Varieties of work related learningPaper to be presented at the AERA conference, San Francisco, April 2006

P.Robert-Jan Simons & M.P.C. RuijtersUtrecht University and Twynstra Gudde

AbstractThis paper presents a conceptual system of five metaphors of learning, including explicit, implicit and social learning. It encompasses the metaphors of learning as previously defined by Sfard: the acquisition and participation metaphors. The system consists of three new metaphors: the discovery metaphor, the apperception metaphor and the exercising metaphor. These three stem from three psychological theories of learning: knowledge building / productive learning, observational learning and learning organization / deliberate practice theories . In a survey a revised questionnaire was tested with 229 professionals out of 11 different organisations. The five learning metaphors could be distinguished and proved to be reliable. The alpha-coefficients were acceptable and the scales were distinguishable. With one exception the inter correlations between the scales were not too high and not too low. They were in line with expected patterns of correlations: implicit, explicit and social preferences correlated more with each other than with the other preferences. The expected differences between organizations, professions and groups appeared and could be interpreted meaningfully.

IntroductionIn our work with professionals, we experienced that in case of an explicit need to talk about learning, the everyday learning language is insufficient. For example in a conversation betweena manager and an employee preparing a personal development plan, many communication problems may arise. Due to the limiteddistinctions made between different ways of learning, learning is often confused with training, individual differences in preferences are not taken into account and possibilities to organise learning in various way are not even considered. As a result we see that many new insights about learning are not translated and implemented into practice. Our search is for a language of learning: a system of meaningful distinctions in ways to learn (with words attached to them), in order to help professionals and their managers to talk about learning and to determine smart, varied and motivating ways to reach personal

as well as organisational growth. After several earlier attempts we arrived at a system of five metaphors of learning. This paper first describes the five metaphors, their theoretical backgrounds and their use in practice. Then we summarise a previous study we did and the changes that were made on the basis of this. The main part of the paper is an empirical study with a new version of the questionnaire we devised.

Five metaphors of learningFrom the literature we could deduce five metaphors of learning in organisations, including explicit, implicit and social learning. It encompasses the metaphors of learning as previously defined by Sfard: the acquisition and participation metaphors. The system consists of three new metaphors: the discovery metaphor, the apperception metaphor and the exercising metaphor. These three stem from three psychological theories of learning: knowledge building / productive learning,observational learning and learning organisation/ deliberate practice theories .A metaphor is a mental construction that helps us to structure our experience and to develop our imagination and reasoning. Inher article, on two metaphors for learning and the danger of choosing just one, Anna Sfard (1998) descibes a first useful distinction, the one between the acquisition and the participation metaphor. Learning as the acquisition of something is probably the most common view on learning. The Oxford Reference dictionary even refers to learning as ‘knowledge acquired by study’. Knowledge of the world is treated as the objective truth that can be transmitted from oneperson to another (Bruner, 1996). Theoretically, the acquisition metaphor stems from and resides in the tradition ofcognitive psychology, which focused on the storage, organisation and retrieval of information in memory (Andersson, J., Reder, L. & Simon, H. (1996; Anderson, 2000). In educational psychology, especially Ausubel (1963) worked in the tradition of the acquisition metaphor. Keywords are objective knowledge, structure, expertise.The alternative assumptions of the participation metaphor (Sfard, 1998) state that

a) there is no objective truth and knowledge is constructed in social-interactions between people;

b) learning should be done by people themselves; at most they can be helped with this; we cannot do it for them;

c) learning is gradually becoming a member of a community of practice (or a culture, or a profession, or a field of science); this happens for an important part outside of institutions and tacit knowledge and skills play important roles in it.

The participation metaphor examines learning as a process of participation in various cultural practices and shared learningactivities. The focus is on activities and not so much on outcomes or products of learning. Knowledge does not exist either in a world of its own or in individual minds but is an aspect of participation in cultural practices (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Cognition andknowing are distributed over individuals and their environments, and learning is "situated" in relations and networks of distributed activities of participation. Knowledge and knowing cannot be separated from situations where they are used or where they take place. Learning is a matter of participation in practices, enculturation or legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Keywords are discourse, interaction, activity, and participation.

Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen (2002) argued convincingly, that the distinction between the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor should be supplemented with a third metaphor: the knowledge creation metaphor. They base this on ananalysis of three recent theories of knowledge creation, the ones from Engeström (1999), Bereiter (2002) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). These three theories share, so they argue, sixcommon characteristics that are different from the acquisition and the participation metaphor. a) Learning is understood broadly to involve knowledge advancement in general. In all these models, dynamics of knowledge creation and the pursuit ofnewness is a focal starting point. b) They focus on bringing mediating elements to the process of knowledge creation, such asquestions and questioning. In trying to capture the dynamic processes of innovative learning and knowledge advancement mediating elements, questions and various disturbances instigate cycles of innovation. c) Learning is fundamentally

social: new ideas grow between individuals and not within individuals. Communities play important roles in knowledge creation. d) Yet individuals play important roles as instigators of innovation. Analysis of individual tacit knowledge is for instance an important start for innovation. e)Tacit knowledge is an essential resource of creative experts. And f) There is a focus on conceptual and theoretical modelling, using symbols and externalisation of tacit knowledgeand theory. This theorizing and conceptualising goes with risk-taking, uncertainty, looking for new and promising ways, etc. The focus in the knowledge creation metaphor is on deep understanding and meaning construction, comparable to deep meaning oriented approaches as described in the educational learning styles approaches mentioned above (e.g. Vermunt, 1992). In work environments, however, the focus will not so much be on explicit planned and pre-organised learning, but on the processes of innovation and the construction of meaning. Paul Hager ( 2004) independently suggested another but fitting third metaphor (the construction methaphor), seeing learning asa proces of (re)construction. He suggests a tripartite focus onthe construction of the learning, the learner and the environment. His third metaphor seems more directed towards work related learning and individual processes, and is an important addition and extension of the collective and externally directed methaphor of knowledge creation. We see them as two sides of one coin. Because of the different connotations ‘creation’ and ‘construction’ have in practice we call this the ‘discovery metaphor’ instead.

In our view, there is a need for a fourth metaphor of what Meggison (1996) calls ‘emergent’ learning, learning that is much pre-dominant in management learning. It is a type of learning that is not planned, even more so it is not recognisedas being learning, and naming it learning would be counterproductive. It is a type of learning best descibed as ‘in the spur of the moment’, working on a highly complex issue,looking around, searching for what works, analysing and copying it. Van der Sluis (2000) also describes emergent learning as an important way of learning practised by managers.Van den Berg and Poeli (2002) describe a study that showed thatmanagers reported to learn mainly from apparently impossible assignments, failures and disappointment, role models,

conflicting norms and values, collaboration with employees, personal problems and power politics (pressure from above and below in a political environment). All these can be seen as forms of implicit learning.Theoretically, this way of learning relates mostly to the social learning theory of Bandura (i.e.1986) focusing on observation, imitation and modelling as vehicles for learning.Thus, there is a fourth metaphor of learning in rather implicitways from other people through observation and imitation and inpractice where one encounters problems and disappointment (see Bolhuis and Simons, 1999). We will use the term the apperception metaphor.

Finally, we believe that there is a metaphor of learning that resides more in the learning organisation (Senge, 1990) literature. In learning organisations, not only the organisation as such and the teams in it, but also or even especially the individuals should work on their learning abilities. If individual employees have high learning abilities, the organisation can change quicker than competitiveorganisations. Senge (1990) proposed five dimensions that together create the ability to learn as individuals and as an organisation. Central in this approach is that learning gets anexplicit focus in the working environment, both individually and collectively. People should reflect on their learning explicitly and organise their learning explicitly for the sake of survival of the organisation. It is not so much individual knowledge that is important but instead shared knowledge, skills, attitudes, or expertise. Another theoretical approach that underlies this final metaphor is Ericksons’ deliberate practice theory. This theory describes how musicians, sporters and workers practice deliberately on a regular basis in order to reach higher levels of expertise or competence (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer (1993).The fifth learning metaphor, which we call the exercising metaphor, thus focuses on learning abilities with an active role of the learner who is consciously learning in collaboration with others in order to be able to function in a learning organisation. Learning can often be the foreground andworking the background. It is explicit learning, that is, however, not focusing on knowledge (as the acquisition metaphor), but on skills, attitudes and expertise. For learning

one needs guidance by experts and collaboration with others in safe environments.

All in all, we believe that we could deduce from the literaturefive metaphors of learning on the job: the acquisition metaphor, the participation metaphor, the discovery metaphor, the apperception metaphor and the exercising metaphor. In the process of growing from two to five metaphors we almost undetectable rearranged accents and aspects of each of them. Therefore we here redefine and sharpen our metaphors based on pilots and experiences with them in practice.

