32. Organizational Education
Paper
Improving digital Leadership Skills in traditional Organizations: School Administration and Principals co-design new Settings for Communication to challenge Uncertainty.
Iris Geigle, Nina Bremm
FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
Presenting Author: Geigle, Iris
The uncertainties surrounding advancements in school improvement are closely connected with three primary dimensions: (1) A global aspect that shapes the educational system through disruptive crises such as pandemics, wars, and migrations, along with ongoing digital and social transformations (Kushnir 2021). Educational institutions find themselves contending with and addressing the complexities presented by this global dimension of uncertainty in their daily undertakings. This encompasses challenges such as the integration of refugees, the formulation of homeschooling protocols amidst pandemics, and the integration of digital tools and skills into the realms of learning, and organizational procedures.
In the hope of managing school quality through data and external evaluation, “external evaluation” was introduced as a new actor in the German administration after PISA 2000 - in addition to administrative supervisors and without a common focus between the two institutions (Diedrich 2020). The introduction of external evaluation introduced evidence and standardization as the main paradigms for school development, hence the effectiveness of school evaluation has not been conclusively proven (Malin et al. 2020, Schmidt 2020).
Those significant effectiveness problems describe a (3) third dimension of uncertainty that affects school leaders' decision-making and influences communication and cooperation between school administration, school evaluation, and principals (Kallenbach 2023). These three dimensions of uncertainty describe a real VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity ambiguity) environment especially for principals.
To face these systemic adversities, in the presented project school administration and researchers work within a research-practice partnership (RPP) together with stakeholders involved in school advice and support.
The aim of this multi-stakeholder partnership is to create an experimental field for the coordination of decision-making for a real problem: the design of new frameworks for the discussion and processing of school evaluation results between all relevant stakeholders, including the perspectives of science.
From an organizational education (OE) perspective, the RPP will help to decide from a wider point of view by sharing perspectives and reflecting structures. On the micro-level (Göhlich et al 2018), we aim to establish new forms of collaboration and communication by elaboration and experience within the project. A main element of the development process are design-thinking workshops to create prototypes for feedback setting to discuss external evaluation results with all stakeholders.
Design-Thinking (Brown 2008, Mintrop 2016) opens a new and not yet established perspective in the field of school improvement. It structures a participative and iterative process, involves all stakeholder perspectives and focuses on creating new ideas, tryouts, and continuous improvement. In contrast, previously dominant strategies of new public management reforms focused on evidence, such as the introduction of school evaluation in the early 2000s, but brought to light systemic contradictions (Hangartner & Svaton 2020) that hinder decision-making, management and control of school development processes.
In our work, we focus on explicit individual sense-making processes, experiences, and tensions in communicative settings and moderated sessions. The design is inspired by principles of network structures and distributed decision-making such as Sociocracy and Holacracy (Robertson 2016, Rau & Koch-Gonzalez 2018). Researchers and school administration establish a participative process that brings new work methods into a hierarchical structure. This approach can be understood as an attempt to disrupt the familiar and established system routines of task distribution, communication and decision-making.
Communication and decision-making are main topics and practices in the RPP. The process focuses on three aspects: clarity about roles and related accountabilities, common rules about cooperation and communication, and shared goals. The project mainly addresses the uncertainties within the organizational structure. Clarifying roles, collaboration rules, and goals opens up the potential for successful leadership actions in the VUCA world, such as "Response-ability," "Judgment," "Decision-making," "Question the taken-for-granted," and "Critical thinking" (Elkjaer 2022).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn the context of our research-practice-partnership (RPP), we work with a mixed method design and have different roles in the development process – as (a) facilitators, advisors and experts, and (b) as researchers. As experts, advisors, and facilitators, we co-design fieldwork with practitioners, supporting them in analyzing, planning, and carrying out the process. In the project's development setting and workshops with stakeholders, we use design thinking (Brown 2008, Mintrop 2016) as a participative and reflexive framework for co-creative problem solving. It helps us to loosen up the atmosphere for collaboration and to promote stakeholder interaction. For supervision, guidance, and moderation, we use techniques to visualize (e.g., system mapping) and to focus on listening (e.g., round speak, Rosenbrand 2017).
