Wiki contents

Journals

2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Welcome to week 7, a week just like the previous weeks where finding something to write about is becoming an even greater challenge. I could start by identifying the problems that existed this week like having to go to a CEO meeting about the laggards in our market of whom which are diminishing the economic growth of our market or that we as a team are still trying to break the fourth wall on the simulation which many of the other teams are seemingly able to do. What I can say for sure this week is that I am finding no refuge in this week’s readings. I usually find that I scrape together a journal that meets all the requirements, has all the models and cites the importance of incorporating the key concepts from the readings in the week into that of our team and/or our strategy, however I just cannot do it this week, and not for a mere lack of trying.

Firstly let’s start with the term coined double loop learning. What is double loop learning you may ask? The answer to world hunger and the evolution of the human race? I think not. Once again academic scholars have created an illustrious term that is meant to revolutionise how we see the world and how we approach situations, to a group of people that have experienced and developed these skills from birth. Double loop learning: I means of taking an even further step back from a scenario to remove oneself from the limitations and filters to critically analyse a situation (Argyris, 1991). I can understand how this may be revolutionary to some, but for most of us, this has been a common tool that we have used to evaluate and reflect upon most of our lives. So what relevance does this have now for our team and the simulation when we have actively been utilising this tool from day one in first understanding the limitations and then pushing the limitations of the simulation, when understanding the team context and the norms and filters that govern interactions, the strategy and the outcomes. This week I am going to have to give a swing and a miss on integrating this illustrious learning tool into my practices for the simulation as it has always been there. It is like integrating the concept of closing your eyes to help you get to sleep better. This however is just the case I find myself in, and honestly I am getting tired of being fed resources and information that are common sense. I do understand that common sense is not so common anymore, and that this is valuable to some, and I have no problem with that, nor with its use to help people who don’t already utilise these concepts, but I would like something more in-depth, more ground breaking, more sophisticated than merely taking a further step back from a situation to evaluate it.

I am not attacking he value of these learning journals as I have found them a valuable source of learning and reflection, and that have allowed for what might suggest is the double loop learning to be utilised, but if you are reading this Peter, please maybe rethink some of the resources and concepts you are applying in some of the weeks, I did not find this helpful and I can on presume that I am not the only one in this boat.

So to conclude, yes we have problems that we are already on top of, no I didn’t find this week’s readings useful, and I am very sorry for anyone reading this that is wondering what I am on about, or why I have broken the convention of the standardised journal. As a final statement, rather than doing the same old peer review, tell me what you think? I would learn much more from what you believe on the subject. 

2 Comments

  1. Hello mate, Looks like I'm your reviewer for the week!

    First of all, kudos to you for taking the initiative and stepping away from the traditional structures, and judging form the content of this week's journal, you seem to be taking on quite a critical perspective of the reading.

    I'll forward what Peter said to me in regards to unmatched expectations: "what is required for novices in an activity, is different to what is required for those who are more proficient." If that is to be applied in this context, the readings themselves may seem obvious and common sense to you; in which case it should be no problem for your final reflection. Take comfort in knowing that.

    However in terms of actual content, there are a couple things I would personally take out or emphasize:
    Firstly, there appears to be a lot of emotion in this weeks writing. That's not a problem in itself, but one must be careful not to get trapped by thought patterns rather than fluid writing. For example: you have spent a good portion of your writing dismissing the efficacy of the double loop metaphors without really providing any specific examples of situations where you have fully utilized the theory currently or  how the theory is indifferent from your current practices.
    Secondly, there is always room for improvement. Rather than stopping short of how ineffective something is, it would be beneficial to think about how you can change the theory so it can be better applied to your work.
    Thirdly, if you genuinely find this weeks readings to be superfluous, write about something else that is more interesting. Talk about how you've already applied the theory before and how successful the outcomes were or write about some other theory entirely.

    Overall, the quality of the writing itself is great however, I think it falls dangerously close to stream of thought due to the lack of examples and theoretical acumen. This is also something I struggle with personally and it is a habit I'm actively trying to curb.  After all, there is a fine line between critical analysis and complaining.

    P.S you forgot your reference list.

  2. Hi Ryan (smile)

    Good to see that you decided to step away from the recommended structure to try something that fits your views better. This particular journal does flow well because you have removed the rigid format of Daudelins structure.  You're personal point of view of this week readings are clear and unambiguous. 

    I agree with Will about a lot of emotion being involved in your writing, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The emotion has allowed your thought patterns to be clearly seen and each flows nicely onto the other. After all isn't a reflection about sifting through all of your thoughts? If someone was writing with a lack of emotion I can imagine it being stiff and extremely boring to read. However this can be seen in the grammar errors. Only small but it is still something to improve on. 
     I'm just wondering why you didn't research more "in-depth, more ground breaking, more sophisticated?" If you believe the double loop learning is old news do you know of a theory that challenges the way you think?
    To emphasize on the benefits and drawbacks of this theory link it to your personal experiences and even reading from other weeks. For example the time dedicated to double loop learning could be seen as a waste of time because instead on planning we should be focusing more on action.
    My own view on the double loop learning would be that there is a time and a place for it. Obviously some decisions there isn't a need to critically evaluating everything because it would just waste time but in other situations, probably new challenges, it would be beneficial to take a step back and purposefully think though options using the double loop learning.