Descriptions of the five metaphors of learningWe developed after several iterations and pilots the following five descriptions of the metaphors: - apperceptionNot everyone learns in the same way and not everyone learns under the same conditions. Even the assumption that you can only learn in a peaceful and harmonious atmosphere does not hold true for everyone. Learners who prefer apperception learn well under pressure. They learn best in a hectic, relatively unpredictable and constantly changing work environment. They look for situations that will teach them something. They often have a talent for spotting an expert ina particular field and learn by example and good observation.They are very interested in tales concerning best practice and what works. It is probably obvious that these learners are not exactly keen on situations involving role-play and exercises. They will soon come to regard these as ‘childish’.They prefer to learn in the real world (instead of a learningworld) where they are challenged to perform and achieve in a complex environment. Part of the challenge here is to avoid mistakes or to turn a disadvantage into an advantage.

- participationIn the past, learning was often regarded as a solitary process. Increasingly, however, the social side of learning is being emphasized. You learn with and from each others. Knowledge is not an objective concept, everyone has his own interpretation of what it is, but by communicating with others you can arrive at a joint meaning. People who prefer ‘participation’ learn by interacting and communicating. Interaction is essential for them. They need

the cut and trust of discussion to sharpen and clarify their ideas. You are forced to explain your thoughts, which, in turn, gives you feedback in the form or reactions and ideas from others. Win-win situations all around. Learning is easiest for these learners within a group where the members are interested in and trust each other. Support in the form of a team coach, someone who can guide the group process, can be useful. But members dividing tasks within thegroup themselves and rotating chairmanship are a good alternative.

- acquisitionAlthough many trainers and teachers are trying to find ways to bring theory and practice closer together and to escape the restraints of the classical system, there are people who really prefer this way of learning. They attach great importance to the transfer of knowledge and the learning of skills. They often learn well when goals are set and learningprocesses are defined. They like to be taught by ‘experts’, teachers who know their subject. After all, knowledge is objective and it is important to gain knowledge in an unsullied environment. Mistakes should be avoided. Making them is a sign of planning errors, sloppy preparation or inadequate knowledge. These learners know what they want to learn and target their learning to achieving a concrete result. Regular testing is part of this learning process. After all, knowledge can be measured. Examination results give a clear indication to what extent the results have been achieved.

- exercisingTogether with ‘acquisition’, ‘exercising’ is perhaps the mostwell known learning preference. Time and time again, ‘exercising’ seeks to bring learning closer to the workplace,choosing forms like on-the-job training, work experience and role-play. The greatest concern is whether that what is learned can be applied in practice. For this reason, whereverpossible, training is carried out in realistic situations; situations that reflect every-day practice as closely as possible. The core of this approach is that it is a ‘learningsituation’. This means that the environment must feel safe enough to dare making mistakes in. The environment should also be uncluttered enough not to detract learners from theirprimary goal. Moreover, it must be peaceful enough to allow

learners to reflect on what they have learned. In short, learning as exercising requires a peaceful, safe, not too complex, but realistic environment where learners have the freedom to experiment, ask questions and have the opportunityto reflect. Learning can be supervised by someone from the work environment or an experienced teacher. The important thing is to have someone who can simplify situations, point things out or can pass things on that will bring you a step closer to your goal. With him, you can also discuss mistakes,because mistakes contain a wealth of information that help you learn.

- discoveryLearning as ‘discovery’ is based on the premise that life andlearning are synonymous. You don’t just learn during a course, you are always learning. There is no such thing as not learning. Learning means finding your way through and understanding situations. Being conscious of this, teaches you a great deal about daily life and those unexpected evens that confront us all. An important prerequisite is a large degree of freedom. Learners that prefer ‘discovery’ like to go their own way. This doesn’t necessarily have to be the most efficient path, as long as it’s the most interesting one. This learner searches for inspiration and meaning and finds these in his or her environment, friends and the peoplearound him or her etc. Knowledge is what you yourself construct. The discovering learner doesn’t really require their learningprocess to be supervised, but an inspirational ‘teacher’ or ‘supervisor’ will be taken seriously. These learners are often recognised by their creative drive and their urge to discover things for themselves. Initially, they can appear tobe chaotic. But mistakes are all part of the game and keep you alert. If something takes too much time and effort you know you have to try another tack.

