This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 30 October 2014, At: 15:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Agricultural Education and ExtensionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Developing ‘reflective’ development practitionersthrough an action-learning curriculum: problems andchallenges in a South African contextS. Luckett a & K. Luckett aa University of Natal , P/B X01, Scottsville, 3209, South Africa E-mail:Published online: 30 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: S. Luckett & K. Luckett (1999) Developing ‘reflective’ development practitioners through an action-learning curriculum: problems and challenges in a South African context, The Journal of Agricultural Education andExtension, 6:3, 171-188, DOI: 10.1080/13892249985300311

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892249985300311

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Luckett & Luckett

Developing 'reflective' development practitioners through an action-learning curriculum: problems and challenges in a South African context

S. Luckett* & K. Luckett*

Abstract

The paper begins by looking at the 'context of practice': the pmgrammes of the SRCD are briefly described and even more briefly the dominant (global) socio-economic trends as they impact on ours and other tertiary institutions. Because it is important in order to make sense of the programme we then attempt to provide a detailed profile of our students. The central questions with which we grapple, viz., the problems encountered in the curriculum activities designed to enable students to gain competence in 'soft' systems thinking and learning to learn, are dealt with in the sections 'The Programme', 'The Results' and 'Bad practice, bad theory, or both'. In the first of these we give a very brief overview of Kolb's learning theory and Checkland's SSM and then show how the two can be (theoretically) integrated - Checkland's learning system is embedded in Kolb's learning cycle (LC). In the next section we report on an evaluation of the programme from the student's perspective. And then, finally, we discuss the shortcomings of Kolb's theory in our context as well as our use of Checkland's SSM. Our critique of Kolb is central to the entire endeavour, because his theory of experiential learning provides the theoretical underpinning of our curriculum development endeavour. In the final section we make some suggestions for a way forward based on our critique. JAgr Educ Ext (1999, 6. 3, pp 171-188)

Introduction

In this paper we discuss one aspect of action- research in curriculum development undertaken by academic staff of the School of Rural Community Development (SRCD) and facilitated by a staff development practitioner at the University of Natal 1. The curriculum outcomes explicitly taught for/ facilitated were (a) the use of participatory methodologies, (b) oral and written communication, (c) project implementation, development and monitoring, (d) the use of 'soft' systems thinking 2, and (e) learning to learn, i.e., becoming an autonomous self-reflective learner. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the problems we encountered in the curriculum activities designed for students to achieve learning outcomes (d) & (e). Our rationale behind teaching for these two outcomes was the formation of 'reflective-practitioners' in rural

development. In our view, central to this process of formation is apracticum (Schon, 1983) where students try out the skills and theory learnt in a classroom situation and reflect on the theories as well as on their own learning processes. The theories relevant to these two outcomes are Kolb's experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Cheekland, 1981, Checkland & Scholes, 1990). In our curriculum we integrated Kolb's learning cycle (LC) and Checkland's learning system. Thus the problems encountered lie at three different levels, viz., (i) the use of Kolb's LC, (ii) the use of Checkland's SSM, and (iii) the integration of the two. However, central to the exercise is Kolb's LC because in our theory and (curriculum) practice we have embedded SSM into the LC and therefore our critique of the curriculum theory and practice focuses on Kolb. This critique makes use of insights from Situated Learning Theory (SLT) as well as port-modern perspectives on 'knowledge'.

* University of Natal, P/B X01, Seottsville 3209, South Africa, luckett@sred.tmp.ae.za

171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

The Context of Practice

The SRCD of the University of Natal, Pieter- maritzburg, was set up in 1992 as an initiative by the University to address rural community development needs in Southern Africa through research, education and 'extension'/development activities. The aim of its formal education programmes is to develop professional rural development practitioners at different levels.

At present the SRCD offers multiple entry-exit programmes at Certificate, Diploma and Degree levels in Rural Resource Management through the faculties of Agriculture and Social Science. The Certificate is a one year distance education programme for people who are living and working in rural areas. Entrance requirements are the equivalent of a Std. 9 (Grade 11) together with experience with organisations in rural development. The Certificate also functions as an alternative access route into the Diploma which is a normal class-based undergraduate programme which students can complete within two years. After completing the Diploma students may do an additional year to obtain either a B.Social Science or a B. Agriculture (Rural Resource Management). Both the Diplomas and the Degrees are interdisciplinary programmes with a content mix of agriculture, sociology, organisation management and 'extension' methodologies and tools. All the modules are fully semesterised and for the most part students are assessed in the conventional way, i.e., they are required to write assignments or tests for the required class mark as well as write unseen exams at the end of each semester.

However, the core modules, (in Rural Resource Management), throughout the Diploma/Degree programmes have a have a strong focus on experiential learning and it is with three of these modules (Rural Resource Management 312, 330 & 340) that this paper is concerned. All three of these are third (i.e., degree) year level modules.

For the purposes of our later analysis, we need to go beyond the everyday description of the curriculum given above and try to characterise the theories of learning and knowledge which underpin it. At this stage we will characterise the context of the traditional university in general, and later, when discussing the specific methodology of the Rural Resource Management

curriculum, we will show how we attempted to base our own practice on alternative theories of learning and knowledge, following Kolb (1984). But, inevitably, the wider context of practice, the university's curriculum policies, frameworks and practices, influence and shape our specific 'alternative' curriculum endeavours.

Although now under threat by instrumentalist, market-driven discourses, the dominant discourse of the university has traditionally been liberal- humanism based on a view of individuals as self- actualising and self-liberating through the power of human reason. Linked to this, the university espouses a theory of equal opportunity, but in practice, particularly in a First-Third World context such as South Africa, there are numerous economic, social, cultural, educational and psychological barriers to access by non- traditional students (see student profile below). The dominant (and usually implicit) theory of learning in the university is based on traditional cognitive theory. This is a rationalist and mentalist model in which learning is understood to happen inside the minds of individuals and most significant learning is assumed to take place within the formal education system. Learning is viewed as a process of accumulation and internalisation of knowledge (entities) which are deposited and stored, to be retrieved at a later date. The process of internalisation is understood to involve the building of cognitive structure by the individual learner so that structures of reality become represented in the mind. This theory of learning is based on a rationalist epistemology which believes that beneath the 'mess' of reality, universal structures (truth) can be revealed by a process of rational, detached and impersonal interpretation (e.g. the scientific method). Knowledge is therefore understood as free- standing, decontextualised, propositional and hierarchically pre-classified and structured by the academic disciplines. This epistemology means that there can be limited negotiation of learning needs, for learning is a given, long-term accumulation process. This paradigm privileges universal, abstract, 'objective' and theoretical knowledge over individual experience. According to Usher & Johnston (1996), this paradigm seldom values experience for its own sake, but rather uses it as a bridge to conventional disciplinary learning or as a means of providing 'helpful' attitudes and motivations. Experience is only valued when, through 'critical distance', it is

172

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

detached from its origins and context, and analysed from within the epistemologies of the disciplines. In this sense, the university only values experience when it is transformed into knowledge which it can recognise from within its own frameworks, discourses and epistemologies.

