Action research PhD

Gerry Roberts   -- Chapter 5

 

 

 

Action researching my practice as a facilitator of experiential learning with pastoralist farmers in Central West Queensland

 

 Gerard Michael O’Brien Roberts

B.App.Sc.  (Rur.  Tech) (Hons); M.Sc.  (Wool and An.  Sc.)

 

 

Chapter 5 Introducing the skills of experiential learning to pastoralist farmers

 

Section 5.1 Introduction

In this chapter I begin by briefly putting my perception of the usefulness of experiential learning skills into an agricultural context.  I then summarise my learning outcomes relating to experiential learning and its role in a critical learning system. I present these as issues to be examined in relation to my field observations and the literature.  Following that I present dialectical material from field observations relating to my learning outcomes that contributed to Argument I of my thesis.  As a means of extending the dialectic, I integrate into the discussion my field observations and aspects of the literature that relate to Argument I.

The portion of this chapter dealing with my field observations is organised into categories dealing with:

• my initial concept of experiential learning and how it impacted on learning outcomes;
• my current understanding of the concept of experiential learning;
• how I would implement future experiential learning activities;
• linking experiential learning and action researching and the emergence of a modified version of an action researching system; and
• learning about relationships in group experiential learning situations. 

 

Section 5.2 My context for experiential learning in pastoral agricultural extension

Vanclay and Lawrence (1995) write that agricultural extension services in Australia face altered operating circumstances in the 1990s.  They suggest that this has come about through Australian governments’ fiscal restraint philosophies, leading to reduced commitment to funding for agriculture.  Fiscal restraint they posit, has produced a reduction in agricultural extension services at a time when trade and income crises are forcing rural structural adjustment.

In the previous chapter I suggested that experiential learning appears to offer a means of improving difficult situations (such as structural adjustments) interdependently (that is

with others) and on the initiative of the people in the situation once they recognise that they face a difficulty.  The material in that chapter supports the notion I referred to in Chapter 1 wherein I posited that experiential learning could produce useful change in pastoralists’ situations.  I sought to assist them to develop experiential learning skill through their own experience, so that they could in the future, work interdependently on issues that they recognise as problematic.  It was my intention to making change possible for pastoralists.

 

Section 5.3 The issues examined in this chapter

The issues I consider in this chapter relate to my introducing experiential learning to pastoralist farmers for their use in management.  They are:

1. My initial interpretation of the concept of experiential learning.
2. The use of experiential learning by pastoralists in their situations where, even with my initially unsophisticated interpretation of experiential learning, pastoralists reported some higher level changes.
3. My interpretation of levels of learning and cognitive development and what that means for having higher level learning emerge for behavioural change.
4. My interpretation of the links between experiential learning, action learning and action researching.  I developed my interpretation in this agricultural setting.  It demonstrates my emerging interpretation that these are different names for the same phenomenon depending on the perspective.
5. Interpersonal relationships within our group throughout the project.
6. The idea that as a collaborative learning facilitator I should be open about my own learning and offer it as a model of experiential learning.  The focus of my learning could be my experience of working with the group.  This means going through the same learning processes as the pastoralists and making my learning processes explicit for critiquing by group members.

Consideration of these issues has led to my proposing an expansion to Bawden’s (1995) model of a critical learning system and this is presented in Section 5.6.

 

Section 5.4 My initial concept of experiential learning and its possible influence on pastoralists’ understanding of learning outcomes

A number of authors suggest that inquirers’ own frames of reference, underlying values and previous interests, set boundaries to inquiry (Webb 1996; Schon and Rein 1994; Mezirow 1991; Schon 1987; Argyris et al 1985; Schon 1983;Habermas 1973).  These boundaries determine the perspectives the inquirers bring to bear.  This suggests it is realistic to posit that in the present work, my presentation of the concept of experiential learning to the pastoralist farmers played a role in determining the boundaries to their learning.

Figure 5.1 diagrammatically represents the model of experiential learning I presented to the Westland group in cycle one of my action research and to the MTT in cycle two (Cat.#73W). Figure 5.2 illustrates the model presented to the pastoralist farmers of the MTT group in cycle 3 (Cat.#38).  The presence of the words ‘act’ in Figure 5.1 and ‘acting’ in Figure 5.2 as well as the end result of ‘A new/different role for each of us in marketing our wool’ in Figure 5.1 shows that I had a conventional understanding of action as an outcome of experiential learning.

 

Figure 5.1 The diagram of the experiential learning model as presented
to the pastoralists of Westland and MTT in action research cycles 1 and 2

 

Figure 5.2 The diagram of the model of experiential
learning I presented to pastoralists at MTT in cycle 3

 

Both of these models represent a version of Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle modified by my understanding of it at the time.  They also portray what I believed pastoralist farmers would find practical as a starting point for involvement with experiential learning.  As well as being the diagrammatic form presented to pastoralist farmers, the models also formed the basis for the verbal material presented when I invited the pastoralists to participate (Cat.#2G; Cat.#3G).

My perception that action was the outcome of experiential learning contrasts with Kolb’s (1984) contention that experiential learning is best conceived as the process and not its outcome in the conventional sense of action.  Senge (1990) supports this view when he develops the idea of links between the personal mastery of creative tension and continuously learning from experience as a process.

In further placing the accent on experiential learning as a process Kolb (1984) studiously steers away from outcomes as a product in the development of his theoretical model.  He even submits that when particular outcomes are sought they may lead to learning becoming non-learning.

Mezirow (1991) also provides a definition of learning from one’s experiences as a process and not as a conventionally conceived outcome.  In his case a learning outcome is guiding future action, but he defines outcome as including "....  making a decision, making an association, revising a point of view, reframing or solving a problem." (Mezirow 1991 p12).  In doing so he too registers the value of learning as a process.

So while experiential learning is grounded in the pragmatism of knowledge creation as a precursor to adoptive action (Bawden pers comm) my notion was one of offering the development of skills in the process as the central focus of the invitation.  It is on the basis of that notion that incongruency exists between my espoused position and that which could be inferred from my action.  An interpretation from my reflection it that I believed I conveyed our reason for gathering around experiential learning as its use as a process but this was not the message I initially conveyed to pastoralists.  Three sources of field observations support this interpretation.

The first source of support is the invitation to involvement by pastoralist farmers at Westland and later the MTT that included a diagram of ‘finding out’ and ‘taking action’ (Bawden 1990) (Cat.#56).  At the time I was seeking to provide the pastoralist farmers with information about plans for the group so that they could make a free and informed choice about involvement. Reflection suggests that my emphasis in inviting participation may have been on concrete action as a major outcome of learning in my effort to gain pastoralists' interest and involvement.  Thus my emphasis on concrete action was my theory-in-use whereas my espoused theory (Argyris et al 1985) was of engaging their interest in experiential learning as a process leading to action.

The divergence is apparent from field notes of content and records that highlight my action theories.  The first recording is a note about what I said to pastoralists when inviting them to be involved that depicts an accent on process.  "[I] Talked [with pastoralist farmers] of getting a new/different perspective on the answer to the problem, but also getting a new perspective on what the problem itself is, from using the process" (b4p7).  This represents my espoused theory supporting process as the aim of experiential learning.  Eight pages later (b4p15) I refer to a point raised by one pastoralist during the invitation stage.  The point she raised was that a useful result would be if people ended up with a new perspective on what the issue is for them, even if a result was not forthcoming to resolve the wool issue.  My field notes record that I later added, "I believe that is true, but wonder if we would need to have some more concrete outcomes to ensure satisfaction --> alternatively we could use that as a starting point for the next cycle." The reference is to a concrete outcome or a product and seems to represent my theory-in-use as different to my espoused theory. This was certainly not my intention at the time.  These data indicate that my theories-in-use were ones of seeking a product, rather than my espoused theory of the development of process skills as recorded eight pages earlier.

