(CARDC97.337)
Problem-Based Methodology in
Leadership Development: Interventions
to Improve Dilemma Management
Paper presented at the
Australian Association for Research in Education Conference
Researching Education in New Times
(December, 1997)
Dr Carol Cardno
Head of School of Education
UNITEC Institute of Technology
Auckland, New Zealand
New Zealand principals are currently performing a role considerably
expanded by the reform of education administration to include a new and
demanding set of expectations related to school self-management. In
this context of devolved accountability for managing all school
operations, principals are challenged by the need to resolve recurring,
complex problems which have the characteristics of classic leadership
dilemmas: value and goal tensions between achieving what is best for
the organisation and maintaining positive collegial relationships. If
effectiveness is viewed as the ability to solve complex problems so
that they remain solved, then the question of how school leaders can
develop skills to achieve this must be asked. In an attempt to answer
this question, this paper outlines a curriculum for dilemma management
which uses a problem-based approach with senior management teams in
schools to examine and alter practice. Principals and others in key
leadership positions can learn about the sources of problems and
discover how their own theories of practice might constrain effective
resolution. Consultant intervention is designed to teach participants
skills which enable them to reason and act productively rather than
defensively when confronted with dilemmas. Two case studies of such
interventions are briefly described, and the potential and pitfalls
associated with applying problem-based methodology in school-based
interventions are identified.
Part A:
New Leadership Competencies for New Times
1. Introduction
Since the radical reform of education administration in New Zealand
(Government of New Zealand, 1988) school leaders, and others in key
leadership positions, have been beset by a new range of expectations
and associated challenges. The new expectations held of New Zealand
principals create the greatest challenges at the point where they must
mesh the needs of the organisation with the need to maintain positive
collegial relationships with teachers whilst implementing change that
is intended to impact on the quality of learning and teaching.
In these changing times, new leadership competencies are demanded which
go far beyond the administration and management of the technical
aspects of school operations such as recruitment, finance, plant and
planning. It is in the realm of interpersonal effectiveness that the
need for new competencies is surfacing, especially those skills
associated with the effective implementation of performance appraisal
practices. Research has shown that the arena of staff appraisal creates
contexts where the conflicting goal tensions between organisational
demands and collegial relationship concerns give rise to complex
interpersonal problems that recur and create considerable challenges
for school leaders (Beer, 1987; Bridges, 1992; Cardno, 1995; McLaughlin
1990).
When schools have to implement new practices that challenge the status
quo by requiring attention to accountability issues that impinge upon
teacher autonomy whilst simultaneously requiring pressure and support
to bring about change (Fullan, 1991), a common consequence is the
surfacing of dilemmas for the leader. When such problems arise, it is
suggested that a critical and collaborative approach to problem-solving
offers a viable alternative to problem avoidance. Moreover, teaching
school leaders how to develop competencies to deal with dilemmas
involves intervention that engages participants in theorising. This
theorising encompasses becoming knowledgeable about the theory and
practice of school management and the theories of action that guide
their current practice.
2. Problem-Based Methodology: An Intervention Framework
Robinson (1993) coined the term Problem-Based Methodology (PBM) to
describe an approach that contributes to the understanding and
improvement of problems of practice. She says:
In brief, PBM involves the reconstruction of theories of action which
are operative in the problem situation, the evaluation of such
theories, including their possible causal role in the problem, and,
where necessary, the development, implementation and evaluation of an
alternative theory of action. Ideally these stages of inquiry are
embedded in a "critical dialogue" between researcher and practitioner;
that is a conversation that is simultaneously critical and
collaborative (p. 15).
Calls for educational researchers to attend to theories of action in
attempts to improve practice are by no means new. Carr and Kemmis
(1986) suggest that the gap between research and practice can be
reduced by finding ways to help practitioners recognise the theories
that inform their practice, and accept and apply alternative theories.
In other words, as Robinson asserts, the theory-practice gap can be
closed if "we accept that all educational research is about theories of
practice, and that the only way to change practice is through changing
such theories (1993, p. 16).
The failure to connect theories which lie outside practice to those
which are already operative in the practice situation is cited by
Robinson as one of the chief reasons why educational research has often
failed to improve practice. Research undertaken in New Zealand schools
(Cardno, 1995) concludes that even when school leaders are involved in
management theory learning and in related practical learning activity,
there is seldom any connection made between macro-theory level and the
micro-theories about effective practice which might be linked to
difficulty in resolving recurring problems of practice. This is
exemplified in the Case Studies which follow in Part B of this paper in
relation to the principal who is strongly committed to collaborative
practice in theory, yet unable to demonstrate this in daily encounters
with her team of senior managers.