Student profile The students in the Certificate are all from black rural communities in KwaZulu-Natal of whom approximately 80% are male. The Diploma and Degree students are predominantly from rural or peri-urban areas of KwaZulu-Natal. There is also a smattering of students from further afield: Eastern Cape, Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Northern Province as well as from Zimbabwe and Tanzania. The male: female ratio in the present cohort of third year students is approximately 60:40. As the Diploma/Degree has become better known, the intake has become more diverse: an increasing number of young students (17-22 yrs), students from metropolitan areas, from other provinces and a greater female participation rate. Generally, the students on the programme have a strong commitment to rural development however, there are some in the programme who see it as a route into 'preferred' programmes (especially B.Sc. or B.Sc. Agric.) but who have not been admitted into these because of inappropriate matriculation subjects and/or matriculation results.

What follows is a caricature of our students as learners, based on our own experience and observations rather than on empirical research. As implied above, the majority of learners on our programme are adults from low soeio-economic status communities, who speak English as a second (or third) language and who have suffered a disadvantaged schooling. The effect of this kind of backgrotmd means that as learners they typically display the following characteristics: - low levels of English language proficiency as a

result of subtractive, rather than additive bilingual policies in the education system (Luckett, 1993)

- low levels of'cognitive development' - few have reached cognitive academic language proficiency (Cummins, 1996) in English, and some not even in their first language; resulting in limited competence in manipulating abstract, decontextualised, propositional knowledge

- discontinuity between their own languages, cultures and primary discourses (acquired

Luckett & Luckett

during primary socialisation) and the dominant culture of the university and the secondary academic discourses which they are expected to master

- the above often leads to low self-esteem, a lack of confidence in themselves as learners, a sense of alienation from the 'mainstream' and assent to the devaluing and dismissal of the experiences and 'cultural capital' which they bring, as being inappropriate for university study

- all this is underpinned by a tacit view of knowledge (acquired from an authoritarian schooling system and often reinforced by the university) as fixed, given, reified and authoritative, ( 'owned by them and needed by us'), with little understanding of its socially constructed, contested and interested nature

- this results in desperate learning strategies such as rote learning, plagiarism and an inability to develop an authorial voice in written work.

However, typical learners on our programme also demonstrate the following strengths: - multilingualism (usually only to the level of

basic inter-communicative skills (Cummins, 1996))

- a rich but un-theorised knowledge of the communities in which they will practice as mml development practitioners

- a strong sense of community and collective identity which lends itself to group and collaborative work

- a commilment to improving the lot of the rural poor.

T h e p r o g r a m m e

Within the context of practice out-lined above, we deliberately sought to develop an alternative curriculum, based on an experiential theory of learning and an epistemology ofpraxis. We believed that such a curriculum would be more likely to develop 'reflective' development practitioners and we hoped that it would to some extent build on our students' strengths and help to overcome some of their weaknesses out-lined above.

A modular structure for experiential learning. For RRM 312, we developed experiential teaching/learning activities whilst the RRM330 and RRM340 modules are entirely experientially based. RRM 312 is run inthe first semester as a

173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

preparatory (and therefore prerequisite) module for RRM 330 & 340, which are run together as one course in the newly established Winter semester. This involves a community placement over a period of six weeks. During this placement students are expected to use soft systems (as understood in Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology, outlined below) andproject development tools in collaboration with community-based organisations to enable these organisations run activities (e.g. implement projects, change organisational structures) which will lead to improvement in their situation (a goal of Soft Systems Methodology). RRM312 (together with earlier second-level modules) prepare students for this community placement through the introduction of: - Class-based exercises in experiential learning; - Kolb's learning cycle (LC) - Participatory methodologies (e.g., PRA, RRA,

PAR) & tools; - Soft systems methodology (SSM) - Project planning and development; and, most importantly by, - Enabling the students to spend a week with

their host organisations to begin to familiarise themselves with the issues and problems in these communities (after which they are also expected to draw a rich picture of the situation)

Curriculum methodology We referred earlier to the aim of forming 'reflective-practitioners' and the key role of the practicum in the curriculum process. We will now elaborate on the experiential methodology underlying this curriculum The curriculum attempts to integrate Kolb's LC and SSM, following the curriculum theory and practice developed at the University of Western Sydney (Hawkesbury) developed by Richard Bawden and his colleagues (Bawden, 1995), (Paekham et al. 1989), (Wilson, 1992).

K o l b

Building on Dewey (1938), Lewin (1951), Piaget (1971) and Freire (1974), Kolb (1984: 25ff) summarizes his understanding of experiential learning and knowledge in the following six propositions (1984:38): 1 Learning is best conceived as aprocess, and not in terms of outcomes; 2 Learning is a continuous process grounded in experience;

174

3 The process of learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed modes of adaptation to the world;: 4 Learning is an holisticprocess of adaptation to the world; 5 Learning involves transactions between the person and the environment; 6 Learning is the process of creating knowledge.

Kolb defines learning as 'the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience' (1984:38). He further defines two kinds of knowledge: personal knowledge which results from this transformation and social knowledge which is the socially and culturally transmitted network of words, symbols and images. However, Kolb is quick to assert that even social knowledge does not exist independently of the knower because these knowledges are continually recreated in the learner's experience, either through concrete interaction with the environment or through the media of language and symbol (1984:105). It is these notions of knowledge as process, grounded in experience, and requiring the resolution of dialectically opposed modes of learning which form the basis of the RRM programme. In his work, Kolb focuses his attention on learning styles and on a structural theoretical foundation for these learning styles 3. Both the notions of learning styles and the LC are based on the theory that learning is rooted in two dialectic processes involving four modes of learning: - concrete experience (CE) <-> abstract conceptualisation (AC); - reflective observation (RO) <-> active experimentation (AE). In Diagram 1, the two dialectics are represented as two axes on a plane and the various knowledge forms as quadrants formed by the intersection of these axes.

For Kolb the first dialectic is the process of 'grasping or taking hold of experience in the world' which he calls prehension and the second is the process of transformation of the prehension. Knowledge, therefore, is the result of the combination of the two (dialectic) processes, i.e., 'grasping' the world and transforming that 'grasp' of the world. The combination of these two dialectics results in four different kinds of knowledge. Kolb also proposes four basic learning styles depending on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Luckett & Luckett

Diagram 1: Kolb's Knowledge forms.