The diagrams (Figures 5.1 and 5.2) provide the second piece of data suggesting that the concept of experiential learning as presented, did not focus on process.  The figures contain the words "decide" or "deciding" and "act" or "acting" (Cat.#73W; Cat.#38). These are not the words used by Kolb (1984) in his presentation of the model and from which my interpretation came. ‘Decide’ and ‘act’ convey the ideas of reaching a conclusion (in this case on what to do) and then performing (an activity in this case) to produce a product.  Kolb (1984) presents performance not as learning, but as being

"...  limited to short-term adaptation to immediate circumstance, ...".  The use of the words decide, deciding, act and acting could thus present experiential learning as a concept in which the product is the main or only outcome.

The third source is observations made by pastoralist farmers of the Westland group.  A concluding event in our formal time together was my visit to each pastoralist when in a semi-structured format we talked about our time together.  The eight pastoralists expressed disappointment during these interviews that the group did not take collective action on the wool issue (Cat.# b5 and b6).  The implication was that they were expecting the group to produce a product in the form of some collective concrete action.

I used the same language and diagrammatic representation of the experiential learning model (Fig 5.1) in the invitation and introduction to the pastoralist farmers of the MTT that I used at Westland.  In that way a focus on a product is again evident in presentation to pastoralist farmers in the second action research cycle.

A change occurred following a shift in power roles between the Westland pastoralists and myself at the end of cycle one, and that led to my emerging understanding of experiential learning as a process.  I will refer to this power shift again in Chapter 7 as it represents a significant turning point in relation to a number of issues in this work.  The ‘power shift’ arose as we were nearing the end of cycle one and group one was about to disband. The incident leading to my changed position began in a session that created ‘surprise’ for me insofar as the Westland pastoralists didn’t stay focussed on a central issue that I had proposed.  In my perception their loss of focus occurred as we sought to develop their interpretation of material they had brought together in a mind mapping exercise.  The pastoralists actually referred to it as being difficult to extend the map outwards (b5p81).  Following that session I reflected, revisited literature and planned the changes I would make to our process.  It was my intention to have the pastoralists move in what to me appeared to be a desirable direction (b5p106).  As a part of my process development I prepared my process plans for discussion with an academic supervisor.  I noted the discussion points I intended to raise with him (b5p108) and on reflection I realise that they only relate to modifications to, or questions about, techniques.  It is also true that in this situation my reflections related largely to process techniques, as did my attention to the literature.  The focus of my attention was firmly on using techniques to derive desired outcomes - a problem identified by Schon (1983) as characteristic of unreflective practitioners.

In our discussion, my supervisor drew my attention to aspects of my process that were providing direction to pastoralists about suitable outcomes.  He suggested this could be limiting them in their interpretations (b5p110).  It seems to match Chisholm’s (1990) concept of a lack of symmetricality or democratic power sharing amongst participants in action research.  My ‘directing’ was not an issue that I had surfaced in my reflections.  Subsequent to this I reflected more critically on my use of process, my beliefs about participation, and the implication of these for both the Westland and MTT pastoralist groups.

I was reflecting on my theories-in-use in relation to my espoused theory (Argyris et al 1985; Argyris and Schon 1996).  My espoused theory was one of myself and the pastoralists collaborating to improve the wool issue that was the focus of our attention.  It was one where I provided the pastoralists with experiential learning skills that they used to consider the issue and identify an outcome for themselves.  Figure 5.1 shows the model I was using.  However, my theories-in-use were of setting the boundaries of what the pastoralists could consider as they identified outcomes for their own use.  The boundaries were ones that met my standard of what was a suitable outcome.

In my reflection I recognised that my idea was not the ‘best’ and that each grazier’s interpretation, when well reflected upon, was appropriate for their circumstance.  I also recognised that as a group we could develop our inquiry to produce prudent decisions about the problematic issue for each of us (b6p1-23).  For me that issue was having pastoralists acquire and use the skills of experiential learning.

At the same time I sought material about creating process transparency.  I also revisited and reflected on taped material from the session in question with the Westland group.  I reflected on my and the pastoralists’ involvement in decision-making in our groups and I considered the outcomes for each group from this series of events (b6p1-23)

The specific outcome for the Westland group in cycle one was that I took my dilemma about outcomes to them for discussion and in doing so I withdrew my directive activities.  This led to useful discussion about our activities and to the pastoralists developing their own responses to the wool issue we were examining. Furthermore, I understood why I was comfortable with their chosen responses (b6p34/47/59/63) given my recognition that they were the most appropriate people to decide on their learning outcomes for future action.  This was double loop learning for me and represented a shift in my epistemic cognitive position.  An outcome at the MTT where cycle 2 of my action research had begun before I realised my directiveness or lack of symmetricality (Chisholm 1990) was increased input by pastoralists into what we subsequently did.  The increased input began in the next session at the MTT and marked the start of cycle three (see Table 3.1, Chapter 3).  The change of my epistemological position was grounded in the matching of my theories-in-use with my espoused theories, leading ultimately to the shift of direction of our activities in cycle three.  Our direction moved to one of a focus on current local issues (CLIs) because of their relevance to pastoralists, rather than the wool issue that I had originally proposed.  The CLIs subsequently became our focus in developing skills in experiential learning while improving problematic situations.

At Westland at the conclusion of our time together, we had a group session to reflect on what had taken place.  Group members reported using the learning cycle as a process to examine difficult situations.  This appears to show their focus shift to experiential learning as a process (Cat.#44W) following my lessening of directiveness as a facilitator.  At MTT a similar apparent shift to a process understanding of experiential learning occurred in the last session of cycle two and the first session of cycle three.  This interpretation is supported by pastoralists’ suggestions of changing our focus from wool to one of using the process to ‘think about’ (they had decided they were a think tank) current local issues (CLIs).  Like the changes at Westland, the two MTT sessions in which these observations took place occurred after the lessening of my directiveness as a facilitator.

 

Section 5.4.1 Considering my initial and later interpretation of experiential learning in relation to learning outcomes for pastoralists

The interpretation of field observations above suggests that my interpretation of the need for action prejudiced the pastoralist farmers towards expecting a product of action from the use of experiential learning (for example Westland pastoralists expected collective action).  It therefore also seems possible that such an expectation in some way limited pastoralists in learning about their problematic situation.  Changes were reported.  At Westland for example where our focus was the problematic situation of determining "The [improved] role that I as a Longreach woolgrower can play in preparing and selling my wool"(Cat.#28W) pastoralists reported changes that could be interpreted as fitting Watzlawick et al’s (1974) first and second order change categories or Argyris et al’s (1985) single and double loop learning and Mezirow’s (1991) change within and among meaning schemes.

An example of first order change (within existing meaning scheme) in the Westland group is that of one pastoralist who sketched graphically and described his future as selling his wool in traditional ways (Cat.#19).  In the final discussion of the Westland group he suggested that in relation to wool his major learning outcome was "More knowledge about the wool marketing [marketing] chain" (b7p26).  He had learnt more about wool being prepared and sold in traditional ways and this was within his previously held meaning scheme (sketched) of how wool could be grown, processed and sold.  As well, it was within that meaning scheme that he still saw his potential for improvement to the role that he could play in preparing and selling his own wool.

