www.nationalforum.com - Dr. Bobbie Eddins, Dr. Brenda Russell, Dr. Ann Farris, Dr. Jeffrey Kirk - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 30, NUMBER 3, 2013
6
ETHICS TOOLS ANCHORED BY ACTION
LEARNING: A PRAXIS FRAMEWORK FOR
COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING
Bobbie Eddins, Ed.D. Ann Farris, Ph.D.
Brenda Russell, Ed.D.Jeffrey Kirk, Ph.D.
School of Education
Texas A&M University-Central Texas
ABSTRACT
School leaders and those who work with them in chaotic campus environments
face complex issues involving ethical questions. The staggering diversity of
issues confronting school leaders and the speed at which issues arise demand
“learning in action” decision making skill. The authors propose in this concept
paper a praxis framework to guide aspiring school leaders in learning about,
using, and teaching ethical decision making skills. The framework is grounded
by a three-part approach: 1) the leader’s need to understand and model a
personal values structure while assisting others in the school community in
defining their beliefs about their work, 2) the capability of those involved in
decision making to use ethical “tools” such as moral principles and ethical
dilemma patterns to define and solve complex issues, and 3) the use of action
learning as a protocol for decision making in real time. Based on the three-part
approach, a learning-in-action collaborative decision-making process is
discussed. The use of this process in all courses in a school leadership
preparation program allows students to gain the confidence and skill to develop
teachers and other school leaders as more effective ethical decision makers.
Introduction
School leaders and those who work with them in school
communities face complex issues in chaotic environments every day

_____________________________________EDDINS, FERRELL, RUSSELL, &KIRK7
issues rife with ethical questions. Many believe that prescriptive
measures and tight control hold the key to effective leadership in
public schools today. Sarason (1982) suggests that “principals,
especially those new to their positions, often choose stability over
creativity, opting to assert authority or withdraw from the fray”
(p.160). Some, however, would argue that a much more creative and
powerful course of action rests in the development of school leaders as
purpose holders who collaboratively involve other leaders in learning,
leading, and ethical decision making. Although some facets of school
leadership do not focus on concerns directly related to moral issues,
moral purpose is essential to schools’ learning endeavors (Fullan,
2003). Starratt (in Cordeiro & Cunningham, 2013) indicates that
“coming to terms with what one knows, to explore its use and its
misuse, to avoid its distortion or manipulation is both a moral and an
intellectual obligation” (p.15). He adds that “learning is a moral
search as well as an intellectual search for truth – truth about
ourselves, about our community, about our history, about our cultural
and physical world.” While the truth will remain “incomplete, fallible,
partial, and generative,” Starratt suggests that this search is the
grounding work of whole schools – those involved in making sound
choices about themselves and the communities they create.
Clearly, one of the most important social justice issues facing
school communities today is the capability of school leadership to act
with a sense of moral purpose and ethical conscience. Because of the
size and complex nature of schools, this necessitates increased
leadership capacity among all stakeholder groups – teachers, students,
parents, community members, and administrators – with all leaders
gaining knowledge and skill to be collaboratively involved in effective
decision making (Lambert, 2003). Additionally, the staggering
diversity of the issues confronting school leaders and the speed at
which they arise demand a “learning in action” decision making
process in which many minds think creatively about the complex
issues at hand (Herasymowych & Senko, 2008). The use of a common
group protocol is an option that provides the parameters for candid
conversations in group settings without the fear of alienation or

8NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
retribution; ideally, a process in which focused inquiry and the free
exchange of ideas are expected in an environment of psychological
safety. Key to the success of school leaders in growing this kind of
collaborative capacity building is sound training, particularly in
preparation programs (Beck & Murphy, 1994; Serviovanni, 1992;
Strike, 2005).
A Praxis Framework for Social Justice
and Ethical BehaviorWithin a
School Leadership Preparation Program
A praxis framework has been created as one option for learning
about collaborative and ethical decision making in school leadership
preparation programs. The framework is grounded by a three-part
approach: 1) the leader’s need to understand and model a personal
values structure while assisting others in the school community in
defining their beliefs about their work, 2) the capability of those
involved in decision making to use ethical “tools” such as moral
principles and ethical dilemma patterns to define and solve complex
issues, and 3) the use of action learning as a protocol for decision
making in real time. Based on the three-part approach, a learning-in-
action collaborative decision-making process has been developed.
The use of this process to solve real problems in real time in all
courses in a school leadership preparation program allows students to
gain the confidence and skill to develop teachers and other school
leaders as more effective ethical decision makers.
Part one of the praxis framework, understanding and utilizing a
set of personal values, is essential to leading consistently. Fullan
(2003) cites the need for a strong sense of moral purpose in order to
get through troubled leadership times. In the midst of a variety of
tasks and the diversity of people involved in the school environment,
school leaders can quickly lose sight of higher purpose and grounding
beliefs. Leaders who take the time to explore their own beliefs have
the opportunity to develop critical consciousness about their work that

can be used to anchor their leadership efforts. The development of a
code of conduct or ethics lays a foundation for leadership behavior.
Sergiovanni and Starratt (2001) advocate for the creation of an
educational platform of “basic assumptions, beliefs, attitudes and
values that are underpinnings of an educator’s behavior” (p. 84).
Many authors offer value sets as characteristic of ethical leadership.
Included in a discussion by Northouse (2010) are respect for others, a
service orientation, a concern with fairness and justice, honesty, and
desire to build community. Starratt (2004) provides three overarching
virtues to be valued in the leadership of schooling – responsibility to a
host of stakeholders for authentic learning, quality teaching, and a
healthy and effective environment; authenticity in relationships with
learners to promote authentic learning; and presence in affirming,
critiquing, and enabling the relationship between responsibility and
authenticity. A process to define a set of values set is offered by
Kouzes and Posner (2003) as foundational to exemplary leadership
practice. Unique to each individual, a personal set of values will
provide guidance in defining leadership practice. School leaders
should be able to create such a set and guide leaders and others on
their campuses in the development as well.
Also important and readily available to school leaders are tools
helpful in diagnosing and solving ethical issues, part two of the praxis
framework. Attention to personal values, ethical principles, and
dilemma patterns in the pursuit of a sound decision may result in a
better “fit” for those involved. Five basic principles from ethics theory
provide a lens to see ethical dilemmas from different viewpoints and
serve as a rudder in finding solutions. Three principles are mainstays
of discussions on this topic: ends-based thinking (utilitarianism) with
actions benefitting the greater number, rule-based thinking (categorical
imperative) defined by the moral duty/suitable role everyone should
follow in similar situations, and care-based thinking (altruism, the
Golden Rule) focused on a concern for others. Gregory (2010) offers
two additions: communitarianism which speaks to the common shared
values of the community with members taking responsibility for their
part, and Rawl’s justice as fairness perspective which advocates for

equal rights to the same liberties and all opportunities open to all.
Also helpful in the diagnosis of ethical issues is the use of right versus
right patterns in ethical dilemmas as defined by Kidder (2009): 1)
individual versus community in which the rights of many are balanced
with the rights of the individual, 2) short term versus long term which
examines the benefit of short-term gains with the effect of those long
term, 3) justice versus mercy contrasting the desire to see justice
served with feelings of empathy being right as well, and 4) truth
versus loyalty in which a balance between the two may be difficult.
The use of these tools in diagnosis and decision making is helpful in
generating workable solutions.
The third part of the praxis framework calls for the use of
action learning as the anchoring process for more collaborative
decision making. Current literature provides a good number of
approaches and processes for more ethically sound decision making.
Strike (2007) outlines four characteristics of a good decision: 1) the
decision is supported by evidence, the ends aimed at by the decision
are the appropriate ones, 3) the decision can be morally implemented,
and 4) the decision has been legitimately achieved. Utilizing both
ethical and legal principles, Stader (2013) discusses a three-stage
decision making model:
Stage one – define the problem, the parameters, the
primary decision maker, and acceptable outcome.
Stage two – research to determine legal and ethical
factors, input by presenting the problem to others for
possible solutions, and evaluation of possible solutions.
Stage three – making a decision from the options,
implementing the plan, and evaluating the acceptability of
outcomes.
While these and many additional examples have merit, the addition of
the action learning protocol as an option for decision support provides
many unique praxis-related components.