Table 1 characterizes these five metaphors with some key words

Learning by .. Key words

apperception Role models, best-practice, real-life, pressure, implicit learning, imitation, observation

participation Dialogue, with others, collaboration, discourse,trust, enculturation, communities of practice

acquisition Objective facts, transmission, knowledge, from experts, theories

exercising Safe environment, practising, skills, attitudes, simulations, explicit learning, role playing

discovery Meaning, deep understanding, inspiration, self regulation, knowledge creation, productive, designing

Table 1: The five metaphors characterised in key words

For each metaphor we found two key questions:Underlying the apperception metaphor:

a) What emotions underlie learning? (“Why is so often stated that you need safety in order to learn? I do learn a lot when I am under pressure”)

b) Who puts you in a thinking-mode? (“I like to reflect my thoughts on an outsider”)

Underlying the participation metaphor: c) What means learning and working with others for you? (“In

working with others I learn the most’)d) Under what circumstances do you learn? (“I need trust and

companionship in order to reach my full potential”)Underlying the acquisition metaphor:

e) What is knowledge? (“I like to know before forming my opinion”)

f) How do you acquire knowledge? (“I like to hear it from an expert”)

Underlying the exercising metaphor:a) How do you deal with mistakes? (“mistakes are an important

source of learning’)g) How to organize guidance? (“I like to be supervised by an

expert”)Underlying the discovery metaphor:

h) Why are you learning? (“out of curiosity)i) Where learning takes place? (“You learn everywhere and

always”)

Using the metaphors in practice

In practice, using the metaphors of learning can be an effective aid in talking about learning, so is our experience. Next to gathering data to investigate our ideas, we also experimented with applications in practice. We asked people we had guided in their learning for two years to fill in the questionnaire. The results were congruent with what we had seen, and what the participants had experienced (face-validity). For example high on acquisition for people with a need for knowledge. High on exercising for people who made an issue out of the safety in the group, while participants with ahigh score on apperception on the contrary wanted the feed-backsharper and the atmosphere less ‘nice’. The apperception-learners wanted more experienced colleges to come in and talk about their best practices, while the exercising learners didn’t want to listen, but try out things them selves. The first time we used this instrument in a less descriptive and more active way was in response to a request of HRD-professionals of a large international organization. They were wondering how to respond to a manager who didn’t feel like participating in an organisation wide MD-program. This not participating was a big issue. The manager was criticised for not being ‘willing to learn’. ‘How can he tell us that he can not learn anything in this management development program?’. The learning metaphors test was one of the instruments we used to pinpoint the preferred way of learning of this manager. A

high score on discovery and apperception and a low score on participation and exercising explained his attitude. For him anMD-program wasn’t the real-thing. Whatever they would learn, inreal life things would be different and the lessons learned wouldn’t be applicable. Putting his reflections in perspective to the other metaphors took a lot of the ‘sharpness’ out of it,and made it easier to grasp. We advised on a for both parties satisfactory combination of learning-activities consisting for example of ‘coaching’ by a higher placed manager, highlighting in the first place not the situation of the coached but ways inwhich this coach resolved difficult situations. Commonly accepted views such as the one that anyone can learn something in a training-situation, or that learning situations need to besafe, can be hindering in organising learning. We make it an issue, to be aware of these mental models in our own work and in the conversations with clients. We make them explicit and try to reframe them.

An especially appealing application of the instrument is to look at patterns of preferences. Most people have high scores on two of the metaphors and a low score on one or two. We use the overlap between the two highest scores to find an underlying theme or topic. Exercising and participation, for instance, overlap in a need to work with others and apperception and acquisition and discovery overlap in a focus on content. Moreover, we also look at the greatest contrast: which is the underlying contrast that shows up in the difference between the highest and the lowest score. Apperception and exercising, for instance, differ the most on the preference for learning under pressure and learning in a safe environment. Table 1 presents the overlap and contrasts as we used them.