From the research perspective, we work as ethnographers, observing stakeholders and administrative leaders in their communication, negotiation, and actions throughout the process. In addition to our observation and note-taking in the field, we take audio-documentations in all steps of the process, including planning sessions with the administrative principals. These in-situ documents are interpreted using the documentary method (Bohnsack et al. 2007, Zala-Mezö et al. 2021) with a focus on contextual research (Goldmann 2021). Contextual research can help analyze various institutional norms that are nested within each other and interact with one another (Jansen & Vogd 2017, Goldmann 2021). It primarily focuses on structures and processes, rather than habits, as documentary methods usually do. Since contradictions are constitutive for schools as organizations, valuable practice consists of negotiation and discourse (Rachenbäumer & Bremm 2021).
In our research, we will particularly analyze in-situ sequences of decision-making processes. Although decisions are mainly provoked by external uncertainty (global uncertainty and its local consequences or uncertainty concerning the basis for a decision), decision-making processes refer to tensions or uncertainties in the organizational system (uncertainty about goals, roles, and processes of participation and decision-making). As a wider framework for the interpretation of our sources, convention theory (Storper & Salais 1997, Diaz-Bone 2022) serves to enrich our contextual research.
We are in the process of setting up the cooperation project between FAU and the federal school administration. Our working sessions with the stakeholders will start in March 2024, and the design-thinking workshop will be in May 2024. So far, we have observed and analyzed decision-making in the planning process between researchers and persons responsible in administration, which might be a side aspect of our organizational research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn our research project, we aim to identify critical communication and collaboration situations through the observation of collaboration in the field and documentary analysis of in-situ documents. Our goal is to characterize leverage points that contribute to establishing clarity in roles, goals, and collaboration between school administration, school evaluation, and principals. As moderators and facilitators, we employ methods that address co-creativity and participation, sharing of needs and perspectives, and knowledge management 'to deliver actionable knowledge' (Palavicino et al. 2023). Interventions shall help make leverage points visible. We offer tools that support to sharpen focus on system structures, discuss tensions, goals transparency, and self-organization. They refer to practices that promote Transformative Innovation Policy. (Palavicino et al. 2023). In the research-practice-partnership, all actors involved experience how decisions can be made in uncertain and basically contradictory organizational structures.
We expect to describe leverage points in cooperation between school administration, school evaluation, and school leaders more precisely by analyzing the in-situ documents. We want to offer knowledge and guidelines to use these leverage points for organizational learning and wayfinding. Within our project, we will design tools that help actors in complex, uncertain, and contradictory organizational structures to negotiate and collaborate in innovation and decision-making processes. Our goal is to create and combine tools that enable leaders and teams to seriously integrate perspective sharing, communication about goals and tensions, co-creation, and open-mindedness into their routines. And to face the wider organizational context and interdependencies. The tools need to be easy to structure and easy to use to foster self-organized and democratic practices in educational organizations. Our tools and guidelines may help establish those basic structures in complex situations in the field of education leaders and administrators and open up the chance to expand horizons and form new purposes and answers (English 2023, Dewey 1916/2008).
ReferencesAlvial Palavicino, C., Matti, C., & Brodnik, C. (2023). Co-creation for Transformative Innovation Policy: An implementation case for projects structured as portfolio of knowledge services. Evidence & Policy, 1–17.
Bohnsack, R. (2007). Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis (2. Aufl.). Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review.
Diaz-Bone, R. (2022). Soziologie der Konventionen. In H. Delitz (Hrsg.), Soziologische Denkweisen aus Frankreich (S. 471–493). Springer.
Elkjaer, B. (2022). Taking stock of “Organizational Learning”: Looking back and moving forward. Management Learning, 53(3), 582–604.
English, A. R. (2023). Dewey, Existential Uncertainty and Non-affirmative Democratic Education. In M. Uljens (Hrsg.), Non-affirmative Theory of Education and Bildung (Bd. 20, S. 139–158). Springer International Publishing.
