Time to experiment: a response

Mike Davis* and Kate Denning**
*Learning Technology Research Institute, University of North London **Research and

Graduate School of Education, University of Manchester

email: mike.davis@unl.ac.uk

It is with some pleasure that we were given the opportunity to offer this paper for
commentary and we are grateful for the efforts made by readers to help us to refine our
thinking. Given the constraints of space, we will respond to the main comments in turn.
We plan to submit a more considered and elegant paper to a future edition when we have
worked more on our model.

As we are aware, the use of learning technologies is untheoretical, although informed by a
number of theories from a variety of disciplines. Part of our thinking was based on a desire
to integrate some of these and work towards explanations for what we had seen going on in
the courses that we were involved in teaching. That this is recognized in the commentary is
much appreciated.

Our failure to describe action science in more detail was a product of pressure on space.
Briefly, action science, was developed as 'the science of interpersonal action' and is
'centrally concerned with the practice of intervention' (Argyris, Putnam and Smith, 1986:
35) into frequently mismatched espoused theories and theories in use. The development of
skill in action science relates to capacity for reflective action; not only reflection on action
but also reflection on reflection in action. This is achieved by making theories of action
explicit through the presentation and interrogation of case studies.

The absence of examples from the data was the product of limitations on space. Other
papers we have written for conferences make more explicit the relationship between our
thinking and the data (see for example Davis and Denning, 2000).

8



ALT-J Volume 10 Number I

The paper does little justice to the complexities of Bion's thinking about basic assumption
groups and work groups, but Table 1 may help. Bion's view was that groups had the
capacity to function in any of the three basic assumption groups or to be a work, or
sophisticated group, but that the two types are mutually exclusive.

Basic assumption groups

based on fantasy
impulsive
dependent on leader
uncritical
rapid
task-avoiding
no desire to test consequences
no patience with enquiry
great insistence on feeling
does not learn from experience
resists change
cliche-ridden
anonymous
ruthless
ahistoric
valency

Work groups

in touch with reality
task-specific
shared leadership in service of the task
critical
reflective
high level of commitment to the task
conclusions tested with reality
questions how t o achieve goal
seeks for knowledge
learns from experience
seeks change
dynamic
ownership of responsibility
collegiate and interdependent
aware of passage of time
cooperation of individuals

Table I: Distinguishing between basic assumption and work groups

Situated learning was not pursued in anything like the depth it deserved and we are
working on another paper that makes more explicit its relationship to computer-mediated
learning, particularly in the context of action science. It was included, however, to
demonstrate that we were aware of its potential implications for groups working
collaboratively through personal case studies. The role of the online tutor here is of
considerable importance and the paper failed to do justice to this and its relationship to the
development of expertise.

Our use of the word 'scaffolding' is firmly based on the work of Vygotsky and we did not
mean to imply merely the restricted use of students building on one another's comments.
Indeed, this relates to our thinking about the role of the online tutor that we have explored
elsewhere (see for example Denning and Davis, 2000).

The title of the paper was deliberately playful, indicating the tentative nature of our
conclusions. For us, at least, and perhaps for other readers, our thinking may inform future
speculation about the nature of the online learning environment.

Neither of the authors is a psychologist but we regard some psychological literature as
helpful in exploring the learning environments in which we have worked. We consider
Wilfred Bion's work to be particularly important in thinking about the nature of groups
and their impact on people's collaborative experiences. His theorizing led to the creation of
the Tavistock Institute and to the considerable insights that this organization has given to
social interaction in both the home and the workplace.

9



Mike Davis and Kate Denning Time to experiment a response

Our use of the 2x2 matrix has clear limitations and we have struggled to make it work to
our satisfaction. It did, however, enable us to characterize what we saw as some stereo-
typical outcomes of creating learning environments in cyberspace. This represents the
provisional nature of our thinking. The suggestion of spider diagrams is extremely helpful
and we will return to this in our future paper.

The value of the model for us is that it helps to shape our, often muddled, reactions to the
problem of why some groups were successful and others less so. It is not a definitive
statement and some of the comments made by readers have indicated a way forward.

References
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. (1986), Action Science, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bion, W. (1996), Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, London: Tavistock.

Davis, M. and Denning, K. (2000), 'Online learning: frontiers in the creation of learning
communities', Proceedings of the Networked Learning 2000 Conference, University of
Lancaster.

Denning, K. and Davis, M. (2000), 'Computer mediated communication in adult
education', in D. Watson and T. Dowries, Communications and Networking in Education,
Kluwer: Amsterdam.

10