difference Learning metaphors overlapobserving versus participating

apperception - participation

the need for others

experience or expertise

apperception - acquisition

focus on goals, results

tension versus safety

apperception - exercising

respecting experience

what works versus what’s new

apperception - discovery

learning in the realworld

proces versus content

participation - acquisition

avoiding mistakes

collective learning versus learning withothers

participation - exercising

safety and trust

collective meaning versus personal meaning

participation - discovery

meaning construction

knowledge versus experience

acquisition - exercising

explicit focus on learning

objectivity versus subjectivity of knowledge

acquisition - discovery

focus on content

guided versus self-directed

exercising - discovery

focus on personal growth

Table 1: overlap and differences of learning metaphors

The metaphors can, so is our experience, be used in the following ways:

a) To give people more insight in their learning and make them aware of their own learning preferences

b) As a language that people use in communicating about learning, and choices in how to reach developmental goals,with their managers and peers

c) As a way to characterise learning cultures of a team, department or organisation. We experimented with the calculation of group scores on the metaphors. Differences between groups as well as discrepancies between individuals and their teams proved to be clear up existingmiscommunications.

d) As an aid to make decisions about learning trajectories (see above)

e) As an aid in redesigning working places for better learning

Previous researchIn a previous study a 40 item instrument that measures preferences for the 5 learning metaphors was tested and validated. The results were promising, but the instrument as

well as the underlying theory needed to be sharpened. The alpha’s after deletion of the worst items were: apperception: .57, participation: .55, acquisition: .64, exercising: .64, and discovery: .52. These were too low in our view, but we saw many possibilities to improve the scales as well as the underlying theory. The Intercorrelations between the scales were moderately high and understandable when one looks at the overlap between the metaphors. There were interesting and expected relations with variables such as age, experience, educational level, position in the organisation andorganisations.

The improved instrumentBased on the research reported (Simons & Ruijters, 2003; Simonsand Ruijters, submitted), the theory was adjusted and a new 60 (instead of 40) item instrument was devised. Table 2 presents the 15 dimensions and the alternatives per metaphor that were constructed on the basis of the previous research.

Apperception

Participation

Acquisition

Exercising

Discovery

1. Which circumstances are helpful?

In complex issues in which to come up with a solution inno time

During inspirational meetings with others

When thereare many knowledge sources available

When there is space andtime to practice

During work, running into new and interesting issues

2. Collaboration with others

I regard others as sounding boards for my ideas

In dialogue with others I solve problems easier

I learn together with others when this is more efficient

Others help me to develop

I regard others assounding boards for my ideas

3. Dealing with mistakes

I don’t learn a lotfrom my mistakes

I try to avoid themby thorough preparation

I try to avoid themby thorough preparation

I learn agreat deal frommy mistakes

Mistakes keep you on your toes

4. Which emotions are helpfulfor

Tension, stress

Security, trust

Clarity, certainty

Security,trust

Inspiration, curiosity

development?

5. Who makes you think?

Critical friends form outside

Colleaguesand other professionals

Experts Colleagues and other professionals

Can be everyone

6. Which knowledge is important?

Expertise Shared insights

Proven knowledge

What gives me footing

Shared insights

7. How do you acquire knowledge

By looking at what works

By talkingto others

By taking part in learning activities

By takingpart in learning activities

By everything I do

8. The ideal guide has?

Practical experience

Skill in steering group processes

Specialised knowledge

Pegagocical skills

sagacity

9. What is annoying?

Long windedness

People whowithdraw themselvesfrom a team

Lack of knowledge,ignorance

Having toact whithout proficiency

Lack of space foryour own influence

10. Preferences in training situations?

Company visits

Intervision

Lectures Workshops Learning within a practicalassignment

11. Who determines your development?

Contributions to organisational development

My team Contributions to organisational development

A coach or mentor

What I encounterin my work

12. Organising learning atwork?

There are enough occasions in my dailywork

Searching for discussions with others

Reading a good book

Deliberate practice of new behaviour

There areenough occasionsin my daily work

13. Main trap?

Being boredtoo soon

Failing totake time to think

Looking for the truth too long

Keeping on reflecting

Finding too many things interesting

14. Reactions to

Asking others’advi

Asking others’adv

Trying to know as

Finding away to

Jumping in

unknown situations?

ses ises much as possible about it

exercise

15. What makes you think?

Successful solutions

Differences in points of view

The knowledge needed

My own actions

My own actions

Table 2: The complete system of 15 dimensions and five metaphors

Research questionsThis paper aims to find information about the reliability, validity and face validity of the new instrument as well as to find further suggestions for improvement of the instrument and the theory behind it. The study reported here tries to find answers to the following questions:

a) Are the five learning metaphor scales reliable and distinguishable?

b) Can we predict patterns of correlations according to theoretical expectations?

c) Are there relations between learning metaphors and personal and contextual variables?

