Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
The University of Hong Kong
1
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
2
Abstract
As knowledge of learning spaces grows, even such a venue as a faculty common room can be reimagined as a learning space. Furthermore, in improving this learning space, more than individual effort is required to introduce and to sustain change and innovation in that learning space. A proper learning through feedback framework is needed for this improvement. The two purposes of this study are first to determine how a Popperian learning through feedback framework can be applied to change and innovation in a learning space, and second, to discover what a Popperian learning through feedback framework reveals about change and innovation in a certain organization, in the context of learning space development. The user-participant in this study, this author, attempted to make a learning space more conducive for studying and small group discussion by using an epistemically progressive, contextualized theory building model derived from the work of Karl Popper. The changes to the learning space were made over eight days. Documentation of evidence of error elimination was made by photographs of learning space usage and informal interviews with stakeholders in the learning space. The results suggest that although the Popperian learning through feedback framework is applied both sequentially and chronologically, multiple cycles of the feedback framework can occur simultaneously. The framework also revealed unfamiliar organizational stakeholders and conflicting beliefs about the learning space, manifested in changing learning space configurations during error correction. The findings suggest that stakeholders’ differing beliefs, values and opinions require greater mediation. Keywords: organizational learning, learning spaces, Popper Cycles
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
3
Imants (2003) defines organizational learning as “the process of institutionalization of knowledge.” In this dialogical, continuous process, knowledge is raised in an organization, first from individuals and then from groups; and when such knowledge is internalized by a critical mass of members of the organization, organizational learning has occurred. Simply put, learning must be constructed and internalized in the organization. From another point of view, organizational learning is the detection and correction of errors that, ultimately, stifle potential benefits in an organization. Errors, Argyris and Schon (1978) posit, emerge from conditions of “mistaken assumptions, incongruities between espoused theory and theory-in-use, and incompatible norms.” (P. 56) They refer to these as inadequacies in organizational theory of action. Whether at the individual, group or organizational level so long as there are conflicting expectations, arising from uncertainty, error will be the result. Furthermore, organizational learning can be seen not as static but as continuous, because negotiating change is not static but continuous. It is an ongoing process of finding errors and correcting them. Indeed, Argyris and Schon (1978) have argued that a good organizational dialectic opens the possibility for more errors that set in motion correction stages. The operations of an organization, therefore, should be viewed not so much linearly as in an interminable spiral along which improvement is made, whether fast or slowly. Learning through feedback cycles, therefore, have a place in organizational learning because they are continuous, and they seek to improve upon an error-laden situation by building knowledge and eliminating errors. The Popper Cycles (Evers, 2007) are an instance of cycles of learning through feedback. Other instances include action research and single-loop and double-loop organizational learning. There has been research on the application of Popper Cycles in the fields of teacher professional development (Chitpin & Evers, 2005), school leadership (Evers & Katyal, 2007) and lifelong learning (Evers, 2007). Popper Cycles have been relevant for both individual and organizational learning because they provide a framework for, "how individuals and organizations might employ continuous learning strategies in order to do better than chance in creating successful trajectories for decision and action in the context of uncertainty or limited knowledge." (Evers, 2007, p. 173) In this sense, like other "learning through feedback" methodologies, Popper Cycles could be applied to the field of learning space development. The purpose of the present study is first to determine how a Popperian learning through feedback framework can be applied to change and innovation in a learning space. This entails identifying and formulating problems, proposing tentative theories for their solution and testing those theories against experience in implementation, and moving on to new problems of practice. This could be an innovative theory of growth, applied to the area of learning space research. Furthermore, as a Popperian learning through feedback framework may be useful in the organizational learning context of developing a learning space, this study purposes to uncover elements of organizational learning crucial to the successful improvement of a learning space through a Popperian learning through feedback framework. The following are the research questions:
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
4
