Triple loop learning explained
Triple loop learning is learning on three levels. In addition to the
'how' question (how can it be improved?) and the 'why' question (why did
I do things the way I did? What was the intention?).
In single
loop learning, knowledge and behavior are expanded by input from the
environment. More profound change also requires 'meta-learning', or
double loop learning, in which the frame of reference for the knowledge
itself is revised. That frame of reference consists of the
presuppositions, assumptions and attitudes on which our thinking and
construction are based.
Triple loop learning is not only about the rules and procedures (single loop learning) and about the underlying insights and your beliefs (double loop learning) but especially about your identity, your values and principles and your personal mission and vision. It therefore results not only in doing differently (improvement) but also in thinking differently (innovation) and 'being' different (presence, sustainability development). It therefore leads to an integration of skills, knowledge (at all levels – declarative, procedural and meta cognitive) and attitude (personality) and to the development of learning and self-managing capacity (who do I want to be and how do I get there?). And all of this always in relation to your own (professional) practice.
Triple loop learning and McClelland's iceberg
Triple loop learning can also be related to McClelland's iceberg on a personal and organizational level. This is shown on a personal level in the image below. Taken from: Bergenhenegouwen & Mooijman (2010).
And at the organizational level, this is similarly depicted in the image below. Taken from: Bergenhenegouwen & Mooijman (2010).
A practical example
In the following (fictitious) example, a school leader reflects on the developments at her school with regard to the analysis of the learning results of the pupils and on her own learning process.
The case:
Several
times a year we analyze the learning outcomes at our school. We notice
that some teachers do not always have the correct data and/or that they
sometimes do not know very well how to analyze and interpret the
learning outcomes of their group.
The school leader and the special needs coordinator intervene to improve the analysis procedure. In this intervention, the following single loop change process takes place.
Single loop:
We have modified the analysis procedure. The special needs coordinator now prints out the graphs and tables relevant to the teaching staff via the pupil monitoring system, so that everyone has the correct data. She then discusses the charts and tables of his or her class with each teacher.
The
analysis at school level is done by me and the special needs
coordinator. We then discuss our findings during a team meeting.
Explanation:
Single
loop learning takes place here . An attempt is made to improve the
quality of the analysis process by adjusting the working method. There
has been reflection and change at the level of procedures.
Double loop:
During
a lunch break, the special needs coordinator once spoke to a colleague
about the work pressure she experienced. The analysis of the learning
results went better with the new procedure, but she said that individual
assistance to the teachers during the analysis cost her an enormous
amount of time.
The
colleague indicated that the teachers really appreciate the individual
assistance of the special needs coordinator, but also wondered aloud
whether the working method could not be more efficient. In addition, she
noticed some unintended side effects. For example, because the special
needs coordinator now provides everything ready-made, the teachers
themselves do not learn to retrieve their data from the pupil monitoring
system. In her opinion, it would be worth considering making teachers
responsible again for collecting and interpreting the data relevant to
them and having them formulate follow-up actions on the basis of this.
Because some colleagues are not yet very skilled in this, it would be
good to do that per grade. Colleagues can then help each other and learn
from each other. The special needs coordinator could then be available
on call to provide support. After this, each teacher could outline his
or her findings and proposed actions in a subsequent team meeting. So
spoke the colleague.
The special
needs coordinator and her colleague introduced this proposal together
at a team meeting, where it was agreed by the team to experiment with
this working method.
After
we had worked in this way once, the evaluation showed that everyone was
very satisfied. Sometimes the teachers could not find a solution, but
then they could always call on the expertise of the special needs
coordinator. Colleagues indicated that because they were now more or
less forced to tackle things themselves, they were now much more aware
of the analysis and their follow-up actions were also much more
thoughtful and realistic. They indicated that they would like to expand
this working method to other subjects and/or issues.
Explanation:
This
is where double loop learning takes place. The purpose of the activity,
the collaborative process and the learning process are now being
considered at a meta-level. It is recognized that the joint analysis of
the learning results can also be used as a professionalization strategy
and that by making teachers responsible again, ownership is increased,
so that they can make better use of their professional space.
Consideration has also been given to transfer to other areas of
application. In addition to the level of procedures, there has now also
been reflection and change at the level of insights, which enabled
innovation to occur. It was no longer just about 'Are we doing things
right?' but also about 'Are we doing the right things right?'.
Double
loop learning is about insights at meta-level. In other words, insights
regarding knowledge and assumptions regarding learning processes,
collaborative processes, the intention and a possible transfer to other
areas of application, and not about knowledge and insights regarding
procedures aimed at solving the practical problem itself, as these are
part of learning. and change at the single loop level (improve).
Triple loop:
Because
of this development I realize that, albeit with the best of intentions,
I often give the teachers too little space to develop properly. I think
it's important that we do things well and efficiently. That is why the
special needs coordinator and I often did certain tasks quickly
ourselves. Then the teachers were relieved and we knew for sure that it
was done properly. I have now become aware that this is not good. I
therefore want to give my teachers more opportunity to use their
professional space, so that they can continue to develop. By working
together in a professional learning community, they can learn a lot from
each other.
I
now try more and more often, together with the special needs
coordinator, to act much more as a 'critical friend'. For example, by
asking provocative questions about the 'why' of certain proposed or
undertaken interventions. As a result, I can often make them think very
focused.
Because we can still offer support as a critical friend, we regularly discuss our expectations with each other in the team and, because teachers share their findings and insights with us and each other, we keep an eye on the quality of the primary process. So I don't feel like I'm completely 'letting them go'. It's more that I support them differently now. Because I now know that the quality of the process is good, I have also learned to trust the outcome.
Explanation:
Triple
loop learning takes place here . The school leader has become aware of
the importance of giving professional space and trust and wants to act
sincerely on this. This is a reflection and change at the level of
principles, values and beliefs and it can lead to a sustainable change
because of the intrinsic motivation.
Bibliography
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Bergenhenegouwen, G., & Mooijman, E. (2010). Strategisch opleiden en leren in organisaties. Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers.
McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for ‘intelligence’. American Psychologist, 28(1), 1-14.
McClelland, D. (1980). Opportunities for counselors from the competency assessment movement. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 58(5), 368-372.
Ruijters, M. (2006). Liefde voor leren: Over diversiteit van leren en ontwikkelen in en van organisaties. Deventer: Kluwer.
Senge, P., Scharmer, O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. (2011). Presence: een ontdekkingsreis naar diepgaande verandering in mensen en organisaties. Amsterdam: Boom Uitgevers.
Wierdsma, A., & Swieringa, J. (2011). Lerend organiseren en veranderen: Als meer van hetzelfde niet helpt. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers.