'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction
This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Fleming, William [verfasserIn] Rutherford, Desmond [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2011 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Studies in higher education - Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976, 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
number:1 ; volume:9 ; year:1984 ; pages:17-26 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1080/03075078412331378883 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ252872436 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ252872436 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231206143527.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231206s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1080/03075078412331378883 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ252872436 | ||
| 035 | |a (TFO)718863982 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Fleming, William |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a 'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2011 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Rutherford, Desmond |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Studies in higher education |d Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976 |g 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)NLEJ252865774 |w (DE-600)2011915-X |w (DE-576)263253260 |x 1470-174X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g number:1 |g volume:9 |g year:1984 |g pages:17-26 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344 |x Digitalisierung |z Deutschlandweit zugänglich |
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-TFO | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |e 1 |d 9 |j 1984 |h 17-26 | ||
| author_variant |
w f wf d r dr |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:1470174X:2011----::eomnainfrerigreo |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2011 |
| publishDate |
2011 |
| allfields |
10.1080/03075078412331378883 doi (DE-627)NLEJ252872436 (TFO)718863982 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Fleming, William verfasserin aut 'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. Rutherford, Desmond verfasserin aut Enthalten in Studies in higher education Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ252865774 (DE-600)2011915-X (DE-576)263253260 1470-174X nnns number:1 volume:9 year:1984 pages:17-26 https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344 Digitalisierung Deutschlandweit zugänglich ZDB-1-TFO GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 1 9 1984 17-26 |
| spelling |
10.1080/03075078412331378883 doi (DE-627)NLEJ252872436 (TFO)718863982 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Fleming, William verfasserin aut 'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. Rutherford, Desmond verfasserin aut Enthalten in Studies in higher education Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ252865774 (DE-600)2011915-X (DE-576)263253260 1470-174X nnns number:1 volume:9 year:1984 pages:17-26 https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344 Digitalisierung Deutschlandweit zugänglich ZDB-1-TFO GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 1 9 1984 17-26 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1080/03075078412331378883 doi (DE-627)NLEJ252872436 (TFO)718863982 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Fleming, William verfasserin aut 'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. Rutherford, Desmond verfasserin aut Enthalten in Studies in higher education Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ252865774 (DE-600)2011915-X (DE-576)263253260 1470-174X nnns number:1 volume:9 year:1984 pages:17-26 https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344 Digitalisierung Deutschlandweit zugänglich ZDB-1-TFO GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 1 9 1984 17-26 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1080/03075078412331378883 doi (DE-627)NLEJ252872436 (TFO)718863982 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Fleming, William verfasserin aut 'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. Rutherford, Desmond verfasserin aut Enthalten in Studies in higher education Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ252865774 (DE-600)2011915-X (DE-576)263253260 1470-174X nnns number:1 volume:9 year:1984 pages:17-26 https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344 Digitalisierung Deutschlandweit zugänglich ZDB-1-TFO GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 1 9 1984 17-26 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1080/03075078412331378883 doi (DE-627)NLEJ252872436 (TFO)718863982 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng Fleming, William verfasserin aut 'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction 2011 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. Rutherford, Desmond verfasserin aut Enthalten in Studies in higher education Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ252865774 (DE-600)2011915-X (DE-576)263253260 1470-174X nnns number:1 volume:9 year:1984 pages:17-26 https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344 Digitalisierung Deutschlandweit zugänglich ZDB-1-TFO GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 1 9 1984 17-26 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Studies in higher education 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 number:1 volume:9 year:1984 pages:17-26 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Studies in higher education 9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26 number:1 volume:9 year:1984 pages:17-26 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Studies in higher education |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Fleming, William @@aut@@ Rutherford, Desmond @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
1984-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ252865774 |
| id |
NLEJ252872436 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ252872436</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20231206143527.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">231206s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1080/03075078412331378883</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ252872436</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(TFO)718863982</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fleming, William</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rutherford, Desmond</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Studies in higher education</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976</subfield><subfield code="g">9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ252865774</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2011915-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)263253260</subfield><subfield code="x">1470-174X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:1984</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:17-26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344</subfield><subfield code="x">Digitalisierung</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-TFO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">1984</subfield><subfield code="h">17-26</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Fleming, William |
| spellingShingle |
Fleming, William 'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction |
| authorStr |
Fleming, William |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ252865774 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
NL |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1470-174X |
| topic_title |
'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Studies in higher education |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ252865774 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Studies in higher education |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ252865774 (DE-600)2011915-X (DE-576)263253260 |
| title |
'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ252872436 (TFO)718863982 |
| title_full |
'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction |
| author_sort |
Fleming, William |
| journal |
Studies in higher education |
| journalStr |
Studies in higher education |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2011 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
17 |
| author_browse |
Fleming, William Rutherford, Desmond |
| container_volume |
9 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Fleming, William |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1080/03075078412331378883 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
'recommendations for learning˚s: rhetoric and reaction |
| title_auth |
'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction |
| abstract |
This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. |
| abstractGer |
This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice. |
| collection_details |
ZDB-1-TFO GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction |
| url |
https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Rutherford, Desmond |
| author2Str |
Rutherford, Desmond |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ252865774 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1080/03075078412331378883 |
| up_date |
2024-07-05T22:09:26.851Z |
| _version_ |
1803778645667348480 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ252872436</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20231206143527.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">231206s2011 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1080/03075078412331378883</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ252872436</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(TFO)718863982</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fleming, William</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">'Recommendations for learning˚s: Rhetoric and reaction</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper analyses the reasons for the generally negative reaction by academics to Bligh's 'Recommendations for Learning˚s by drawing on the Theory-of-Action perspective originally developed by Argyris & Schon and more recently applied to higher education by Heller. The theory has two components: Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory. Actions are informed by our Theory-in-Use which consists of 'governing values˚s and associated strategies of which we are largely unaware and over which we have little control. Three different Theories-in-Use are described—model 1, model 1a and model 2—and a distinction is made between these and the often very different values and strategies that we proclaim in public—our Espoused Theory. The 'Recommendations for Learning˚s represent model 2 values that are incompatible with the model 1 values that typically inform the actions of academics. Although the general recommendations may command assent at the Espoused Theory level, the specific recommendations which propose action will conflict with the prevalent model 1 Theory-in-Use and will be rejected. The paper concludes that the 'Recommendations for Learning˚s will have little impact on academic practice.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rutherford, Desmond</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Studies in higher education</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford [u.a.] : Carfax Publ. Co., 1976</subfield><subfield code="g">9(1984), 1, Seite 17-26</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ252865774</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2011915-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)263253260</subfield><subfield code="x">1470-174X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">volume:9</subfield><subfield code="g">year:1984</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:17-26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tandf%3Ad5ee73fbc0c1fa2ce71400bdedc2d3be80b66344</subfield><subfield code="x">Digitalisierung</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-TFO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="d">9</subfield><subfield code="j">1984</subfield><subfield code="h">17-26</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3994074 |