Implementing an outcomes approach to postgraduate learning: An organisational learning framework

Introduction

In responding to these challenges individual schools face strategic decisions about their own responses to the burgeoning options for technologically mediated delivery. To a large degree, in the Australian context, schools have faced these decisions "alone". The decisions they make are strategic decisions about the change process they themselves engage with. The decision by some schools to engage with technologically mediated learning delivery implies that the school will embark on a major learning journey itself.

Background

Organisational learning then supports the organisation's purpose, is shared among its members and the outcomes in the form of organisational knowledge and process become embedded in the systems and culture of the organisation (Snyder & Cummings, 1998).

In Figure 1 below an outline of the organisational learning cycle is derived:

Figure 1. Derived from Snyder & Cummings (1998) and Crossan, Lane & White (1999)

Crossan et al argue that organisational learning is multilevel (individual, group/team and organisation) and these must be linked through social processes and actions. This is illustrated in Table 1 below.

Crossan et al point out that cognition and action are interrelated in organisational learning, a position supported in alternative learning frameworks such as action learning. For example, Revans notes "learning is best achieved by people with similar problems working together as 'comrades in adversity' " (see Mumford 1997, p4).

In the interrelation of cognition and action, context is important. Crossan et al emphasise "communities of practice" (1999, p7). Brown and Duguid (1996) argue that the "central issue in learning (in the workplace) is becoming a practitioner not learning about practice" (p69); they make a strong case, based on a series of case studies, for the central place of context in learning.

Thus, learning in the context of the work place necessarily involves practice and is facilitated by "a community of practice" where interaction both stimulates and authenticates that learning.

Case study

This case study encompasses the processes of learning associated with the School's response to the potential of the Internet as a medium to facilitate learning.

The approach taken is to look first at the documentary record held by the School to determine the "documented history" of the development. A focus group was then held with staff involved in the process. The objective of the focus group was to identify what, for the professionals involved, were the key steps in the process, in a retrospective analysis and without access to the historical record. The focus group also asked staff to outline the impact they perceived on their professional practice.

The "history" of the learning (from the documentary record)

Stage 1:

Discussion:

The dialogue established among practitioners in this case led to individual recognition; "pattern identification/solution possibilities".

Stage 2:

Discussion:

Stage 3:

Discussion:

Stage 4:

Discussion:

Focus group

1. What were the steps in the organisational learning process as viewed retrospectively?
2. What has been the impact for each of those involved in the full process on their own professional practice.

The next point recognised was a 1999 Staff seminar with Centre for Educational Advancement (CEA) staff following the success of the LEAP application. Staff recalled that this covered a range of educational theory (including Bloom's taxonomy) and "sensitised us to the need to develop outcomes".

Staff recalled that there was then a subsequent staff seminar. This presentation deliberately avoided description of alternatives and a new paradigm was presented. Rob Baker presented the School of Education 'outcomes' as information. "At this time we had committed to 'outcomes' for the MBA (May 10, 2000).

The staff recalled this was followed by a "session in the strategic decision laboratory" and involved three iterations "to get the MBA outcomes list". It was noted that when Margaret Nowak applied the "outcomes" to a specific unit and suggested a gap appeared at the application phase, viz "knowledge outcomes", that was when we "reviewed and finalised" seven overarching outcomes.

Adoption:

"Leap pushed it along, made it happen".

Discussion

The interpretation phase for those staff involved clearly focussed around a seminar which advanced a number of aspects of educational theory as background to a strategic move to mixed mode learning.

Integration appears to have commenced subsequently at the point where "a new paradigm was presented" and continued in the following iterations.

Implementation for the group can be interpreted as occurring at around the point where a trial on one unit led to modification. At this point the outcomes were an integrated part of the organisation product.

Conclusions

Weick and Westley argue "learning moments and spaces tend not to be obvious precisely because they retain vestiges of order, routine and expected exploitation ... what keeps them from being nothing but business as usual ... is the uncovering of forgotten meaning, hints at flaws or limits in current practice" (1996 p450/1). The experience of this case study accords with a process which is 'unplanned' and opportunistic.

How do staff perceive practice has been impacted?
The regime as it is experienced by students has been changed as a result; for example, reassessment of the value of closed book exams has occurred and questioning of the volume of material delivered is now important in staff decision making.

However two other important issues raised by staff can be summarised as:

1. the process has helped to develop staff sensitivity to general issues of educational practice in a way which should continue to reverberate in new insights;

2. the approach provides a rationale for decisions about delivery and content which can be conveyed to students.

References

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. & White, R. E. (1999). An organisational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3) pp522-537.

Mumford, A. (1997). Action learning as a vehicle for learning. In Mumford, A. (Ed), Action Learning at Work. Gower, London, pp3-24.

Snyder-William, M. & Cummings-Thomas, G. (1998). Organisation learning disorders: Conceptual model and intervention hypotheses. Human Relations, 51(7), 873-895.

Spady, W. G. (1994). Choosing outcomes of significant. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 18-23.

Weick, K. E. & Westley, F. (1996). Organisational learning: Affirming an oxymoron. In Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C. & Nord, W. R. (Eds), Handbook of Organisational Studies. Sage Publications, London.

Appendix A

• "Assessment has to be reconsidered; does it match outcomes for graduate students? It has led to a move away from closed book exams to other forms of assessment".

• Led to a re-evaluation of what I am doing and how the learning outcomes relate to that; this includes looking at assessment.

• Students have got to become comfortable with technology because technology is at the centre of one of our outcomes. This means we should not overreact to complaints about online learning, but hold our nerve and explain.

• What we are about is more than just 3 hours a week - much more than just a 3 hour lecture.

• Thus students will find our use of technology in learning useful, even where they have problems (eg. in the pilot study).

• We link outcomes to what we can delivery. Potential future students can focus on outcomes.

• Serves as a model. We should be relevant, applied and practical. This raises the issue, how much content? Focus on outcomes assists me answer that question.

• What am I doing in class and why? Outcomes approach guides me in those decisions.