A.C.

Assimilative knowledge

Convergent knowledge

R,O,

e -

prehen 5ion

Divergent knowledge

Accommodative knowledge

C.E.

the tendencies or preferences of learners towards the acquisition of knowledge. Individuals therefore display 'preferred learning styles' as given in table 1. The learning cycle moves through the phases: divergence, assimilation, convergence and accommodation 4. In RRM312, students introduced to the characteristics of the different learning styles and to help them think about their own preferred learning styles they are also required to complete a learning styles questionnaire developed by Honey and Mumford (1986). However, it must be emphasized that students are told to treat the outcome of the questionnaire with some caution and they are asked to test this against their own experience 5.

A.E,

S S M SSM is a form of systems thinking 7. Systems thinking is an extremely diverse phenomenon, but common to these different approaches is the attempt to view the problem or issue being studied holistically, i.e., relationships between 'things' is more important than the analytical reduction of these 'things' (which is the normal scientific approach). Although there is no generally agreed definition of systems thinking, we find the definition proposed by Cheekland and Scholes (1990), to be sufficiently broad and yet specific enough to be useful:

[A system is] an image or metaphor o f an adaptive whole, which may be able to survive in a changing environment. To make mental use o f that image is to do systems thinking (1990:19)

Table 1

Combinations of the dialectics

Concrete Experience & Reflective Observation

Reflective Observation & Abstract Conceptualisation

Abstract Conceptualisation & Active Experimentation

Active Experimentation & Concrete Experience

Kinds of knowledge

Divergent

Assimilative

Convergent

Accommodative

Learning styles 6

Diverger (reflector)

Assirnilato (theorist)

Converger (pragmatist)

Accommodator (activist)

175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

There are also commonly accepted formal systems concepts such as purpose, environment, boundary, hierarchy, emergence, feedback, communication and control s. A major division in systems thinking is between hard systems thinking and soft systems thinking 9. The distinction is perhaps best elucidated in the different aims of the two approaches. In the case of the former, the aim is to improve knowledge about the world (read: problem area) by building (formal, representative) models of the world, whilst the aim of soft systems thinking is to improve a situation through the facilitation of an enquiry process involving reflection and (well- structured) debate. SSM, as a variant of soft systems thinking, is summarized by yon Bulow, quoted in Checldand and Scholes, as:

A methodology that aims to bring about improvement in areas o f social concern by activating in the people involved in the situation

a learning cycle which is ideally never-ending. The learning takes place through the iterative process o f using systems concepts to reflect upon and debate perceptions o f the real world, and again reflecting on the happenings using systems concepts (1990:28) Checkland's original SSM methodology (Checkland, 1981) is depicted in diagram 2.

Phase 1 - the systems practitioner enters an ill- defmedproblematic situation. SSM is a process for improving ill-defined situations. It may be no more than an expression of unease by the client and normally the values and goals are not articulated at the outset. Phase 2 - through a process of enquiry, usually through semi-structured interviews and interest groups, the systems practitioner is able to draw a rich-picture. This is a symbolic picture which depicts the key actors (and other elements) and

Diagram 2: The SSM Methodology.

176

~1. The p r o b l e m ~ / 7 . ACt to improve t~"~h ~F..... ~ : ~ t n u r e d S ( pr°blem situati°n~/ i~ ~

\

~(r ic 2. Express the problem situation h picturing)

SCompare s y s t ~ s ~ ~

l ( models with problem

J

f

REAL WORLD

SYSTEMS THINKING

%

4[ "4 I

I I . . . . . . . .

~ Other systems B •

[Formal system'4, ~ thinking Innncent~ i ,, ,,

• S • s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Luckett & Luckett

the relationships between them. The picture also attempts to capture attitudes and values. On the basis of discussions (with stakeholders) around the picture problems are isolated and articulated. Phases 1 & 2 are real world activities in the sense that work is done with stakeholders, and the interviewing is around the immediate contextual concerns and the rich-picturing attempts to depict the relationships as they exist in the world, which the practitioner is attempting to understand. Phase 3 - in this phase the practitioner withdraws from the real world and generates root definitions (RDs) of systems which are relevant to the identified problems. The RD is, in essence, the description of a transformation process (T) which will improve the situation l°. Usually a few RDs are developed around different perspectives on the purpose of the system. To be useful a RD must satisfy certain criteria (which, for considerations of space, cannot be gone into here). Phase 4 - Formal systems models, logically contingent on the RDs, are constructed. The model is an account of the activities, and the

relationships between them, necessary to make the system work. Phase 5 - The practitioner re-enters the real world and uses the constructed models to generate discussion about present activities; the practitioner does not to impose a model which as been developed on the real world (i.e., on an organisation etc.).

Models are only a means to an end, which is to have a well-structured and coherent debate about a problematical situation in order to decide how to improve it. (Checkland and Scholes, 1990) 11

Phases 6 & 7 - the discussion generated in the comparison stage should lead to decisions (by the clients and other relevant stakeholders) about changes 12 which could be brought about to improve the problem situation.

Integrating SSM & Kolb's LC

Precisely because it is an iterative learning process, SSM lends itself to integration with Kolb's LC. Following the Hawkesbury model, Kolb's LC and Checkland's SSM are integrated as depicted in diagram 3 below.

Diagram 3: SSM Learning Cycle.

--.. R.O. F2" Expressin~ I ~ ~bns (3 . Generating roo~ 4 ~ ~ : " [ I ~ L'h situation--,/pictu~~tX

* f 1. Finding out i ~ ~ n / r ~ | unstructured

//4. Conceptually ~1 ~ problem situation ) [ modelling the I ~ - - J [ systems implied by /i ~ root def ine.. ..../~.. CE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , : , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

/

I models with / k~.~ision s // L problem situati~ f,~. Debating-&~ -'~-=-- f

" A [ deciding \ / " / desirable, feasible\ / [ 8t defensible [ I~. changes ~ /

=

A.E. 177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal o f Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

