Action Learning Sets Research Articles

Am I doing it right? Facilitating action learning for service improvement

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to enquire into the role and skills of the action learning facilitator in the context of service improvement work in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). An earlier companion paper examined the concept of service improvement and the possible contribution of action learning as a means of bringing about both personal and organisational development.Design/methodology/approachThe paper takes the form of a case study. The research reports on the facilitation of action learning sets which formed part of a leadership development programme in the NHS. Data were collected via telephone interviews, focus groups, action learning sets and a World Café event.FindingsThe action learning facilitator's role is encircled by questions of method, approaches, skills and competencies, and crucially by complex contextual factors. Three role models are offered for the action learning facilitator – i.e. initiator, coach, and leader – and the paper concludes that any person fulfilling this role should develop the habits of reflection, critique and learning as part of developing their practice. Supervision and developmental support are also useful for people who are always asking themselves – “Am I doing it right?”Research limitations/implicationsThis case study on which these findings are based was developed at a time of great turmoil in the NHS. The dramatic specifics of the case serve to illustrate the critical variability and uniqueness of context. However, we believe that this does not greatly affect the efficacy of general conclusions drawn about action learning facilitation.Practical implicationsThe practice of action learning is developing rapidly in many different organisational and community settings, and there is a growing demand for its skilful facilitation.Originality/valueCurrently there is little literature on what constitutes appropriate development for action learning facilitators. The paper gives some clear choices and guidelines for the development of this role.

Action learning as legitimate peripheral participation

This paper explores how students made sense of the learning that occurred within a Masters educational programme (an MA in Human Resource Development), a programme informed by the ideals of critical action learning and critically reflective practice. Theoretically the paper develops links between communities of practice theory and critical action learning. I highlight how ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ can provide an analytical tool for understanding learning. This perspective shifts the analytical focus from the learner as an individual to learning as participation in the social world. Methodologically, a discourse perspective on learning and identity informs the research. A discourse perspective highlights the possibilities of researching practice through studying the talk in use. This focuses attention on how discourse is put together and what is gained by this construction. Material was generated from two cohorts of the programme and analysis reveals an emerging hegemonic struggle within this MA ‘community’. I illustrate how an emerging ‘critical’ repertoire was constrained by two unproblematic repertoires. I have called these the ‘organisation’ and the ‘individual’ repertoires. I also illustrate how two additional repertoires emerged during the action learning sets. I have called these the ‘challenging’ repertoire and the ‘politics’ repertoire. This paper contributes to an emerging discussion by exploring the relationship between individual and organisational and draws attention to ‘learning inaction’. In doing so I highlight how action learning sets are situated in broader social and discursive orders and reveal how consensus-bound discourses dominate and potentially limit action learning.

‘Learning-in-action’ and ‘learning inaction’: advancing the theory and practice of critical action learning

This paper seeks to improve our understanding of the emotional and political dynamics that are generated (and too often avoided) in action learning. The idea at the centre of the paper is a distinction between ‘learning-in-action’ and ‘learning inaction’. The phrase ‘learning-in-action’ represents the value of action learning and much of what we know about the productive relationship between learning and practice. For example, we know that action learning can provide a generative learning model for improvements in practice. Membership of an action learning set can assist individuals in the development of strategic actions, which then can be tested and potentially transformed in practice. However, there is another dynamic that is having an effect on learning and the transformation of practice within action learning. This is called ‘learning inaction’ because participants in learning sets also have (conscious and unconscious) knowledge, fantasies and perceptions about when it is emotionally and politically expedient to refrain from action, when to avoid collective action, and the organizational dynamics that underpin a failure to act. Organizational members are often aware of the political limits of learning within organizations without having to be told; we collude with others in order to create limitations on learning and we are often aware of what is and is not going to be seen as a legitimate result of our attempts to learn. We know these things at the same time as we are engaged in action learning. These developments in theory are related to practice through a focus on four action learning sets within the UK Health Service.