Göhlich, M., Novotny, P., Revsbark, L., & Schröer, A. (2018). Research Memorandum Organizational Education. Studia Paedagogica, 23(2), 205–215.
Kallenbach, L. (2023). Evidenzbasierte Schulentwicklung als mehrdimensionale Spannungsbearbeitung. Ein übergeordneter Erklärungsansatz für anhaltende Wirksamkeitsprobleme. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 13(1), 109–126.
Klein, E. D., & Bremm, N. (Hrsg.). Unterstützung – Kooperation – Kontrolle: Zum Verhältnis von Schulaufsicht und Schulleitung in der Schulentwicklung. Springer.
Kushnir, I. (2022). The Role of the European Education Area in European Union Integration in Times of Crises. European Review, 30 (3), 301–321.
Leemann, R. J., & Imdorf, C. (2019). Das Potenzial der Soziologie der Konventionen für die Bildungsforschung. In C. Imdorf, R. J. Leemann, & P. Gonon (Hrsg.), Bildung und Konventionen (S. 3–45). Springer.
Malin, J. R., Brown, C., Ion, G. van Ackeren, I., Bremm, N., Luzmore, R., Flood, J. & Rind, G. M. (2020). World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education. What can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7 (1), 1–14.
Mintrop, R. (2016). Design-based school improvement: A practical guide for education leaders. Harvard Education Press.
Robertson, B. (2016). Holacracy. The Revolutionary Management System That Abolishes Hierarchy. Penguin.
Rau, T., Koch-Gonzalez, J. (2018): Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy. Sociocracy For All.
Schmidt, M. (2020). Wirksame Unbestimmtheit, unbestimmte Wirksamkeit: Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung zur Schulinspektion. Springer.
Zala-Mezö, E., Häbig, J., & Bremm, N. (Hrsg.). (2021). Die Dokumentarische Methode in der Schulentwicklungsforschung. Waxmann.
32. Organizational Education
Paper
Relationships between Principals' Self-efficacy related to Work and Transformational Leadership
Maude Loi Zedda1, Stéphane Thibodeau2, Eric Frenette3, Pascal Forget2
1HEP Vaud, Switzerland; 2Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada; 3Université Laval, Canada
Presenting Author: Loi Zedda, Maude
According to the Conseil Supérieur de l'Éducation (1999) of Quebec’s jurisdiction, school principals have different responsibilities: educational, political, community and administrative. They must manage the resources at their disposal, and exercise the functions and powers delegated to them by the School board (Gouvernement du Quebec, 2024). According to Sergiovanni (2001), they could be considered as the most influential person within their school.
In school administration, leadership can be conceived as all the practices and behaviors of principals that influence the members of the school (Legendre, 2005). Leadership influences the implementation of change (Bateh et al., 2013) and the commitment of students and teachers (Leithwood et al., 2008). As far as leadership is concerned, Bass' transformative leadership is one of the most widely used theories in education. He defines leadership as an interaction during which an individual increases the motivation or skills of his group (Bass & Bass, 2009). The effect of this leadership is to provide creative and productive working conditions that encourage teachers (Leithwood et al., 2008).
McCormick et al. (2002) mention that Bandura (2007) describes an individual with a high self-efficacy in the same way that Bass (Bass & Bass, 2009) describes an effective transformative leader. They explain that the effective leader is characterized by commitment, determination, and effectiveness in solving difficulties. Bandura (2007) defines self-efficacy as an individual's belief in his ability to perform a certain task. He specifies that it’s the individual's belief in his ability to organize and execute the course of action required to produce desired results. Self-efficacy is influenced by the complexity and specificity of the profession. It must therefore be defined and studied in relation to jobs or individuals who share a common denominator (Cherniss, 1993). Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) consider that principals’ self-efficacy related to work is a judgment on their own ability to structure a particular course of action in order to produce the desired results in the school they lead.
