Talk:Action learning

Notes and references mixed up
There are some formatting issues at the end of this article, where references appear to be copied from another source? Jack Nunn Jacknunn ([]) 04:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The graphic
Can anyone provide substantive evidence for the claims made in the graphic? Some version of this crops up frequently but I have not seen any research to support it. I believe it has the status of an urban myth. As it stands, without context, I believe it to be meaningless. steven (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The graphic is indeed a myth that seems to keep doing the rounds. Check out the wiki entry on Edgar Dale and the Cone of Experience, and the referenced website that provides a detailed history and challenge to the myth. mike-dc (talk) 12 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the same graphic, but surely that chart with the different languages should read "Which?" not "Wish?" for Quel? Crinoline (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Will at Work blog has excellent post dispelling the myth of that graphic. (LindyO (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC))

This article
This article really needs context for those of us who may not be familiar with the concepts being described. I also feel that the end section is a bit promotional. What do other editors think about this? janejellyroll 07:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable
I added the following line to address the idea of notability:

"The introduction of Revans's theory of Action Learning was cited by Stuart Crainer as one of the 75 Greatest Management Decisions Ever Made in his book of the same title."

I am not sure if it rises to the standard, but I came across this discussion as I was reading Cranier's book.

My .02! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonrazer (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I am still struggling to see why there should be a Wikipedia article on this topic, it appears to be nothing but fluff and drivel. It is only truly supported by a few individuals using it to sell their books and no doubt accompanying consultancy services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.252.105 (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ARL and MiL models
Chapter ARL and MiL Models is confusing

cf. "The main differences between Revans’ approach to action learning and the ‘MiL Model’ in the ‘80s are : the role of a project team advisor (later called Learning Coach), which Revans advised against; the use of team projects rather than individual challenges; the duration of the sessions, which is more flexible in ARL designs."

So Revans is against project team advisors, against team projects, strict respect of duration of sessions?--SvenAERTS (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the lead
"This doesn't seem at all connected with the important complex systems learning and engagement method originated by Chris Argyris and expanded, on by among many others including Robert Flood, Mike Jackson and Gerald Midgley at Hull." Comment added by User:Pfhenshaw 19:10, 15 February 2013‎. (Cut&paste done by  Lova Falk     talk   18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC))

Unsubstantiated claims
The article reads like a promotional piece in some places and makes some claims which I can't see that are substantiated with references or other evidence. I have added requests for citations. For example: "The proven power of the action learning process originates in its theoretical underpinnings (Waddill & Marquardt, 2003).". No 'proof' given in this section about its power, or how this power has been evaluated. Also: "In action learning, there is no need to unlearn what has worked in the past. Reflecting on what hasn't worked helps team/set members unlearn what doesn't work and invent better ways of acting going forward." Again, supporting this claim about what helps team/set members would be strengthened by reference to a study that provides proof. --mgaved (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Action learning in schools
Action Learning in schools follows the basic multistep protocol of Action Learning in support of organizational problem-solving and innovation. The principles are the same, except the topic of focus is based on examples from life outside of school, chosen for their relevance to promoting significant learning. Students thus engage, while in school, in exemplars of life-relevant learning. "Exemplars" because when translated to school, the situatedness of the life praxis in focus is changed.

For example, the jazz ensembles of music education are changed significantly from jazz in its original setting: bars and music clubs where the audience is refreshed with alcoholic beverages, talks, smokes, and socializes, and comments on and enjoys the music, and in some situations, occasions dancing. In schools, such ensembles rehearse to give concerts on stage, as though a classical music concert. Unfortunately, this tends to misrepresent the praxis as "concert music" when, in fact, jazz is and was a "social praxis" for its originators, developers, and first enthusiasts. However, this school-situated praxis is in tune with the more concert-centric jazz of the contemporary commercial jazz scene.