Action learning is a decision making process that utilizes many
of the steps found in current models while grounded in
collaborativediscourse. In a recent review of literature, (Cho & Egan,
2009), action learning was characterized as a process of inquiry which
“is based on the pedagogical notion that people learn most effectively
when working on real-time problems occurring in their own work
setting” (p. 434). Two themes resonate across the literature on action
learning: work-based real issues and team learning. Herasymowych
and Senko (2008) concur, noting that the real time nature of the
process provides the flexibility to deal with change and complexity.
They indicate that focusing on the learning that occurs in solving a
problem becomes the focus rather than just solving the problem. “You
get the best of both worlds: you learn from your actions while solving
the problem… There is a paradox in action learning: when you slow
down to learn from your actions, you actually speed up your ability to
take actions that are more effective in the long term” (p. 7). Certainly
the use of team learning is not a new theme, with writings and research
that include positions by Senge (1990) that team learning is a
foundational building block in an effective organization and Raelin
(2008) that when peers can take the time to offer perspectives into
each other’s workplace problems within a collective inquiry process,
learning occurs within the context of the work.
Herasymowych and Senko (2008) cite the emphasis on
generative rather than adaptive learning in an action learning problem
solving cycle. They indicate that adaptive learning focuses on
problem solving, just one part of the learning, while the second part of
the learning is generative and
requires people to be conscious of their contribution to the
organization’s problems, and how they can change the ways in
which they think and act in order to solve those
problems…Without generative learning, organizations and the
people within organizations fall prey to the same reactive
thinking and behaviors that are used each time a crisis arises,
even when these behaviors no longer work. (p. 14)

Reg Revans, widely considered by to be founder of the action learning
process, emphasized the need for a balance between action and
learning, with learning providing the generative results and action
facilitating any necessary change (Revans, 1998). Cho and Egan’s
(2010) review of the literature supports this notion, highlighting the
recurring theme that “solving a problem or addressing an issue is
critical only if there is learning from the experience” (p. 435).
Honey and Mumford’s (1995) research indicates that people
solve problems in a four-stage process: generate and analyze data on
the action, make sense out of the data through patterns and
conclusions, make decisions and formulate plans that produce desired
results, and take action on the plan. This natural learning cycle
provides for both action and reflection. To strengthen the learning,
Honey and Mumford identify four learning orientations – active,
reflective, theoretical, and practical – that define participative
preferences within the learning cycle. When learning orientations are
diagnosed, two or three dominating orientations are usually
discovered, providing opportunities for participants to “shine”
naturally in the learning cycle and learn to operate effectively in all
four orientations. According to Herasymowych & Senko (2008), the
eight elements of the action learning process can be seen through the
learning orientation lenses: reflective – step one gather data and step
two question assumptions; theoretical – step three generate a summary
statement and step four generate ideas; practical – step five test ideas
and step six make a decision, and active – step seven take action and
step eight tell the story.
By cobbling together the action learning process with values
sets, ethical principles, and ethical dilemma patterns, a learning-in-
action ethical decision making process is created that is usable
throughout the school environment. Most closely aligned to Kidder’s
ethical checkpoints decision making process (2009), the following
outlines the steps for a learning-in-action process anchored by action
learning (Herasymowych & Senko, 2008) and viewed with ethical
tools.

Step I – Diagnosis of Data
The following considerations are critical before analyzing data:
Describe the situation (the non-negotiables, what’s working,
what’s not working, who is being affected and how, what will
happen if nothing changes, expectations for those involved,
any steps taken so far to resolve the situation).
Check to see if any law or policy has been broken.
Describe any ethical dilemmas (patterns) at play in the
situation (truth v. loyalty; short-term v. long-term; individual v.
community; justice v. mercy).
Describe personal values possibly influencing actions by those
in the situation.
State the problem in one to two sentences as you understand it.
Step II – Opportunities for Leverage
To ensure optimal application of effort:
Generate ideas for improvement that could resolve the
problem.
Test each idea on merit by identifying positive and negative
results and who/what will be needed to make the idea work.
Be sure to discuss the presence of ethical principle lenses from
the traditions of moral philosophy and ethical theory (ends-
based, rule-based, care-based thinking, communitarianism, and
justice as fairness).
Utilize a leverage matrix to prioritize ideas by effort needed
and value added.
Step III – Plan for Impact
To ensure best possible outcomes and to minimize
unanticipated negative consequences:

Choose idea(s) to action plan.
Describe situation if the ideas are implemented (ideal
outcome).
Utilize an action planning format to create a plan to take
action on the idea(s) to include tasks/accountability,
resources required, timeline/end date, and desired results.
Describe the possible pitfalls to watch /plan for when the
action plan is implemented.
The use of the three-part praxis framework – development of a values
set and critical conscience, the skill in using ethical tools, and the use
of the more collaborative action learning approach to decision making
– may be infused throughout the coursework in a school leadership
preparation program. The first course in the learning sequence
combines a study of leadership theory (Northouse, 2010) with an
examination of ethical leadership and decision making topics.
Students develop a knowledge base about ethics through reading and
dialoguing about oppression (Freire, 2000), servant leadership
(Greenleaf, 2002), ethical dilemmas (Kidder, 2009), ethical leadership
(Starratt, 2004), moral imperatives (Fullan, 2003), and the work of
Heifetz concerning conflicting values and Burn’s development of
transformational leadership (in Northouse, 2010). Each student
develops a personal code of conduct, utilizes the blended learning-in-
action process to make decisions in a complex case study, and designs
a plan to improve ethical decision making on his or her home campus
as the course practicum activity.
The praxis framework and learning-in-action decision making
process are used in the following semester to begin development of a
personal best leadership project with defined values (Kouzes &
Posner, 2003); additionally, a personal mission and a values-driven
educational platform are created. Students collaboratively examine
their personal anchoring documents to practice the identification of
commonalities which will serve as the basis for a shared collection of
organization foundational documents – school vision, mission, guiding
principles, and portrait of a graduate. In each subsequent course,

school leadership students utilize their personal anchoring statements,
the shared foundational statements of their cohort, and the learning-in-
action decision making process to examine ethical issues related to the
course content: high expectations and the student learning plan
(curriculum, instruction, and assessment); communications, diversity,
and community relations; the supervision and growth of faculty and
staff; and the leadership and management of a safe and engaging
learning environment. Upon completion of the preparation program,
students have gained the skill to facilitate others’ learning about
ethical leadership and decision making specifically related to the
praxis framework and the learning-in-action decision making process.
The use of ethical tools and the learning-in-action decision
making process by leaders at every level in the school setting is
essential. Ethical issues are usually not created in isolation. Most
teachers, students, and other stakeholder s in the school community
have not been trained to deal with the complex ethical dilemmas
created in the midst of accelerating change. In most situations, no one
is wrong and multiple truths are to be expected. Unless leaders at
every level in the school community can learn to think and act
differently, problems will go without generative solutions. MacKenzie
and MacKenzie (2010) point out that while all educators are
responsible as professionals to share a responsibility to their schools
and students as well as to hold to a set of professional standards, “there
are times when the standards of an employee’s profession come into
conflict with the needs or wishes of others with whom he or she
works” (pp. 97-8). Additionally, the authors agree that “teachers do
not always define professional obligations in the same way” (p. 58).
Insert the views of parents, students, administrators, and other
community members to the complexity of issues, and interactions can
be laden with ethical challenges.
Just as campus administrators struggle with heavy workloads,
so do teacher leaders. The broader issues faced by the school
community, many of which contain the themes of social justice, are

