M ODELING THE ADAPTIVE LEARNING PROCESS

The review of adaptive learning theories underscores the cyclical nature of this phenomenon. Moreover, the theoretical sources reviewed assume that adaptive learning is activated and triggered by some kind of problem perception. In bounded rationality theories, this point is captured by the general idea that discrepancies between targets and outcomes activate search in the environments (March, 1994a). The term organizational dissonance describes a close to similar set of activation triggers, and this concept is incorporated into the analytical framework. The adaptive action program is furthermore activated from the local level of the school organization.

Moreover, the micro level analysis implies that learning within groups, in social networks and informal communities of practice are seen as adaptive drivers. However, since learning is dispersed, various forms of connectivity and brokering are required. This notion is captured by the middle management contribution, through various forms of boundary spanning roles, as discussed in chapter three. In the learning process, this function is captured by the notion of knowledge brokering (Glover et al., 1998; Wenger, 1998). The thesis suggests knowledge brokering to be a crucial function, which is undertaken by academic middle managers. The outcome of adaptation is a shared practice that governs behavior in dispersed social locations, which means both schooling and workplace training. The learning process, in line with the framework presented previously, is conceptualized as knowledge integration. The model of the adaptive learning process, distilled from the theory discussion in chapters two, three and four, is illustrated in figure 4.3.

89

Figure 4.3: Modeling adaptive learning in a distributed community of practice

In general terms, organizational dissonance denotes recurrent gaps between the existing routines, structures and technologies and environmental demands, as perceived by a dominant coalition of the organization (Kvålshaugen & Amdam, 2000). When organizational dissonance is perceived among a strong coalition within the organization, search for solutions, better understandings, tools and frameworks may be stimulated (Cyert & March, 1992; March, 1994a). A sufficient powerful coalition may found at the local level, for example populated by schoolteachers and their middle manager within a distinct occupational domain. When this coalition perceives recurrent mismatches in their core technology, where the existing rules and structure do not provide appropriate solutions, this can fairly well be understood as dissonance. The further proposition of the thesis is, thus, that dissonance will activate adaptive learning.

The process referred to as knowledge integration might encompass two different learning operations, integration of knowledge within groups and between them (J. S. Brown & Duguid, 2001b). The first enterprise is about sharing ideas, insights and experiences within a closely-knit group Commonality in their practice repertoire facilitates the transformation of insights into shared understandings among the group members involved. The basic vehicle is negotiation about how experiences, concepts, proposals and problems shall be understood, and how these inferences are to be implanted into the group’s frame of reference (Rock, 2005). Nevertheless, the process

Organizational

Dissonance Knowledge

Brokering Knowledge

Integration

Adaptation

Shared Practice

90

is not solely a cognitive enterprise, because it also refers to gaining political acceptance and compromises among conflicting viewpoints and interests.

Integrating knowledge between groups, secondly, is a far more complex enterprise, simply because of the boundaries of practice that distinguish them from each other. Both forms of integrating knowledge into collective repertoires call for different agency contributions, as elaborated in chapter three. Although different concepts are in use to describe the agent’s role, several scholars argue that active engagement from an external facilitator is a key factor in such complex learning processes (Sadler, 2001). As pointed out by Lawrence et al (2005), integrating and institutionalizing new ideas and practices are not only a social-psychological processes contingent of the cognitive schemas and frames of reference available for the members.

Rather, knowledge integration within groups is also a process dependent of a minimum of political will: “We argue that the process of integrating also involves episodes of power on the part of the interested actors” (Lawrence et al., 2005, p. 182). The integration of individual insights towards a shared repertoire accepted, owned and internalized by the whole group thus requires functions of managing conflict and negotiation among different worldviews and interests. Negotiated meaning is achieved gradually as it emerges from a process of give and take, continuous interaction and compromises. And as noted by Wenger, “the experience of meaning is not produced out of thin air” (Wenger, 1998, p.52). Therefore the broker’s agency contribution is crucial, as argued in chapter three.

4.6 Summary of perspectives

As elaborated in chapter two, Norwegian upper secondary schools are loosely coupled organizational systems, where, based on the reviewed literature, local adaptation is suggested to be an appropriate and effective response strategy. Moreover, as argued in chapters two and three, local adaptation works as a rational instrument in concert with enhanced leadership (Orton & Weick, 1990). These two mechanisms in the reviewed literature are suggested to offer a conjoint contribution in the loosely coupled school organization. As pointed to by the theoretical sources of this chapter, adaptive learning in the given context is understood as a mutual project among players within the same organizational field. That is, both local school professionals and working life stakeholders operate in local fields demarked by occupational boundaries. Although chapter three highlights well the agency contribution by middle managers as a key component of the

91

adaptation enterprise, boundary spanning is not sufficient, although required.

Besides, a genuine social context for mutual adjustments and sharing of knowledge is proposed to be a crucial condition for adaptive learning. The notion of the distributed community of practice captures this reality fairly well. This social entity captures knowledge creation among actors that work in disperse contexts, and the theory explicates the outcome of the learning endeavors, i.e. the practice. Whereas social network theory highlights the relationship among the actors, the community of practice perspective captures the local and informal knowledge creation.

Vocational training actors operate in local environments where technical demands are imposed on their core technology in a cyclical and iterative pattern. At the same time, the loosely coupled system does not resolve such challenges through routines and structures. Organizational dissonance is therefore proposed to occur and reoccur. Dissonance is thus seen as an activation trigger of the learning cycle. Since mutual adjustments of understandings and action programs are central components of the adaptation process, the review in this chapter pinpoints that adaptive learning is primarily about integration of knowledge. Moreover, as elaborated in chapter three, integration of knowledge across formal and informal boundaries is supported and facilitated by various boundary-spanning roles performed by middle managers. Moreover, the micro level perspective brings middle management agency to the forefront of the adaptation process.

Through the aggregate utilization of supplementary boundary spanning roles, academic middle managers, as concluded in chapter three, provide a significant contribution to the adaptation process.

92