Students' Prac t i cum In the RRM curriculum students are involved in community internships in order to engage with the community in 'situation improving activities' following the process as set out in Diagram 3. This process can be seen as involving two aspects: a) Building a relationship of trust with key

people in the community. The first step in this stage is to identify the communities. This is done either by the students themselves (as many of them come from rural communities and want to work in these communities) or, by the SRCD. An SRCD field worker then visits all the communities and makes the first 'official' contact with the relevant community organisations, explaining the project and securing the organisations' consent. This is followed up by short visits (during the Easter vacation or over a week-end) from the students to these communities. During these visits the students explain what they hope to achieve and negotiate a 'learning contract' with the communities. Finally this contract, which includes community and student expectations as well as an agreement as to how costs are going to be covered, is finalised before the official placement. The first week of the placement is also usually taken up with meetings in the community to introduce the students. It is important to note that the building of relationships is an ongoing activity. The students are continually being assessed and judged by communities; it is therefore important that the students establish their credibility by undertaking (some) tasks which community members see as important or urgent, even though these may not have

b) been part of the original contract. The situation improving activities undertaken by the students. The first phase, 'finding out' or exploring a 'problem situation' is done in the community with community members in a variety of 'problematic situations' (the problem of unemployed youth in a village, a dysfunctional community garden, a lack of structure of a community organisation, etc.) using a range of PRA techniques together and/or a 'multi-perspective' analysis 13. Community members' opinions are obtained through semi-structured interviews, focus groups, community meetings as well as informal discussions at water points and taxi ranks and while doing transect walks. On the basis of their findings they are then expected to develop 'rich pictures' which they discuss with key people in the community 14 (phase 2). They then attempt to generate both task-based and issue-based root definitions 15 (phase 3) and construct the systems models implied by these root definitions (phase 4). Because of the technical nature of the tasks during phases 3 &4, students do not work with members of community organisations when carrying out these tasks. However, once the models have been constructed, students are expected to discuss the implications for activities implied by these models with key stakeholders in the community (phase 5). This is done by using a tabular matrix format that lists the activities and the connections between them and provides a scaffolding for a discussion which compares the activities implied by the model with present activities. A generic matrix format is given in the following table:

Activity implied by the model

(Use a verb to describe "what" this activity is)

Exists or not at present?

(can a similar activity be identified in the situation, or can a. "how ' be identified, which is a how of the 'what' of the column on the left)

Present process/ mechanism

(describe the existing 'how')

Measure of performance

(develop criteria for evaluating the present process and assess this process using the criteria.)

Proposed change13?

(necessary changes to improve the situation - are they: systemically desirable? culturally feasible? ethically defensible?)

Comments/ concerns

(evidence concerning the present 'how'; potential benefit from change; significance of existing or proposed linkages.)

178

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

This is as far as the students are expected to go because of the limited time available. They may assist the community members to decide on the possible courses of action arising out of the discussion on the activities (phase 6), but they are not required to see through the implementation of these decisions (phase 7).

Assessment of student learning

We realised that the traditional three-hour unseen written exam at the end of a semester would not be able to capture the higher order skills and capabilities which we want students to develop in 'real world' contexts. So we asked students to collect a variety of documentation during their placements and thereafter to write a report on their community involvement. In addition to this they were expected to give an oral defenee of their reports to the examiners. We allowed students to work in groups in the community placements and to produce joint documents for part 1 of the assessment; part 2 was an individual report but they were allowed to coUaborate in producing these reports; part 3, the oral defenee of their work, was done on an individual basis

The results

What the students achieved All the groups integrated well into the communities and in many cases made a considerable impact on their host organisations, despite the relatively short time spent with them. In some cases they had to overcome initial suspicion and even hostility. From the letters received from the community organisations, it is clear that the students had learned some very useful interpersonal and participatory skills.

We of Khipikhono Club, we thanks a lot for sending your students to our area. We worked with them co-operatively-(Khipikhona Club, Esikhawini)

All the groups managed to initiate some situation improvement activity.

Today we have our own constitution (Sakhakabusha Youth Club, Esikhawini)

But, perhaps most importantly it was their attitude (humility, seriousness and dedication) which left a lasting impression,

These students are dedicated in their work and in the success of the community. They have been a

Luckett & Luckett

source o f encouragement to us, developing the spirit even to those who have lost hope- (Ntshongweni Development Committee, Ntshongweni)

As a result of their experience all the hosts have requested the SRCD to send students to them again next year. These testimonies to the students' role in the communities stands in strong contrast to the widely expressed view that universities and university students 'exploit' communities for their own ends. The students' reflections showed that they had appreciated the value of: The practicum:

I feel it is not enough for SRCD students to have theoretical knowledge without getting exposure to the real world before working full time as extension workers, To me this was an important experience in my career to be part o f the people living below the poverty line. To make an example, we learn that there is no proper sanitation and provision o f water in rural areas- but living in Ntshongweni for five weeks gave me another picture o f how difficult it is for rural communities to live in those conditions (Sandile Phungula) During our last meeting with the farmers o f Buhlebenwelo, our group was given R250 by the farmers. They said that they were giving the money as a symbol o f gratitude for what we had done for them- that had a positive impact on my life-the [practicum] improved my interest in community development and encouraged me to work harder in improving other people "s lives. (Bhekathina Memela)

Sensitivity to the community's cultural & political context-

The rural communities have in the past been intimidated and robbed o f their resources by the outsiders who come in the name of helpers. This has made it difficult to establish credibility with these communities, especially i f one speaks a language foreign to theirs. For one to be to be succesful in working with these communities, it is important to study the values and cultural norms of the community one is to work with, recognise and respect these and always act within their limits... Once this is achieved one can be amazed at how innovative the rural communities can be (S fiso Mdadane).

Participatory methods - During the course o f the research, people we interviewed had solutions to their problems, but

179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

did not know i f they could work and who they should share them with... I learnt that it is wise to share ideas, knowledge and experiences with the community, not just to teach them things... this means that they are learning from you and you learn from them (Thabo Molefe)

Problems Encountered It was particularly in the area of assessment that the short-comings of our curriculum design became apparent. Whilst the host community organisations were generally positive about student contributions and students themselves were very positive about the value of the placement experience (see above), student performance in the assessment tasks was disappointing overall Apart from a small group the examiners' overall impression was that students failed to give weight to detailing the processes in which they were engaged in their work with communities. Instead, they focussed overly on the results, anxious to demonstrate the success of their interventions. Their field-notes were full of descriptions of activities, but they did not manage to capture the processes they used to facilitate those activities. Even though their comments indicated that they generally appreciated the value of participatory processes, there was little evidence of the process or methods used to (collaboratively) engage communities in order to draw out the commtmities' perceptions, knowledge and issues. This was disappointing, given the theory and techniques that we had introduced them to in Rural Resource Management 312.

In their portfolios, the written reports, the majority of the students again seemed to be locked into the descriptive genre, they reported on the 'what' and tended to focus on the results and success of their community involvement. They generally failed to engage at the meta-level; to explain how they had engaged with their communities and to reflect on how they, as individuals, had learnt from the process. Frustratingly, in the oral interviews when questioned on the processes of their engagement, most were able to demonstrate good insights and understandings about the process of decision- making in the commtmities. The results of the oral interviews suggested that some of these students did possess some recta-level knowledge and skills. Therefore, either their learuing in RRM312 had not adequately prepared them to

develop meta-level cognitive skills, or the written assessment tasks had failed to cue them to demonstrate these, or that they did not possess adequate linguistic mastery of a recta-language for reflective discourse in order to write about them coherently. On the other hand, a small group of students did demonstrate a promising ability to link theory and practice and begin to reflect on their learning. In order to get some indication as to where the problem lay for the majority of students, we asked the students to fill in an evaluation form.

