Wiki contents


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

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

It now week 7, half way through this semester already! Things are getting harder and more challenging to be “right”. So... What is “right”?

Mike’s Bikes had given me a big challenge this week. Our team had decided on a new strategy, which was quite complicated since we could not just make a guess on how much we should spend on each department but had to be accurate in order to be successful. Romero-Pereda (2012) indicated that “Re-evaluating and re-framing our goals, values and beliefs is a more complex way of processing information and involves a more sophisticated way of engaging with an experience." I believed that from the past 6 weeks experiences, everyone including myself had learnt lots about the duties of our own role (for me, marketing!) and how Mike’s Bikes works. Coordination is a key to be successful I would say. I think everyone will understand how important coordination is. For example, I had to understand what our financial status is in order to calculate how much we can afford on marketing expense. Moreover, I had to know what R&D did in order to plan the strategy for promoting the new products. R&D had to communicate with the production manager in order to see if there were enough resources to launch new products. More importantly, we all have to work closely with the CEO in order to work towards the same goal, some direction and some strategy.

On the other hand, the reading from this read by Argyris (1991) had different view from mine which was “success in the marketplace depends on learning”. I agreed with him but of course, I still reckon that coordination is another key to success in Mike’s Bikes. I remember we had learnt about learning back in the first week, but the ‘learning’ we are talking about this week is a bit different and in a higher level.

I had no idea what were single-loop learning and double-loop learning before reading this week’s readings. Then I found it very interesting to see why “highly skilled professionals are frequently very good at single-loop learning...professionals are often bad at double-loop learning” (Argyris, 1991). Argyris (1991) mentioned that it is because professionals have rarely failed so they have never learned from failure. Now, I suddenly feeling confused about experiencing failure. How do I know that I have made a mistake or not? What is the definition of failure?

Why did I ask those questions? From this week’s rollover, my company did okay which I think we at least didn't make a lost or a drop of SHV. However, that didn't mean that we did well. We didn't know if we could do better. I didn't know if I did well on calculating the distribution of spending on different market segments. It’s absolutely right learning from failure experience, but how about when we have no failure experience and successful experience either? What should I do to make an improvement?

In this case, I think either single-loop learning or double-loop learning will help on improving. We could always go back to what we do (i.e. action strategies and techniques) to find out any existing problem or mistake we made. For example, I could always check the decision I made from the last rollover to see if a change in spending on TV segment affects the awareness much or not. More efficiently, more than problem solving, double-loop learning reevaluates and re-frames goals, values, etc. This is about why we do what we do. A clear of our goal, value, beliefs, conceptual frameworks help us to make a most suitable decision for our own company.




Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Reflections, 4(2), 4–15

Romero-Pareda, A. (2012) Single-Loop and Double-Loop Learning Model. Retrieved from:


  1. Hey Kelly, Head of Marketing!

    First of all, this week's reviewing is also challenging for me because I have to give my feedback to my team mate and MYSELF.. I don't know what is going on (tongue)
    Anyway, you pointed out our our current problems very well. Our spending resulted in a bit inconvenient situation for us and there had to be a degree of accuracy about it although we can't even know if our decision is accurate or not until we get a result. Therefore, we struggled. 
    You provided enough examples and your solution such as the importance of coordination. In addition, I'm even in your team, so your journal for this week was extremely easy to follow and I basically don't have any criticism about the structure of this journal, which is great.
    I actually came up with the same question of what defines failure. Therefore, I wanted to see your exact answer about this question. For instance, you could mention that what we experienced was failure? or not? If it was failure, what defined it?
    I also came up with other question which was "Do we have to fail for effective learning?". This isn't about your journal but yea think about it if you are interested (smile).
    I think that it was really good for you to put some questions and possible answers you came up with in this journal so that I could easily understand what you felt about the readings.

    Overall, excellent journal with appropriate understanding and application of idea from the reading! Your efforts on this journal actually motivated me to use more examples and some approaches like providing personal questions in my next journal so thanks for giving me the opportunity to read your journal.
    P.S. We are still on the right track! Let's rule the world!! 

  2. Hey Kelly!

    Your reflection for this week got off to a great start in terms of following Daudelin's structure. You identified the problem (our new strategy) and you analysed it quite well. However, when it came to the stage of "formulating and testing of a tentative theory" I felt your journal could have been better. I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, but it felt as if there wasn't really a solution in the journal for your problem. You identified that we could use either single or double loop learning but didn't really explain why. 

    Looking at the stages of Bloom's taxonomy reached, I felt as if the highest level your reflection demonstrated was the comprehension level. You clearly understand what single and double loop learning are, but your journal didn't really seem to have any information in it (relating to these topics) that I could not have seen in the reading itself. To reach the higher stages of learning, all you really need to do is elaborate on your points a little more and use stronger examples that are easier to relate to the reading. I liked that you looked at the reading critically and felt that developing on this especially, would have helped reach the higher levels of learning.

    I'm sorry if I've focused mainly on negative points but we're supposed to write our comments based on how well the journal demonstrated Daudelin's structure and the levels of Bloom's taxonomy reached. (smile)