The aim of this study is to examine the relation between self-efficacy related to work and the transformative leadership of Quebec school principals. Research exists on the relation between these variables among principals, mostly in the USA. Daly et al. (2011) indicates some positive and negative relationships between certain self-efficacy dimensions and different factors in the transformational and transactional dimensions, as well as the laissez-faire dimension. However, not all relationships are significant. Marín's research (2013) indicates that certain self-efficacy dimensions explain up to 74% of the variance in transformational leadership practices. He mentions that principals who report a high self-efficacy seem to be more engaged in transformational leadership practices. However, no research seems to focus specifically on the population under study, namely Quebec’s French speaking school principals. Moreover, the results of previous studies seem to lack clarity of the relation (positive or negative) between the variables. Consequently, the research problem lies in the lack of understanding of the relation between self-efficacy and leadership among Quebec’s French speaking school principals.
One hundred and twenty-six Quebec French speaking principals responded to the self-efficacy school principal scale (Fernet et al., 2009) and the self-reported leadership scale by Dussault et al. (2013). The results reveal that there is relation between some dimensions of the self-efficacy related to work and different factors of the transformational and transactional dimensions of transformational leadership, with correlations ranging from 0.22 to 0.46. The results also indicate that the dimensions of self-efficacy related to work were not related to the laissez-faire dimension of transformational leadership. These results are discussed in light of Bandura's (2007) self-efficacy and Bass' transformational leadership theories (Bass & Bass, 2009) as well as previous studies.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe present research aims to examine the relation between self-efficacy related to work and transformational leadership in principals. A correlational design is used. The chosen sampling method is non-probabilistic. Quebec’s French speaking school principals were invited, via an online survey platform, to complete a questionnaire comprising, among other things, sociodemographic questions, the school principal self-efficacy scale (Fernet et al., 2009) and the self-reported leadership scale of Dussault et al. (2013). One hundred and twenty-six questionnaires were completed. The sample consisted of 77 principals (61%) and 47 assistant principals (37%), with two respondents not indicating their professional status (2%). Eighty-seven respondents were women (69%), while 37 were men (29.4%). Two respondents indicated that they belonged to an "Other" gender (1.6%). Their ages ranged from 32 to 66 (M = 47.54). For the Fernet et al. 2009 scale, the internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) is .76 for the administrative management dimension, .81 for the personnel management and pedagogical leadership dimension, .76 for the external relations management dimension. As for the self-reported leadership scale of Dussault et al. (2013) concerning the transformational dimension, the internal consistency is .78 for charisma, .75 for intellectual stimulation and .77 for personal recognition. For the transactional dimension, the internal consistency is .83 for the contingent reward factor and .80 for management by exception. Finally, the laissez-faire dimension has an internal consistency of .66. The results consists of descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviations, kurtosis, skewness) and correlation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis research indicates that self-efficacy is, among others, one of the potential causes that can influence the transformational leadership of Quebec’s French speaking school principals. These results contribute to the importance of training principals through a university program. Indeed, it would be advisable to emphasize professional integration to reinforce peer training, mentoring and networking. As Cattonar et al. (2007) indicate, this would enable principals to develop their self-efficacy related to work through various sources, including their vicarious experiences (Bandura, 2007). Similarly, leadership training remains a must. Bass and Avolio (1990) indicate that leadership skills can be acquired. It therefore seems appropriate to encourage transformational and transactional leadership practices that can lead to an effective school. (Marzano et al., 2016). The study has certain limitations relate to the lack of available empirical literature, the research design, the sample, and the self-reported measurement of concepts. In terms of future research, it would seem worthwhile to plan repeated-measures research and to verify the factor structure of the different questionnaires to overcome certain limitations of this study. Finally to avoid social desirability bias, it would seem appropriate to carry out this research with teachers and principals. This would enable us to observe principal leadership from a teacher's perspective.
ReferencesBandura, A. (2007). Auto-efficacité : le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle (2nd ed.). De Boeck.
Bass, B. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European industrial training, 14(4), 468‑478.
Bass, B. & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Free Press.
Cattonar, B., Lessard, C., Blais, J.-G., Larose, F., Riopel, M.-C., Tardif, M., … Wright, A. (2007). Les directeurs et les directrices d’école au Canada: contexte, profil et travail. Enquêtes pancanadiennes auprès des directions et des enseignants d’écoles primaires et secondaires (2005-2006). Chaire de recherche du Canada sur le personnel et les métiers de l’Éducation.