3. Problem-Based Training
Problem-based training for school leaders involves interventions which
include provision of learning experiences to enable practitioners to
look inward; to examine their theories of action in order to discover
what is problematic in the course of learning how to participate in a
dialogue that is both critical and collaborative. Participants must
simultaneously learn about and adopt new, inclusive approaches to
problem-solving. It is training that focuses on the analysis and
resolution of personal professional practices related to dilemmas in
significant school-based contexts with the help of a skilled
facilitator. The learning that school leaders engage in about their
theories of action allows them to theorise beyond and between a
knowledge platform (which comprises management theory and 'pet'
theories for solving problems) and an action platform which requires
reflection to move to a depth where practice is open to challenging
evaluation involving collaborative critique and discovery. The
researcher facilitating such interventions helps to establish a
connection between theory knowledge and theory of action knowledge
including alternative theories of effectiveness at the action level.
The following figure (Cardno, 1996) illustrates the cognitive demand to
evaluate practice using both a knowledge and an action platform.
4 Critical Self-Reflection (on and in action)
3 Theories of Action
________________________________ Action Platform
2 'Pet' Theories for Problem-Solving
1 Management Theory Knowledge
________________________________ Knowledge Platform
Figure 1
Levels of Theory that Inform Reflection
At the heart of problem-based training is the skill of engaging in a
dialogue that is at once critical and collaborative between the
interventionist and others implicated in the problem.
4. The Curriculum for Dilemma Management Interventions
Leadership dilemmas which are characterised by tensions between goals
and values that are either organisationally or interpersonally oriented
are most commonly avoided rather than confronted. Typical approaches to
dealing with dilemmas involve polarisation of concerns for collegial
relationships on the one hand, and organisational needs on the other
hand. Consequently, only one strand is attended to and whilst the
presenting problem may be partially resolved or suppressed, dimensions
of the problem invariably resurface. Learners must be able to adopt an
alternative theory of action when confronted with dilemmas. The
conscious choice to deal simultaneously with both horns of a dilemma
requires the learner to internalise double-loop learning values. It is
this choice which ideally is the new norm that guides practice.
Interventions which engage leaders in the learning and practice of
critical dialogue require the teaching of a complex curriculum.
Teaching people how to manage dilemmas presents a complex adult
learning problem for the researcher because of the defensive barriers
that are raised by learners to cover up dilemmas, to resist the
unlearning of instinctive skills, and to block the learning of new
skills (Cardno, 1995; Robinson, 1993; Rossmoore, 1989). These facets of
learning can be viewed as three interrelated and inseparable dimensions
of a learning system that must be mastered by those who wish to use
double-loop learning organisationally and interpersonally to resolve
problems of practice. Underpinning this learning should be the
conviction that norms of effective practice need to be restructured in
the light of a theory of effectiveness that offers an alternative to
dilemma avoidance.
Single-loop and double-loop learning modes are differentiated by
Argyris (1977) on the basis of the values that guide problem-solving
attempts. An example of single-loop learning is the ability to learn a
new strategy for suppressing conflict in an effort to be effective
governed by values of winning and avoiding unpleasantness. In a
double-loop learning approach a new learning loop which extends to a
re-examination of fundamental values is evident. The value base in
double-loop learning focuses upon increasing valid information and
internal commitment, and upon a wish to seek and monitor solutions
jointly. The instinctive urge to avoid unpleasantness and exert
unilateral control which attends single-loop learning and dilemma
avoidance must be overcome. A new set of solution strategies is based
on quality information and commitment to change that is generated
bilaterally.
Table 1
Double-Loop Learning Dimensions in a
Dilemma Management Intervention Curriculum
DIMENSIONS
COMPETENCIES TO BE DEVELOPED
Dilemma origin factors
(problem understanding)
understanding norms of effective dilemma management
recognition of problem complexity
recognition and articulation of a dilemma
awareness of resistance to innovation
Dilemma maintenance factors
(theory understanding)
understanding typical responses to dilemmas
understanding defensiveness in self and others
Dilemma resolution factors
(self understanding)
understanding norms of effective theories of action that address
dilemmas
evaluating defensive responses in self and others and un-learning
skills which are defensive barriers
learning new skills, practising and internalising productive responses
using critical dialogue skills in all challenging encounters
Implicit in this approach is the expectation that the facilitator of
the learning experiences will have a high level of expertise as a
double-loop learner and skill in engaging in and evaluating others'
practice of critical dialogue. The learning concerns and processes for
the interventionist and for participants are the same.