Lean and learning: action learning for service improvement

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine questions concerning service improvement and the possible contribution of action learning as a means of bringing about both personal and organisational development. A second companion paper deals with the facilitation issues in this context (submitted to Leadership in Health Services, December 2007).Design/methodology/approachThis research reports on the experiences of participants on a leadership development programme, who were seeking to effect service improvements in their professional domains. Data were collected via telephone interviews, focus groups, action learning sets and a world cafe event.FindingsThe paper concludes that the definition of “service improvement” is multiple and problematic. It concludes that action learning and service improvement can be natural partners but only if the action learning design is crafted to the specifics of the context.Research limitations/implicationsThis case study was developed at a time of great turmoil in the NHS. The findings may be taken as indicative and instructive rather than reproducible.Practical implicationsNHS service improvements are failing to keep pace with targets due to an over‐reliance on centrally initiated programmes and a deficit in local efforts. NHS and other managers will find this paper useful to help them bring about service improvements at local level.Originality/valueAs far as the authors know there are no other published accounts of service improvement initiatives developed via action learning.

Using an action learning set (ALS) to support the nurse and allied health professional consultant role

Advanced clinical practice roles are now an integral feature of many healthcare services and have been adopted in a diversity of areas. However, mentoring of these roles is not well documented in the literature and formal mechanisms of support are limited. An action learning set (ALS) was developed to provide support for consultants currently in post. The purpose was to facilitate clinicians in developing and meeting the demands of these posts by providing peer supervision, identifying strategies for leading service developments, providing a focus for problem solving and reflection. The ALS meets bi-monthly and is externally facilitated with the option to attend individual sessions with the facilitator. Participants also completed questionnaires measuring coping skills and stress, which were fed back in the individual sessions, providing opportunity for further opportunities for reflection. Initial evaluation was conducted formally using a structured questionnaire and reflective accounts, and provided evidence of the value of the ALS and an indication of how the criteria for success were being met, with greatest achievement reported in the area of work–life balance. The evaluation demonstrates the ongoing value of this ALS and the effectiveness of this method of supporting senior clinical staff.

Learning action learning: a journey

The action learning set (ALS) is an often-used tool in practice development to facilitate group reflection. As such, its use evolves in the hands of the participants as they become more comfortable with the process and as trust develops amongst group members. This paper aims to discuss the journey of one ALS over a 2-year period. It seeks to highlight the process of learning through an ALS and the complexity of making the process meaningful for the participants. The role of trust within an ALS cannot be overstated. This was an imperative factor in the overall effectiveness of the set.

Participating in a Collaborative Action Learning Set (CAL): beginning the journey

Action learning is being increasingly utilised as a strategy to underpin practitioner focused development and research projects in healthcare generally and nursing in particular. Whilst facilitators of and participants in action learning have a variety of resource materials to guide their practice and participation, there continue to be few systematic and/or evaluative accounts of the experience of participating in action learning for potential action learning participants to draw upon. This paper attempts to address this agenda. The paper presents an interpretive evaluation of the experience of nurses participating in action learning as the learning strategy underpinning a 3-year emancipatory practice development/practitioner research programme. In particular, the paper focuses on the experience of ‘joining a learning set’. This focus has been adopted as the theory of action learning emphasises the principle of ‘voluntariness’, but yet action learning is increasingly being pre-prescribed as a component of development and research programmes. Such was the case with the programme reported on in this paper. The paper describes an approach used to evaluate learning that was adopted in this programme and in particular the initial evaluation stage that focuses on participants' feelings about joining an action learning set. The data collection and analysis processes are described and the key themes arising from the analysis (‘self-preservation’ versus ‘development of self’) discussed. It is concluded that working with principles of enlightenment is essential to successful action learning and the transformation of workplace cultures.