Cherniss, C. (1993). Role of professional self-efficacy in the etiology and amelioration of burnout. In T. Schaufeli, W. B., Maslach, C., & Marek (Eds.), Professionnal Burnout: Recent developments in theory ans research (pp. 135‑143). Taylor et Francis Group.
Conseil supérieur de l’éducation. (1999). Diriger une école secondaire: un nouveau contexte, de nouveaux défis. Conseil supérieur de l’éducation.
Daly, A. J., Der-Martirosian, C., Ong-Dean, C., Park, V., & Wishard-Guerra, A. (2011). Leading under sanction: Principals’ perceptions of threat rigidity, efficacy, and leadership in underperforming Schools. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 10(2), 171‑206.
Dussault, M., Frenette, É., & Fernet, C. (2013). Leadership: Validation of a self-report scale. Psychological Reports, 112(2), 419‑436.
Fernet, C., Austin, S., & Dussault, M. (2009). L’importance de la spécificité des rôles professionnels lors de l’évaluation de la perception d’efficacité personnelle des directions d’école. Paper presented at 31 Colloque de l’ADMEE. Québec.
Gouvernement du Québec. (2024). Loi sur l’instruction publique. Recueil des lois et des règlements du Québec.
Leithwood, K. Harris, A. et Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about sucessful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42
Marín, J. R. (2013). The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & Lopez-Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-efficacy theory to leadership: A review and empirical test. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 34‑49.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship : A reflective practice perspective (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Tschannen‐Moran, M. & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 573‑585.
32. Organizational Education
Paper
Middle leaders, School Uncertainty and Organizational Learning
Noy Dali, Osnat Mordo, Dorit Tubin
Ben-Gurion University, Israel
Presenting Author: Dali, Noy;
Mordo, Osnat
A school is a stable organization that usually knows how to manage in its uncertain environment. For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic, despite the difficulties, many schools increased their budgets, recruited temporary staff, promoted teachers’ digital literacy, and introduced online platforms (Reimers & Schleicher, 2020). One of the factors enabling this stability is the middle leaders (MLs). MLs are teachers who also perform part-time administrative roles, such as subject leader and head of year. Their primary tasks are coordinating the curriculum, scheduling exams, developing teachers’ professional skills, and monitoring students’ achievements and behavior (De-Nobile, 2021). Positioned as mediators between senior management and teaching staff, MLs facilitate information flow and promote organizational learning, which can reduce uncertainty and foster stability and order in the school.
Organizational learning is the process whereby individual personal knowledge becomes organizational knowledge (Argyris & Schön, 1996). According to this theory, such a process contains two kinds of learning. Single-loop learning is learning that uses existing knowledge, norms, policies, and strategies to correct errors. Double-loop learning is learning that not only seeks to solve a problem but also to question and change the basic norms and assumptions that create it. Both forms of learning are essential for organizational functioning. However, in times of uncertainty, engaging in double-loop learning can be a significant advantage in clarifying organizational routines and enhancing the organization’s ability to answer internal and external expectations. In addition, it can lead to a better understanding of the sources of problems, and provide the organization with innovative solutions that better suit its goals.
However, double-loop learning can also be challenging to implement because it requires a collaborative climate, reflection, and openness to change, which run counter to the usual organizational culture of competition and success by any means (Senge, 1990). While it has already been found that MLs are essential for school management, it is still unclear how they contribute to organizational learning. The present study seeks to delve deeper into this topic, and understand how MLs influence organizational learning and school uncertainty.
