I would argue that adaptation to change is synonymous with learning. Fullan's (2014) description of the change process as one of disruption and coherence-making is similar to one of the earliest models of change first articulated by Kurt Lewin nearly 70 years ago. Lewin developed a three-stage model of change of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing to describe how individuals and organizations respond to change. (Burnes, 2004) In both examples, adaptation is a response to an event that disrupts a state of inertia, causing a transformation to take place, and then finally a new way of understanding or doing is established. Change, as described here, is very much synonymous with the theory of learning described by Piaget, which describes a phase of "disequilbrium" followed by adaptation, through which new learning is shaped. (Pritchard, 2009)
A few years ago I had the opportunity to spend a week working with and shadowing Gever Tulley, founder of the Tinkering School and Brightworks, an innovative project based school located in San Francisco's Mission District. In addition to his out-of-the-box thinking about education, Gever is known for his sketching. One of my prized possessions of my visit was an outline of Brightworks' approach to engaging students drawn by Gever as we sat and debriefed after my week there. On a page of ordinary printer paper, Gever drew a series of squares, each represented what he called a "provocation". Examples included asking "Big Questions", sending students on "Quests", and presenting students with thorny, complicated - but highly engaging - problems. Each provocation was designed to challenge students and illicit their interest and engagement in learning.
My philosophy is to view the productive disruptions within the change process just as Gever intends for his students to view his provocations, as highly engaging and interesting learning challenges. Consequently, viewing change in this way also necessitates a certain disposition, the very same one I hope for my students. Such a disposition approaches change with a spirit of openness, curiosity, and without any particular expectation for the outcome. Such a dispositon requires a growth mindset, the belief that growth can be achieved through hard work and effort, and isn't the result of simply innate abilitiy (Dweck, 2006) Adaptation to change seems dependent on such a perspective. Otherwise, the process is likely to feel far beyond the control of its participants. As with learning, a feeling of efficacy provides motivation in learning. (Zimmerman, 2000)
We expect our students to approach learning in this way, and we are intentional about designing learning opportunities that foster student growth. It is my belief that the same expectation and intentionality ought to apply to us as we engage in the change process. The good news is that there a lot of information about how best to do this in the classroom, and therefore, for ourselves.
For example, the benefits of social-emotional learning are well documented and inlcude impoved self-efficacy, social behaviors and skills, and academic performance. (Durlak et al, 2011) As a staff and school engaged in the change process, our own social emotional skills come into play. Desiging a change process with this in mind means providing for staff members' social and emotional needs throughout the process. This is partly accomplished by making time for staff to connect, discuss their concerns and aprehensions about the change, recognize each other, and work together collaboratively. If this sounds like today's classroom environment, it's because it is. In my classroom, we approach learning this way. The "change" may be a new math concept that is likely to breed frustration and come with several misconception, thus making the learning process a challenging one. We'll discuss this ahead of time, allow for time to share our fears, excitement, etc, and repeatedly reconvene throughout our learning to monitor both our academic progress, but also our experiences. The average staff meeting or PLC frequently leaves this out to its detriment.
In my classroom and among my colleagues, the social-emotional climate is of equal value to the change itself. This view seems consistent with the value Fullan places on the importance of relationships in the change process, and the power of learning in context. (2014) "Learning in context is based on the premise that 'what is gained as group must be shared as a group'" (pg. 132) Both contexts benefit from a learning community of purpose that nurtures relationships and creates new knowledge together.
Burnes, B. (2004.). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. J Management Studies Journal of Management Studies, 977-1002.
Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011.). The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions. Child Development, 405-432.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Fullan, Michael. Leading in a Culture of Change. Somerset, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2014. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 16 November 2015.
Copyright © 2014. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. London: David Fulton.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 82-91.