An example of higher level learning from the same group was the pastoralist who in an early session sketched himself on his property conducting a woolgrowing operation (Cat.#19).  In the final discussion of our group he described how he had sold his property.  He did so to move to a closer settled area as a cattle farmer (he said he had been trying to like sheep for nine years) and thus enable he and his spouse to do some of the other things they wished to do.  He said that the decision may have had some base in the group activity (b7p19).  This outcome represents a significant change in his representation of his original meaning scheme of continuing to grow wool as shown in his sketch.  He subsequently changed to determining his ‘improved’ role in preparing and selling his wool by deciding that the wool industry was not one in which he wished to continue.

Learning outcomes at the MTT group were reported for both CLIs and the wool issue.  As a group participants had earlier decided to return to the wool issue after first focussing on CLIs.  The activity undertaken with wool to which all MTT pastoralist farmers contributed, was one of collecting information about wool marketing options and publishing them in a leaflet (Cat.#76).  This constitutes first level learning or change (Mezirow 1991; Watzlawick et al 1974) because of its "within perspective" accumulation of information as learning (Kolb 1984).  Instances of individuals learning at a higher level were also evident within that first level learning activity.  One pastoralist said at the start of a session, for example that he thought that the auction system was a poor means for getting true value for his wool.  He said quite emphatically that he would never sell through the auction system again (b8p83).  We were focussed on action learning about selling options for wool at the time.  At the close of the session the grazier concluded "I will rephrase my expression that I won’t sell through [the] auction as I want to have it as an option each year.  I see it as a selling option I don’t want to exclude."

Instances of first and higher level learning respectively can be cited for the MTT when dealing with CLIs.  An example of first level learning occurred when one grazier raised the issue of his sheep breeding practices, only to say at the finish that the ideas reached using the action learning process were ones that he had already planned.  The difference now, he said, was his determination to act (b7p55) and this appears to be a within perspective transformation that is first level learning.  An example of higher level learning occurred when another grazier, on a different occasion, began examining within the context of the future of the wool industry, the issue of whether or not he should buy an aeroplane.  After applying the process of action learning in our group setting, he concluded that he needed to raise with his parents the issue of succession of property ownership (b7p85).  It was a subject they had never ever discussed and his shift in understanding from the general aspect of ‘industry viability’ to the previously unthought of one (by him) relating to his own position in the family structure represents higher level or at least different domain learning.

These assessments of learning all occurred after the power shift described earlier in this chapter.  The fact that there was no group action, was however, a disappointment felt by the pastoralists at Westland and was referred to by them at the conclusion of our activities.  Because they referred to the disappointment, but also expressed their satisfaction about their individual learning outcomes, it is possible that the latter may have arisen from their changed understanding to learning as a process.  My change to less directive facilitation was a possible trigger for this.

My assumption that graziers would want action related to changing their present situations appears to have affected the nature of the initial experiential process with both the Westland and MTT groups.  This situation changed following the realisation that it should be the graziers themselves who determine the interpretation and application of generated knowledge.  It changed also as I realised that the central issue for me was participation leading to mastery of the experiential learning process by pastoralists.

It was only in the reflection associated with thesis writing that the change was perceived as:

1. explicitly related to my confronting the fact that I was directing what was happening in our sessions, but
2. implicitly related to my understanding that experiential learning was process and not outcome focused.

In the next section I describe my current understanding of the concept of experiential learning. 

 

Section 5.5 My current understanding of the concept of experiential learning

It appears that my presentation to pastoralist farmers of experiential learning as outcome directed arose from my concept of experiential learning.  This may be because I was operating in a dualistic epistemic cognitive position (Perry 1970; Kitchener 1983).  In doing so I viewed the model of experiential learning presented by Kolb (1984) as a series of steps that would deliver the required outcome for the pastoralist farmers.  I did not, as I now recognise, initially conceive of the model as a framework for understanding learning from experience, but rather I sought to apply it as a method.  In a similar way McTaggart (1996) refers to the action research spiral becoming a procedure and the need to confront that problem.  I believe I initially failed to consider the experiential learning model a construct designed to promote understanding of how learning can occur.  The model is a representation of reality.  It is not ‘observable’ in reality (Watzlawick et al 1974) and as such is not suitable as a method.  McTaggart (1996 p248) writes "Action research is not a ‘method’ or a ‘procedure’ for research but a series of commitments to observe and problematise through practice a series of principles for conducting social inquiry ..."

Action research as an inquiry methodology allows for a methodological starting point that is a less sophisticated understanding of the "current situation".  In my case I had a less sophisticated interpretation of experiential learning.  A similar interpretation can be

drawn from the work of Weiskopf and Laske (1996) where they began fieldwork in action research by viewing consensus as emancipatory.  Their emergent outcome was recognition of a ‘cooperative pact’ as more relevant to emancipatory action research.  Dick (1995) accommodates this lack of sophistication by having a ‘fuzzy question’ as a starting point.  This consistent with Altrichter et al’s (1990) definition of action research as "learning progressively (and publicly) by doing and by making mistakes in a "self-reflective spiral" of planning, acting, observing, reflecting, replanning, etc."

It is this unintended ‘mistake making’, such as my beginning with a less sophisticated understanding of the concept of experiential learning, that led to the learning outcomes about the methodology and my practice.  The learning outcomes emerged for me, as they did for Weiskopf and Laske (1996), through reflection. Writers about action research maintain emergent learning outcomes are fundamental to action research as a methodology.  Greenwood et al (1993 p175) suggest that participatory action research is "always an emergent process".  Others supporting the concept include Frisby et al (1997), Grundy (1992), Bawden (1990), Altrichter et al (1990), Oja and Smulyan (1989), Grundy and Kemmis (1988), and Carr and Kemmis (1986).

The way in which my understanding of experiential learning has increased in sophistication is thus fundamental.  My understanding recognises that experiential learning is a conceptual model related to learning from experience.  For that reason it

requires attention to my understanding of the development of knowledge using this process.

 

My expanded understanding of experiential learning includes recognition of the sources of knowledge provided by the dialectics generated in Kolb’s (1984) model.  "Learning requires abilities that are polar opposites [dialectics], and the learner, as a result, must continually choose which set of learning abilities he or she will bring to bear in any specific learning situation" (Kolb 1984 p30).  Meeting the requirement to use abilities that are polar opposites means the sources of knowledge are my engagement in new experiences about experiential learning and my use of many perspectives to reflectively observe my experiences.  Another source is my creation of concepts from my observations to provide theories for future use and another source is my use of these theories to make decisions and solve problems. These four sources of knowledge derive from new experience and its polar opposite of the conceptualisations I develop about the experience, together with my reflective observations of the experience and its polar opposite of accommodating these into my experience in the world.  They provide the material for the dialectical interplay in experiential learning.

I now appreciate a combination of the models of Bawden (1990) and Kolb (1984) as providing an overall understanding of experiential learning.  Bawden (1990) uses double headed arrows to illustrate the inherent dialectical nature of his model.  The model in Fig.  5.3 depicts this combination for me as it highlights the role of knowledge sources in the conceptual framework of the model.

 

 

Figure 5.3 A model of my developed understanding of the
concept of experiential learning (After Kolb 1984 and Bawden 1990)

 

At the same time as my more sophisticated understanding of experiential learning has emerged I have developed a concomitant approach to presenting the process.  I now

wish to be seen as "doing as I say I want to do" when presenting the process to others.  This matching of action theories of facilitation is supported byArgyris et al (1985) and Argyris and Schon (1996).  The work of Dick and Dalmau (1992) in the field of professional development using Argyris et al’s (1985) Model I and Model II governing values is a reflective activity that enables the examination of action theories for congruency.  In Chapter 7 I use their process as a basis for reflecting on my action theories of facilitation.

