The document describes two critical incidents from the author's first year of teaching. The first was a foreign visit to Beijing, China with students, which helped build the author's confidence in caring for students abroad. The second was an Ofsted inspection of the author's school. Reflecting on these incidents, the author considers models of reflection and identifies governing variables and single vs double loop learning. Governing variables are core values one aims to maintain, like student welfare. Strategies are used to balance variables. Single loop learning tweaks strategies, while double loop learning questions underlying values.

1. REFLECTING ON CRITICAL
INCIDENTS AND IDENTIFYING
GOVERNING VARIABLES IN
DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING
SID: 0816909

2. Having gone through my first full year of teaching within
secondary education last year, I have chosen to identify
some critical incidents (CI’s) from this time so that I can
reflect and make sense of it all. CI’s that, upon reflection,
have been the major events.
First
Incident: First foreign visit with students to Beijing, China.
Second
Incident: First involvement in a Section 5 Ofsted
inspection.

3. First
Incident: First foreign visit with students to Beijing, China.

4. My first CI was when I went to Beijing, China with five
Year 12 students. To reflect on this incident, I have chosen
the genre of poetry...

5. Opposed to an Easter at home to feast
Away I went, away to the east
China in fact, with students in tow
Far from my usual status quo
INSET I had to prepare for the trip
Even so, I was apprehensive a bit
In loco parentis was the name of the game
No chance afoot for shaking the blame
Great wall, Tiananmen Square and even the Olympic Site
The amount we got done was quite a fright
After teaching the Chinese about Western Culture
Being stared at by the large class like a vulture

6. Sick I felt, before I went
Apprehensive to undertake such an event
Responsibility was rife with lives in my hands
When miles away in far away lands
A lot was learnt from the trip
Epic in value and gave me a grip
A grip I gained in the welfare of kids
Something I cherish, cherish to bits
Confidence I got in the protection of students
Something now I have retained in my prudence
An experience I would repeat again
Knowing now I could refrain from going Insane!

7. This CI is based on the reflective model of Gibbs’ (1998)
that guided me to set the context, describe feelings,
evaluate, analyse and conclude based on the experience.
The one thing that is omitted from the text is an Action
Plan (AP).
Based on this, and a co-incidental separate incident this
morning (04/11/09) It is now likely I will be returning to
China next year (2010). The AP is as simple as that it will
be a duplicate experience, but this time with a greater
sense of confidence and a heightened awareness of the
concept of the protection and safeguarding of young
people, something I learnt the first time around.

8. Second
Incident: First involvement in a Section 5 Ofsted
inspection.

9. My second CI was something that impacted heavily on
my practice and gave me a large amount of experience
to reflect on, a Section 5 inspection of my Academy. To
reflect on this I have prepared a podcast...

10. Please see the Podcast file (Ofsted S5 Inspection
Podcast.m4a) in the submission file. This gives the reader
greater control over the file and gives full benefit of the
podcast format.

11. This CI is based on the reflective model of Johns’ (1994)
that guided me to Describe, Reflect, Identify Alternative
Strategies and Learn from my CI.

12. COMPARISONS OF THE TWO
MODELS IN RELATION TO MY
CI’S...

13. Johns’ Model Gibb’s Model
Strength Weakness Strength Weakness
•Use of ‘Cues’ in •Not cyclical •Cyclical model of •Perhaps too fluid
reflection •Fairly rigid reflection •Provides little cues
•Guides reflection in •Better suited to •Widely applicable for professional
a ‘stream of workplace incidents •Simplistic reflection
consciousness’ •May be of little use •Not built with
•Strong structure to out of the practitioner
guide reflection professional reflection in mind
•Looks at situation context
and approaches
alternative
strategies

14. Both of these CI’s provide opportunities for learning in
my professional context as they were both first times for
me, two activities that are essential components to my
job role and will undoubtably re-occur.
The main thing gained upon reflection of both incidents
was that I could achieve them. Both experiences from
which the CI are drawn were taken up with
apprehension, but were not as traumatic as I had
envisaged and therefor built confidence.
They are defined as CI’s because a definitive action or
moment occurred that then changed the course of
things that followed as defined by myself with the result
of learning (Tripp, 1993.)

15. ?? ? ?
???? ? ?
WHAT ARE THE GOVERNING
VARIABLES IN DOUBLE LOOP
LEARNING?

16. From the offset, I want to look at the definition of the
term: Governing Variables and how it then fits in with the
concept of double loop learning.
I have broken the phrase ‘Governing Variables’ down to
its core meaning by looking for synonyms for each word
to expand the scope of meaning of the phrase:
Governing Variables
rule changing
preside varying
reign shifting
command fluctuating
lead irregular
dominate fluid

17. Argyris and Schön (1987) first theorise the concept of
governing variables in the following model:
Governing Action
Consequences
Variable Strategy
Anderson (1994) then goes onto extract and then
interpret this data by defining Governing variables as
values which the person (practitioner) is trying to keep
within some acceptable range. The practitioner may have
many variables and any action will likely affect upon a
number of these. Consequently, any situation may trigger
a trade-off amongst the governing variables.

18. Governing Action
Consequences
Variable Strategy
The action strategy in the example above is a strategy
used by the practitioner to keep their governing values
within the acceptable range.
These strategies will have outcomes that are intended,
outcomes the practitioner believes will result and
outcomes that are unintended.

19. EXAMPLE...

20. A practitioner may have the governing variables of
maintaining the mutual respect of students as well as
being responsible for discipline and classroom
management. In any given situation the practitioner will
design action strategies to keep both these governing
variables within acceptable limits. For instance, if a
confrontational instance were to arise, the practitioner
may choose to overlook a minor instance to gain trust
from a student to get to the crux of the issue. Avoiding
the minor issue (the practitioner hopes) will resolve the
main issue and maintain respect between the two
parties.

21. This strategy will have various consequences for both the
practitioner and the other involved. An intended
consequence might be that the other party will look to
see that the minor issue had been overlooked (giving
something to the student) and respond to the crucial
issue in hand (passing something back to the
practitioner) successfully resolving the issue. By being
selective with confrontation to reach the core issue, the
practitioner may feel that they have maintained mutual
respect. An unintended consequence might be that the
practitioner thinks the situation has allowed the student
to get away with perhaps too much and may be likely to
recur, and feels that perhaps discipline has been lost.

22. So how does this then feed into the concept of double
loop learning?
Governing Action
Consequences
Variable Strategy
Governing Action
Consequences
Variable Strategy
Single Loop
Double Loop

23. Both single and double-loop learning have a close
resemblance to what Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch
(1974) call First and Second Order Change. They state
that First Order Change exists when the norms of the
system remain the same and changes are made within
the existing norms. Second Order Change describes a
situation where the norms of the system themselves are
challenged and changed.
Double-loop learning is seen as the more effective way
of making informed decisions about the way we design
and implement action (Argyris, 1974).

24. Argyris and Schön's approach was to then focus on
double-loop learning. To this end, they developed a
model that describes features of theories-in-use which
either inhibit or enhance double-loop learning. Argyris
suggests that there is a large variability in adopted
theories and Action strategies, but almost no variability in
Theories-in-use. He suggests people may adopt a large
number and variety of theories or values which they
suggest guide their action. However Argyris believes that
the theories which can be deduced from peoples' action
(theories-in-use) seem to fall into two categories which
he labels Model I and Model II:

25. The governing Values of Model I are: The governing values of Model II include:
• Achieve the purpose as the actor defines it • Valid information
• Win, do not lose • Free and informed choice
• Suppress negative feelings • Internal commitment
• Emphasise rationality
Primary Strategies are: Strategies include:
• Control environment and task unilaterally • Sharing control
• Protect self and others unilaterally • Participation in design and implementation of action
Usually operationalised by: Operationalised by:
• Unillustrated attributions and evaluations eg. "You seem
unmotivated"
• Advocating courses of action which discourage inquiry • Attribution and evaluation illustrated with relatively
eg. "Lets not talk about the past, that's over." directly observable data
• Treating ones' own views as obviously correct • Surfacing conflicting views
• Making covert attributions and evaluations • encouraging public testing of evaluations
• Face-saving moves such as leaving potentially
embarrassing facts unstated
Consequences include: Consequences should include:
• Defensive relationships • Minimally defensive relationships
• Low freedom of choice • high freedom of choice
• Reduced production of valid information • increased likelihood of double-loop learning
• Little public testing of ideas

26. To conclude on both Double Loop Learning and
Governing Variables, I have thought to synthesise both of
these concepts and draw the information from my two
Critical Incidents.

27. First
Incident: First foreign visit with students to Beijing, China.
Governing Action
Consequences
Variable Strategy
Single Loop
Double Loop
Welfare of INSET on Student
students Student Welfare Welfare?
Single Loop
Double Loop

28. Second
Incident: First involvement in a Section 5 Ofsted
inspection.
Governing Action
Consequences
Variable Strategy
Single Loop
Double Loop
Demonstration Good concise planning
evidence and teaching to
Good
of best practice the evaluation schedule teaching?
Single Loop
Double Loop

29. Demonstration Good concise planning
evidence and teaching to
Good
of best practice the evaluation schedule teaching?
Single Loop
Double Loop
Looking at my synthesised example above, you will see
that the GV that must be kept up (within an acceptable
range) is what I was being judged on. My AP was to
demonstrate my best practice in relation to the
evaluation schedule, a document outlining the criteria I
was to be working to. Good teaching was the desired
outcome.

30. Demonstration Good concise planning
evidence and teaching to
Good
of best practice the evaluation schedule teaching?
Single Loop
Double Loop
Single loop learning would say that if the outcome was
deemed as not good teaching, then I may have to adjust
my interpretation of good concise planning evidence and
teaching and also my interpretation of the evaluation
schedule. Double loop learning would mean redefining
what was meant by ‘best practice’ itself.

31. THANK YOU
FOR WATCHING