The virtue of action learning in schools is the magnification of interest in the eyes of students who can see for themselves, outside of school, the relevance of what they are studying in school for life application, and learn it from the inside. One example is a school or class bank, using class manufactured "money." To be learned is where does money come from? Why is it valued? What happens if you spend it all, or otherwise have none (poverty) or print too much (fiat) money (inflation). Likewise, the structure of banking will be learned so that students can spend their money (as earned in class terms: e.g., selling artifacts made in art class; CDs made in music class or ensembles, etc. Natural will be the learning of practical banking basics: the dynamics of savings (earning interest), the relation in history to bank runs (that banks can run out of money, a historical study), depressions, investments, the stock market and, if risked for the class level of understanding, the pros and cons of capitalism (risked as a "hot topic" for parental disfavor). Thomas A. Regelski (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What you describe sounds like fairly conventional teaching in schools; why call it "action learning"? I did a quick Google search for: school + banks + teaching + "imitation money", and the first page of search results shows a number of books from the 1910s that mention one of your examples: Mathematics in the Elementary Schools of the United States: The American Report (1911, p. 63), The Teaching of Elementary Arithmetic (1916, p. 58), Junior High School Mathematics (1917, p. 79), School Arithmetics (1920, p. 149). Why call it "action learning" when it is plain old-fashioned teaching? In this case, really old-fashioned teaching. Biogeographist (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * notified me of at Teahouse. I think you underestimate the pedagogical innovativeness of previous generations. In the early part of the 20th century teachers were already attempting "to add relevance to classroom learning" in ways that would be evident "to students in out-of-school terms". John Dewey's 1916 book Democracy and Education comes to mind. Also, remember that Junior Achievement was founded in 1919. Just now I did a quick Google Scholar search for: "high school" + "business education" + selling, before 1930, and the first page of search results shows this article:  It describes the integration of hands-on business teaching across and outside of the curriculum: "The most obvious results are secured in the direct correlation of the various phases of commercial education with the actual business material. Bookkeeping students work on real accounts; students of filing handle vital material instead of a mechanical set. Stenographers write letters that are to be mailed. Principles of economics may be applied to situations in which the students are really interested. Salesmanship classes receive practical experience in sales work. Much opportunity is given for developing the qualities and learning the customs that are necessary in managerial, executive, and general office practice. It is not possible within the limits of this paper to develop the unlimited possibilities of such correlation. The work of the business department in the development of the plan has grown to large proportions, but it is believed that the work of the department has been vitalized to a corresponding degree. There is every reason to believe that there will be a continual development and application of this kind of correlated activity."


 * Surely business education and financial literacy has changed since the 1910s, just as business and financial systems have changed, but learning-by-doing has been part of pedagogy for a very long time. Biogeographist (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, now I look at the discussion above (which I have little knowledge and no interest in) I don't understand why it is being had in Wikipedia at all. You seem to be arguing about whether a concept is meaningful or not: the only source of an answer to that question, in Wikipedia land, is "are there reliable published sources which define and use the concept?" --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is that action learning refers to learning in (quoting the lead) "organizational and business development" and "corporate and organizational" contexts.  started a section here on this talk page about "action learning in schools", and what he described sounds to me like fairly conventional teaching that schools have been doing for decades. I don't see how it belongs in this article, as opposed to other articles on experiential learning / hands-on learning, learning-by-doing, pedagogy, etc. So I totally agree with you about lack of relevance; I don't understand why  is writing this here. Biogeographist (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I see. In that case,, your task is to provide some references to reliable published sources which discuss "action learning" (that exact phrase) in the school context, and are not written by you or your associates. Citing your own work is regarded as a conflict of interest, and needs to be done with care. Citing a subject that has been written about only by you and your associates is original research, and not accepted in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw that at Teahouse, where it appears that you claimed that there is "confusion" of John Dewey's ideas with action learning, and you claimed that action learning is instead "rooted" in the much older ideas of Aristotle. These claims are perhaps not entirely on topic, but since they are wrong, I will respond to them.

Even the most cursory review of the literature shows that the term action learning was not widely used until the 1970s (see also the Google Ngram graph for action learning), long after Dewey's era, and the most widely cited author on the term "action learning" in the 1970s (as can be seen in a Google Scholar query) was Reg Revans, who is mentioned in this article's lead. But Dewey was certainly a precursor of action learning: as Mike Pedler wrote in Action Learning in Practice (4th edition, 2011, p. xxi), "Action learning originates with Reginald Revans (1907–2003), Olympic athlete, student of nuclear physics, educational administrator and professor of management. Drawing on ancient sources of wisdom and more recent forbears such as Dewey and Lewin, Revans sought the improvement of human systems for the benefit of those who depend on them." A ton of other sources showing the connection between Dewey and action learning are shown in a Google Scholar search for: "action learning" + "John Dewey" (and add the term "praxis" if you want to narrow down the search results from thousands to hundreds). So that refutes the claim that there has been an erroneous "confusion" of Dewey's ideas with action learning; there is no confusion here, but a legitimate precursor. And all of those Google Scholar results also refute your claim that Dewey has been "out of favor in education for roughly 100 years"—nothing could be further from the truth; Dewey is still an important reference in educational theory.

Regarding your claim that action learning is "rooted" in Aristotle's ideas instead of Dewey's, we need only note that Aristotle lived millennia before Dewey, so Aristotle is even further removed from the present than Dewey, and Dewey was familiar with Aristotle; indeed, as Brent Lamons wrote in a chapter in Dewey and the Ancients: Essays on Hellenic and Hellenistic Themes in the Philosophy of John Dewey (2014, p. 169), although Dewey criticized Aristotle, "there are many parts of Dewey's conception of human nature that are heavily influenced by Aristotle". If you think that Dewey somehow lacked an understanding of praxis that Aristotle already had millennia before Dewey, then I respectfully say you are mistaken: as, for example, Stephen Tomlinson wrote, "Dewey's pragmatism was thus conceived as a science of praxis (prudent conduct), an instrument for constructing and evaluating action in open-ended situations. Further, in contrast to both Aristotle and modern technocrats, Dewey rejected the authoritarian and elitist social hierarchy imposed by the division of thinking and doing: the values implicit in science demanded the construction of a democratic community of problem solvers." You can connect action learning to Aristotle if you wish, but it makes no sense to claim that Aristotle's philosophy is relevant to action learning and Dewey's philosophy is irrelevant.

You also wrote in that "action learning experiences often transcend individual classrooms and engage the cooperative efforts of several teachers, even whole schools". But that "transcend[ing] individual classrooms" and "cooperative efforts" is exactly what was describing almost 100 years ago! This just confirms my point that what you have called "action learning in schools" is not radically different from what schools were doing a long time ago without the term "action learning". Biogeographist (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Citations on action learning in schools
As noted above, we need some independent reliable sources on "action learning in schools". A Google Scholar search for "action learning in schools" returns only 120 results, which is 0.1% of the 113,000 Google Scholar search results for "action learning" alone. These results do not bode well for the relevance of "action learning in schools" to this article. Furthermore, the most highly cited reference, by far, is Action Learning in Schools: Reframing Teachers' Professional Learning and Development (Routledge, 2009), which is a book about practice-based professional learning of teachers—not about the pedagogy that described above using the name "action learning in schools". So if there should be a section in this article about "action learning in schools", it appears that the section should be about the practice-based professional learning of teachers, not about what described above. Biogeographist (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I took some time to read a couple of articles (namely, and, both published in 1983) by Thomas A. Regelski (who I assume is the same as Wikipedia user ) on what he calls "action learning" in music education, and then I spent some time exploring references and citation counts on Google Scholar, and I have concluded that Regelski's conception of "action learning" in music education, as expounded in these two articles and in some of his other publications, has only influenced some music educators, and has not become a mainstream meaning of the term action learning. It does not belong in this Wikipedia article (and should not be added to the article by Regelski himself, per WP:COI). This article is about the mainstream meaning of action learning in organizations (as used, for example, in the scholarly journal Action Learning: Research and Practice) which has been applied in schools (as shown in the book Action Learning in Schools: Reframing Teachers' Professional Learning and Development mentioned above) but not with the meaning that Regelski has given to the term in music education. Regelski likely has valuable knowledge that he can add to Wikipedia in the area of music education (but again, not his own publications), and I would encourage him to do so. Biogeographist (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)