Checking the match between my intentions (espoused theories) and what can be inferred from my deeds (theories-in-use) in interactions with pastoralist farmers is consistent with the principle of using reflection to improve my practice.  The need for such assessment is suggested by the work of a range of authors including Burrows (1997), Argyris and Schon (1996), Dick (1995), Altrichter et al (1990), Bawden (1990), Oja and Smulyan (1989), and Grundy and Kemmis (1988), Carr and Kemmis (1986) and Schon (1983).  The foundation of this approach is the idea of meta-learning presented by Kitchener (1983).  It is also consistent with the learning II of Bateson (1972).  I am learning, through reflection, about how I am learning about my use of experiential learning.

My understanding of experiential learning currently is that it is a conceptual model of how learning can take place through knowledge generation in dialectical processes.  I now seek to match my espoused theories with theories-in-use in facilitating experiential learning.  In the next section I present my current beliefs on facilitation of experiential learning and how I arrived at them.

 

Section 5.5.1 Implementing future experiential learning activities - my active experimentation

In this section I present reflections on the sequence of experiences leading to the approach that I would now use as a facilitator introducing experiential learning.  The approach is one modified from the so-called Hawkesbury process (Macadam 1995).

 

Table 5.1 The sequential experiences being reflected on in this section

EXPERIENCE	UNDERSTANDING	CONCLUSION
Having an initial project aim of pastoralists developing and using the skills of experiential learning.	That this is a legitimate aim for an extension officer.	To continue to promote the development the skills of experiential learning as one way of improving problematic situations.
Westland pastoralists said my process of introducing experiential learning to them was ‘boring’.	My initial reflection led to my reaction of believing I needed to change the process.  I did not inquire what ‘boring’ meant.	My initial response to ‘perceived challenges’ to my process ideas should be founded on inquiry.
The subsequent search of the literature to interpret action learning as a ‘simpler’ model of experiential learning to introduce to others.	At the time this interpretation was useful to the progress of the project.	Action learning is interpretable as a form of experiential learning.
Cycle 1 of my action research was completed after cycles 2 and 3 began.	This meant that I took action (in cycles 2 and 3) on reflections made during cycle 1 but before the final reflections of cycle 1.	As a practice of action research this is questionable but a change may be difficult as cycles are not always discrete.
Group reflections to conclude cycle 1 showed ‘boring’ as meaning ‘confusion’ created by my facilitation.  Westland pastoralists added that my initial introduction of the experiential learning process [to which ‘boring’ referred] was "essential to their understanding" of how to experientially learn.  They also said they would use the process to deal with CLIs.  Some reported their use of it already in management decision-making.	This experience supports inquiry as a response.  My reflective inquiry led in part, to the emergence of a focus on CLIs in cycle 3 with the MTT group.	My facilitation of experiential learning requires reflection to elucidate how my facilitation influences what occurs for participants.
I reflected on the feedback that ‘boring’ meant ‘confusion’ to learn only about my need to inquire.  I did not conclude in my reflections that my original process introducing experiential learning could still be appropriate.	As a consequence of that single learning outcome I made no change to my intention to use the action learning process instead of my original Hawkesbury approach in cycle 3.	My personal unconscious framing of the reflection process may have limited the learning outcome to this one feature.
In reflecting while writing this thesis I confronted the fact that at MTT sessions (i) two pastoralists brought non-authentic problematic situations to our action learning sessions, and (ii) all MTT pastoralists said that they did not see our questioning process of action learning as one they would initiate and use with other pastoralist farmers.	(i) Our relationships in the MTT did not allow all members to bring issues important to them. (ii) Action learning is not a process pastoralists believe they can initiate with other pastoralists.  This contrasts with the Westland group who said the would use the so-called Hawkesbury model with others.	(i) Group relationships require attention as a part of facilitation. (ii) Kolbian experiential learning provides a foundation for introducing learning skills to pastoralists.
Returning to the literature after the above experience resulted in my changed appreciation of action learning in a questioning format as a means of experientially learning.	My interpretation of the experiential nature of the action learning process is that it may lack the sophistication of the experiential learning process developed at Hawkesbury and used by me in cycle 1.	The Hawkesbury interpretation of experiential learning is suitable for use by me with pastoralists in my role as an extension officer.

My approach to my work with the Westland pastoralists in cycle 1 was based on my initial appreciation of the experiential learning process developed by practitioners from UWS Hawkesbury and recorded by Macadam (1995).  My understanding of the process was that it requires a facilitator to take participants through a series of phases using techniques to enhance knowledge acquisition in each quadrant of Kolb’s (1984) cycle.  In response to suggestions that the process at Westland was ‘boring’ and in need of ‘practical’ discussion time, I used a truncated and abbreviated version in cycle 2 with the MTT farmers. My engagement with the literature to seek simplicity of process for future use by pastoralist farmers led to subsequent changes in the process in cycle 3 where it was guided by the Revans inspired model of action learning as presented by McGill and Beaty (1992). Thus with Westland pastoralists I used the Hawkesbury process (Macadam 1995) as the basis of reflections about process while at MTT it was the questioning action learning model of Revans.

In cycle three with our MTT we used action learning to seek improvement in the problematic situations (CLIs) that the pastoralists presented at each session.  The action learning process we used was one of the questioning of set members by set members - it was Revans’ (1982a) concept of ‘debate’ - in relation to the CLI raised.  The process involved action learning about the CLI at a session and the pastoralist making a plan for action.  In the following session that pastoralist reported on the action.  Fig 5.7 is the model to which we referred when using action learning at our MTT sessions.

 

Figure 5.4 The model of action learning used in cycle 3 with the MTT pastoralists

Also in cycle 3 I used a series of shorter action research cycles to adapt our action learning process to the pastoralists’ requirements.  The foci of these shorter cycles were for us to:

1. Develop guidelines for presenting the issues in our action learning sessions.
2. Establish techniques to enable pastoralists’ to identify a problem situation to bring to our sessions.
3. Identify a series of questions to use in our action learning process.
4. Design a format for reporting back to the group at a later session.
5. Discuss and try ways of assessing our process.
6. Develop agreement on purposes for and evaluations of our session activities.

    

Records of these cycles are in my field notebooks, on public butcher paper (newsprint) and audio taped records, and in records of group reflection sessions (b7p45/6483/97/101; b8p35/81; Cat.#46/16/17/54).  Our activities as reported in these records demonstrate a commitment to using the action learning process well and to action researching its application.

There were two major reasons for my shift from the ‘Hawkesbury’ process to one of the ‘action learning’.  The first was the need to respond to the Westland pastoralists suggesting that my process had at times become ‘boring’ (b5p21).  The second was my notion of developing an experiential learning process model with pastoralists that they would initiate and use without involving a facilitator.  The ‘Hawkesbury model’ as I understand it required the input of a facilitator.  I saw the questioning model of action learning as a starting point for the emergence of a "user-friendly" model.

In deciding to use the action learning model I did not seek to inquire in depth about ‘boring’ when it arose because it merged in my mind, with the pastoralists’ concurrent suggestion that we needed time for ‘practical’ discussion.  I took the comments to mean that I needed to reduce the complexity of the process.  Only in the latter part of cycle 1 with the Westland pastoralists (while cycle 3 with MTT was also in progress) did I seek disconfirming evidence relating to the meaning of ‘boring’.  I did this because I recognised the poor development of my initial interpretation.  This led to an understanding that ‘boring’ meant my creating ‘confusion’ in the minds of pastoralists about what experiential learning and my practice with it meant.  The Westland pastoralists also said however that the process used as they developed their understanding and use of the experiential learning model (that is the ‘Hawkesbury’ model) was essential to what followed (b5p84).  At the time, that is the later stage of cycle 1, my insights were:

that I had made assumptions without seeking disconfirming evidence, and

that I needed to be transparent about the process I was using.

