Recommendations for learning ̊s

Rhetoric and reaction

Bibliographic Data

ID4098355
AuthorsWilliam Fleming (0000-0002-4724-9837), W G Fleming (University of Birmingham), Desmond Rutherford (University of Birmingham)
Year1984
Volume9
Issue1
Pages17-26
Publication date1984-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueStudies in Higher Education (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0307-5079 • E-ISSN: 1470-174X
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/03075078412331378883
OpenAlexW2079281077
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited9

This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's ‘Recommendations for Learning ̊s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of ‘governing values ̊s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The ‘Recommendations for Learning ̊s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the ‘Recommendations for Learning ̊s will have little impact on academic practice

Epistemology · Higher education · Learning theory · Pedagogy · Political science · Rhetoric · Sociology · Computer Science · Law · Management and Organizational Studies · Philosophy · Psychology · Artificial Intelligence

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub