The concept of double loop learning was one that interested me. There is a saying that the definition of madness is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. If single loop learning encourages you to change your behavior to modify the outcome, it would seem that going above and beyond that and challenging the assumption behind the initial action (double loop) would be the antithesis of madness. Which makes sense, it explains the sense of both freedom and direction (and un-insanity) I get when I question ideas and assumptions at have been informing the way I perform. Changing the way you think is exciting. It’s like that moment before you open a gift, and anything could be wrapped in that paper you hold in your hands. The possibility seems infinite.

Although little abstract, an example of the two learnings I thought of was dieting. The desired outcome is to be happy with your figure. The action usually involves cutting out food groups, detoxes, fasting, a buttload of vegetables, and kale smoothies. This behavior can achieve the goal, however, it the achievement is usually fleeting. The moment your will gives, so does your waist. A double loop approach would perhaps involve questioning why you want to look this way, or why you think a fad diet will achieve this for you. Maybe it entails questioning why you want to change, why are you aren’t happy in the first place.

Anyway, that’s great in theory and corny to read, but it’s not where I was planning on going.

The point is, I understand the concept of double loop learning, I appreciate it and I can apply it. But, as per usual, when I attempt to apply my logic or my knowledge of the world to this class, everything goes tits up.

I have one big questions when it comes to understanding and applying double loop learning in the context of Networked Media.

In this particular example:
Assumption = what you believe makes a good blog
Action = executing a blog that conforms to your notion of what makes a good blog
Goal = a good blog.

First I looked at what I thought made a good blog (outside the sphere of the networked media class). I think a good blog is engaging, is interesting stylistically (literarily and visually), tells me information I didn’t know, or hadn’t considered from that angle previously, has a sense of humour (not essential but it helps) and is addictive to read. For this subject, I believe a good blog addresses the key issues and ideas raised in class and in the “unlecture” and looks at them in a unique way, interacting with the ideas playfully, critically, philosophically. And yes recognize all of these descriptions are very vague. But even so, do I need to reevaluate them and the assumptions that lie behind them? Perhaps a great blog is informal, not based on course content and is largely situated outside of the networked media bubble. These are all approaches I am going to experiment with.
But there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE GAPING PROBLEM here.

In pretty much every ore example I could think of for double loop learning the outcome is directly measurable and apparent. Take the diet example, you’re happy with the way you look or you aren’t. You lose weight or you don’t. Your self esteem increases, or it doesn’t. Based on this, you can change your behaviour and change your assumptions too.The huge problem here is that I don’t know if my blog is good or not. I might think it is. I might be meeting my assumption of what a good blog is, executing it perfectly, have compliments streaming in from my peers and even those from outside the course. My mum might love it and my dog doesn’t sick up when I read it aloud. An international publishing house offers me a lucrative contract to keep pumping out my gems of wisdom and I become a millionaire. But when it all comes down to it, if Adrian doesn’t like it, I don’t get a good mark. It’s a simple as that. And the problem with that is that I don’t know how he feels toward it until I get that HD or that credit 10 weeks from now. It’ll be a smidge too late to apply this feedback, change my behavior + assumptions then because the mark has been given. It means that I’m perpetually in a loop of questioning, second guessing myself, changing, never settling on one style, constantly challenging my view of myself and my assumptions of what makes my writing good or bad. Being critical and analyzing your work is essential, I get that. But when there is no baseline, how do you improve?