ABSTRACT
In Chapter 5 it was suggested that even in the processes of reflective learning a strong possibility exists that the outcome might be of a conformist nature since learners bring to every new situation their own biographies, which are social constructs. Hence, even the way in which individuals define a situation and the manner in which they think about it thereafter relates to aspects of their previous experience. As social beings, individuals are constrained by the very processes that have made them what they are. Consequently, the outcome of many, but not all, reflective learning experiences might be predictable. This is not a simple behaviourist type of solution, rather it recognises the reality that people live within a patterned society and that the nature of their own learning must necessarily reflect something of their previous experiences, even their mental experiences and cognitive processes. This is in accord with Argyris’s (1982, p. 88) single loop learning, which he claims functions within the constraints of the theory-in-use. However, this does not deny the possibility that innovative responses to a potential learning situation can occur, although it recognises that these might be less frequent than some educators might hope, because the plurality of interpretations of various phenomena suggests the possibility of new interpretations occurring and consequently new knowledge emerging. Hence, it is recognised from the outset of this chapter that there are at least two types of possible outcome to any reflective learning process: conformity and innovation. The use of these terms is similar to Botkin et al. (1979), who employ maintenance and innovation and to whom reference has already been made in Chapter 2. Throughout this chapter, conformity refers to those reflective learning processes that result in an outcome that does not greatly disturb the status quo within the social group or even the life world of the individual, whereas innovation is any learning process, the outcome of which is orientated towards changing some aspect of the situation or the life world of the individual. This does not mean that the conformist process is exactly the same as the processes discussed in the previous chapter, namely skills/practice and memorisation, but it does mean that new solutions are still reached from within a traditional framework, so that the fundamental structures of the life world or even of society are not disturbed. In this way it is similar to Argyris’s single loop learning, while innovation is actually a new way of looking at things and is similar to Argyris’s double loop learning. It is also recognised that at least two other possibilities exist: cognitive innovation but behavioural conformity and cognitive conformity but behavioural innovation; the former is probably more common than the latter.