5. Training Engagements in the Intervention
Consultant intervention in a problem-based approach involves
facilitation of learning so that participants can diagnose and alter
theories of action in the course of attending to real problems of
practice. The interventionist's normative position must be declared at
the outset so that participants are able to make an informed choice to
participate. This is done by introducing the concept of dilemma
management and teaching the theory which enables 'theorising about
theories of action' to occur.
5.1 Theories of Action: The Theory
The differences between espoused theory and theory-in-use (Argyris &
Schon, 1974) need to be made explicit and the nature of defensive and
productive theories-in-use (i.e., theories which govern actions,
regardless of what we might espouse) explained. A summary of the key
assumptions underlying these two theories-in-use is presented below in
Table 2.
Table 2
Values and Strategies in Defensive and Productive Reasoning
DEFENSIVE REASONING PRODUCTIVE REASONING
is concerned with blocking is concerned with generating
information which we personally information in an effort to
feel will create unpleasantness or increase the possibility of
lessen our control of a situation. critical reflection-in-action.
Guiding Values Guiding Values
- win - don't lose - seek and give valid
- avoid unpleasantness information
- maintain control - share control and solutions - monitor solutions
jointly
Strategies Strategies
- not checking assumptions - checking assumptions
- giving indirect or mixed messages - being forthright
- not explaining reasoning - disclosing reasoning
- using questioning to control - asking questions as genuine inquiry
5.2 Diagnosing Theories-in-use
Case writing, role-play, video-taping, observation and feedback are all
used to construct models of theories-in-use. Data produced help
participants learn because they gain insight into their typical
responses and their defensive strategies. These insights enable
participants to consider what needs to be changed and to set goals for
self-improvement. The interventionist helps participants learn how to
discover and alter their own theories-in-use and to gain confidence in
testing new theories of action in practice. A learning tool to help
participants state what they think, state why they think this way, and
to check the thinking of others, is used to support a transition from
defensive to productive reasoning. It is described below in Table 3 as
the 'Triple I' approach.
5.3 The 'Triple I' Approach as a Road Code
The guidelines in this approach serve to build the skills of critical
dialogue which are central to internalising the adoption of a
theory-in-use that is embedded in productive rather than defensive
reasoning. In the 'Triple I' approach, participants are consciously
attempting to increase the possibility of valid information generation,
illustration of the basis for judgements, and genuine inquiry which
acknowledges and deals with emotions in interpersonal encounters. The
tenets of the approach are described below.
Table 3
The 'Triple I' Approach
INFORMATION
focus on giving and getting quality information;
disclose your position or your concerns fully at the outset;
give and get information that lets you deal with emotions.
_____________________________________________________________________
ILLUSTRATION
always illustrate by explaining the basis used for making judgements
and by providing examples to illustrate your reasoning and evaluation
of a situation;
seek explanation of the reasoning and evaluations of others by asking
for illustration.
_____________________________________________________________________
INQUIRY
ask relevant questions to seek information, to check the views of
others and to test your own views;
do not ask questions that control the response of others;
ask questions that check your assumptions about the facts and the
emotional responses of others.
5.4 Practising the Approach
The Critical Dialogue Skills practice exercise (Table 4) is used by
participants to prepare for encounters in which they will use a
productive theory-in-use. It is also used to self-evaluate their
attempts in role-play and video-taped scenarios. It is also used by
observers in group practice attempts to provide a framework for
providing feedback. For the interventionist it is both a diagnostic and
teaching tool for helping participants construct and alter
theories-in-use.
