Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 697–713

Practicing What We Teach in Teaching Systems Practice: The Action–Learning Cycle

  • Bob Zimmer
Article

Abstract

Respect for autonomy is a powerful tool for managing complexity. It lets natural, mutually supportive order emerge. In Western culture, though, much order is imposed. This causes conflict, which only increases complexity. This conflictual pattern has an antidote in systems practice: the systemic action–learning cycle. When used reflectively at the level of second-order cybernetics, this cycle embodies respect for autonomy. The UK Open University course "T306: Managing Complexity—A Systems Approach" teaches this action–learning cycle, and uses the cycle in its own teaching. In particular, it uses the cycle in its online conferences, to invite participation and dissolve conflict. This paper shows how.

reflective practice respect for autonomy action–learning cycle first-order cybernetics second-order cybernetics third-order cybernetics online conferencing teaching and learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Cox, E. S., Clark, W., Heath, H., and Plumpton B. (2000). Herding cats through Piccadilly Circus: The critical role of the tutor in the student's online conferencing experience. Report No. 256, Centre for Information Technology in Education, Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Feenberg, A. (1989). The written world: On the theory and practice of computer conferencing. In Mason, R., and Kaye, A. (eds.), Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education, Pergamon Press, Oxford New York, pp. 22-39.Google Scholar
  3. Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher Effectiveness Training, Wyden, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Houston, G. (1995). The Now Red Book of Gestalt, 3rd ed., G. Houston, London.Google Scholar
  5. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  6. Nolan, V. (1987). Communication, Sphere Reference Books, London.Google Scholar
  7. Open University (2000). T306: Managing Complexity—A Systems Approach, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Rogers, C. (1962). The interpersonal relationship: The core of guidance. In Stewart, J. (ed.), Bridges Not Walls: A Book About Interpersonal Communication, Addison-Wesley, London, 1977, pp. 240-248. [Reprinted from Harvard Educ. Rev. 32(Fall), 416–429.]Google Scholar
  9. Rosenberg, M. (1999). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion, PuddleDancer Press, Del Mar, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Weick, K. E. (1996). Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Zimmer, B., and Alexander, G. (2000). Using Carl Rogers' communication principles to facilitate mutually supported learning online. Proceedings of the Online Tutoring Skills (OTiS)online conference, Heriot-Watt & Robert Gordon Universities, May (available online at http://otis.scotcit.ac.uk/casestudy/alphacs.htm).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bob Zimmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Educational TechnologyOpen UniversityMilton KeynesU.K.

Personalised recommendations