often pushed to the back burner in deference to an out of control
student or an irate parent.
But the decisions about how the values of the school are
articulated and manifest in the school also happen on a daily
basis. It is not a question of what the school’s mission
statement says but about how daily practices and policies
represent and model that vision and that mission. (Blankstein
& Houston, 2011, p.151)
A deep understanding and substantial skill related to ethics and ethical
decision making process that is developed across a whole preparation
program of study and application will serve school leaders well as they
build the capacity of leaders throughout their campus communities to
understand and use sound and collaborative decision making
processes. As an option to making isolated decisions concerning
complex issues found in every area of school life, the use of the praxis
framework and the learning-in-action decision making process has the
potential to assist leaders at every level in guiding the development of
generative solutions in participative settings.
Mindfulness as Ethical Thinking
Margaret Wheatley (2007) promotes the need for mindful
learning, noting
anytime you can keep yourself from instantly reacting, anytime
you can pause for just a second, you are practicing
mindfulness…. Instead of letting your reactions and thoughts
lead you, you step back and realize you can choose your
reaction… Instead of being angry, you hesitate for a moment
and realize that you have other choices available. (p. 131-32)
Through action and reflection, leaders at every level of school
communities have the option to be mindful about their craft.

Preparing administrators for ethical practice requires more than
the establishment of courses. It demands that faculty and
students engage in ongoing reflection and conversation about
their beliefs and commitments and the ways in which practices
and policies support or contradict these. (Beck & Murphy,
1994, p. 95)
The praxis framework and learning-in-action decision making
process described in this paper for the study of ethics by school leaders
is one option for growth.

References
Beck, L., & Murphy, J. (1994). Ethics in educational leadership
programs: An expanding role. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Blankstein, A., & Houston, P. (2011). Leadership for social justice
and democracy in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Cho, Y., & Egan, T. (2009). Action learning research: A systemic
review and conceptual framework. Human Resources Review,
8(4) 431-462.
Cordeiro, P, & Cunningham, W. (2013). Educational leadership: A
bridge to practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY:
Continuum.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Greenleaf, R. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of
legitimate power and greatness (25th
anniversary ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Gregory, R. (2010). Moral and ethical leadership in administrator
preparation. International Journal of Educational Leadership
Preparation, 5(3) 1-6.
Herasymowych, M., & Senko, H. (2008). Solving real problems in
real time action learning guide. Calgary, Alberta, Canada:
MHA Institute.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1995). Learning styles questionnaire:
Facilitator guide. King of Prussia, PA: Organizational Design
and Development.
Kidder, R. (2009). How good people make tough choices: Resolving
the dilemmas of ethical living. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Kouzes, B., & Posner, B. (2003). The leadership challenge workbook.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school
improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Mackenzie, S., & MacKenzie, C. (2010). Now what? Confronting and
resolving ethical questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5thed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raelin, J. (2008). Work-based learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Revans, R. (1998). ABC of action learning. London, England: Lemos
& Crane.
Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of
change (2nded.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of a
learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Sergiovanni, T., & Starratt, R. (2001). Supervision: Human
perspectives. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Stader, D. (2013). Law and ethics in educational leadership (2nded.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Starratt, R. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: Wiley &
Sons.
Strike, K. (2007). Ethical leadership in schools: Creating community
in an environment of accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Strike, K., Haller, E., & Soltis, J. (2005). The ethics of school
administration. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Wheatley, M. (2007). Finding our way: Leadership for uncertain
times. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

www.nationalforum.com - Dr. Bobbie Eddins, Dr. Brenda Russell, Dr. Ann Farris, Dr. Jeffrey Kirk - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Último

Último (20)

www.nationalforum.com - Dr. Bobbie Eddins, Dr. Brenda Russell, Dr. Ann Farris, Dr. Jeffrey Kirk - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief