Dissonance

The previous discussion points to the fact that new ideas will not lead to the deep learning that results in changed beliefs and practice if educators do not first experience a sense of dissonance.

The literature on restructuring emphasizes the need, first, to lead implementing agents to recognize an existing model as problematic and, then, to focus resources and support on attempts to make sense of the novel idea, restructuring existing beliefs and knowledge. So it is key to create a sense of dissonance in which agents see the issues in their current practice rather than seeing the new ideas as achieved within their current practice. This dissonance, or dissatisfaction with one’s own behavior, is essential in the reinterpretation of one’s beliefs.

Spillane et al., 2002, page 419

Similarly, Fullan (2001a) argues that while successful organisations work towards creating coherence out of the complexities of a culture of change, they also seek diversity, regarding dissent as a potential source of new ideas and breakthroughs.

[T]he route to making more good things happen and preventing more bad things from occurring is a process that generates widespread internal commitment from members of the organisation. You can’t get there from here without amplifying and working through the discomfort of disturbances. When change occurs, there will be disturbances, and this means that there will be differences of opinion that must be reconciled. Effective leadership means guiding people through the differences and, indeed, enabling differences to surface.

pages 113–114

People’s emotions and values are closely tied to their professional practice. Spillane et al. (2002) warn that the process of parting with their existing ways of thinking about the world, themselves, and their purposes can challenge people’s self-esteem. In response, they may give up, reject the need for change, or make changes in practice that reflect the superficial aspects of a new policy rather than the deeper ideas that were intended.

In sum, our usual approach to processing new knowledge is a conserving process, preserving existing frames rather than radically transforming them. New ideas either are understood as familiar ones, without sufficient attention to aspects that diverge from the familiar, or are integrated without restructuring of existing knowledge and beliefs, resulting in piecemeal changes in existing practice.

page 398

Elmore (1996) reports that the same thing happens at the organisational level.

Institutions use their structures to buffer and assimilate the changing demands of a political and social order that is constantly in flux – they add new programs, they develop highly visible initiatives that respond to prevailing opinions in the community, they open new units in the organization to accommodate new clients, they mobilize and organize public opinion by creating new governance structures. But the gap between these institutional structures and the core patterns of schooling is slippery and elusive: The core of schooling remains relatively stable in the face of often massive changes in the structure around it. Schools legitimize themselves with their various conflicting publics by constantly changing external structures and processes, but shield their workers from any fundamental impact of these changes by leaving the core intact. This accounts for the resilience of practice within the context of constant institutional change.

pages 11–12

Spillane et al. (2002) suggest that when working with people to initiate change, it is important to focus their attention on real problems of practice and to build from examples to generalisations. This makes it more likely that they will be able to successfully restructure their existing schemas to take account of the new ideas.

Policy ideas work as levers for change only if policymakers convince implementing agents to think differently about their behavior, prompting them to raise questions about their existing behavior and encouraging them to construct alternative ways of doing business.

page 421

Similarly, professional learning for ISTEs needs to begin with them testing the effects of their routine practices and assumptions, measuring their effects, and critically reflecting on the evidence at the same time as they consider the validity and relevance of new ideas from outside the immediate context. (See the chapter Conducting Inquiry.)

Before leaving this topic, it should be noted that even the deep inquiry being discussed here is not always entirely uncomfortable – people may also feel a sense of relief at finally articulating and confronting issues that have worried or unsettled them. This is especially so when it emerges that others share the same concerns.

Return to top