Double Loop Learning

Abstract

Double-loop learning is a teaching technique that asks learners to think about their foundational knowledge, assumptions, and beliefs. This educational technique is designed to help students to think through their biases and the ways that they have been taught in the past. By participating in double loop learning, students aim to question their own assumptions, as well as those of their teachers, textbooks, and society. From this questioning, teachers encourage their students to develop a more enlightened and inclusive mindset that opens up new possibilities for learning, peace making, and inclusive society.

Overview

Double-loop learning was developed in 1977 by Chris Argyris, a professor at the Harvard Business School and a thought leader at the Monitor Group. Argyris coined the term “double-loop learning” as a response to what he called “single-loop learning.” In single-loop learning, students build upon their preexisting behavior and knowledge. According to Argyris, students in single-loop learning are continuing to reinforce the assumptions of what they have learned or thought in the past. While they are advancing their knowledge about a specific subject, that advancement may only be coming from apposition of bias, privilege, or other type of one-sided education. Double-loop learning was designed in response to this, by asking students to question the foundations of their knowledge.

The primary goal of double-loop learning is to change the student or stakeholder’s pre-existing tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is the type of information that is difficult to state concisely, hard to pin down into a definition, and even harder to prove. Sometimes tacit knowledge can be a set of skills, but often it is made up of the ideas that a person holds and the experiences that created those ideas.

Explicit knowledge is information that can be directly and clearly stated. At times this is a verbal process, in others it is written or drawn knowledge. The goal of double-loop learning is to transfer the tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and then question that knowledge. This is done through an inquiry-based pedagogy, which asks students to think through their assumptions, experiences, and base knowledge on a topic. As they do so, students are asked to pay attention to the positions which they take on a subject and why they are taking those positions. Teachers are tasked with noting when students take a position based on the argument, “We’ve always done it like that.” This type of argument, which is an appeal to tradition fallacy, signals that a student is relying on tacit information. When a piece of tacit information is revealed, a teacher might want to redirect the conversation immediately. Or, the teacher might choose to wait for another conversation that can look deeper in to this assumption of tradition.

When using double-loop learning, teacher and discussion leaders must be ready to guide the entire conversation. They should note that these are at times individual conversations to have. Many students are unprepared to address their assumptions and tacit knowledge. Some will feel that they have been put on the spot, or are being accused of being biased when they are asked to think about their tacit knowledge. Other students may welcome the conversations, yet still be nervous because they do not have the vocabulary to participate in the discussion. Sometimes, however, students will be very excited to discuss their tacit knowledge and will eagerly engage in the discussion. When this happens, many teachers are tempted to just let students direct the conversation. This is a good response, though the teacher needs to stay involved enough to note other areas of tacit knowledge that might be overlooked by the students and to ensure that all students are able to participate in the conversation. When used in a workplace, this method has led to increased productivity (McClory, Read & Labib, 2017) and better appreciation of co-workers. This success occurs because co-workers are able to find common ground through their conversations and are better able to understand the perspectives of their co-workers.

Further Insights

Developers of educational games and activities are very interested in the differentiation between single and double-loop learning. They expect that if a game can achieve double-loop learning that it will provide superior outcomes than that of a single-loop learning game. Yet, providing this experience is difficult in an online or game based environment. Hwang and Wang (2016) discussed this problem in their study of educational computer games for learning English vocabulary. In this test, students tried out a game that provided either multiple-choice quizzes (single-loop) activities or detailed sets of information, background, and review (double-loop). The research team found that when using the single-loop game, students did not review materials that would help them to do better; they just continued to choose options from the set of multiple choices. However, when participating in the double-loop game, students reviewed the necessary materials, examined their answers, and had more correct answers. From this study, Hwang and Wang suggest that educational games are a location that is well suited for double-loop learning.

Similarly, Sung, Hwang, Wu, and Lin (2017) examined the ways that students use science games and 3D tools to problem solve using a double-loop methodology This study focused on sixth grade students who were learning about geoscience. In the experiment, students were split into two groups. One group played a game with very limited outcomes on conventional technology. The second group played a 3D experiential game that required that they problem-solve. In the second group, students showed improvements in developing new learning strategies and learning the geoscience data required for their class. This finding suggests that double-loop learning, achieved through a 3D experiential game, is possible.

Scholars of double-loop learning have begun considering ways to advance the learning strategy. They have called their new advancement “triple-loop” learning. This triple-loop is found in the small parts of the double-loop. This is when a large question is posed to a learner, and then broken down into many different parts, each deserving of a detailed investigation. Those smaller investigations are the triple-loop. Scholars such as Williams and Brown (2018) have examined the ways that decision makers have used the triple-loop in their decision making processes. They argue that decision making is an unpredictable process, especially when a double-loop process is used, and even more unpredictable when a triple-loop learning process is involved. To help reduce uncertainty, and to think through this process, Williams and Brown examined the ways that decisions are made about environmental problems and diagramed the decision-making processes. From these diagrams, they demonstrated the challenges to decision making and the ways that discussion leaders can prepare for those challenges by understanding how past conversations have progressed and have been completed. By streamlining the decision-making process, Williams and Brown argue that participants in a discussion will feel that their participation has been valuable and that successful results have been reached. Based on these successes, they will be encouraged to participate in future discussions, possibly using a double-loop method.

