Making Space for Adaptive Learning

Abstract

This article reports findings from a research program exploring the role of mediation in an “adaptive learning” process through study of developmental evaluation (DE). Our study focuses on how mediators might influence the relationships between components of a social learning system and the implications for adaptive learning. Specifically, we focused on evaluators making space for the interrogation of ideas and choices, why this is important, what strategies are used, and what challenges present. Data from a multiple case study of four DEs revealed multiple drivers behind a need to make space, including new trust factors, uncertainty and anxiety, and learning-related norms. Strategies that were employed included turning down the heat, seeking balance among competing needs, normalizing evaluation practice, and legitimizing DE. Results are discussed in terms of implications for evaluation capacity building in adaptive learning contexts. Questions for future inquiry are posed.

Implementer learning in developmental evaluation: A cultural historical activity theory and expansive learning analysis

“…However, the nature of perspectives as holistic units of analysis and the challenges of reconfiguration of the object of partnership in the tenuous conditions of a contested innovation required the codirectors’ efforts and resources to work through their positional perspectives (Engeström, 2015; Vennebo and Ottesen, 2015). Conflicts were not simply different points of view with a developmental evaluator managing tensions as problems of group dynamics (Szijarto and Cousins, 2019a). Rather, the implementers’ perspectives were essential situated understandings inseparable from the motive of innovation and central to creating new knowledge used to evolve partnering (Engeström, 2015; Ivaldi and Scaratti, 2016; Ivaldi et al, 2015; Vennebo and Ottesen, 2015).…”

“…In DE, learning is fostered with the adaptive use of an inquiry framework that structures the kinds of questions and evaluative thinking employed by the evaluator. An inquiry framework conceptualizes how evaluators go about facilitating collaborative learning (Dozois et al, 2010; Lam and Shulha, 2015; Langlois et al, 2013; Patton, 2011b; Poth et al, 2011; Szijarto and Cousins, 2019a, 2019b). Patton (2011a) also asserted that learning is characteristically double-loop (Argyris and Schön, 1978), meaning that it creates systems change.…”

“…Yet, research on complexity, DE, and developmental evaluator practices suggests that influencing the process of implementer learning and program developments in real time is not straightforward (Ling, 2012). Particularly in the early stages of an innovation, there are high levels of uncertainty, lack of clarity about innovation, confusion about DE, ambiguity in evaluator and implementer roles, and tensions and conflicts between those involved (Baldwin and Lander, 2019; Lam and Shulha, 2015; Langlois et al, 2013; Ling, 2012; Poth et al, 2011; Szijarto and Cousins, 2019a, 2019b).…”

“…In addition, the empirical research on DE has shown that the work of the developmental evaluator is multifaceted encompassing a wide range of activities and functional roles with multiple targets of intervention. Findings indicate that developmental evaluators foster relationships with and between implementers and resolve conflicts as precursor and ongoing steps that enable collective assessment of a situated program (Baldwin and Lander, 2019; Lam and Shulha, 2015; Lawrence et al, 2018; Ling, 2012; Poth et al, 2011; Szijarto and Cousins, 2019a, 2019b). These studies of evaluator functional activities indicate that a developmental evaluator works as a group facilitator, as an evaluation content expert, and in a co-creative and collaborative problem-solving manner.…”

“…In addition, developmental evaluators play a mechanistic role in fostering learning, or process use, that actualizes program developments. Therefore, it is not surprising that the research on DE has focused on conceptualizing evaluator roles and functional activities (Baldwin and Lander, 2019; Lam and Shulha, 2015; Langlois et al, 2013; Poth et al, 2011; Szijarto and Cousins, 2019a, 2019b).…”