Student evaluation f ind ings We came to the following tentative conclusions from the evaluation: The method of assessment was appropriate:

The portfolio gives students the ability to prove themselves and do the theory in a practical way. We were able to use our [knowledge] from

previous courses- (Nomsamgaphi Tame) - it also assessed each students report writing skills which are the requirements in the real world. The oral presentation assessed the students ability to communicate-(Vusi Dladla)

The feedback on the students work was appreciated by the students but it could have been more helpful:

Yes. I understand where and how I lost marks. For example on the systemic thinking & HAS models - it was not derived logically from a RD (Gugu Dlamini) Yes, I gratefully accept the feedback given on my work because I can improve quite considerably on it (Steven Zama Ngubane) I wish it could have been much more explained - why I lost so much marks stitl puzztes me a lot (Desmond Bulose)

In response to a question on their ability to think of themselves as independent learners many students said that they were able to think of themselves as such, however, they were also conscious of an inhibiting social context of learning and therefore did not always believe that they had the power to change and improve themselves.

No, it does not make sense - when the whole process started, I was very confident that my group would make it happen - but people do not allow you to improve yourself. One has to coincide with what other people want one to be (Desmond Bulose) Yes, I think it's very important that one regards oneself as a solitary person in whatever one

180

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

does, and not rely too much on what people think or want you to be... I feel that being an individual and independent learner gives one chances to improve in life (Steven Zama Ngubane)

The responses to the question, "Are you able to think about the way you learn" suggested that the majority of the students had difficulty in mastering the theory and academic discourse of experiential learning:

Yes, as I come across a new problem, then I start thinking o f a solution. However, whether I solved or did not solve the problem, I was able to see that I learnt something which I did not know before. (Nyawozabo Mahaye) One cannot think about the way he learns simultaneously as one learns... I for one learn from discussion, but that might not always be the case, as it is not all discussions which are constructive... ! cannot think about the way 1 learn whilst I am learning. (Desmond Bulose) In the group the interaction with the others improved my communication styles since 1was the one who mostly had to speak in the community meetings. At the beginning of the year, from the learning styles questionnaire the results showed that I am a theorist. But closer contact with the community and being able to prepare some presentations to them, l found that I had changed to become an activist. (Vusi Dladla)

In telling their stories about events and/or situations which had had an impact on them, students were able to bring out the complexity of the situations in which they were placed which they had not revealed in their portfolios. Vusi Dladla narrated how the group had uncovered the real reason for the withdrawal of a group of women from a community garden:

"they did not come out clearly with the problem, they just said that they didn "t want the garden since it was too far from them. However, according to our judgement it wasn't very far... we then changed our inquiry style and asked the women to list their hopes and fears for the garden.., their hopes.., they wanted to work as a team, undisturbed, in the garden.., their fears... the other members will steal their crops. When questioned as why this might happen, they simply said that they are lazy. But with further inquiry, it came out that the women fall into two different sub-districts which has ongoing conflict.

Luckett & Luckett

Bad practice, bad theory, or both?

Our application o f Kolb "s theory o f learning in an academic context (bad practice?) In this section we ask ourselves what were the influences of the academic context, in which we thought and taught, on our curriculum practice and how did this context undermine our ability to put Kolb's theory of learning and SSM into practice, despite our attempts to introduce and innovative curriculum. Did we assume that our learners were more 'autonomous' and 'rational' and in control of their learning than they actually are? We suggest that we ignored the social context and relations of their learning environment which, as their comments above indicate, impeded their 'freedom to learn'. We assumed that they were already-autonomous-learners on both the psychological and social planes. We did not adequately take into account the context of their learning and the way it constrained learning. (These assumptions are based on a modernist theory of the subject, see postmodern critique below). Furthermore, the context of the university meant that they had to be assessed as individuals. The immediate context of the students' performance was one of sum mative assessment, i.e. within the usual academic context of very unequal power relations. The written portfolio counted for 70% of their final mark for the module. The oral interview (for 30%) had to be performed before a panel of examiners. This was undoubtedly stressful, and perhaps it isn't surprising that the 'learning environment' we created was not conducive to a real sharing of experience! Were we only prepared to recogrtise students' experience if it was 'transformed into knowledge', i.e. expressed in a particular discourse, namely, Kolb's theory of learning? If so, then we assumed that students had already mastered the theory and discourse of experiential learning and its recta-language of individualised reflection, (which we suggest is not familiar to our students' primary discourses). In other words, even if the students had been able to transform their experiences into knowledge, they had not mastered the secondary discourse in which we (the university) required them to think and speak. We suggest that we were too quick to impose pre-specified theoretical structures and frames onto their experiences. We failed to tap

181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

into how they may have interpreted their experiences differently through the lenses of their own cultures, discourses and ways of knowing. Did we really allow them to become constructors of knowledge? We also failed to ask them how they felt about their placements. Our prescriptive approach was reinforced by our use of the outcomes-based model of curriculum. This meant that we were overly concerned to match or fit student learnings with our pre- defined learning outcomes (despite Kolb's own insistence that learning is best conceived of as a process rather than a product). Perhaps we ourselves have not fully understood and implemented in our curriculum the implications of Kolb's four learning styles. Is it possible that our curriculum design, and in particular the assessment process, only really catered for those with strong assimilator and converger learning styles (i.e., those at the A.C. pole of the prehension dialectic)? It may be that despite our efforts in RRM312 to introduce students to the theory and in both this and earlier modules to provide experiential learning opportunities, our emphasis on a fairly complex theoretical frame for their development practice (i.e., the practicum) may have disadvantaged those whose preferred learning style is either divergent or accommodative (i.e.,those at the C.E. pole of the prehension dialectic)?. Our prioritising of theory over practice was no doubt due to the ineluctable influence of the context in which we teach, where traditional cognitive theory and 'front-end' loading of students with theory and knowledge still prevails. We expected them to not only assimilate this highly abstract model, but also to be able, on their own, to re-contextualise it in the situations in which they found themselves. The students had little difficulty diverging, i.e., phases 1 & 2 of the SSM LC (Diagram 3), 'though it should be noted that the multi-perspective approach (see the section, Students' Practicum above) tended to result in what we call the 'lowest common denominator effect': abstractions and generalisations relevant to the different sectors and not stakeholders' perspectives. Phase 3 was generally adequately done, but building conceptual models (phase 4) proved to be beyond the ability of the vast majority of the students. It seemed to be too difficult for them to leave the real world behind, i.e., de-eontextualise, and build models which are logically derived from the RDs only.

