quality; evaluation of MCB’s copyright procedures;
9 launching a region-specific journal; developing a qualitative framework for
20111 editorial excellence; developing a strategy for distribution handling and
1 stockholding of publications and promotional materials; and implementing
2 the key training requirements for the new sales operations department. The
3 projects ran for eight months and culminated in each set member giving a
4 written and oral presentation to the board of directors, who then gave them
5 feedback on their efforts.
6
7
Conclusion
8
9 It is only in the last twenty years that action learning has been used in
30111 schools as an alternative to traditional, one-off professional development or

1 in-service programmes. Although teacher learning can occur in these brief
2 programmes, this type of learning usually reinforces existing practice rather
3 than generates a change in practice. Because teaching is so complex, efforts
4 to change something so multidimensional need to be accompanied by a
5 professional learning framework, with embedded teacher learning processes
6 and conducive conditions in schools. While other forms of teacher learning,
7 such as one-off workshops promoted by professional development, and
8 sequences of courses promoted by continuous professional development, can
9 involve teacher learning processes, their existence in the workplace is often
40111 ad hoc and inconsistent.
1 We know that action learning ‘works’ because it has been successfully
2 used in business contexts for over seventy years. In our rapidly changing
3 educational landscape, the timing is right to incorporate action learning in
44111 schools. However, the educational processes underpinning action learning
1111 have not been well articulated in business literature because the writers did
2 not have an educational ‘language’ to fully explain the processes and conditions
3 necessary for change. This book provides such a ‘language’, as well as examples
4 of action learning conducted mostly in Australian school contexts over the
5 last ten years. The next chapter explains some of the conditions and processes
6 that enable action learning to occur.
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111
1111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
1
2
31
4
5
6
7
8
9
20111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40111
1
2
3
44111

Action Learning in Schools Reframing Teachers' Pro... - (Chapter 2 Positioning Action Learning)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Action Learning in Schools Reframing Teachers' Pro... - (Chapter 2 Positioning Action Learning)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2

1111 of thinking about a problematic situation that needs to be resolved: ‘The

30111 ‘continuous professional development’ and ‘professional learning’. Importantly,

30111 (Hoyle and John, 1995: 77)

1111 According to Sachs and Logan (1990), a conventional, in-service workshop

30111 processes. However, the content of courses is usually predetermined. Without

30111 conditions or processes for teacher learning that interrelate as a system.

1111 Table 2.1 Forms of teacher learning

30111 creation of a learning environment in the workplace, so that participants

1111 learning originated in business management literature produced in the mid

1111 a variety of interpretations or emphases of action research and, like action

30111 Feeling not meetings General Manager better personally

30111 schools as an alternative to traditional, one-off professional development or

You might also like