Table 4
Critical Dialogue Skills
CRITICAL DIALOGUE SKILLS
Use this as a checklist for practising and evaluating your own attempts
to use the 'Triple I' approach.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. STATE YOUR CONCERN
[inform]
_____________________________________________________________________
2. STATE THE REASONS FOR
YOUR CONCERN
[illustrate]
_____________________________________________________________________
3. CHECK OTHERS' REACTIONS
INCLUDING EMOTIONS
[inquire]
_____________________________________________________________________
4. SUMMARISE SHARED
UNDERSTANDING
_____________________________________________________________________
REPEAT STEPS 1 - 4
IF NECESSARY
[use the first four steps to deal with emotions if appropriate]
_____________________________________________________________________
5. SUGGEST AND EVALUATE
SOLUTIONS JOINTLY
_____________________________________________________________________
6. DECIDE TOGETHER ON
A SOLUTION
_____________________________________________________________________
7. AGREE NEXT STEP AND
PLAN JOINT MONITORING
_____________________________________________________________________
The skill set and accompanying theoretical praxis which forms the
intervention curriculum is problem-based because it engages
participants in discovery about their predominant theory-in-use and
provides them with the tools to learn and apply an alternative
theory-in-use. Learning is guided by a facilitator who has mastered
this curriculum and constantly refines their own capability through
practice and the challenges advanced by participants.
Part B:
Case Studies
1. Critical Incidents in Two Interventions
The two primary schools reported in these case studies had participated
in a Ministry of Education school management development contract
programme prior to the interventions reported here. The developmental
model used in the contract programmes was a blend of consultant
supported action learning and management training (Cardno, 1996). Part
of the management development curriculum in these programmes is the
theory and practice of Dilemma Management.
As a direct consequence of their participation in the contract
programme, the principals approached me to seek further consultant
support over the next school year to continue change initiatives
related to the implementation of staff appraisal systems. In each case
the school was prepared to pay for five half-day school-based
consultancy sessions as part of their professional development
programme, and in each case the whole senior management team (three
people including the principal) was involved. Because these teams had
prior knowledge of the 'Dilemma Management Curriculum' it was deemed
possible to support their change initiatives within the allocated time
commitment. For schools embarking on change initiatives in a dilemma
management framework, it would normally be necessary to include two
full days of training related to theorising about theories of action as
an introductory element of the intervention.
When the principals were asked why they wished to engage in further
consultant-supported change they said:
Principal - Akarana School
Change management requires continued support to 'cement' what I have
learnt about Dilemma Management. I need guidance with productive
reasoning and I think the team needs more time to get to grips with the
skills. We also need someone external to the school who can identify
barriers to change within the team.
Principal - Bell Hill School
Our management team believes that school-based development is far more
effective if we have a facilitator who has the specific skills that
help us to be more collaborative and more effective and to facilitate
honest and frank discussions among the members of the management team.
2. Balancing Multiple Solution Requirements
Robinson, Halliday and Timperley (1995) assert that a sophisticated
account of problems requires a comprehensive analysis of the properties
of a problem and what it is to solve them. These researchers refer to
Nickles (1988, p. 54) definition of a problem as "all the conditions or
constraints on the solution (variously weighted) plus the demand that
the solution (an object satisfying the constraints) be found". In other
words, the problem is solved by finding or constructing a solution
which integrates the constraints taken as a set, rather than by
favouring one or two, or by reaching a compromise between all the
identified constraints in the set. This explanation is consistent with
a dilemma management approach which requires the articulation of all
issues related to the organisational and interpersonal dimensions of a
dilemma (Cardno, 1995).
In both these schools, the first intervention session focused on
establishing multiple solution requirements so that all dimensions of
the problem could be stated. This 'big picture' was used as a guide to
progressively specifying priorities to achieve all solution
requirements even though at the outset some might appear to be mutually
exclusive.
2.1 The Problem Context in Akarana School
For this school the aim was to refine and monitor the implementation of
the performance appraisal system in ways that raised staff awareness of
processes while increasing the involvement of middle managers as
appraisers who were responsible for staff in their curriculum teams.
They listed requirements for a good solution as:
Achieving staff commitment to the appraisal policy and procedures;
Improving communication between senior and middle managers and staff;
Addressing threat and anxiety issues;
Addressing training needs of middle managers to increase confidence and
effectiveness in appraisal activity;
Improving communication within the senior management team.
The team recognised that there were dilemmas inherent at both a
school-wide level and at the level of interpersonal engagements. The
school-wide dilemma was related to their wish to have an effective
appraisal system which held staff accountable and was also trusted by
staff because it was collaboratively developed. The action plan to
address this dilemma focused on developing processes for consulting
staff fully on decisions which affected them. The team's school-wide
solution was, therefore, achieved. As one team member said:
The consultative model has greatly improved communication between staff
and members of the senior management team. The consultation process
brings issues into the open and removes the possibility of hidden
agendas.
The interpersonal dilemmas (and there were several in the course of
this intervention) related to the principal's management style and
challenged the others in the Senior Management Team to engage in
critical dialogue with her when her actions detrimentally affected
their ability to be effective in carrying out their management tasks.
2.1.1 A critical incident in resolving an interpersonal dilemma
In the course of developing action plans for increasing the involvement
of the middle managers in the appraisal process, the two deputy
principals revealed that their own roles in the system were often
compromised or made extremely difficult by the principal's tendency to
keep to herself essential information that these senior managers felt
should be shared with them. As one team member asserted:
Selected information is still being offered. Sometimes the full story
only comes out later and generally when we have to review decisions
that have not been made well in the first place.
The principal agreed that this was sometimes the case and the group
used the Critical Dialogue Skills checklist to attempt to give one
another honest feedback about what they thought and felt on this issue.
The outcome was agreement on new strategies for improving their in-team
communication, and although there are still appear to be reservations
about the improvement of communication, this is now a problem which is
openly recognised by the principal, and one which team members are
prepared to revisit when necessary. This signals a significant
achievement for the team at the interpersonal level, as the following
statement by the Deputy Principal confirms:
Team building using these skills was vital to change and has challenged
team members to look at themselves. It has provided insights to the
manner in which each member was viewed by peers on the team.
2.2 The Problem Context in Bell Hill School
For this school the aim was to design and implement a staff appraisal
system which was consistently applied by all three members of the
Senior Management Team.
They listed requirements for a good solution as:
Establishing a policy and procedures for staff appraisal;
Consulting with staff to achieve their commitment and trust in the
system;
Beginning implementation of the system by all senior managers;
Identifying and dealing with weaknesses in the team.
The leadership dilemma which arose for the principal at the outset of
the intervention process was the lack of commitment demonstrated by one
member of the team who was responsible for the appraisal of staff in
the Junior School. This staff member was under considerable stress
because her partner was suffering from a long-term illness. On the one
hand, the principal was loath to exert pressure for her to participate
fully as this had been attempted before and had resulted in a strained
relationship. On the other hand, the principal wished to insist that
she participate fully in the development and implementation of new
practices to achieve full commitment and consistency.
2.2.1 A critical incident in resolving an interpersonal dilemma
In the second session of the year, the principal practised an approach
to articulating and confronting the dilemma using the Critical Dialogue
Skills checklist and subsequently communicated all his concerns
forthrightly to the staff member. This was the first time that all
facets of this problem solution were openly addressed. The principal
believes that much has been achieved because the staff member and he
have jointly agreed upon steps towards her assuming greater involvement
in, and demonstrating a commitment to appraisal activity. Furthermore,
they have set strategies in place to monitor this change. He
acknowledged:
We came to the realisation that in this case we need to balance the
needs of the organisation and the needs of the individual. I think I
have the skills to talk to Marie but its a bit like a newly planted
tree needing a stake. Our consultant was our stake - to support me
where necessary and without that I believe very little would have
changed.
(NOTE: The names of the schools and individuals have been changed in
these case studies.)
Part C:
Potential and Pitfalls of
Dilemma Management Interventions
A dilemma management approach has the potential to enable learning that
impacts upon complex, recurring problems; those which practitioners
might normally relegate to the 'too hard basket'. If leaders are
prepared to embark on this learning journey they are inevitably going
to be challenged cognitively and emotionally, because such learning is
both intellectually demanding and at the same time disquieting because
it reveals that the very skills we are adept at using in some
situations backfire on us in others. For those who are highly motivated
to improve problems of practice in their schools, and are prepared to
persist in mastering a complex dilemma management curriculum, the
benefits of internalising productive rather than defensive responses to
dilemmas outweigh the pain of the learning process.
In summary, the benefits of the approach are:
the surfacing, rather than the suppression, of dilemmas so that they
can be managed;
the examination and alteration of theories of action through a
conscious choice to engage in double-loop learning;
the evaluation of one's theory-in-use and the theory-in-use of others
by employing the skills of critical dialogue;
the incremental removal of barriers to individual and organisational
learning related to problems of practice;
the development of an essential leadership competency: critically
reflective practice at the level of reflection-in-action.