1) How can a Popperian learning through feedback framework be applied to change and innovation in a learning space? 2) In the context of learning space development, what does a Popperian learning through feedback framework reveal about change and innovation in a certain organization? This paper begins with a review of learning space development This is followed by an elaboration of the Popperian learning through feedback framework used in this study. The context of the study is then explained, followed by the results of using the Popperian learning through feedback framework in learning space development. This paper finishes with a discussion in which the results are analyzed and the research questions are answered. Learning Space Overview Physical space and pedagogy are engaged in a dialogical process. One is not the consequence of another. Rather, they influence and inform each other. For example, a prescriptive physical space such as the traditional classroom in which, within four walls, students are seated in isolation and face a “front” designated by an expansive writing area and a teacher area predicates a prescriptive pedagogy; and that pedagogy, in turn, predicates a prescriptive physical space. In other words, technology (i.e. changes to the physical environment) affords, or changes certain practices in the physical space. Therefore, in view of education reform transforming curricula and pedagogy, learning space also necessitates revisiting. Prescriptive, factory models of instruction and their accompanying physical layout should be revised in view of new curricula and assessment, as well as in response to the changing nature of students, organizations and society, from which these education reforms come. Van Note Chism (2006) questioned typical assumptions of traditional education, including: ● ● ● ●
Learning only happens in classrooms Learning only happens at fixed times Learning is an individual activity What happens in classrooms is pretty much the same from class-to-class and day-today ● A classroom always has a front ● Learning demands privacy and the removal of distractions ● Higher education students are juvenile: they destroy or steal expensive furnishings; they need to be confined to tablet arm chairs to feel like students; and they are all small, young, nimble, and without disabilities (p. 2.3). The validity of such questioning results in the understanding that learning can happen anywhere. The problem is changing beliefs so that this understanding becomes the case and, moreover, a common understanding of what learning entails is established. In an organization, for example, this may require an organization’s stakeholders to believe that a venue is a learning space and to have a common understanding of what learning is. Otherwise, there may be contradictions within the organization as regards models of learning,
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
5
even in a venue purposed for learning. To be sure, the necessity for clearly purposing a learning space can be exemplified in the contradiction of a library study desk which seats two people at opposite ends of the table but at which those two people cannot talk for an extended amount of time because the desk is situated in a quiet zone where speaking is not permitted. Therefore, the daunting nature of developing a learning space may not be a product of the environment itself but of the people. The more people use a learning space, the more challenging changing it will become because there will be more beliefs, opinions, and conflict as each person’s perspective must change, and a person may require much convincing to change his beliefs. This rests on the assumption that a person, according to Argyris and Schon (1978), does have steadfast beliefs and opinions (theories of action) which govern his behavior and which cannot be challenged easily. The argument for this unquestioning attitude is similarly held by Fullan (2001), who posited a reason wherefore people didn’t question their beliefs: “It isn’t that people resist change as much as they don’t know how to cope with it.” (Fullan, 2001, p. xii) To be sure, one major assertion in Argyris and Schon’s theory is that when an organization is composed of such people, organizations naturally invent such mechanisms to block the challenging of beliefs, values and opinons. And most organizations follow this model. This means that even small changes to a learning space can result in fierce resistance from stakeholders. Argyris and Schon (1978) posit that conflict is a result of divergent norms and values held by individuals in an organization being reconciled. They enumerated several kinds of conflict-resolution policies in which an organization’s members may engage: ● Circumventing the incompatibility of the norm ● A cost-benefit analysis of changing the norm ● Questioning the appropriateness of individual beliefs, values and norms (pp. 23-24) Van Note Chism (2006) has suggested guiding principles in modern learning space designs, one of which to note is the convenient placing of the electrical supply for charging of devices. The placement of electrical plugs indeed raises new affordances and constraints per configuration in a learning space. In this way, a learning space’s table-centric design, anchored by the electrical supply, could be viewed as a constraint because students would have to sit close to a table if they wish to have a constant source of energy for their laptops. At the same time, a forecast for fewer sockets based on the assumption that students will either gravitate away from laptops or bring fully charged devices to classrooms could be specious at best because that assumes students will engage in certain behaviors while forsaking others, such as using devices while in transit. Furthermore, such a statement as offered by a teacher in Fox and Lam’s (accepted) study, that “you can never have too many plugs...the more increases flexibility and safety, reducing chances of students tripping over each other’s power leads.” likely disregards the logistical and pedagogical constraints of electrical supply placement. One can, notionally, have too many plugs to benefit the teaching and learning process. In sum, in the literature, challenges to effective learning space exploitation include the physical arrangement of furniture such that there is more learning flexibility than learning prescription in the design; stakeholders beliefs of, awareness of and professional development
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
6
for innovative learning spaces (One challenge universities face is in helping teachers become aware of the potential of these new learning spaces to support their own teaching as well as their students’ learning.); and the allocation of the electricity supply, among other things. In view of this, there may be room to explore how learning spaces by themselves, affect stakeholders beliefs according to a learning through feedback framework. Methodology Generic theory models may not be as valid as contextualized theory building in learning space development, all matters in a situation considered. This is because in developing an improved learning space, many contingencies must be considered in theory development. In the present study, in the context of a learning space used by many people, some of whom are known but most of whom are unknown to the author, such contingencies as time of use, duration of use, size of party, nature of use, other users, etc. must be considered in theory development. All this information is not available to the user at the time of theory development. In this way, it can be seen that a generic theory could not encompass completely these variables. Rather, a process is needed "to feel out" these variables. Furthermore, in contextualized theory building, the user becomes a critical learner, and builds knowledge in an epistemically progressive way, towards improved solutions. The building of this improved theory is incremental. Given this understanding, as applied to learning space development, Popper Cycles can be viewed as a form of critical learning, based on the premise that there is not one single best learning space design but an improved solution drawn from the user's own theory. This framework draws from the philosophy of Karl Popper, whose model of the growth of scientific knowledge, entailing a coherent use of an iterative process of problem (P), tentative theory (TT) and error elimination (EE), has been applied to social science. This can be modeled in an equation: P1 ⇒TT1 ⇒EE1 ⇒P2 In this equation, first, problem identification is developed from the user's antecedent understanding, in this case, of learning space development; the first problem (P1) is a demand to overcome or to satisfy a set of constraints; a tentative theory (TT1) to satisfy as many of these constraints as possible is thus formed; TT1 is tested against P1 to determine what errors are solved and what constraints remain (EE1), that is, whether the problem was sufficiently solved, such that the epistemic progress ends, or whether the problem was not solved, necessitating the rise of a new problem (P2) to test another theory. The application of this framework to learning space development offers several affordances. Unlike the application of Popper Cycles to teacher professional development, the application of Popper Cycles to learning space development provides clearer evidence of TT because TT is manifested in the physical arrangement of the learning space; nothing is lost in the interpretation of TT in the context of practice because the practice has a physical, static form. As the natural application of Popper Cycles in social science is “to engage in small scale, or piecemeal, change,” (Evers, 2007, p. 176) Popper Cycles are conducive to
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
7
learning documentation, and reversal of changes, since the changes in each Popper Cycle are small, if not gradual. The Study The learning space in this study is a common room shared by the organization’s stakeholders. The learning space comprises two long tables, several small tables of varying height, and sofas and club seats. There are also a newspaper rack, a refrigerator, a microwave, three rubbish bins and a sink area in the room. Shelves and lockers line several of the walls. Books, periodicals and other refuse are often deposited in the learning space. The organization which uses the learning space is a faculty in a Hong Kong university. The faculty has a long history and has undergone several major reorganizations in its history. Within the wider university organization, the faculty exercises much independence and authority. Its official core commitments include ethical practice, innovation, sustainability and collegiality. The faculty comprises hundreds of people, including academics, administrators, students, and support staff (e.g. technicians and janitors), all of whom are faculty stakeholders and potential users of the learning space. The user-participant in this study, this author, is a first year postgraduate research student in the faculty. He has assumed several leadership positions in the faculty and is familiar with learning space theory and practice. He does not, however, know all the learning space stakeholders. He also did not announce his intention to change the learning space. The author is not only interested in using the learning space but in improving the learning space for all stakeholders. The catalyst for this study was the author’s perception that the learning space’s generous seating capacity and table space were being underutilized. In spite of the ample space, users did not avail themselves of it, the author thought, because of its configuration. In general, the learning space could be more conducive for studying and small group discussion. The author set out to develop the learning space such that more seats and more table space would be used more frequently and by more people, for studying and small group discussion, et cetera, thereby implying that the learning space has been improved. Although the learning space was not designed for the purpose of research, it was appropriated nonetheless for this study because of its amenable conditions for this type of research. The learning space could be manipulated in this study to test TTs because there were no rules in the faculty governing the changing of the common room layout. As a result, since there was no explicit authority for changing the common room layout, anyone could assume that authority to change the common room layout. This was an affordance of the faculty's organizational governance. Besides, a sign at the entrance to the learning space notifies possible entrants that only faculty stakeholders can use the learning space, which minimizes the impact of non-faculty members’ on the space. Finally, the state of the common room and the user before the intervention are the starting points for a new cycle of learning because, "the borrowing and application of knowledge is itself the starting point of a further cycle of continuous lifelong learning rather than an endpoint." (Evers, 2007, p. 180) The changes to the learning space were made during the Chinese New Year, a public holiday, during which time, in Hong Kong, many stakeholders were absent from the university campus. Documentation of evidence of error