Critique of Kolb's theory from a situated learning theory perspective (bad theory?) Situated learning theorists (Lave, 1988; Lave, 1998; Fox, 1998) propose a more radical model of experiential learning than that of Kolb. They totally reject the traditional cognitive theory of learning - the development of cognitive structure via individualised reflection, abstraction and generalisation and instead focus on the social nature of learning. Situated theories of learning have been developed through researching the learning that takes place by 'common folk' in everyday activities. They share many areas of agreement with Kolb such as challenging the dichotomy between knowing and doing, and rejecting a notion of learning as primarily the self-structured acquisition of mental representation. But, whilst Kolb is at pains to synthesise the two modes of knowing, situated learning theorists prioritise doing, human activity, as the key situation in which learning happens. They claim that learning is a way of acting in the world (as opposed to knowing about it); it is a type of social practice, an authentic cultural activity which is always carried out in specific cultural contexts. They describe learning in terms of'cognitive apprenticeship', 'co- participation', 'enculturation' and ideally, 'legitimate peripheral participation'. By this they mean that learning happens through engagement in processes of human activity and that learners must have access to participatory roles in the performances of expert 'communities of practice'. They claim that learning is not mediated by the pre-existing mental structure of the learner, but by the context-dependent perspectives of the co-participants in the community of practice in which the learner is participating. This gives the learner the opportunity to understand the activity from the (expert) practitioner's view point. This description of how learning takes place may accord with Kolb's accommodator and diverger learning styles (those involving Concrete Experience). Situated Learning Theory (SLT), however, understands learning as a less individualised process. SLT understands knowledge as a 'co-production of the mind and the world' (compare this with Kolb's transaction between the person and the environment). However, whilst Kolb holds to a conflict and eventually a synthesis between the two, SLT suggests that knowledge is structured, not by the representations of reality in the learner's mind,

182

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

but by the physical, social and cultural contexts of its use. (They compare knowledge to a set of tools which can only be understood in the contexts of their use). SLT therefore understands all knowledge to be situated, provisional and contingent upon its immediate context of use within a community of practice. (Compare Kolb's provisionality of knowledge- 'partial skepticism' - which happens only inside the learner's head - until a synthesis between apprehension and comprehension is reached). A situated learning theory perspective then would suggest the following short-comings in Kolb's theory of learning:

- Learning is a social rather than individual activity and is best carried out collectively in a community of practice.

- The structure of cognition does not reside in the individual mind but is rather widely distributed throughout the social and physical environment.

-The individual does intemalise experience, but this usually remains tacit. In other words, SLT would not see Kolb's abstract conceptualisation as a necessary part of the learning cycle, for learning need not necessarily be explicit and declarative.

- It is the authenticity of the activity that is paramount for learning. Engagement in a human activity is already learning, it is not necessary to transform this experience into 'knowledge', for it to be recognised as learning.

We are not suggesting the SLT is necessarily a better theory of learning to underpin our curriculum than Kolb's experiential theory of learning. But, we believe that SLT's emphasis on the concrete social nature of learning is an important corrective to our individualised, Western way of viewing learning; and that this model may well be closer to our students' primary socialisation. Gee (1990)'s distinction between acquisition and learning (well known in theories of second language acquisition) in his theory of literacy as a social practice, clears up a lot of the confusion between SLT and traditional cognitive theory and helps to explain Kolb's concern to synthesise the different modes of learning. Gee suggests that literacy is not just a matter of getting hold of the techniques of reading and writing, but that it involves getting the whole social practice right, i.e. ways of saying and doing, holding particular values, beliefs and attitudes which are linked to

Luckett & Luckett

particular roles and identities. This can only be done via a process of apprenticeship in a community of practice in which the learner is exposed to models in natural, meaningful and functional settings (compare with SLT). He then makes a very helpful distinction between acquisition and learning. According to Gee, acquisition is a largely subconscious process which occurs through exposure to models of practice and by participating in authentic, meaningful activities in natural settings, whereas learning is a conscious process which is gained through explicit teaching; it usually happens in decontextualised settings and involves learning a recta-language used to talk about (as opposed to performing) a certain practice. Gee suggests that in the appropriation of any discourse, acquisition must precede learning - "learning can facilitate nothing unless the acquisition process has already begun" (Gee, 1996:146) and further, that expert performance is dependent on acquisition and not on learning. This distinction and Gee's suggestion that both can promote development, but in different ways, provides us with a helpful way forward. (See Conclusion: A Way Forward?)

Critique of Kolbian assumptions from a post- modern perspective (bad theory?) Post-structuralist, post-modernist, radical feminist and indigenous knowledge theorists have challenged the assumptions about the nature of experience, knowledge, reason and 'the knowing subject' and their relation to context, made in theories of learning such as Kolb's. They critique his learning cycle, as being based on an 'Enlightenment epistemology'. This epistemology is neatly summarised by Michelson,

Experience is transformed into knowledge through the right exercise o f reason, and proper procedures exist that enable that transformation to occur While knowledge is grounded in experience, its construction requires that knowledge gradually be abstracted from experience... Key to this formulation is the assumption that both experience and language are transparent, that is, that the senses provide unmediated access to reality and that the language that we use to describe that reality merely names what is therefor all to see. (1996: 187)

A post-modem perspective would criticise Kolb, and his followers (like us) for privileging abstract conceptualisation over concrete experience. In

183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

fact, despite Kolb's concern to preserve a 'genuine dialectic' between the two, his theory of learning almost makes the privileging of abstract conceptualisation inevitable. The process described in the learning cycle involves the transformation of experience through abstraction and analysis (RO and AC), such that experience becomes legitimate knowledge only when it is stripped of its context and 'subjectivity' and mastered by reason; to quote Kolb again,

"They (learners) must be able to reflect on and observe their experiences from many perspectives (RO). They must be able create concepts that integrate their observations into logically sound theories (AC), and they must be able to use these theories to make decisions and solve problems (AE) " (1984:30).