Preliminary findings indicate that MLs often engage in single-loop learning, which primarily focuses on immediate problem-solving or what they term “putting out fires” and “patching up holes”. Such learning involves identifying and addressing problems swiftly to prevent escalation. For instance, in one case, the grade-level coordinator told us how she stepped in to teach a class in the absence of a subject teacher, thereby reducing the immediate disruption and maintaining the educational routines. However, the findings show that this order is temporary since the same problems arise again the next day with another teacher. In addition, we did not find indications of double-loop learning. Following the previous example, the grade-level coordinator did not look for the reasons for teacher absenteeism, at the organizational routine of checking the teachers’ attendance, or the reward system accompanying attendance and absence. In another case, the subject coordinator told us that she did not know how to promote a bad teacher. The coordinator can see that he is trying, he prepares, works, and asks for help, but she does not know how to guide him to connect with the students, partly because she does not know the background to his difficulties, and how to provide him with professional guidance so he can improve. In other words, she knows what the problem is but does not know how to break it down, examine its components, and reassemble them in a way that suits the teacher, the students, and the school.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe present multiple-case study was conducted from 2021 to 2022 to better understand a complex phenomenon (Yin, 2018), in this case, the MLs’ contribution to organizational learning. Four large, high-achieving Israeli high schools attended by more than 1,000 students, were studied. These schools, led by principals with at least three years of leadership seniority, varied in aspects of sector (state-secular and state-religious), district (south and center), and student demographics (medium and high SES).
A team of four researchers collected the data. They conducted semi-structured interviews with four school principals and 61 middle leaders, specifically subject and grade-level coordinators. These MLs hold broad responsibility for all the students, and lead a team of teachers teaching mandatory subjects such as language, English, and mathematics, or specific age groups (respectively). In addition to interviews, the research team observed 33 team and management meetings, and collected relevant documents such as school schedules and work plans. All collected data, including audio recordings of interviews and meetings, were transcribed, and securely stored in a protected digital folder accessible only to the research team.
The data was analyzed both inductively and deductively using Dedoose software. The inductive analysis involved examining all the data to develop categories and subcategories, and grouping the main recurring themes in the interviews. For instance, categories such as decision-making processes and problem-solving strategies among MLs were identified. Concurrently, a deductive analysis was performed in accordance with the conceptual framework of organizational learning theory (Argyris & Schön, 1996), which focuses on single-loop learning and double-loop learning.
Ethical standards were maintained by presenting the research objectives to the interviewees, protecting their privacy and anonymity, and obtaining their informed consent.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe conclude that the MLs focus on single-loop learning, and play a pivotal role in maintaining organizational order and stability. This often leads to mere school survival, as expected from the school environment, but less to double-loop learning, which can clarify school uncertainty. It is interesting to note that the MLs present great confidence in their role, and know exactly what to do. In fact, the better they understood how to perform what was expected of them, the less they engaged in double-loop learning. For example, the greater the pressure from the senior management to prepare the students well for exams, the fewer questions were asked about exams as a valid and reliable measure to test the students’ knowledge.
This leads us to another conclusion, that the short-term effectiveness of single-loop learning inhibits engagement in double-loop learning. This means that the effectiveness and immediacy of MLs in problem-solving often reduce the perceived need or motivation to engage in double-loop learning. Such learning, though more challenging, can improve the school and even reduce uncertainty. However, it might create a different form of ambiguity as it changes well-known assumptions, rules, and routines. This conclusion helps to explain the complexities involved in implementing change within schools.
This study has theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it offers new insights regarding the nature of MLs and their role in navigating uncertainty and preventing crises within the school. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of balance in organizational learning. It is not either immediate problem-solving in single-loop learning or long-term deep learning in double-loop learning, but a combination that requires a lot of practice. The practical contribution is a guideline for MLs’ professional development program that emphasizes such a combination: how to do both– promote clarity by problem-solving, and innovative system thinking by engaging in double-loop learning.
ReferencesArgyris, C., & Schön, C. (1996). Organizational Learning II. Theory. Method and Practice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
De-Nobile, J. (2021). “Researching middle leadership in schools: the state of the art”. International Studies in Educational Administration, 49(2), 3-27.
Reimers, F., & Schleicher, A. (2020). Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought. How the Covid-19 pandemic is changing education. OECD. https://globaled.gse.harvard.edu/files/geii/files/education_continuity_v3.pdf
Senge, P. M. (1990a). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday Currency.
Yin, K. R. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6rd ed.). Sage Publications.
|