Virtual Action Learning Sets: A Model for Facilitating Reflection in the Clinical Setting

Background and Purpose. Reflection is a strategy for learning from experiences that requires active, conscious engagement of the learner. Action learning promotes reflection and higher-order thinking and uses questions to solve real world problems. The authors present a model of learning using virtual-action learning (VAL) sets in the clinical setting. They sought to determine whether this model facilitated reflection and higher-order thinking, whether any differences existed between mentorfacilitated and peer-facilitated groups, and students' perceptions of the process. Method/Model Description and Evaluation. Two groups of physical therapist students (group 1: n=4; group 2: n=3) on their final clinical internship were oriented to reflective process and participated in VAL activity. Each submitted 1 critical incident to an electronic discussion board. Once posted, group members posed questions to facilitate reflection and further analysis. Group 1 was mentored by the clinical instructor (CI); Group 2 was peer-facilitated. An online discussion ensued to enable students to resolve their incidents. After 4 weeks students wrote a 1-page summative, reflective essay on the process and insights gained. Discussion threads and summative essays were analyzed. Descriptive statistics summarized evidence of the elements of reflection and levels of higher-order thinking achieved. Chisquare tests of independence were used to assess differences in frequencies of the reflective elements evident and of the levels of thinking achieved between the groups. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare groups for the number of questions posed versus advice given per entry. Finally, qualitative methods were used to analyze the summative reflective essays for students' perceptions of the process. Outcomes. No significant differences were noted between groups in the frequency of reflective elements evident in the postings. Group 1 exhibited greater proportions of data gathering (chi-square = 14.467, P < .001) and data analysis (chi-square = 4.025, P = .05), but no significant difference was noted when reaching a conclusion. Furthermore, while the mean number of responses phrased as questions did not differ significantly between the groups, those phrased as advice or experience sharing were significantly less in group 1 than in group 2 (z = -4.234, P < .001). Finally, the following themes emerged from the summative essays: (1) reflection is a deliberate analytic process; (2) reflective practice offers insight into the depth of patient management; and (3) VAL sets enhanced collaborative learning. Discussion and Conclusion. Virtualaction learning enabled students to work collaboratively to solve problems using the reflective process in the fast-paced clinical environment. Students valued and learned from the asynchronous dialogue and resultant reflective and questioning processes that promoted further thought, analysis, and problem solving.

Assessing Reflection and Higher-order Thinking in the Clinical Setting Using Electronic Discussion Threads

Background and Purpose. Students learn both theory and practical application in the classroom. However, for many, these aspects of clinical practice are not fully comprehended until students encounter real-life situations that require them to analyze, evaluate, modify, and apply what they know. Reflection can help students connect classroom knowledge to clinical practice and enable students to engage in higher-order thinking, moving beyond knowledge and comprehension to analysis, synthesis, and evaluation critical for practice. Integral to effective clinical teaching is the ability to assess outcomes. While the literature offers strategies to facilitate reflection and higher-order thinking, little has been written about the assessment process. The purpose of this study was to design and test a method of assessing reflection and higher-order thinking evident in electronic discussion board threads of students involved in virtual action learning sets in the clinical setting. Subjects. Seven entry-level physical therapist students on their final full-time clinical internship participated in this study. Participants were engaged in a collaborative model of clinical education on an acute rehabilitation unit. Methods. Participants were assigned to 2 groups based on the timing of their internship. Both groups received a 2-hour in-service on reflective practice, submitted critical incidents to an electronic discussion board, and participated in an electronic discussion for 4 weeks. Following the discussion board activity, discussion threads were downloaded and analyzed for the presence of the elements of reflection and levels of higherorder thinking using coding schemas previously reported in the literature. The submissions were coded independently by 3 raters and interrater reliability was assessed by percent agreements and kappa statistics. Results. Moderate to almost perfect levels of agreement between raters were achieved for most of the coding schemas used, with interrater prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa coefficients that ranged from 0.38 to 0.92. Discussion and Conclusion. This study provides a reliable method of assessing reflective thinking and higher-order processing in the clinical setting through the use of electronic discussion boards.

Experiences of an action learning set

AbstractThis paper outlines the background to the establishment of a multidisciplinary action learning set in the Irish Health Service context; describes the action learning set process; explores set members' experiences of set membership and action learning; and concludes by making some recommendations. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

Action learning: facilitating real change for part-time occupational therapy students

This study explored the use of action learning with first-year part-time occupational therapy students. The aims were: (1) to identify the issues raised by students relating to their needs on the course and any changes they made; (2) to explore the influence of action learning in facilitating change. It was also hoped that through action learning students could rehearse appropriate professional skills. Fifteen students in two action learning sets with a known tutor as facilitator met for 10 weekly one-hour sets. Action research was used with methods including a pre-questionnaire to capture initial thoughts of students; participant observation yielding field-notes; reflective diaries; students' written feedback and a final group interview. Inductive analysis was used to identify emerging themes. A range of personal, professional and academic issues were identified and some students reported changes across these domains. The use of new ways of learning and the use of peer support offered by action learning seemed to facilitate these changes in students. Changes in key professional skills such as communication and group skills were also noted. Challenges which acted against change were lack of need for peer support and lack of a deep understanding of group work processes. The need for integration of action learning into the wider curriculum was indicated.

Doers of the Word? An enquiry into the nature of action in action learning

A recent trend in public policy in many countries is the requirement for ‘joined up thinking’ and ‘joined up working’, including partnership within and between agencies, and between agencies and their publics. This in turn has led to a growth of interest in action learning as a means to bring about the organizational and individual development required for implementing such policies. Action learning, with its emphasis on solving new problems, implementing solutions and learning-to-learn seems to fit the zeitgeist. However, the notion of ‘action’ in action learning has presented a real difficulty in administering action learning sets in this context. Commencing from a philosophical point of view that emphasises the identity of action and learning, rather than their separation, we report here on three such public sector action learning projects and identify three fundamental features of the action which took place in and around them. Thus: action can occur either inside or outside the set; while it is always an input to the learning process, it can also sometimes be regarded as an output of that process; and finally, the type of knowledge that can be acquired may be in Gilbert Ryle's terms either ‘knowledge how’ or ‘knowledge that’. Five categories of action are identified: expressive action, concerned with feelings and relationships in the set; the enrichment of networks and local knowledge; changes in personal practice; collective action; and organisational change. While organisational change may be regarded as, in one sense, ‘the big prize’ of action learning, it should not blind us to more subtle processes of learning and change that occur.

Writing it down—writing it out—writing it up: researching our practice through action learning

We dedicate this article to the late Professor John Morris, an appreciative inquirer into and true enabler of the writing of practice for each of us. What value is added for writer and reader by intentionally keeping personal learning part of public researching? When a practitioner attends conscientiously to ‘the relationship with their research,’ does it make a difference to their learning and researching? If it does, can this difference also make a difference to the reader …? This paper addresses these kinds of queries from the standpoint of ‘scholarly practice,’ the research undertaken by mature managers and professionals who account in text for initiating and sustaining change within their complex contexts of work. Through exploring a variety of learning frames, the authors identify the distinctive opportunities and challenges in practice-led enquiry, and raise implications critically for the researching professional as well as for their ‘enablers’—the academic supervisors or fellow action-learning set members—who support and challenge the efforts of scholarly practitioners to make sense of and explicate their action. Revans's praxeology of action-based learning (systems alpha, beta and gamma) is extended as a research analogue for practice-led knowing. Ontological, methodological and epistemological perspectives are progressively deployed to examine critically the essentially reflexive nature of scholarly practice. The authors depict challenges in scholarly practice of establishing focus, incorporating others' thinking alongside one's own and asserting one's own voice. The paper concludes by warning of two ways in which enablers can unwittingly hijack the purpose of practice-led research.

Using an assessment framework: outcomes from a pilot study

This article reports on the evaluation of a pilot project which tested the utility of a framework for the Assessment of Vulnerable Children and their Families in five health board (local authority) areas in the Republic of Ireland. The framework had been developed following a consultancy process with practitioners and managers from a number of disciplines. The evaluation sought to establish whether (1) use of the framework helped to standardise practice across a range of organisational environments, (2) the framework was effective in a range of family situations and circumstances, (3) the process of assessment was transparent, (4) the framework advanced collaboration between disciplines and (5) the materials were user‐friendly. The methods used for evaluation were: semi‐structured interviews, a review of case records, a postal survey of practitioners, an action learning set and consultation with an expert group. Findings indicated that the framework was largely successful in its aims, with weaknesses demonstrated principally in two areas, namely inadequate use of evidence for decision‐making and deficiencies in documented information about children.

Culture and commitment: the key to the creation of an action learning organization

This article examines the introduction and practice of action learning into a highly volatile, commercial environment. During nine years of action learning projects, the impact on individuals, the action learning sets into which they were formed, the organization and its structure and the organizational culture were evaluated. The article demonstrates the potential benefits of action learning over other process improvement initiatives provided the issues of cultural alignment (of a program with an organization) and management commitment are addressed.

Partnerships and work‐based learning: an evaluation of an opportunity to pioneer new ways to care for the older people in the community

The following British case study illustrates how a group of Primary Health Care Trusts expanded partnerships with a university to support the development of 12 new advanced primary nurses (APNs). The cohort of APNs were undertaking new roles and were part of the national pilot of the Department of Health adapted Evercare programme for the ‘at risk’ older people. Unique to the support was the rapid response of a local university to support and accredit 8 of the nurses’ development of diverse needs via a masters work‐based learning module. Self‐assessment, reflection, action learning sets and time to practice new skills in a workshop and in practice settings were important aspects of the module. The evaluation of the work‐based learning module was triangulated to include both individual and group responses. Evidencing work‐based learning was a new but positive experience. The evidence suggests that the expanding partnerships and synergy between practice and academia is evolving, but needs organizational support. The new ways of working, including multidisciplinary mentorship, have developed both acute and community nurses to undertake health needs assessments of identified caseloads, and in partnership with doctors and pharmacists, to diagnose, review and prescribe drugs in an attempt to reduce re‐hospitalization. Evolving themes from the evaluation and the learning from the partnerships have influenced further developments in both practice and academia.

Assessing research quality

Assessing research quality

Action learning dissertations: structure, supervision and examination

In qualification programmes based on action learning, there has hitherto been little articulation of what is particular to research dissertations undertaken in an action learning mode. This article addresses the questions of what such a dissertation entails and how it can be undertaken, supervised and examined. It discusses some of the foundations of action learning research and how accounts of practice may be integrated with reflection. It suggests that an action learning dissertation may be framed around Revans' Systems Alpha, Beta and Gamma as interlocking systems that address the investigation of the problem on which the dissertation is based, its resolution and the learning of the participant. A blueprint is presented that incorporates four elements: (i) the work and organisation and the participant's engagement with it, (ii) the action learning set and what the participant learned through it, (iii) the information and literature which have made a difference to the participant's thinking and (iv) the personal and professional learning of the participant.

Action learning from a participant's perspective

The overall aim of this paper is to give an account of action learning in practice. It demonstrates the potential strengths and weaknesses of action learning. The information given is derived from five years in an action learning set. Significant events from within and without the action learning set will be explored using the themes clarifying; attending; and disengaging. The subsequent impact of the action learning experience on my professional practice will also be discussed.

Action learning: avoiding conflict or enabling action

Action learning is based on the premise that action and learning are inextricably entwined and it is this potential, to enable action, which has contributed to the growth of action learning within education and management development programmes. However has this growth in action learning lead to an evolution or a dilution of Revan's classical Principles (RCP)? We illustrate, using examples from a case study organisation, how action learning enabled action but also how action learning supported some participants in avoiding conflict. We argue that key decision makers in the organisation are, often unacknowledged, part of the action learning process and that while the action learning sets enabled participants to practice questioning taken-for-granted-assumptions, this questioning needed to be extended and supported within wider communities. We also argue that critical theory can enhance action learning by enabling better questioning and we refocus attention on the need for ‘organizing insight’ (Vince, 2004). Finally we reemphasise the social aspect of critically reflective practice and in the spirit of engaging and extending the community of reflective practice we offer our reflections; opening a space for others to question and reflect extending further theory which illuminates the idea of action learning.