I did not subsequently seek to change the action learning process in use at MTT in cycle 3, but I did seek to increase the level of transparency about my process.

My reflective observation activities while writing this thesis again focused my attention on the experiences recounted in this section and my interpretation of them.  I noted the understanding of ‘boring’ as ‘confusion’ and my insight about the lack of transparency of my process.  Other experiences on which I reflected while writing occurred during our action learning in cycle 3 at MTT, and during my reflection on action learning following my project activity and contact with the literature on learning.

The first experience was that of two pastoralists bringing to a session issues that they said were problematic (b8p38) and their preparing action plans related to them at the session.  When reporting back at the next session however they said that they had not acted on their plans.  Questioning, in the spirit of the action learning process, revealed that the resolution of one issue had taken place before it was even raised in the previous session and the other was not an actual problematic situation.  As a function of action learning we inquired about their reasons for raising the issues.  The questioning process elicited the response from first one and then the other that they did have actual problematic issues but they did not feel they could raise them in the group. An enquirer asked what conditions would need to prevail for them to raise such issues.  Instead of responding directly they made the statement that they thought our group was for working on the wool mission rather than CLIs.  They also said they did not feel the group could help them with their actual problematic situations (b8p51).

A possible interpretation is that group interpersonal relationships were insufficiently sound to enable the two members to raise their problematic situations.  Hastie (1997) made a similar interpretation in an educational situation when seeking change through action research.  In that situation ‘the emotional climate of the class’ was one of the critical factors influencing change.

A second experience with the MTT came in a final discussion with individual pastoralists and their management teams (Cat.#MTT 01-07).  At that time pastoralists reported that they would not initiate the use of our questioning process of action learning with other pastoralists.  It appeared they were unlikely to initiate questioning of other pastoralists or respond to questioning of themselves by others.  An explanation given by one grazier was that he felt it was resented when he began asking questions.  Another reported that he and his family management team used the MTT action learning process, but that he wouldn’t initiate it with others.

The response of the MTT pastoralists to action learning contrasts with comments made by Westland pastoralists about the process we used at their sessions.  All but one Westland pastoralist said that the process of experiential learning they used there - that of a facilitator leading techniques to elicit knowledge matched to the learning cycle quadrants, that is, the ‘Hawkesbury’ model, was one that they felt would be of interest to other pastoralists.  This was apparent in final interviews with individuals and management teams of the Westland group (b7 and b8).  They added that a shift in focus to current local issues (the focus that emerged at the MTT in cycle 2 before the end of cycle 1) would make their involvement in future group situations personally attractive.

Another experience was that of my future experiential learning activities.  This arose for me as I returned to the literature to reflect on the sequence of events presented at the start of this section to document my future plans for using experiential learning.

From the three experiences reported here my reflection has led to my current interpretation that action learning applied as the usually referred to social questioning process is a less sophisticated form of experiential learning.

Action learning is a way of learning from the experience we encounter and this is evident from Revans’ (1991) belief "... that we must return to the most precious asset we have, which is the people who are actually doing the work ..." He maintains it is they who will provide the answers to the difficulties that arise. He refers to using their ‘here and now experience’. Action learning’s role in deriving practical learning from experience is also evident from the contributors to ‘Action Learning in Practice’ (Pedler 1991) and the writing of McGill and Beaty (1992).

Mumford (1994), McGill and Beaty (1992), Revans (1991), Garratt (1991) and Pedler (1991) all emphasise asking of question as the focus of activity in action learning.  These questions, if raised by the people actually doing the work in the problematic situation leads to significant analysis of the situation by them.  In this way action learning is directed to reflective learning.  It is learning that takes place internally for the learner about an issue of concern.  It clarifies meaning for the person in the situation (Brookfield 1987, Boud et al 1985, Boud and Walker 1990).  It is reflective observation prompted by questions from others (Revans 1991; McGill and Beaty 1992; Mumford 1994 and Pedler 1991).

It appears however, that in contrast to Kolb’s (1984) more formal, theoretical perspective on experiential learning, the action learning model does not explicitly or exhaustively embrace:

• comprehension to generate abstract conceptualisations;
• extension to promote broadbased active experimentation; or
• apprehension to engage fully with concrete experiences.

Mumford (1994) alludes to this issue while noting the lack of significant references to how people actually learn in action learning situations.  Passfield’s (1996) observation that action learning facilitators pay more attention to its form than its substance may also be attributable to this relative lack of theoretical grounding.

My reflections on my experience with experiential learning and action learning has resulted in a modified version of the workshop process (Macadam 1995) with which cycle 1 started.  The modified process still requires a facilitator to lead participants through a series of techniques to enhance the development of knowledge relevant to each quadrant of the experiential learning cycle.  The modifications involve:

1. Initial dialogue with potential participants to generate shared understandings of what is to happen in group activities.
2. Well developed and explicit interpersonal relationship building as a group activity (Rogers 1983; Dick 1987), beginning immediately and continuing throughout the life of the group.
3. Periods of dialogue that allow for the development of shared understanding of what the group is doing, who is doing it, and why.
4. Attention to making all process transparent.
5. Time spent in explicit attention to aspects of personal development (McGill and Beaty 1992) and emancipatory learning.

In this sub-section I presented reflections that will guide my future facilitation of experiential learning with pastoralists.  In the next section I refer to the link between experiential learning and action research as I outline the modifications to my future practical application of experiential learning as an action researching system. 

 

Section 5.6 The link between experiential learning and action researching, and the emergence of a modified version of an action researching system

In this section I consider the concept that in action researching my role as an extension officer facilitating the introduction of experiential learning to pastoralists I was experientially learning.  To this extent, action researching can be seen as experiential learning.  Both structurally, and in their role of providing tools for change, action research and experiential learning are similar.  While recognising the similarity Bawden (pers comm) suggests that action research is empirical and experiential learning is rational.  This is consistent with Lewin’s presentation of a model of learning from experience and his spiralling of these cycles to present a model of action research (Lewin 1952).

A three-part issue arising in the application of action researching as experiential learning concerns presentating an action research process to pastoralist farmers so that

• it is transparent to them as experiential learning, that is, as a process that ‘skills’ them to act to improve any situation of their choice;
• the competence of the facilitator to enable action research as experiential learning is improved; and
• transparency and improved competence provides for critical learning.
• As an initial response to this issue I return to the concept of levels of learning.  The work of Argyris and Schon (1996), Bawden (1995), Mezirow (1991), Salner (1986), Kitchener (1983), Habermas (1973) and Bateson (1972) referred to in Chapter 4 led to attention to three levels of learning denoted by the terms learning, meta-learning and epistemic-learning.

