Learning from experience, the cyclical interplay of thinking and doing, is increasingly important as organizations struggle to cope with rapidly changing environments and more complex and interdependent sets of knowledge. This paper confronts two central issues for organizational learning: (1) how is local learning (by individuals or small groups) integrated into collective learning by organizations? and (2) what are the differences between learning practices that focus on control, elimination of surprises, and single-loop incremental “fixing ” of problems with those that focus on deep or radical learning, double-loop challenging of assumptions, and discovery of new opportunities? We articulate these relationships through an analysis of learning practices in high-hazard organizations, specifically, problem investigation teams that examine the most serious and troubling events and trends in nuclear power plants and chemical plants. Our analysis suggests a four-stage model of organizational learning reflecting different approaches to control and learning. LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE IN HIGH-HAZARD ORGANIZATIONS 1

Socrates, the founder of the inductive method (Watson, 1978), was a master at analytical reasoning. Plato, his student, believed in the reality of abstract Forms perceivable only through "the mind's eye, " and imperfectly represented in everyday life (Plato's Republic, Jowett trans., 1871/1944, p. 258). Aristotle, Plato's student, denied the Platonic Forms, and turned to biological classification in his search for truth. Like Plato, Aristotle believed that imagery was important, but he added the element of sequentiality: "we recall these images by ordering them in sequence, associating them with one another according to the principles of similarity, contrast, and contiguity " (cited in Wittrock, 1978, p. 61). The threads of analytical, sequential reasoning versus nonsequential, geometric visions of reality create a fascinating dialectic of differing world views throughout the history of psychology. Consider Locke's associationism, Pavlov's classical conditioning, Watson's behaviorism, Skinner's operant conditioning, and Bloom's taxonomy compared with Kant's a priori Anschauungen—“the spatial arrangement of objects given in perception " (Boring, 1950, p. 248); the gestalt psychologists—Wertheimer, Kohler, Koffka; Piaget's assessment of formal operational

This paper weaves together issues of collaboration among staff and collaboration among students. It builds on experience at two very different British universities and it fits with one of the conference themes of ‘collaborative action in and beyond the campus’. One connection between these is that by practising effective collaboration, staff can contribute to a climate where collaborative information and technology skills are perceived by students to be valuable. Among staff the paper focuses particularly on collaboration between academic and information staff. Information professionals have an important, and often undervalued, role, in knowing where expertise is situated within a university; this is particularly valuable where electronic resources are used widely to support teaching. In the authors ’ institutions there is a considerable variation in approaches to electronic support for teaching and learning, and one barrier to wider use is often the lack of a ‘comfort factor’. It is suggested that effective collaboration across roles within a university can help to build greater comfort with the use of electronic resources. Among students the paper discusses information skills, notably those relevant to effective group work. Even students who perceive themselves to be highly information literate on arrival at university, have demonstrated scope for improvement, often in the light of reflection about their requirements. From the students ’ viewpoint, evidence of effective and visible collaboration among staff, especially those in various roles, can promote the benefits of collaborative work.

The Working Papers are a series of manuscripts in their draft form. Please do not quote without obtaining the author's consent as these works are in their draft form. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily endorsed by the School.

Students in general, but particularly those in introductory courses and/or those from campuses with a multicultural student population, have very definite but decidely different information gathering and processing styles. In environments such as those described above there is a need for both student awareness of their cognitive preferences and use of a cognitive model by faculty in course design and teaching. Cognitive models describe four different information gathering and processing types. The purpose of this paper is to explain the importance of this cognitive model in a diverse learning environment.