Problem-based methodology

Robinson and Lai (2006) build on Argyris and Schön’s (1974) work in presenting a model of collaborative inquiry that teachers, principals, and ISTEs can use to solve instructional problems and improve student achievement. The model – “problem-based methodology” (PBM) – was developed by Viviane Robinson and first outlined in her 1993 book Problem-based Methodology: Research for the Improvement of Practice.

Robinson and Lai (2006) conceptualise teaching practice as the application of solutions to practical problems. The solutions are provided by educators’ theories of action, which are usually tacit and often shared by fellow members of their community of practice. Sustantive improvement depends on interrupting routines to check the thinking behind educators’ actions. In other words, it involves investigating the three components of educators’ theories of action: constraints (governing variables), actions (action strategies), and consequences (both intended and unintended).

Still drawing on Argyris and Schön, Robinson and Lai offer four standards for evaluating the adequacy of educators’ solutions to their problems:

• the accuracy of any factual claims
• the effectiveness of the practice
• its coherence: that is, whether the solution creates other problems
• its improvability: the openness of the theory to feedback and revision.

The process of evaluation makes it possible to develop an improved alternative theory of action.

PBM requires the development of communication and relationship skills that allow participants in inquiry to build and maintain positive working relationships while undertaking rigorous inquiry that is clearly focused on investigating, evaluating, and improving practice. Even when people are conducting their own inquiry, they need such skills because the process of surfacing and examining theories of practice requires another person’s perspective.

Robinson and Lai characterise the ideal relationship between the participants in inquiry as a “‘learning conversation’ in which different points of view are respected and treated as a resource for reciprocal critique and learning” (page 53). Argyris (1990) first developed the concept of a learning conversation, which he compares to controlling conversations:

• In controlling conversations, the advocates of change push their ideas without inquiring into or even acknowledging the theory of action that explains the practices they want to change. They are driven by the need to protect their own views from challenge. This exacerbates the tension between the two goals.
• In learning conversations, people treat different accounts of a problem as a resource for learning better ways to think about and resolve it. They are open to learning from others about the adequacy of their beliefs, assumptions, and values. Their drive is for better quality thinking and reasoning. Because relationships of mutual respect are essential for examining and resolving differences between competing theories of action, there is less tension between the two goals.

According to Robinson and Lai, learning conversations have the following consequences for their participants:

• They can move from an implicit account of a problem to an explicit understanding that can be evaluated and revised.
• They can develop two-way relationships characterised by empathy and trust.
• They can establish a culture in which constructive critique of practice and shared responsibility for improvement is the norm. Relationships and improving practice become mutually reinforcing rather than competing goals.

Annan, Lai, and Robinson (2003) argue that effective professional conversations involve the use of “learning talk” — talk that is focused on, and designed to improve, teaching and learning. They identify three interrelated categories of learning talk, each of which is essential to the inquiry process. They are:

• analytical talk: talk that analyses evidence of the impact of teaching practices on student learning
• critical talk: talk that evaluates the outcomes of that analysis
• challenging talk: talk about making changes to ineffective practices in ways that will enhance the impact on student learning.

The ladder of inference is a tool initially developed by Argyris (1990) to enable participants in learning conversations to inquire into disagreements and check the quality of the thinking that lies behind them.

By using the ladder, people can become more aware of what led them to make those claims and of the possible ways in which they could be wrong. When people realize their claims are not self-evident, and that other interpretations of the same behavior or events are possible, they become much more open to learning from others.

Robinson and Lai, 2006, page 45

Robinson and Lai stress that dilemmas between the need to maintain positive collegial relationships and the need to investigate and improve practice can arise daily in the course of professional conversations with fellow educators. Learning conversations and the ladder of inference provide ways for people to check where the tensions lie and how they can resolve the problem. They also claim that:

the use of PBM builds some of the conditions needed to create a culture of inquiry. It does so by showing how the tension between trust and critical inquiry can be resolved, and through providing an evaluative framework of competing theories of action.

page 200

The culture of inquiry fostered by the use of PBM is characterised by ongoing collaboration, is inclusive, and focuses on “critical examination of practice to improve students’ learning through describing, evaluating, and improving participants’ theories of action” (page 206). That is, by focusing attention on competition between theories rather than competition between individuals, PBM can make possible the double-loop learning that leads to the co-construction of improved theories-of-action.

Return to top