Search results

Through a series of critical discussions on Karl Popper’s evolutionary analysis of learning and the non-authoritarian values it promotes, the purpose of this paper is to advocate a Popperian approach for building medical student knowledge. Specifically, it challenges positivist assumptions that permeate the design and management of many educational institutions, including teaching hospitals, by considering what does and does not happen when learning takes place.

To illustrate how Popper’s approach differs from such a conception of learning, the paper examines the exchange between a preceptor (Sam) and a medical student (Lisa). The following exchange is based on the observations during a team meeting in a Canadian teaching hospital. The authors sent the transcript of the observation to Lisa for her comments. The statements in italics represent Lisa’s additions. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of participants in the exchange.

Popper’s evolutionary analysis of learning and the Objective Knowledge Growth Framework provide a means of managing specific aspects of one’s education through engaging in this learning process. Although this approach to teaching and decision making takes time to master, it does not require reconstituting existing institutional arrangements before it can be implemented in hospitals. Instead, it asks medical students, teachers and practitioners to be open to the theoretical underpinnings of the approach and to view knowledge growth as a process of systematic trial and error elimination.

This paper is original in its conceptualisation and may well become a classic in education circles. It draws on Popper’s philosophical arguments and enters into a much needed discourse for teaching and learning.

The purpose of this paper is to know the extent to which a decision-making framework assists in providing holistic, comprehensive descriptions of strategies used by school leaders engaging with distributed leadership practices. The process by which principals and other education leaders interact various school-based actors to arrive at a distributed decision-making process is addressed through this paper. The position taken suggests that leadership does not reside solely with principals or other education leaders, but sustains the view that the actions of various actors within a school setting contribute to fuller and more comprehensive accounts of distributed leadership.

While the application of rational/analytical approaches to organizational problems or issues can lead to effective decisions, dilemmas faced by principals are often messy, complex, ill-defined and not easily resolved through algorithmic reason or by the application of rules, as evidenced by the two stories provided by Agnes, a third-year principal in a small countryside elementary school in a small northeastern community, and by John, a novice principal in a suburb of a large Southwestern metropolitan area.

The value of the objective knowledge growth framework (OKGF) process is found in its ability to focus Agnes’s attention on things that she may have overlooked, such as options she might have ignored or information that she might have resisted or accepted, as well as innumerable preparations she might have neglected had she not involved all the teachers in her school.

The implementation of the OKGF may appear, occasionally, to introduce unnecessary points along this route and may not be laboriously applied to all decision-making situations. However, the instinctively pragmatic solutions provided by this framework will often produce effective results. Therefore, in order to reduce potentially irrational outcomes, the systematic approach employed by the OKGF is preferable. The OKGF must be managed, implemented and sustained locally if it is to provide maximum benefits to educational decision makers.

Given the principals’ changing roles, it is abundantly clear that leadership practice can no longer involve just one person, by necessity, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how things could have been accomplished otherwise. Expecting the principal to single-handedly lead efforts to improve instruction is impractical, particularly when leadership may be portrayed as what school principals do, especially when other potential sources of leadership have been ignored or treated as secondary or unimportant because that leadership has not emanated from the principal’s office (Spillane, 2006). In this paper, the authors have striven to reveal how a perspective of distributed leadership, when used in conjunction with the objective knowledge growth framework, can be effective in assisting principals in resolving problems of practice.

Different school leaders of varying status within the educative organization benefit from obtaining different answers to similar issues, as evidenced by John’s and Agnes’s leadership tangles. Lumby and English (2009) differentiate between “routinization” and “ritualization.” They argue, “They are not the same. The former erases the need for human agency while the latter requires it” (p. 112). The OKGF process, therefore, cannot provide school leaders with the “right” answers to their educative quandaries, simply because any two school leaders, facing the same issues, may utilize differing theories, solutions, choices or options which may satisfy their issues in response to their own individual contextual factors. Similarly, in a busy day or week, school leaders may be inclined to take the shortest distance between two points in the decision-making process; problem identification to problem resolution.

Should the OKGF process empower decision makers to obtain sound resolutions to their educative issues by assisting them in distancing themselves from emotions or confirmation biases that may distract them from resolving school problems, its use will have been worthwhile.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how associationism mistakenly assumes that direct experience is possible; that is, there is expectation-free observation and association without prior expectation. Thus, associationism assumes that learning involves the absorption of information from the environment itself. However, contrary arguments take the position that, for an individual to make a connection between his/her behaviour and its consequence(s), he/she must first have an expectation in order for a connection to be made.

This paper uses a personal experience to illustrate how implicit assumptions and unstated expectations can be found in the corporate world. It offers to answer questions that will lead to an examination of overcoming irrationality through utilization of the Popperian philosophy of associationism.

When evaluating a practice, it is easier to find evidence of some sort to support the practice, especially if we are either disposed to do so or if our colleagues and organizations have recommended that we adopt these practices. However, if we are committed to genuinely improving our practice, Swann (2009) suggests that we become critical and ask, “What are the unintended and undesirable consequences of doing things this way?” (p. 8).

Popper’s approach needs to be developed or learned through stages and with time. We need to be aware that it takes time to master the use of this approach. Merely introducing or having organizations learn the different methods or short cuts have only a limited effect in improving their ability to deal with issues in different contexts.

The examples used throughout this paper illustrate that the adoption of Popper’s approach does not necessarily require large-scale experiments. In fact, a well-conducted case study can be effective in casting doubt on existing assumptions. Regardless of the nature of the research strategy and the scale of the experiment devised to test a hypothesis, the task of testing can and will be problematic.