The dilemma management approach is not without its attendant
difficulties. These are summarised as follows:
leaders must be highly motivated to learn and the learning makes both
cognitive and emotional demands to unlearn skills which have
contributed to the success of highly capable people;
facilitators of interventions must be capable double-loop learners
themselves if they are to teach and model the skills of critical
dialogue;
the interventionist must balance the need to support and monitor the
practising of skills with the need to develop learner independence;
learning the skills and internalising them takes time.
Double-loop learning, which is fundamental to learning how to manage
dilemmas so that they are resolved effectively (and do not recur)
requires a considerable mental paradigm shift. This is so because one
must learn to think in terms of a new set of concepts to frame
understanding and attempts to alter practice. Such learning demands not
only post-practice reflection, but also a far more immediate form of
reflection: reflection-in-action which is a matter of being able to
think about what is being done while doing it (Schon, 1991, pp. 275).
Developing competence in reflecting on practice whilst in the midst of
it, without rendering practice otiose, is cognitively demanding.
Facilitating learning by critiquing action as it happens also poses a
considerable challenge for the interventionist. Both participants and
the interventionist must learn, and use, a new inquiry-focused
vocabulary of critique to support skill learning and the application
and internalisation of theory concepts. Embracing concepts that are the
antithesis of instinctive mental modes is extremely challenging - both
morally and emotionally. Yet, to be effective, the researcher must be
able to challenge resistance to altering a value base that is
counterproductive to enabling discussion about emotions and beliefs to
take place.
It should be acknowledged that a key constraint to effective
intervention is likely to be facilitator expertise in using and
teaching the skills of critical dialogue, because as Robinson (1993,
pp. 262) states:
This type of learning, given the strength of the emotional, cognitive
and institutional barriers to inquiry into many educational problems,
is highly unlikely to be accomplished through reading and reflecting on
a research report or participating in a day's in-service education.
Solving these problems requires that practitioners unlearn the
processes that have so far prevented them from doing so, and learn how
to practice the skills of critical dialogue around issues that were
previously blocked out of such inquiry. This is the type of learning
and the type of problem-solving that requires an intensive face-to-face
dialogue with a researcher or interventionist who is skilled in these
processes.
Summary
The type of management development training that school leaders should
be experiencing to prepare them to be effective problem-solvers
requires a focus on the development of a new set of competencies that
require them to look inward; to examine their theories of action to
discover what is problematic in the course of learning how to
participate in dialogue that is simultaneously critical and
collaborative. Such training requires an analysis of personal practice
related to dilemmas in school based contexts in a framework in which
the learner cannot fail to make a connection between their own theories
of action and theories of effective leadership and problem-solving.
References
Argyris, C. (1977) Double-Loop Learning in Organisations. Harvard
Business Review, September-October, pp. 115-125.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing
Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Beer, M. (1987) Performance Appraisal in J. W. Lorsch (Ed.) Handbook of
Organisational Behaviour, pp. 286-300. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bridges, E M. (1992) The Incompetent Teacher. Lewes: Falmer Press.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: Knowing Through Action
Research. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Cardno, C. (1995) Diversity, Dilemmas and Defensiveness: Leadership
Challenges in Staff Appraisal Contexts. School Organisation, 15 (2) pp.
117-131.
Cardno, (1996) Problem-Based Management Development in New Zealand: A
Team Approach. International Studies in Educational Administration, 24
(1), pp. 46-56.
Fullan, M. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Government of New Zealand (1988) Tomorrow's Schools: The Reform of
Education Administration in New Zealand. Wellington: Government
Printer.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990) Embracing Contraries: Implementing and
Sustaining Teacher Evaluation in J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.)
The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and
Secondary School Teachers, pp. 403-415. Newbury Park: Sage.
Nickles, T. (1998) Questioning and Problems in Philosophy of Science:
Problem Solving Versus Directly Truth-Seeking Epistemologies in M.
Meyer (Ed.) Questions and Questioning, pp. 43-67. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Robinson, V. (1993) Problem-Based Methodology: Research for the
Improvement of Practice. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Robinson, V. M. J.; Halliday, J; & Timperley, H. (1995) How Schools
Solve Complex Problems - Report on Phase Two: Organisational Learning
for Self Managing Schools. Education Department: The University of
Auckland.
Rossmoore, D. (1989) Leader/Consultant Dilemmas: The Primary Barrier to
Satisficing. Consultation, 8 (1) pp. 3-24.
Schon, D. (1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think
in Action. London: Basis Books.
Carol Cardno, UNITEC Institute of Technology
Auckland, New Zealand
e-mail ccardno@unitec.ac.nz