This process suggests that Kolb understands 'apprehension'16 to occur unproblematically in that this 'grasping' of experience is unmediated. Instead, recent social theorists argue that experience is not transparent. There is no such thing as unmediated experience, for all experiences are already mediated by the discourses into which we are socialised which already tell us what the world is like and who we are within it. Again, following Michelson:

Experience enters our consciousness already organised by ideology, language, and material history. This means, in turn, that experience and knowledge are neither chronologically nor logically distinct. They are more helpfully seen as mutually determined, 6..) because experience cannot be known in the first place outside of socially available meanings and the knowledge through which we organise meanings cannot be separated from experience. (1996." 190)

This argument leads to the recognition of a plurality of experiences and knowledges, which cannot necessarily be made mutually recoguisable through the procedures of 'tmiversal' human reason. This point is summed up by Kosmidou and Usher:

Experience needs to be seen in terms o f subjects situated in a historicality which is a practical involvement in the world and the appropriation of an interpretative culture. Any genuine interest in empancipation, self-actualisation, personal and social transformation has to start with a recognition and then a problematisation of these aspects o f situatedness. (1992: 83)

This leads us to the second aspect of the deconstruction of Enlightenment epistemology; namely the nature of knowledge and human

reason. Feminist theorists in particular, (see Michelson 1996, Weedon, 1997 and Hill Collins, 1991) argue that the functioning of human reason is neither universal nor culturally or politically neutral. They argue that all knowledge is situated and that reason should not be the sole reliable faculty through which knowledge is constructed. They suggest that 'abstract masculinity' with its supposedly 'rational' and 'objective' procedures for the construction of knowledge serves to devalorize others ways of knowing which do not depend solely on reason. Again, (whether Kolb intended it or not) the impression we have of his theory of learning is that concrete experience must be 'transformed' by reason before it can be useful or significant.

The third argument made in the deeonstruction of Enlightenment epistemology is that there is no 'universal interchangeable knower' and therefore no objective, transcendental knowledge. Weedon (1997) claims that Enlightenment epistemology teaches us to see ourselves as rational, non- contradictory and in control of the meaning of our lives via an essential rational consciousness. She argues that both experienceand subjectivity are constituted in discourse:

"meaning can have no external guarantee, subjectivity itself is an effect o f discourse" (1997:82).

And, of course, we have differentiated access to discourses, especially the powerful discourses, depending on particular social and political relations. In sum, these theorists suggest that we need to understand meaning making and knowledge constructing as social practices which cannot be abstracted out of their specific contexts and situations. This suggests that we should not attempt, via experiential learning, to strip learners of their particular identities, class, gender, ethnicity, etc. and turn them into 'universal knowers' who are capable of 'true self- knowledge'. Instead, the meaning of learners' prior learning and experience originates in the narrative and discursive contexts from which they come and it will be open to different interpretations depending on the interests, discourses and subjectivities through which it is represented. This suggests that learning from experience and the prized learning of the University both have an ambiguous nature; role players within both of these (divergent) sites make and take meaning by appropriating and by being appropriated by the discourses and inter-

184

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

subjectivities which are socially and historically available to them. The kinds of knowledges that they produce will be different and they may well invalidate each other; they may well be incommensurable.

Wildemeersch (1992) warns against accepting the 'self-evident character' of everyday interpretations (e.g., through narratives) of experience. Learners do need to recognise the ambiguous nature of both experience and knowledge and that both are constituted by discourse within social relations and political interests which shape the ways in which they are interpreted. Wildemeersch suggests that both experience and knowledge are valuable ways of understanding in themselves; but they may invalidate each other. We need to accept that Kolb's neat synthesis will not necessarily hold if we give equal weight to different forms of knowing. We may simply be left with different, unreconcilable ways of experiencing and knowing the world. Furthermore, we should give up on the search for a definitive pedagogy (a grand narrative) which will hold true for all teaching-learning situations. A post-modern perspective suggests that we may have to settle for no more than fragmented insights.

C o n c l u s i o n : A Way F o r w a r d ?

By way of conclusion, drawing on the theories and debates outlined above, we suggest both further inquiry and the revisions of our practice. The possibility alluded to above that there may be an accommodation between the insights of Situated Learning Theory and certain of Kolb's learning styles needs to be explored further. A way forward for this inquiry is to compare evidence from completed learning style questionnaires with student performance in set tasks. At the same time we need to revise our curriculum (and in particular, our assessment) practice. Although it may be a useful guide to students to state the holistic learning outcomes for the programme, we do not think that their learning experiences should be closely matched to these in a mechanical way. Rather we suggest that we first let our students express their experiences from within their own identities, discourses and contexts. If we listened with humility, we might even learn something!

Luckett & Luckett

We should also encourage students to link their interpretations of their experience with their own personal goals and prospective plans for action. Perhaps we should even let them define for themselves the purposes of their placements, or at least negotiate these, so that their own needs are taken into account. Ideally, we should also try to hear the communities' interpretations of the experiences and reflect this back to the student concerned. But we should not allow students to assume that their everyday, self-evident interpretations (their narratives) of their experiences are "true'. We need to help them gain reflexivity about their own interpretations. If we view learning as a social as well as an individual practice, and if we reeognise the need for students to acquire skills and knowledge through apprenticeships in communities of practice, before teaching them theory, then the curriculum will have to be structured differently. Students will need opportunities simply to observe and share in collective development and SSM practice before being expected to theorise about this practice. Perhaps we should first situate students in communities of good development practice 17. Here students could acquire the 'know-how' of development through apprenticeships ('legitimate peripheral participation'). Perhaps we should begin by placing them in authentic activities, allow them to develop problem-solving strategies with those communities and so gradually enter the culture of good practice. Only thereafter, would we introduce them to theory and meta-languages, which may help to sharpen and clarify the tacit knowledge which they have already acquired. Furthermore, if we are to understand knowledge to be situated, partial and contingent, then we will need to recognise more diverse forms of knowledge and to cater for these in a more permeable and flexible curriculum. This means that in our assessment practice we should ask students more open-ended, informal kinds of questions which could be answered in everyday discourses and in the narrative genre, such as: - Why did you personally want to work in this

community? - Tell us about a significant experience/activity

that happened to you on your placement. - How do you feel about your placement

experience? - What did you enjoy most on your placement7 - What do you think you and the community

185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal o f Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

achieved through your placement? - In what ways did you find the SSM method

useful? - In what ways was it not useful, too difficult to

use - for you? - for the community? - How do you think the community feel about

your time spent with them? - If you had the time again what would you

change, what could you do better? How to assess their responses to these questions would, however, not be unproblematic! If we are to expect students to do more theoretical work on their experiences, then we will need to provide them with scaffolding, they will need to have opportunities to acquire and learn the secondary discourses of SSM, reflection and knowledge-making which the university requires. At the same time, we should allow them to first express their experiences in everyday

language in the narrative genre - the most familiar means o f their everyday expression of experience. Finally, we should try to ensure that theory and abstract knowledge are not privileged over practice and experience in our curriculum. We should encourage students to use their interpretations of experience to challenge and critique classroom theory and we should facilitate the joint construction of knowledge between ourselves, our students and their communities. But this cannot be with a view to arriving at a homogenised consensus, but rather with a view to understanding our differences. We will have to give up on the quest for an agreed and rational interpretation of experience and knowledge-making and on the ideal curriculum for getting there!