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
8
elimination was made by photographs of learning space usage and informal interviews with stakeholders in the learning space. In general, the photographs of the learning space usage were more valuable to EE than interviews because while the interviewers expressed beliefs and opinions, the photographs captured TTs in action. Furthermore, the evidence in photographs captured the succession of Popper Cycles in this study. Results On the first day, this author developed two discrete problems to address the overall problem of making the learning space more conducive for studying and small group discussion (See Appendix A.). In these two initial cycles (Cycles A and B), the author focused on improving the table and sofa arrangement in the learning space, which resulted in a new configuration (See Appendix B.). Based on error elimination from the preceding problems, on the second day four new problems were addressed: in these instances, the author focused on improving the placement of newspaper racks (Cycle AA), rubbish bins (Cycle AC), long tables (Cycle BA) and sofas and small tables (Cycle AB) (See Appendix C.). As there was much positive feedback from users and other anecdotal evidence to support this new arrangement, the following day the author did not find further fault in those areas of the learning space. Instead the author focused on the shelves and the articles on top of and on those shelves. These latter two cycles (Cycles C and D) resulted in sufficient solutions such that no new problems were developed from them. (See Appendix D.) By the fourth day, other learning space users, with their respective problems and tentative theories, began their own error elimination (AA and AB Error Eliminations) (See Appendix E.). The newspaper rack, tables and sofas were moved. Tables and sofas were moved once more on the following day, and there was negative feedback from users on this new learning space configuration (See Appendix F.). On the sixth day, the author observed that the learning space had returned to its original configuration (See Appendix G.), before this author’s intervention, suggesting that this author’s and other users’ tentative theories were in fact problems for at least one user who had replaced all the furniture to their original locations. As this configuration presented a problem (CYCLE ABA) to the author, he made a small adjustment to the furniture so that a hemmed in seat could be more conveniently accessed (See Appendix H.). The author later stopped a janitor from hemming in the seat again. At length, the author observed that the seat had been hemmed in again. The learning space had once more returned to its form before this author’s intervention. Discussion In this study, the results of changing the common room layout to improve the learning space are analyzed in terms of the Popperian learning through feedback framework. The specific problems and solutions arising from changing the common room layout followed the pattern of growth of scientific knowledge proposed by Karl Popper. The Popperian learning through feedback framework was applied in a linear, chronological fashion. As evidenced in the results, moreover, multiple Popper Cycles can occur at the same time. Error elimination for several Popper Cycles occurred over several days. All this suggests that a Popper Cycle is detached from a certain time frame for completion while it can be subsumed under a meta-Popper Cycle, the problem of which, in
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
9
this case, was the improvement of the learning space to make it more conducive for studying and small group discussion. It may be opportune, therefore, for critical learners who develop a complex problem to re-frame it as a meta-problem by breaking up that problem into subproblems to consequently develop sub-Popper Cycles that increase the robustness and detail of the tentative theory to solve the meta-problem. These sub-Popper Cycles may also influence each other. Furthermore, in this representation of the Popper Cycles, it is clear that the author’s individual learning, in tandem with other common room users’ individual learning in an organizational learning context, nonetheless resembles closely how an individual would learn even in a vacuum. The major difference between the author’s individual learning in an organizational environment and the author’s individual learning in a vacuum is that in individual learning in an organizational learning context, as users’ individual problems and tentative theories converge, error correction becomes an externality. In other words, the effects of a user’s application of a tentative theory impacts all users’ error correction, regardless of tentative theories. In the present study, this is seen from days four through seven: the more other users changed the layout of the common room, the greater the extent of error correction, which influences the development of new problems for all users. Indeed, the return of the common room furniture to its original layout led this author back to his original problem. The use of Popper Cycles revealed several learning space stakeholders who were previously unknown to the author. Security guards were seen using the learning space. In addition, the author observed the janitor replacing the learning space furniture and one of the janitors may have possibly moved the furniture back to the pre-intervention configuration. However, this cannot be proven. The user(s) who had moved furniture over the course of Popper Cycles cannot be identified as well. Therefore, unlike when Popper Cycles are applied to a teacher’s professional development of classroom teaching, when applied to learning space development of a common room, the opinions of other users cannot be ignored because these users are stakeholders of the common room, as well as theory builders whose tentative theories are just as valid as other users’ tentative theories. Each person’s choice, whether in