Between Two WorldsBetween Two Worlds

Use of reflection for assessingUse of reflection for assessing

industry-collaborative studentindustry-collaborative student

projectsprojects

Practitioner ProjectsPractitioner Projects

• Industry-collaborativeIndustry-collaborative• Real clientReal client• Academic supervisorAcademic supervisor• Student organized and deliveredStudent organized and delivered

• Business information systemsBusiness information systems• Final year undergraduatesFinal year undergraduates• Real change managementReal change management

• AssessmentAssessment• ProductProduct• ProcessProcess

Social perspective on Social perspective on learninglearning

Focuses on the way people make Focuses on the way people make sense of their experiences. Dewey sense of their experiences. Dewey defined learning as a continuous defined learning as a continuous reorganization and reconstruction of reorganization and reconstruction of experience through reflection.experience through reflection.

Practitioner projects: situated Practitioner projects: situated learning – a process of socialization learning – a process of socialization into real world BIS project culture.into real world BIS project culture.

Reflection in assessmentReflection in assessment

The imperative to do well The imperative to do well academically discourages students academically discourages students from engaging in honest and open from engaging in honest and open reflection reflection (Hargreaves 2003)(Hargreaves 2003)

Without reflection learning fails to Without reflection learning fails to develop from trial and error learning develop from trial and error learning to higher levels of learning to higher levels of learning (Bateson (Bateson 1973)1973)

Assessment can be understood Assessment can be understood only in terms of the student’s only in terms of the student’s attempt to influence the attempt to influence the assessors assessors (Holmes 1995)(Holmes 1995)

Reflection in experiential Reflection in experiential learninglearning

1.1.ExperiencingExperiencing

3.3.ConceptualizationConceptualization

2.2.ReflectionReflection

4.4.PlanningPlanning

A key role of reflection is to reveal theory-in-use and explore A key role of reflection is to reveal theory-in-use and explore the nature of the fit with espoused theory. the nature of the fit with espoused theory.

Kolb’s learning cycle

Learning loopsLearning loops

Single-loop learning• Single feedback loop connects

outcomes to strategies• Assumptions modified to keep

performance within range set by norms• Processes tend to be self-seeking• Emphasis on techniques and improving

efficiency

GoverningGoverningvariablevariable Action strategyAction strategy ConsequencesConsequences

Single-loop learningSingle-loop learning

(Argyris and Schőn 1974)

Learning loopsLearning loops

Single-loop learning• Single feedback loop connects

outcomes to strategies• Assumptions modified to keep

performance within range set by norms• Processes tend to be self-seeking• Emphasis on techniques and improving

efficiency

Double-loop learning• Involves questioning assumptions

behind goals and strategies • Modifies norms that define effective

performance• More creative and reflexive• Processes can be disconfirmable• Considers ‘notions of the good’

GoverningGoverningvariablevariable Action strategyAction strategy ConsequencesConsequences

Single-loop learningSingle-loop learning

Double-loop learningDouble-loop learning

(Argyris and Schőn 1974)

Theory-in-use characteristicsTheory-in-use characteristics

Model I• Achieve the purpose as

the actor defines it• Win, do not loose• Suppress negative

feelings• Emphasize rationality• Control environment

and task unilaterally• Protect self and others

unilaterally• Face-saving moves

Model II• Valid information• Free and informed

choice• Internal commitment• Sharing control• Participation in design

and implementation of action

• Surfacing conflicting view

• Increased likelihood of double-loop learning(Adapted from Argyris, Putnam & McLain Smith 1985) (Adapted from Anderson 1997)

Practitioners and projects need Practitioners and projects need double loop learningdouble loop learning

Practice is involved with dilemmas of value, with creatingPractice is involved with dilemmas of value, with creatingcongruent outcomes in complex social, ethical andcongruent outcomes in complex social, ethical andeconomic contexts economic contexts (Lester 1999)(Lester 1999)

… … as organizational and external environments becomeas organizational and external environments becomemore complex, projects must evolve to be more organic more complex, projects must evolve to be more organic

ininnaturenature (Back and Seaker 2004)(Back and Seaker 2004)

The nature of project management is a barrier to The nature of project management is a barrier to learninglearning

(Turner 2005)(Turner 2005)

How does tension between learning How does tension between learning and performance play out in and performance play out in assessment?assessment?

• Qualitative case study researchQualitative case study research

• 25 students completed BIS Practitioner Projects in 25 students completed BIS Practitioner Projects in 20052005

• Students’ reflective accountsStudents’ reflective accounts• Individual critical reviewsIndividual critical reviews• Team presentationsTeam presentations

• Discourse analysisDiscourse analysis

Project management Project management discoursediscourse• Performance-orientatedPerformance-orientated

– time, cost, requirementstime, cost, requirements

• Goals presented in concrete termsGoals presented in concrete terms– discrete deliverablesdiscrete deliverables

• Emphasis on rationality – sensing and Emphasis on rationality – sensing and judgingjudging– compared with intuiting and perceiving that are compared with intuiting and perceiving that are

thought to be consistent with double-loop thought to be consistent with double-loop learning learning (Back and Seaker 2004)(Back and Seaker 2004)

• TechniquesTechniques– to plan, monitor and controlto plan, monitor and control

Findings: Individual reflectionsFindings: Individual reflections

Key data categoriesKey data categories PercentagePercentageof students of students

(n=25)(n=25)

CommunicationsCommunications 8484

TeamworkTeamwork 6868

Functional knowledgeFunctional knowledge 6868

Problem-workProblem-work 3232

Goal preference - Goal preference - performanceperformance

6464

Goal preference - learningGoal preference - learning 3636

Self-theories - fixedSelf-theories - fixed 1616

Self-theories - malleableSelf-theories - malleable 2020

Model I theory-in-useModel I theory-in-use 5252

Model II theory-in-useModel II theory-in-use 2828

Findings: Individual Findings: Individual (by cohort)(by cohort)

Key data categoriesKey data categories Cohort ACohort A(n=13 students (n=13 students with >55% in with >55% in

ISP) ISP)

Cohort BCohort B(n=12 students (n=12 students with <= 55% in with <= 55% in

ISP)ISP)

CommunicationsCommunications 100100 6767

TeamworkTeamwork 9292 4242

Functional knowledgeFunctional knowledge 8585 4242

Problem-workProblem-work 5454 88

Goal preference - Goal preference - performanceperformance

8585 4242

Goal preference - learningGoal preference - learning 6262 88

Self-theories - fixedSelf-theories - fixed 00 3333

Self-theories - malleableSelf-theories - malleable 3838 00

Model I theory-in-useModel I theory-in-use 3131 9292

Model II theory-in-useModel II theory-in-use 5454 00

Findings: Team performanceFindings: Team performance

Key data categoriesKey data categories Type 2Type 2(n=8)(n=8)

Type 1Type 1(n=7)(n=7)

Type 0Type 0(n=10)(n=10)

CommunicationsCommunications 100100 100100 6060

TeamworkTeamwork 100100 4343 6060

Functional knowledgeFunctional knowledge 100100 5757 4040

Problem-workProblem-work 8888 00 1010

Goal preference - Goal preference - performanceperformance

8888 5757 5050

Goal preference - learningGoal preference - learning 100100 0(-)0(-) 10(-)10(-)

Self-theories - fixedSelf-theories - fixed 00 2929 2020

Self-theories - malleableSelf-theories - malleable 6363 00 00

Model I theory-in-useModel I theory-in-use 00 100100 6060

Model II theory-in-useModel II theory-in-use 8888 00 00

Distribution of cohorts between team types

Team typeTeam type Number of Number of students students

from cohort from cohort AA

(n=13 students (n=13 students

with >55% in ISP)with >55% in ISP)

Number of Number of students students

from cohort from cohort BB

(n=12 students (n=12 students with <=55% in with <=55% in

ISP)ISP)

Team type 0Team type 0 33 77

Team type 1Team type 1 33 44

Team type 2Team type 2 77 11

ConclusionsConclusions

• Project management discourse tends to Project management discourse tends to promote performance and can drive out promote performance and can drive out learninglearning