Applications

Double-loop learning has been used in many different fields. One is in the field of leadership training, which prepares both public servants and private corporate officers to lead in their organizations. Students of leadership are first taught about double-loop learning and then encouraged to use this technique in their own work as a way to encourage transformation among the communities and employees that they manage. Through double-loop learning, leaders are able to dig deeply into the assumptions of their employees. This process of investigation allows for a discussion of how employees came to have specific beliefs, understandings, and assumptions.

While many double-loop conversations occur in face-to-face discussions it is possible to also have this type of education through e-mails or social media platforms. In a study of social media posts and discussions, Reddick, Chatfield, and Ojo (2017) examined the ways that public servants use Facebook, and how double-loop learning could assist in the leadership and educational experiences for this group. They found that social media sites such as Facebook could be sufficient platforms for discussions that use a double-loop methodology.

Much of the literature about double-loop learning addresses older students and adults who are engaged in educational and leadership opportunities. This is because double-loop learning is designed to address assumptions that are held by the individual, and it takes a long time to build up the tacit information that this technique addresses. However there are efforts to ensure that double-loop learning makes its way into the K-12 classroom. One attempt is through teacher education. Peeters and Robinson (2015) examined the ways that teachers’ professional development sessions could serve as a time to use double-loop learning. These researchers argued that teachers hold assumptions which need to be addressed—particularly the assumption which they have about their students, each student’s home life, their potential for learning, and the best way to address each student’s needs. Using a double-loop learning strategy, the researchers suggest that teachers should be trained to reflect on their own mistakes, or times when they did not achieve their goals for a lesson or class. Then, focusing on how to prevent that mistake in the future, teachers should explore the learning techniques and assumptions that led them to create the failed activity. Like many of the authors who study double-loop learning, Peeters and Robinson warn that teachers are often hesitant to participate in this activity. They do not want to admit or talk about when they are wrong or how their lesson might have gone well. Yet, if they are able to do so in a supportive and safe environment, it may be possible for them to improve their techniques and prevent mistakes in the future.

Terms & Concepts

Appeal to Tradition Fallacy: An argument which is based on tradition, but does not have a logical backing or support. When using an appeal to tradition, the speaker argues that an idea or action is true or correct because it has always been true or correct.

Educational Games: Designed to be fun while meeting explicit learning objectives. Educational games have been developed in both face-to-face and computer mediated forms.

Explicit Knowledge: Ideas and information that can be articulated verbally, explained in writing, or visually represented.

Fallacy: An unsound or illogical argument. This argument can be persuasive but when analyzed will be found to be lacking in logical structure or supporting evidence.

Single-Loop Learning: A type of learning which builds upon preexisting ideas, values or beliefs and does not question that preexisting knowledge.

Tacit Knowledge: Knowledge which is difficult to articulate. This information is known by an individual but has been collected through an assortment of activities and experiences without clear understanding or careful examination.

Triple-Loop Learning: When using a double-loop learning methodology, the instructor may indicate many different areas, or subsets, which warrant their own investigations and discussions. The investigation of these subsets as part of a larger discussion is called triple-loop learning.

Bibliography

Gynther, K., & Jørnø, R. (2017). A double-loop learning model for user-involved implementation of learning platforms (LMS) in schools. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, 169–177. Retrieved January 1, 2019 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=126280669&site=ehost-live

Hwang, G. J., & Wang, S. Y. (2016). Single loop or double loop learning: English vocabulary learning performance and behavior of students in situated computer games with different guiding strategies. Computers & Education, 102, 188–201. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=118813993&site=ehost-live

McClory, S., Read, M., & Labib, A. (2017). Conceptualizing the lessons-learned process in project management: Towards a triple-loop learning framework. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7), 1322–1335.

Peeters, A., & Robinson, V. (2015). A Teacher educator learns how to learn from mistakes: Single and double-loop learning for facilitators of in-service teacher education. Studying Teacher Education, 11(3), 213–227. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=110643937&site=ehost-live

Reddick, C. G., Chatfield, A. T., & Ojo, A. (2017). A social media text analytics framework for double-loop learning for citizen-centric public services: A case study of a local government Facebook use. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 110–125. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=121912677&site=ehost-live

Sung, H. Y., Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., & Lin, D. Q. (2018). Facilitating deep-strategy behaviors and positive learning performances in science inquiry activities with a 3D experiential gaming approach. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–21. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=132293361&site=ehost-live

Tagg, J. (2010). The learning-paradigm campus: From single- to double-loop learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2010(123), 51–61. Retrieved January 1, 2019 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=53916927&site=ehost-live

Williams, B. K., & Brown, E. D. (2018). Double-loop learning in adaptive management: The need, the challenge, and the opportunity. Environmental management, 62(6), 995–1006.

Suggested Reading

Noguera-Méndez, P., Molera, L., & Semitiel-García, M. (2016). The role of social learning in fostering farmers’ pro-environmental values and intentions. Journal of Rural Studies, 46, 81–92. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116764754&site=ehost-live

Reychav, I., Kumi, R., Sabherwal, R., & Azuri, J. (2016). Using tablets in medical consultations: Single loop and double loop learning processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 415–426. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=115493031&site=ehost-live

Rouse, W. B., Johns, M. M. E., & Pepe, K. M. (2017). Learning in the health care enterprise. Learning Health Systems, 1(4), 1–11. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=125725985&site=ehost-live

Sweeting, B. & Hohl, M. (2015). Exploring alternatives to the traditional conference format. Constructivist Foundations, 11(1), 1–7. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=113632074&site=ehost-live

Visser, M. (2017). Learning and unlearning: A conceptual note. Learning Organization, 24(1), 49–57. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=121240472&site=ehost-live