Figure 5.5 utilises the concept of three levels of learning to present my response to the three-part issue related to introducing action researching to pastoralists.  It emerged from consideration of a number of sources:

• the model of Bawden (1995) for critical learning systems,
• my reflective observations earlier in this chapter on experience, and
• my reflective observations on the literature of:
  • Dick (1987) on group functioning;
  • Murphy (1992) and Myers (1980) on personality type;
  • Dick and Dalmau (1992; 1991), and Dalmau and Dick (1992) on professional development, and creating effective learning environments;
  • Brookfield (1993;1987), Habermas (1992; 1979; 1973) and Carr and Kemmis (1986) on criticalness;
  • Burns (1995), Brookfield (1993), Merriam and Caffarella (1991), Mezirow (1991;1981) and Rogers (1983; 1969) on adult education;
  • Bawden (1995; 1990), Ulrich (1993; 1988), Flood and Jackson (1991) and Churchman (1971) on inquiry systems and critical systems perspectives;
  • Macadam (1995), and Kolb (1984) on experiential learning;
  • Argyris and Schon (1996), Isaacs (1993), Dick and Dalmau (1991), Bohm (1990), Argyris et al (1985), and Habermas (1992; 1984; 1979; 1973) on authentic dialogue;
  • Zuber-Skerritt (1996; 1990), Dick (1995), Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1992), Kemmis and McTaggart (1988b), Carr and Kemmis (1986), and Lewin (1952) on action research; and
  • Salner (1986), Kitchener (1983), Gilligan (1982), Gould (1972), Perry (1970), and Kohlberg (1969) on cognitive development.

Double-headed arrows in Figure 5.5 denote that finding-out impacts on the situation while at the same time providing ‘information’ to the person finding-out.  In a similar way, taking action affects both the person and the situation.

 

Section 5.6.1 Providing an explanation of the model

To suggest that this model is a simplistic representation of a complex mix of situations is recognising it for what it is.  A further dimension to this complexity is evident in the writing of Watzlawick et al (1974) and Argyris et al (1985) who point out that change at one level creates tension at the other two.

The model provides a context in which I, as an agricultural extension officer, can model experiential learning and thus provide a focus for dialogue about the learning process with collaborators in the learning situation.  It also presents itself as a framework to attend to interpersonal relationships to attain criticalness, and thus persistence of learning, through the exchange of valid information.

Support for explicit attention by a collaborative learning facilitator to a problematic situation affecting him or her in the model in Figure 5.5 comes from a review of the adult learning literature.  A basic proposition here is that adults learn when a situation arises that they believe requires attention (Knowles 1980, 1984; Brundage and MacKeracher 1980; Burns 1995).  This is the self-directedness referred to by Mezirow (1991).  Collaborative learning facilitators, as the name implies, are learning at the same time as the others in the situation as they act to intentionally change (improve) a problematic situation.  The model in Figure 5.5 suggests there are benefits for all participants when the facilitator is prepared to dialogue with them about the experiential learning practice that she or he is modelling.  The facilitator can then engage with others about the experiential learning practice being modelled to increase understanding.  Such a practice matches Burrows’ (1997) review of the literature of facilitation where learning partnerships were identified as critical in the effective facilitation of learning.  It is also consistent with Brookfield’s (1993) observation that adult educators will relate better to learners encountering the trauma of change if they have been through similar situations themselves.

Modelling learning offers, for example, the opportunity to overcome the ‘map in my pocket’ lack of transparency in my facilitation identified by Westland pastoralists.

In offering this model (Figure 5.5) for discussion I am suggesting that learning for change should be occurring for the facilitator in a collaborative group setting at the same time that other participants are learning relative to their own problematic situation.  This is consistent with the concept of action research, where the facilitator/researcher should also be learning about his or her practice.  The model suggests that the facilitator’s situation and learning should be made explicit.  It also implies that the situation and the learning of the facilitator must interconnect with that of the situation and learning of pastoralists.  On that basis, the initial focus in the model of collaborative learning in Figure 5.5 is the problematic situation for the pastoralist, overlapped with the problematic situation for the facilitator.

The model in Fig 5.5 expands the Kolbian model of experiential learning into a model of a learning system that is consistent with Bawden’s (1995) self-reflexive dynamic involving the three levels of learning proposed by Kitchener (1983) and interpreted for systemic situations by Salner (1986).  Bawden’s (pers comm) model refers to a critical learning system that works at its own coherence and ability to function through the three level hierarchy.

The amplification of Bawden’s (1995) model that Fig 5.5 focuses on is that of the interpersonal relationships between participants in the system.  The categories of learning outcomes that can occur in this model are threefold.  The first two relate to participants and facilitator each learning about their problematic situations at cognitive, metacognitive and epistemic levels.  The third category of learning outcomes arise from learning about relationship among group members, including the facilitator.  The learning outcomes again occur at cognitive, metacognitive and epistemic levels.  The model suggests that interpersonal relationships are crucial to the potential for critical outcomes in this system as they determine the validity of the information exchanged.  The aim in attending to the relationships is not just the rational one of authenticity of information.  It is also one of interdependence and understanding that permits the development of wise as well as practical decision-making.  In all three categories of learning (related to pastoralist’s situations, facilitator’s situations, and relationships) in this action researching system, critical learning comes from learning at an epistemic level.

In the next subsection I refer to project experiences that illuminate the derivation and meaning of the model illustrated in Figure 5.5. 

 

Section 5.7 Learning explicitly about problematic situations

 

Section 5.7.1 Examples of learning Level I

For the pastoralists, the ‘finding out’ and ‘taking action’ at learning Level I related to collecting, making sense and acting on information specific to issues about wool (e.g.  selling options) or CLIs (e.g.  purchasing the property next door).

For me it was ‘finding out’ and ‘taking action’ about facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists.  An example is my initial exploration of alternative models and my choice of the Hawkesbury model (Macadam 1995).

 

Section 5.7.2 Examples at learning Level II

For pastoralist farmers ‘finding out’ and ‘taking action’ at the meta-level related to examining how we were using the skills of experiential learning as we sought learning outcomes in relation to wool and CLIs.  At Westland for example this led to the message about the process creating confusion in the minds of pastoralist farmers about experiential learning.  At the MTT the learning at Level II led to progression through stages of developing a format for our use of the action learning process.  It also led to recognition by the pastoralists that they would not be prepared to use the action learning model in a ‘formal’ way with other pastoralists.

For me it was ‘finding out’ and ‘taking action’ about experiential learning that resulted in my understanding that experiential learning as a concept of learning is not outcome directed.  This came through my reflection on how I was engaging with experiential learning in my task of facilitating pastoralists in experiential learning.  It led to my developed understanding of experiential learning as a concept and not a real world explanation of how learning actually occurs.  This involved recognition of the ‘process’ perspective offered by the Kolbian experiential learning cycle.

 

Section 5.7.3 Examples at learning Level III

It is not possible for me to be definitive about whether there was Level III learning for pastoralists because we did not examine learning from that perspective during the project.  Level III, or epistemic learning, relates to awareness of how something is known.  From the writing of Bateson (1972) and Argyris and Schon (1996) it seems that we are not usually conscious of epistemic learning (assumptions).  Bateson (1972 p302) refers to " ...the self-validating nature of such premises and their more or less unconscious nature." For him true Level III learning occurs only through conscious awareness.  If pastoralists became aware of their perspectives (assumptions about preparing and selling wool and CLIs) and alternative explanations of how these perspectives had developed, and might be changed, this would constitute a Level III learning outcome.  Examples of possible Level III learning by pastoralists include:

• choosing to change from running a local sheep enterprise to the sale of the property and the purchase in a new area of one suited to family needs and the running of cattle;
• beginning with an issue about the future economic viability of the industry and changing to recognising the need to know, from parents, about their intentions for succession of property ownership.