• For some students, practitioner projects are For some students, practitioner projects are likely to reinforce model I theory-in-use likely to reinforce model I theory-in-use inhibiting double-loop learninginhibiting double-loop learning

• Academic capability and development of Academic capability and development of organizational norms seem to influence how organizational norms seem to influence how tension between learning and performance tension between learning and performance plays outplays out

And so …And so …• Students are likely to be better prepared for the world of work Students are likely to be better prepared for the world of work

if they are encouraged to develop a capability for double, if they are encouraged to develop a capability for double, rather than single, loop learningrather than single, loop learning

• A starting point of enquiry, critique, reflection and A starting point of enquiry, critique, reflection and reconstruction is more likely to develop a capacity for ‘map reconstruction is more likely to develop a capacity for ‘map making’ than an education in ‘map reading’making’ than an education in ‘map reading’

• Further work is needed to support the development of Further work is needed to support the development of organizational norms that encourage learning in student organizational norms that encourage learning in student projectsprojects

• Further research is needed to explore the relationships Further research is needed to explore the relationships between double-loop learning, self-theories and other aspects between double-loop learning, self-theories and other aspects of personalityof personality

For further information, my email address isFor further information, my email address is

kthompso@bournemouth.ac.uk kthompso@bournemouth.ac.uk

ReferencesReferences• Anderson, L. (1997) Anderson, L. (1997) Argyris and Schön's theory on congruence and learning Argyris and Schön's theory on congruence and learning [On line]. Available at [On line]. Available at

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/arr/argyris.html

• Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985) Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985) Action science: concepts, methods, and skills for Action science: concepts, methods, and skills for research and interventionresearch and intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974) Argyris, M. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness.Theory in Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness. San San Francisco: Jossey-BassFrancisco: Jossey-Bass

• Back, K. M. and Seaker, R. (2004) ‘Project Performance: Implications of personality Preferences and Back, K. M. and Seaker, R. (2004) ‘Project Performance: Implications of personality Preferences and Double Loop Learning’ Double Loop Learning’ Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge. Vol. 4 Iss. 1-2 pg 292Vol. 4 Iss. 1-2 pg 292

• Bateson, G. (1973) Bateson, G. (1973) Steps to and Ecology of MindSteps to and Ecology of Mind. London: Paladin. London: Paladin

• Hargreaves, J. (2003) ‘So how do you feel about that? Assessing reflective practice’. Hargreaves, J. (2003) ‘So how do you feel about that? Assessing reflective practice’. Nurse Nurse Education Today Education Today Vol. 24 Iss. 3 pgs. 196-201 [On line]. Available at Vol. 24 Iss. 3 pgs. 196-201 [On line]. Available at www.sciencedirect.com/science [Accessed 06/07/2004][Accessed 06/07/2004]

• Holmes, L. (1995c) ‘Competence and Capability: From ‘Confidence Trick’ to the Construction of the Holmes, L. (1995c) ‘Competence and Capability: From ‘Confidence Trick’ to the Construction of the Graduate Identity’ [On line]. Available at Graduate Identity’ [On line]. Available at www.re-skill.org.uk/grads/cc_grdid.htm [Accessed: 24/3/05] [Accessed: 24/3/05]

• Lester, S. (1999a) ‘From map-reader to map-maker: approaches to moving beyond knowledge and Lester, S. (1999a) ‘From map-reader to map-maker: approaches to moving beyond knowledge and competence’. In O’Reilly, D., Cunningham, L. and Lester, S. (eds) competence’. In O’Reilly, D., Cunningham, L. and Lester, S. (eds) Developing the Capable Developing the Capable Practitioner: Professional Capability through Higher Education.Practitioner: Professional Capability through Higher Education. London: Kogan Page London: Kogan Page

• Turner, J.R. (2005) ‘Barriers to innovation and learning’ Turner, J.R. (2005) ‘Barriers to innovation and learning’ Project Manager TodayProject Manager Today. Issue:May pg.12-14. Issue:May pg.12-14