thought or in action, after all, influences other people’s choices, which in turn influence other people’s choices; in this way, however significant the impact is, a ripple can be created in an organization for each individual choice. All users are integral in the knowledge building process in that they provide evidence of existing constraints and eliminated constraints. And Popper Cycles are useful in uncovering users’ conflicting beliefs, expectations and values in a learning space. The main challenge presented in using Popper Cycles to develop a learning space has been resolving conflict. In the intervention period, in line with Argyris & Schon’s (1978) conflict-resolution strategies, conflict in the learning space was resolved by users circumventing the incompatibility of the norm. For some users whose beliefs and norms were challenged by the new learning space configuration, the most expedient resolution to this change was to change the learning space once more so that it would better reflect their beliefs, values and opinions. Ultimately, the reversion to the learning space’s pre-
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
10
intervention configuration signals the complete incompatibility of all the changes to at least one user’s norms and beliefs. A better solution, therefore, to resolving conflict and to establishing an arrangement that people find more agreeable is to organize stakeholders so that individual beliefs, values and norms can be shared, questioned and changed not reluctantly or under compulsion. Unfortunately, in spite of this solution being the most lasting and beneficial to the organization, it may also be the most difficult to implement, not least because not all the stakeholders have been identified and a means by which to identify and then to contact all the stakeholders has not been created at this point. Thus, the open question of, "whether there is a balance that is most likely to achieve epistemically progressive group inquiry" (Evers, 2007, p. 173) retains an incomplete answer with the use of Popper Cycles. Individuals can use the Popper Cycles to build theory incrementally, but when individuals’ Popper Cycles converge, and conflict arises, individuals circumvent each other tentative theories. Logistical and organizational learning hurdles remain in identifying the stakeholder group and the scalable means by which a shared experiment in improving the learning space can be developed. Curiously, even the minor shift of furniture in the final Popper Cycle encountered resistance. Although organizations experience small, incremental doses of change daily, why even this small shift brought such a response merits further investigation. On the one hand, this small shift, in fact, could have been a major shift at the individual level for a particular stakeholder, the janitor, for example, whose job may be to monitor the physical aspects of the learning space closely; that might have prompted that user’s tentative theory and error correction. On the other hand, this glimpse into how the organization reacted to small-scale change could portend how the organization reacts to large-scale change, if the converse of Argyris and Schon’s (1978) argument, that both schools and individuals resist big changes, not least because schools, like individuals, are not as accustomed to large-scale changes as they are accustomed to small-scale changes, is true. If a small-change engenders resistance in an organization, the reaction to a large-change may be resistance of a greater magnitude. Finally, a limitation in the present study is the possible presence of confirmation bias. The user may be blind to evidence that more constraints exist than initially thought; likewise, users may feel pressure to support the outcome and ignore evidence that doesn't support the outcome. Another limitation was the use of the learning space by people outside the organization. Although a sign was posted at the entrance to the learning space signaling that only organization members could use the space, anyone who knows of the space or who stumbles upon the space could conceivably access it. This matter is further complicated by identifying members of the organization.
Changing the Learning Space: An Incremental, Popperian Approach
11
References Argyris, C., & Schรถn, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning : a theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Bransford, J., National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning., & National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice. (2000). How people learn brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Chitpin, S., & Evers, C. W. (2005). Teacher professional development as knowledge building: a Popperian analysis. Teachers and Teaching, 11(4), 419-433. doi: 10.1080/13450600500137208 Evers, C. (2007). Lifelong Learning and Knowledge: Towards a General Theory of Professional Inquiry. In D. Aspin (Ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on Lifelong Learning (Vol. 11, pp. 173-188-188): Springer Netherlands. Evers, C., & Katyal, K. R. (2007). Paradoxes of leadership: contingencies and critical learning. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 377-390. Fox, R., & Lam, P. (accepted). Balancing Context, Pedagogy and Technology on Learning Space Designs: Opportunities Amidst Infrastructural Developments in Hong Kong. In M. Keppell, K. Souter & M. Riddle (Eds.), Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Concepts for the Modern Learning Environment: IGI Global. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York ; London: Teachers College Press. Franklin, U. M., & CBC Enterprises. (1990). The real world of technology. Toronto: CBC Enterprises. Imants, J. (2003). Two Basic Mechanisms for Organisational Learning in Schools. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(3), 293-312. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M., J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that learn : a fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education (1st Currency paperback ed.). New York: Doubleday. Van Note Chism, N. (2006). Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning Spaces: Educause.