A personal example of a Level III learning outcome builds on the one presented for Level II.  It emerged from my examination of the epistemic position I held about facilitating experiential learning with pastoralists.  An underlying assumption was my belief that experiencing learning through choosing personally relevant situations generates valuable personal knowledge for action.  I was not consistently applying that epistemic assumption however when I acted to control the directions in which the pastoralists worked. The directedness arose from my belief that pastoralists and others external to the group would want a particular practical outcome as a measure of success.  How I knew (epistemic learning) that I needed to change arose from awareness that what I claimed I believed and how I was acting were incongruent.  Awareness that I was being incongruent created considerable mental discomfort.  This led to a shift in my epistemic position from believing I knew what was a good outcome for pastoralists, to one of recognising the appropriateness of pastoralists identifying their own directions for change through experiential learning.  I enacted this through facilitating the pastoralists’ use of experiential learning to identify their own learning outcomes.

Because I was focusing with pastoralists on the use of experiential learning and not on levels of learning, I did not make my or their learning outcomes at any of the three levels explicit foci for discussion in our group activities.

Had I made the levels of my learning explicit to pastoralists and we had discussed what that meant for change it may have presented an opportunity to use my own learning outcomes with collaborators (the pastoralists) to explicitly generate discussion about learning.  This explicit discussion could provide the partnership in learning suggested by Burrows (1997) as a critical attribute for effective facilitation.  I believe this explicitness of learning has the following potential benefits:

• practitioners improving their practice when they are operating in action researching situations;
• collaborating learners able to use their observation of the facilitator’s practice as a focus for questions and discussion about how to learn.  This raises the potential value of collaboration in the learning process to include how learning is occurring as well as collaboration on the content of the learning;
• reduction in the perception of any gap between the facilitator and other participants as learners, thus contributing to a more authentic collaborative learning environment. 

 

Section 5.8 Learning about group relationships

A key dimension in the model in Figure 5.5 is of that of relationships.  Examples from the field work of learning that improved interpersonal relationships and enabled learning about how to do this was not readily forthcoming, as it was only on reflection that the increased relevance of relationships emerged. However, an exploration of the potential value of learning about relationships is possible by reference to some critical experiences in the work.

The inclusion of explicit attention to learning about interpersonal relationships comes from my personal experience in the project and from the literature related to the practice of agricultural extension and adult education.

A possible interpretation arising from my observations during the project is that at times our interpersonal relationships within the group did not support pastoralists bringing forth authentic issues.  Two participants said that they had raised non-authentic issues because they didn’t feel that they could bring unresolved issues to the group.  Another observation with a similar possible interpretation was that two other participants in the MTT brought issues on which they has already made decisions (that is, they too didn’t bring unresolved issues).  They disclosed this at the conclusion of the action learning session but said that the action learning had increased their resolve to act.  In reflection I wondered if they were unable to bring unresolved issues because of a perception of poor interpersonal relationships.

The second observation occurred after, and despite, my shift to what I believed was a more collaborative facilitation style.  This may mean, as Chisholm (1990) suggests, that improved symmetricality (in this case symmetricality of collaboration) may only ‘partially’ bridge differences in perceived or actual positions between participants.  That is, my increased effectiveness of facilitation for collaboration in the wake of my recognition that I was being directive, produced greater democracy in direction setting as shown by the MTT’s move to CLIs, but other factors were still preventing full symmetricality of power distribution.  I believe one such factor was the quality of relationships within and between group members.

An additional observation suggesting that poor interpersonal relationships existed in the groups, arises from my epistemic shift to accepting that the pastoralists should identify their own directions for action.  My interpretation is that with better (i.e. more open and trusting) interpersonal relationships Westland group members could have raised the issue of my directiveness earlier and in a direct way.

The literature of applied agricultural extension does not regularly refer to the need for learning about interpersonal relationships to be initiated and continued throughout group extension activities.  However, forthcoming recognition of the need at that level may be predicted by such items as Stubbs’ et al (1997) survey showing interpersonal skills as a critical - ‘must have’ - competency for rural extension practitioners.  The material in the literature of agricultural extension calling for increased consideration of the sociological context (Vanclay and Lawrence 1995, Lawrence et al 1992; Campbell and Junor 1992) implicitly embraces the need for learning about interpersonal relationships.  It may also be inferred from the interpretation made of the literature relating to extension by Scoones and Thompson (1993 p20).  As they submit "A more sophisticated view [than depersonalised encounter] sees the relationships between farmers and external agents in terms of the continuing struggle, negotiation and compromise between different actors and networks." A sophisticated view of relationships could be interpreted as embracing interpersonal relationships.

A reference to explicit learning about interpersonal relationships in the adult education

literature is the work of Rogers (1983 p133) who in reference to the facilitation of learning suggests "...  that one of the most important of these conditions [that facilitate learning] is the attitudinal quality of the interpersonal relationship between facilitator and learner." He does not make any reference to the interpersonal relationships among other learners in a setting.  He make reference to creating open and trusting relationships between learner and facilitator to enable communication, but they do not propose that the relationship become a focus for learning.  It appears that focussing attention on learner needs assumes that attention to this and other principles of adult learning will automatically provide for good relationships.  The material presented by Burns (1995), Knowles (1980;1984), and Brundage and Mackeracher (1980) contains an implied expectation to provide for relationships through the principles raised.

Knowles’ (1980) expression of the conditions for learning includes reference to learning environments characterised by mutual trust and respect, mutual helpfulness, freedom of expression and acceptance of differences.  These are characteristics influenced by relationships.

Mezirow (1981) in his attention to a charter for andragogy, includes the requirement of reinforcing the learner’s self-concept.  He also calls for the provision of a supportive climate for feedback, encouragement to take risks, avoidance of judgement and the provision of mutual support.  These aspects impinge directly on relationships, but reference to relationships as a focus of learning is missing.  Habermas (1973), for example, draws attention to practical interests depending on the exchange of valid data

about norms, but he makes no direct reference to learning about the relationships needed for elucidating practical interests.  I found no significant section of the literature specific to experiential learning that refers to the relationships in the situation as an explicit focus for learning.

There is explicit reference to the need for attention to relationships as a focus for learning in some of the philosophical literature of learning.  One source is Bateson (1972 p37) who argues that, "In truth, our life is such that its unconscious components are continuously present in all their multiple forms. It follows that in our relationships we continuously exchange messages about these unconscious materials, and it becomes important also to exchange metamessages by which we tell each other what order and species of unconsciousness (or consciousness) attach to our messages.  In a ....  pragmatic way, this is important because the orders of truth are different for different sorts of messages."

In a similar way Habermas (1979 p88) posits that "...  moral consciousness signifies the ability to make use of interactive competence for consciously processing morally relevant conflicts of action" and that to do so arises from "...  the very structures of possible interaction." The learning model presented in Fig 5.5 makes explicit the relationships that exist among participants and between participants and the group through incorporating learning about the relationships into group activities.  It infers ongoing commitment to learning about the relationships as they emerge. Such an application of learning about relationships may have meaning for one dimension of success in action researching. Zuber-Skerritt (1996a) reported an action research project that was not successful when assessed against emancipatory criteria. Her conclusion about the lack of success included what the group identified as a ‘less than ideal’ orientation within the group and her assessment of a lack of change of governing values and behaviours.  The opportunity to learn about relationships may produce an improved climate for action research through awareness of personal and group governing values and behaviours.

Support for the concept of attention to relationships is available in the literature on organisational learning.  Dick (1987 p88) suggests that "Effective teamwork is most likely to be realised when each member of the group has an effective relationship with each other." He also recognises two levels of relationship in teams.  The first is between individuals within the group and the second is between each group member and the group as a whole - the group identity.  He focuses on improving relationships at two levels as the goals of team building activities, and refers to it as making an important contribution to group effectiveness.  Dick (1991) has practised this approach in his education of change agents for organisational development, where he initially spends time developing group relationships.  He does not make specific mention of returning to relationships as a later focus of group activity, although he does maintain that as a group, they deal with issues that arise in the setting and these often concern relationships.