A k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

We are grateful to those students in the 1998 third year RRM class who participated in the evaluation of the third year modules. They are too numerous to mention, but Steven Zama Ngubane and Bhekathina Memela should be singled out for their ongoing interest, practical assistance, observations and comments during our ongoing the research into the RRM programme.We are also very grateful to Wout van der Bet and Hannes Schiere (of Wageningen Agricultural University) for the time they put into reading an earlier draft and the many helpful comments made. The usual disclaimer holds: none of the people mentioned can bc held responsible for the final content.

E n d n o t e s

i Initial guidance and considerable assistance in the construction of the curriculum was provided by Roger Roberts, Elwin Turnbull and Richard Bawden of the Centre for Systemic Development, University of Western Sydney (Hawkesbury).

2 The general (formal) properties of systems as well as other systems methodologies are part of an earlier prerequisite module.

3 It is, however, on his earlier works (Kolb, 1976) that many education professionals (Boud et al. 1985) (Gibbs, 1988) draw for their development of LCs

4 A note of caution needs to be sounded here: this rigid 'route' is not followed in the more sophisticated applications of Kolb's LC;it is understood that the learning process can move back and forth between any of the phases

5 In the portfolio, required for assessment purposes, students are required to show that they have reflected on and can articulate their own learning processes within the context of the community in which they were placed. In doing so they are advised to refer to Kolb but may make use of any other insights that they find helpful.

6 The names of the learning styles given in brackets arc those used by Honey & Mumford (1986) 7 Note the emphasis is on thinking: it is an approach that helps us to understand the world and intervene in it; it

does not constitute a formal theory. s It will digress too far from the purpose of this paper to discuss these concepts here. 9 Common to both approaches is the formal incorporation of the aforcrncntioned concepts. 1°This process is defined in such a way that a defined input is transformed into a (defined) output. A word of

caution: a common error is to confuse a system input with the resources needed to bring about the

186

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

Luckett & Luckett

transformation. In the transformation process something is transformed into the same thing, but of a different quality.

11The most common way of doing this comparison is by using a tabular matrix format which is described in the next section: Students'Practicum.

12Changes of three kinds are possible: changes in structure, process and attitude. Changes in the first two are easy to implement in the sense that all it takes is for the appropriate decision making authority to 'order' the changes. However, the changes may result in long-term problems and therefore the problem solvers are advised to exercise caution. Any changes should meet three criteria. They should be: systemically desirable - instituting monitoring processes, developing adequate decision making processes, ensuring appropriate information flows, making sure that the necessary resources are available, ensuring that the logical connections between activities are reflected in real world sequential actions; culturally feasible - ensuring that the myths and meanings are respected; Implementation of changes will affect the organisational culture and therefore the proposed changes will only be acceptable if they are perceived as being meaningful within that culture; and, ethically defensible - ensuring that human values are upheld.

13This is based on a methodology developed at Hawkesbury and involves analysing community systems from different 'perspectives': historical, cultural, educational, health, environmental, organisatioual, etc.

14These are figurative representations (drawings) which depict the relationships between the people, organisations, or activities of concern in the problematic situation.

15The root definitions define a transformation which is required. Task based root definitions relate to the primary task of the organisation and issue-based root definitions to issues/concerns which have arisen during the finding out phase. Guidelines for developing useful root definitions are given in numerous texts on SSM. See for example (Checkland, 198[) and {Checldand & Scholes 1990 ID: 22}.

16The C.E. pole of the prehension dialectic. 17But, would we find these and would they be practising systems thinking?

References

Bawden, R. (1995) Systemic Development: A Learning Approach to Change. 1. Richmond (Australia): Centre for Systemic Development, U.W.S. (Hawkesbury).

Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, London: Kogan Page.

Checldand, P. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester: John Wiley. Checldand, R and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Chichester: Wiley. Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society, Ontario:

California Association for Bilingual Education. Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education, New York: Kappa Delta Pi Fox, S. (1998) Situated Learning Theory Versus Traditional Cognitive Learning Theory: Why Management

Education Should Not Ignore Management Learning. Systems Practice 10, 727-748. Freire, P. (1974) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum Gee, J.R (1990) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, London: The Falmer Press. Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by doing, Further Education Unit. Hill Collins, E (1991) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment,

Routledge: New York. Honey, R and Mumford, A. (1986) Learning styles questionnaire, 2rid edn. Pennsylvania: King of Prussia. Kolb, D.A. (1976) Management and the learning process. California Management Review 18, 21-31. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice Hall Kosmidou, C. and Usher, R. (1992) Experiential learning and the autonomous subject. In: Wildemeersch, D. and

Jansen, T., (Eds.) Adult education, experiential learning and social change, pp. 77-92. Driebergen: VUGA Lave, J. (1988a) Cognition in Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J. (1998b) The practice of learning. In: Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J., (Eds.) Understanding practice:

Perspectives on activity and context, pp. 3-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1999, vol. 6, no. 3

Lewin, (1951) Field Theory in Social Sciences, New York: Harper & Row Luckett, K. (1993) 'National additive bilingualism' - a language plan for South African schools. Southern

African Journal o f Applied Language Studies 2, 38-60. Michelson, E. (1996) Beyond Galileo's Telescope: Situated Knowledge and the Assessment of Experiential

Learning. Adult Education Quarterly 46, 185-196. Packham, R., Roberts, R. and Bawden, R. (1989) Our Faculty Goes Experiential. In: Warner-Weil, S. and

McGill, I., (Eds.) Making Sense o f Experiential Learning: Diversity in Theory and Practice, pp. 129-149. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Piaget, J. (1971) Psychology and Epistemology, Middlesex: Penguin Books Schon, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, NewYork: Basic Books. Usher, R. and Johnston, R. (1996) Research and Development Programme in the recognition of Prior Learning.

Human Sciences Research Council, University of Cape Town & Peninsula Technikon. Weedon, C. (1997) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, 2 edn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wildemeersch, D. (1992) Ambiguities of experiential learning and critical pedagogy. In: Wildemeersch, D. and

Jansen, T., (Eds.) Adult education, experiential learning and social change, pp. 19-33. Driebergen: VUGA Wildemeersch, D. and Jansen, T. (1992) Adult education, experiential learning and social change, Driebergen:

VUGA. Wilson, A.M. (1992) An Introduction: Systems Thinking at Hawkesbury: 1983-1993. Agpak SA-4,

Hawkesbury, Australia: School of Agriculture and Rural Development, University of Western Sydney.

188

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

5:10

30

Oct

ober

201

4