We expected the following correlations t be higher than the other:

1. between acquisition and exercising because they both refer to explicit learning explicit learning

2. between discovery and apperception because they both referto implicit learning from others

3. between participation, discovery and exercising because they both refer to from and with others

MethodologySubjectsIn total a group of 229 people out of 11 different organisations participated in this study. Their professions differed from manager to HRM staff-member, from consultant to trainer. In total people out of 12 different professions participated.

Materials

A questionnaire was developed in several circles of test and change. The test had 60 items divided over 15 questions / components with 4 or 5 alternatives per question (see above). In 10 of the questions one alternative loaded on two of the metaphors. This was done in order to give room for the overlap between the metaphors as described. Respondents had to answer on a five point scale: ranging from not applicable to fully applicable. The middle point of the scale (3) is “average”. Thepoints given to the overlapping alternative counted for both metaphors. An example of a set of items is:What should an ideal guide have?Pedagogical skills 12345 (exercising)Skills in directing group processes 12345 (participation)Practical experience 12345 (apperception)Sagacity 12345 (discovery)Domain knowledge 12345 (acquisition)

Data analysisThe learning metaphor scales were analyzed with the SPSS program reliability. We checked whether the alpha’s for the scales were high enough. We considered .60 to be the minimum value to be needed. We also checked the item- scale correlations (should not be negative and preferably around .20), the mean itemscores (not too high or low) and the standard deviations (not too low). Furthermore, we calculated correlation coefficients.

ProcedureThe data were collected in consulting-settings, either as part of a individual learning trajectory, the start-up of a management development system or a organization- development inventory.

Results

The five learning metaphor scales proved to be reliable. The alpha-coefficients were apperception: .54, participation: .65, acquisition: .70, exercising: .67, and discovery: .63. With one exception (apperception) the reliabilities of the scales were higher than in the previous study. No items had to be removed on the basis of a too low item scale correlation or toolow or high average or standard deviation. Table 3 presents the

alpha’s, the scale averages and standard deviations for the total group. The theoretical range of scores per metaphor were 0 – 75. Discovery and participation received the highest scores.

alpha Mean StandardDeviation

apperception .54 49.9 5.0participation .65 54.7 5.2acquisition .70 49.0 6.9exercising .67 48.7 6.4discovery .63 58.0 5.6

Table 3: coefficient alpha’s, means and standard deviations forthe total sample.

The next table (4) presents the intercorrelations between the scales. Except for the relation between discovery and exercising, all were significant statistically. As can be read from the table, the highest correlations were the ones expected: between acquisition and exercising (.51: explicit learning); apperception and discovery (.41; implicit learning from others), between participation, and exercising (.38; learning socially).

apperception

participation

acquisition

exercising

discovery

apperception

.17* .29* .20* .41*

participation

- - .21* .38* .33*

acquisition

- - - .51* .18*

exercising

- - - - .09

discovery - - - - -

Table 4: correlations between the learning metaphor scores

There were no significant correlations between age or experience and the learning metaphor scales, except for the onebetween discovery and exercising (-.17; p <.05). There were

significant differences between men and women in the participation scores (F=7.4,; p<.01(see Table 5) and apperception (F=3.0; p<.09)

Men WomenN 105 76apperception 50.4 (5.4) 49.1 (5.6)participation 53.8 (5.3) 55.9 (5.0)

Table 5: significant differences between men and women

There were also differences between preferences of different positions / functions in the organisations (see Table 6).

Position N Exercising

Acquisition

Discovery

Manager 101 46.9 47.9 57.5Consultant

33 48.5 48.8 59.7

Trainer 50 50.7 49.5 59.1HRM staff

36 50.5 50.6 56.3

Support staff

9 51.7 54.2 59.3

F 4.8 2.6 2.2Table 6: Differences between positions in the organisations

There was one marginally significant difference between educational levels: people with lower educational levels scoredlower on participation than people with university or higher professional education (F=2.4; p <.09).Finally, the different organizations differed on two out of thefive metaphors significantly (Exercising and apperception) fromeach other (F’s of 3.17 and 3.89 respectively). Fo Discovery and participation the differences were marginally significant (p’s < .10).