Schwarz (1994), also in the literature on organisational development, refers to a practice of ‘contracting’. Contracting, suggests Schwarz (1994), is a function of facilitation and initially defines the relationship between the facilitator and other participants.  Garmston (1995) recognises the same practice in the related field of staff development.  He refers to a ‘group contracting conversation’ to provide understanding among participants of each others’ needs. Schwarz (1994) adds an ongoing dimension of relationships in organisational development when claiming that during contracting, arrangements occur for later diagnosing of behaviours that both enhance and hinder group effectiveness.  Thus the organisational development literature includes explicit attention to relationships in a learning environment.  As such it provides an example supporting my observation that my practice as an extension officer facilitating experiential learning requires attention to learning about relationships.

In the field of education Rogers (1967) is well known for his emphasis on the development of interpersonal relationships in learning situations and.  He claims that his proposal is in contrast to the usual one where student and teacher assume roles. Role assumption means that there is depersonalisation of the learning situation.  He maintains that gains in learning are possible where depersonalisation does not occur and where there is attention to relationships.

It may be that from that period (the time of Rogers) and in the understanding developed about adult learning by later authors, it is implicit that there is learning about relationships.  If that is the case, then in my project my experience suggests a more explicit focus on seeking learning outcomes about relationships.

The need for explicit attention to relationships in collaborative learning is evident in the material relating to communication.  Such collaboration, I believe, requires high quality relationships.  Argyris et al (1985) suggest that what they describe as Model I values predominate in groups.  They contend that such values lead to non-authentic communication and require changing for effective communication to occur.  Reason (1988) considers the same issue but from the perspective of the demonstrable validity of constructed collaborative outcomes.  His suggestion is for sound self-reflection and a high level of collaboration.  Thus it seems that in inquiry situations, it is the exchange of authentic information that enables change to occur.  In inquiry then, it may be that Argyris et al’s (1985) Model II values, which support authenticity, develop most readily in groups where relationships themselves are authentic.

Authenticity of this type is the foundation for the validity testing sought by Habermas (1992) and Mezirow (1991) in ‘practical discourse’.  Habermas (1992 p102) suggests

"Practical discourse is not a procedure for generating justified norms but a procedure for testing validity of norms that are being proposed and hypothetically considered for adoption". The validity testing is something done by the group about the ‘lifeworld’ of the group.  The model in Fig 5.5 proposes that the relationships between and among group members is the ‘lifeworld’ of the group and should be open to discussion and potential learning.  It is Bateson’s (1972) different ‘orders of truth’, in this case orders of truth related to relationships, about which learning is taking place.

I suggest that attention to relationships as portrayed in Figure 5.5 will contribute significantly to developing an extension officer-pastoralist interaction as a self-producing system (Mingers 1995).  That relationships have a role to play in this area is understandable from Mingers reference to communication as an example of an abstract autopoietic system.  He refers to the nervous system as a means of connection or communication between separate cells arguing that it allows the cells of an organism to respond to the relations between events rather than to the simple events themselves (Mingers 1995).  The model in Fig 5.5 has conceptually suggested that relationships among individuals and between individuals and the group represents a connection between events that is fundamental to a response, as in Mingers’ nervous system.  The model also proposes that attention to relationships as an aspect of the group’s ‘lifeworld’ will generate suitable responses that positively influence the group’s capacity to learn about the initial problematic situations for those involved.

My appreciation of the significance of a focus on learning about relationships is captured in Fig 5.5 by emphasis on the levels of learning as follows:

• Level I learning, wherein it is "within meaning scheme" change in relationships that occurs, for example the accommodating of others idiosyncrasies of communication, through acknowledging and talking about them;
    
• Level II learning, wherein we monitor learning about relationships at level I; and
    
• Level III learning, wherein learning takes place that transforms relationships.

An example of Level III learning may be derived from epistemic learning about acting defensively with others, a relationship phenomenon, in an action learning setting.  In explicitly focusing on learning about relationships at all levels including an epistemic level, I explore with the others the fact of my perception of their intentions.  I become aware (that is I learn at a cognitive level) that I attack others’ personalities in a way that stops them continuing to raise their questions of me ("...  but what would you know anyway, you’re only a .....", and said in a louder voice.).  In our learning I realise that my way of knowing when to respond (metalearning) defensively is when I feel emotionally upset by questions (that is I do not seem to have an answer and feel I should).  My defensive response seems to arise through my perception that others intentions are to criticise my actions for their own gain.  However, through discourse I come to understand their intention is not to criticise me for their own gain.  From this I recognise that there is a limit to my knowing others intentions if I rely only on my feelings in those situations (epistemic learning).  I learn that when I am feeling emotionally upset in such circumstances it does not have to mean that others are trying to criticise me for their own gain. I have recognised a limit to my knowing what others’ intentions are and through this I have transformed our relationship.  The changed perception allows for choices of action in group activities based on relationships that embrace support rather than criticism.

On the basis of my observations of project work and the foregoing literature there appears to be support for the inclusion of specific attention to relationships in learning situations in agriculture.  The support suggests that attention to relationships can contribute significantly to the development of criticality in the learning system because it provides for communication based on authentic information exchange.

 

Section 5.9 Summary

In this chapter I proposed five conclusions related to my future active experimentation in facilitating experiential learning.  They are:

1.  That I now recognise experiential learning as a conceptual model of a learning process.  I initially viewed the concept of experiential learning as a sequence of activities directed towards producing an outcome.  It was reflection on observations in the process of my action researching that produced my change to a more sophisticated understanding of the experiential learning model.

2.  That a model of experiential learning that more fully contains the ideas of Kolb (1984) offers richness of knowledge development in interactions between pastoralists and myself. The pastoralists recognition of it as a model through which they would be more ready to engage with other pastoralists about problematic situations was a confirming factor.

3.  That action researching is social experiential learning. This conclusion arose from my developing understanding that while action researching I was experientially learning.

4.  That an expanded model of an action research system offers a learning model that I will implement.  The model:

a) Enables me to reposition myself structurally as the agricultural officer/facilitator interacting with the pastoralist farmers.  In doing so the model highlights the appropriateness of my having an explicit problematic situation I am focussing on that overlaps with those of the pastoralists.  In the model I suggest that as a collaborative learning facilitator I should be open about my own learning relative to this issue and offer it as an experiential learning model for dialogue about the learning process.

b) Directs explicit attention to learning at all three levels about relationships among group members and between group members and the group identity.  Learning that enhances relationships provides for criticalness of learning outcomes about problematic situations through promoting the exchange of valid information.

5.  That experiential learning is a robust process of learning.  This conclusion arises from my observations of my experiential learning about experiential learning while working with the group.  The conclusion is that it is a sufficiently robust process to allow for the development of an understanding about its conceptual framework while using the concept to provide a process that leads to situation improvement.

These five conclusions identify learning outcomes I have made about experiential learning.  They provide foci for my active experimentation in experiential learning situations between myself and pastoralists.  However, if learning outcomes for change are the goal of experiential learning (through the development of epistemic learning) it may be reasonably argued that the responsibility of reaching those levels must, at least initially, rest with the agricultural officer facilitating the activity.

From the conclusions presented in this chapter facilitation has emerged as an issue of significant in relation to learning by participants.  It is that facilitation with which I will deal in the next two chapters.

 

---

Converted to hypertext by Bob Dick;  last modified 20000110

The URL of this document is
http://www.uq.net.au/action_research/art/t-groberts05.html