Expectations can make us look foolish from time to time, but they can also be very powerful or useful because they are more than mere anticipation. If we are unable to strip away our preconceptions or prior knowledge, we can at least acknowledge our biases and, in doing so, we may not continue to be trapped within our own perspectives, which can blind us to the truth.

The examples used in this paper illustrate that Popper’s approach is robust and applicable in a variety of contexts and is not limited to educational organizations. Furthermore, it showcases our irrationality, and helps us understand when and where we may make erroneous decisions.

Sensemaking is the difficult art which lies at the heart of academia. Academics bring their own ways of examining and explaining things they see. A key challenge for Carrie is how to make sense of complex and challenging situations, recognize available solutions, choose the best path moving forward, and convey all of the above to the different stakeholders, in a clear and compelling manner. According to Bolman and Gallos (2011), sensemaking involves three steps: (1) noticing something, (2) deciding what to make of it and (3) deciding what to do about it. Humans are known to be good at all three of these steps. In fact, we do it so automatically, all the time, that we often tend to overlook some important aspects of this process.

Academics in colleges and universities attain levels of autonomy and collective power beyond employees in most other industries, which not only create challenges for administrators but also for colleagues who find themselves in conflict with one another. This chapter chronicles a composite scenario describing a conflict between two scholars, Carrie and Paul. Weick's sensemaking framework and Argyris and Schön's organizational learning framework illustrate how Carrie made sense of and learned from a situation which remains all too common in higher education. Bolman and Gallos's four learning routines provide some resolutions to Carrie's dilemma. The most important lesson to take from Carrie's conversation with Paul is not whether the conversation went well or not. In many ways, we are always moving toward what is real, or what Popper calls “closer to the truth” when we are unable to see our destination clearly.

The authors, Bolman and Gallos (2011), recommend that we use a two-sided case with the same format that Carrie used, when dealing with difficult situation. One side reflects what was said (or anticipated conversation) and the responses (or anticipated responses; or how you think they will respond) on the left column and, on the right column, your unspoken thoughts (what you were thinking but did not say). According to the authors, if one subscribes to this practice, one would gain greater clarity with respect to one's strengths, comfort zones and flat spots. The two-sided model is low-risk and it enables one to visualize one's intended strategies, how one speaks to one's colleague and the possible consequences. The model can also let one know how optimistic or pessimistic one is about the situation. Knowing our position in advance may help us to develop and practice new strategies, which may also assist in building confidence and communication skills.

To conclude, interpersonal skills are central to good communication but, in higher education, interpersonal skills are insufficient. Often, when relationships among colleagues go awry, it is because they know what they intend but they do not know what they did to have contributed to unsatisfactory outcomes. As a result, it is easier to point fingers at others than to reflect and learn from one's mistakes. The ones who succeed are those who are persistent and proactive in reflecting on their behaviour and in learning from those around them. Furthermore, they seek feedback from their colleagues, put their assumptions to the test, work on balancing advocacy and inquiry, and learn about the pattern of their daily practice.

This chapter/paper chronicles a composite scenario describing a conflict between two scholars, Carrie and Paul. The most important lesson to take from Carrie's conversation with Paul is not whether the conversation went well or not. In many ways, we are always moving toward what is real, or what Popper calls “closer to the truth” when we are unable to see our destination clearly.

The present study contributes to research that examines the meanings of achievement gaps, when enacting policy. Its findings are both hopeful and unsettling. The absence of equitable outcomes and democratic citizenship, as elements of closing the achievement gaps in our participants' definitions, are troubling, particularly within the context of neo-liberalism, where increases in inequities showcase the negative aspects of policy appropriation.

A qualitative case study methodology was used to identify the parameters of the research (Merriam and Simpson, 2000) because case studies are particularistic in nature in that case studies examine a specific instance but illuminate a general problem (Merriam, 1998). This case study is not based on generating generalizations, concepts or hypotheses grounded in systematically obtained data (Abercrombie et al., 1990) but goes beyond the limited notion of context employed in many case studies, as no researcher can enter a situation free from preconceptions but must fit existing perceptions into a pre-existing discourse. This study explores heads of schools' decisions with regards to increasing the number of students who meet standards, as set by the government and reducing achievement gaps among student subgroups.

The findings from this study are discussed in three broad categories; the achievement gap, aspirations and parental support and differentiated and targeted solutions.

These findings raise the question as to whether the education inspection framework (EIF) presents cause for concern. After all, the EIF was developed to hold schools accountable for high standards without consultation with the teachers' representatives, local communities, parents and colleges and universities. Nevertheless, the EIF, as a set of standards, is problematic.

The leadership practices enacted by heads of schools to bridge the achievement gaps differ from those advocated by the State. This echoes previous findings demonstrating that the same leadership practices can be used to pursue different goals (Leithwood, 2006) and that individuals enact policies in ways that reflect the particularities of their own contexts (Ball et al., 2012).

The absence of equitable outcomes and democratic citizenship, as elements of closing the achievement gaps in our participants' definitions, are troubling, particularly within the context of neo-liberalism, where increases in inequities showcase the negative aspects of policy appropriation.

The present study contributes to research that examines the meanings of achievement gaps when enacting policy (Ball et al., 2012; Hardy, 2014; Winton, 2013). Its findings are both hopeful and unsettling. The heads of schools demonstrate that they can appropriate definitions of achievement for all students to support their academic learning and wellbeing (Hodgkinson, 1991; Winton, 2013).