Discussion

The results of the study showed better reliabilities of the five scales than the previous study did. Except for the scale

of apperceptions the alpha values were acceptable. The correlations between the scales were according to the expected pattern. Explicit learning scales correlated with each other and the same held for the implicit learning and social learningscales. There were correlations with personal (position in the organisation, educational level) and contextual (type of organisation) variables. There were unexpectedly and in contrast with the previous study no relations with age and experience. Probably this has to do with restriction of range. The variation in age and experience in the current sample was too limited.The dominant metaphors in the group of managers and consultantswere participation and discovery. This contrasts with the dominant metaphors of teachers and educational managers in our previous study who preferred exercising and participation. The expected preference of managers for the apperception metaphor did not appear. That women prefer the participation metaphor more than men is in line with other research where women generally prefer social situations more than men.

All in all the learning metaphors can be measured in a reliable way, although there is still room for improvement. Especially the alpha for the apperception scale is too low. Butalso some other items can be improved. A more advanced data analysis involving confirmative factor analysis will hopefully bring more insight in the factor structure of the scales. From the item analyses as well as the feedback from respondents we derived several textual changes that will be made in the next version. The patterns of correlations and the relations with personal and contextual variables strengthen our idea that the instrument is valuable. This also shows up in the many positivereactions we received from subjects. Almost all people who answered the questionnaire reported that they recognize the pattern of preferences that appeared and that it enlightened discussions with colleagues. Groups tended also to recognize existing debates about learning between peers and known individual differences. Especially thinking in terms of overlapand tensions between highest and lowest scores proved to be very helpful for people. Thus there is also some face-validity and functional validity.

In one session we organized five ways of learning photography: a lecture about laws of lenses, a debate about thedrawbacks of digital photography (ethical issues of

manipulation), a guided exercise in making high contrast photo’s, a session around an experienced photographer and his photo’s and a room where people could make their own photo’s with digital camera’s independently. There were two interestingobservations: a). when people were in a session that matched their preference everything went smoothly, but in mismatched situations there were all kinds of dissatisfactions and frustrations leading to discussions about processes and relevance (why should I listen to this; what can I do with these camera’s. b) some people seemed not to know their preferences very well: they discovered in practice what their real preferences were.

There are of course, however, also concerns. One relates to the social desirability of the questionnaire. Some people may answer what they think to be good and acceptable in the culture instead of what is applicable to them. Furthermore, some people may not know well enough how they prefer to learn. Did they think about it enough to be able to answer the questions? Some people need perhaps more reflection in and on action before they are able to estimate their preference. And thirdly there is the question of specificity: how general are learning preferences? Are the not related to specific contexts and learning outcomes? Further research into these issues and concerns is needed.

With the introduction of the learning metaphors new questions arise, for instance:• How to use the information of the metaphors of learning? (match / mismatch) • When should one further develop a style of learning? (match with organization?)• Is the preferred way of learning always the best way for

the person and for the organisation?• Is there a ‘minimum’ you need of every metaphor? Is a

balanced pattern better than a unbalanced pattern?• What about people who score low on all scales?• Can we measure allergies for certain learning metaphors?• Are their preferred connections between learning goals and

metaphors? For example; are there goals best served with aparticipation learning approach?

References

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and Memory, Second Edition. New York: Wiley

Andersson, J., Reder, L. & Simon, H. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher 25(4), 5–11.

Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune and Stratton

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bolhuis, S., & Simons, P.R.J. (1999). Leren en werken. Deventer: Kluwer.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press

Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L-. Punamäki (Eds.) Perspectives on activity theory, (pp. 377-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological review, 100(3), 363-406.

Hager P., (2004) Changing pedagogy: Productive learning. Oval research, Sydney

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meggison, D. (1996). Planned and emergent learning. Management learning, 27, 411-428

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In Stahl, G. (Ed.),Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Senge, P. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Double Day Currency, 1990.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangersof choosing just one. Educational researcher, 27(2), 4-13.

Simons, P.R.J., & Ruijters, M. (2003) Differing colours of professional learning. paper presented at the biannual; conference of the European Association for research on learningand Instruction, Padua (Italy), August 26 – 31

Simons, P.R.J., & Ruijters, M. (submitted). Five metaphors of learning in professional practice: a first validation study.

Van den Berg, P.A.J., & Poelje, S.J. (2002). Leren voor leiderschap: een nieuwe kijk op managementontwikkeling. Tijdschrift voor Management Development, september.

Van der Sluis, E.C. (2000). Management learning and development: the role of learning opportunities and learning behavior in management learning and career success. PHD Rotterdam: Erasmus University

Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs. Naar procesgerichte instructie in zelfstandig denken. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.