Advances in E-learning-Experiences and Methodologies

A Heideggerian View on E-Learning
should move to a different kind of situations and
make the learner cope with breakdowns: something
produces unexpected results, an error resists
correction, or we begin to look at something in a
new way. 11 The learner response to the situation,
based on rules and procedures, will gradually be
replaced by situational discriminations accompanied
by associated responses. In the beginning of
this level, the learner will have mainly reasoned
responses, will need to “stop and think,” but as
he/she becomes really competent, intuitive behaviour
will gradually take place.
In order to become competent, the instructor
must then design situations that provoke breakdowns.
In this sense, role-playing could be better
than case studies, especially in undergraduate
education. For instance, in courses like communication
or negotiation, one can easily imagine
role plays where learners face “surprises.” Course
sessions can therefore start by role plays and then
reflect on the observed behaviours; the instructor
can use these reflective moments to present
theories, concepts, methods and techniques.
In corporate learning and executive education,
the instructor should, in addition to the above,
design discussions of learners’ breakdowns at
work (Mintzberg, 2004), and use action learning
techniques (Pedler, 1991; Revans, 1980). Action
learning was invented by Reginald Revans when
he was leading the training department at the
National Coal Board in the United Kingdom. It
is based on two important points: (a) work on the
real problems faced by learners, and (b) work on
problems where there is confusion, ignorance,
where nobody has the answer. This is done in a
“learning set,” that is a group of 5-8 people whose
main goal is to learn from their own experience
through questioning and reflecting.
The group decides on the common problem/
opportunity on which to work. People look for
new interpretations, new ways of settling the
problem/opportunity. A good guide to doing this
is to work on the following questions:
• What am I trying to do?
• What is stopping me from doing it? What
is the problem?
• What action will I take in order to overcome
the obstacles?
It is in this process that people learn from each
other and create new knowledge.
In this school of thought, learning involves
programmed knowledge (knowledge one gets
from outside the set through lectures, seminars,
books, etc.), but the majority of the learning occurs
through fresh questions that help the person
addressing the problem to look at it in different
ways so that better solutions can be found.
Another important point here is that learning
means implementation (stopping at the analysis
and recommendations phase will not be sufficient).
Action learning is then a cyclical process: it starts
with problem discussion; people look for new
ways of seeing the problem, finding solutions,
implementing solutions, and observing results,
and the process starts again with the discussion
of problems with implementation.
One can also say that in applying action
learning techniques and/or the learning methods
suggested by Mintzberg, instructors are promoting
“reflection-on-action.” Elsewhere (Vasquez
Bronfman, 2005) I have shown the parallels of
a Heideggerian view of learning with Donald
Schön’s interpretation of reflection, which is quite
different of the traditional interpretation of the
concept as a detached way of knowing. On the
basis of his observations of the artistry showed
by competent practitioners, Schön propose two
fundamental concepts in order to explain this
artistry. These are knowing-in-action on the one
hand, reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action
on the other hand (Schön, 1983, 1987).
Knowing-in-action refers to the know-how
revealed in our daily action when doing our jobs,
for example, the instant analysis of a balance
sheet. According to Schön, there are in fact many
actions we perform spontaneously, without hav-