between two worlds use of reflection for assessing industry-collaborative student projects
Post on 15-Jan-2016
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
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
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