Skip to main content

Open to Learning

Most people would say that educational leadership is about building relationships. However, Professor Viviane Robinson argues that "a lot of instructional leadership get stuck in the inability" to have conversations about the quality of teaching. Therefore, the real challenge is to integrate building relationships and 'doing the work’.

Building these working relationships is not a question of building personal relationships and then “banking” on that relationship to have conversations about work. Staff trust their leadership on the basis of their observation of the leader's ability to do their work and treat people, on the leader's competence and their way of tackling people not being so.

“The Open-to-learning™ Leadership approach [is based around teaching] how to build trust in teams and with individuals, while tackling the tough issues associated with the work of school and teacher performance and improvement” (UACEL, 2018). This approach is based on the work of Chris Argyris (Harvard University) and Donald Schön, (MIT) and their theory of action and single and double loop learning.

Theories of action describe the links between what people do and the values and beliefs that propel those actions, as well as analysing their intended and unintended consequences. This analysis helps to understand why people and ourselves behave the way we do. By applying double loop learning we can find out what is driving the problem, rather than just acting on it (single loop).

Barth points out that “Schools are full of (...)  nondiscussables—important matters that, as a profession, we seldom openly discuss. These include the leadership of the principal, issues of race, the underperforming teacher, our personal visions for a good school, and, of course, the nature of the relationships among the adults within the school” (2006).

The main idea behind the Open to Learning (OTL) model is to bring those nondiscusebles to the forefront of Leadership, as a way of influencing students outcome positively. 


The Student Centred Leadership model is based around three capabilities: using knowledge, building trust and solving problems. According to Bryk & Schneider (2002), there are four determinants to build relational trust: interpersonal respect, personal regard for others, competence and personal integrity. Given that these elements are present, schools can develop a high level of trust, which would have positive consequences both for teachers and students. 

Firstly, teachers would develop a positive attitude to innovation and risk (facilitating change), they would be more committed to their school community, their students and their own learning, which in term would enhance the full professional community profile. Secondly, for students, this would lead to improving academic outcomes (and a high likelihood of positive social outcomes too). 

                                 

The secret to effective leadership is to progress the task (the conversation about issues at work) and maintain the relationship, by demonstrating respect for self and others and maximising valid information in order to build internal commitment (buy-in) to try to find a collaborative solution.

Learning (and therefore leadership) is only possible when institutions create an atmosphere of relational trust where teachers can experience and express vulnerability in order to encourage each other to examine their own role in the difficulties arising from their practice. That is to say “when everyone understands that act of questioning not as a sign of mistrust or an invasion of privacy but as a valuable opportunity for learning” (Argyris, 2000, p108).




References

Argyris, C. (2000). Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy, 279-295. doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7223-8.50015-0

Barth, R (2018). Improving Relationships Within the Schoolhouse. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar06/vol63/num06/Improving-Relationships-Within-the-Schoolhouse.aspx

UACEL. (n.d.). Aroha Heaslip. Retrieved from http://www.uacel.ac.nz/research/otl-leadership

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Heutagogy: A Holistic Framework for Creating Twenty-First-Century Self-determined Learners

By Lisa Marie Blaschke and Steward Hase Summary Heutagogy is a form of self-determined learning and is a holistic learner centred approach to learning and teaching. It is a theory that has been adopted mainly in e-learning environments and has developing capability, self-reflection and metacognition at its core. In the heutagogial model, self-determined students lead themselves through transformational experiences, becoming good communicators and problem-solvers of real-life scenarios. It was developed as an extension of andragogy and taps into the recent advances in neuroscience. A number of ideas, such as reflective practice; double loop learning; self-efficacy; self-determination and capability have supported the advent of heutagogy. Although some earlier experiments in this area (Steiner and Montessori) have been generally ignored, globalization and complexity are changing the way individuals and institutions interact and obtain information. In this complex environment, cura

Towards a definition of Digital Literacy

As technologies continue to develop, school and school systems become repositories of outdated terminology which, arguably, reflect how slow to respond to change and changing environments they are. The term literacy has evolved from a straightforward "capacity to read and write" to mean "competence or knowledge in a specific area", revealing in its evolution school's struggle to let go old principles. As a consequence of the shift in scholarly happening (as life moves away from paper-based into screen-based communication), terms such as literacy and fluency have seen a number of reinventions and redefinitions. It is beyond doubt that our lives are becoming increasingly permeated by technologies. Think, for example, of the Internet of Things, or Smart TVs or our portable mini-computers (which we still call mobile phones even when nobody actually uses them to talk!). This revolution in social practices has made necessary to define a term that can represent