Answer

The Knowing-Doing Gap

Data can assist in the creation of an efficient blueprint that has measurable outcomes that will continuously improve learning institutions, and ensure that decisions are not made under incomplete and biased information. The knowing-doing gap challenges organizations and institutions on how to use the already existing knowledge through putting it to action to improve on performance and measurable results. In many cases, people know what to do, but the challenge is on how this knowledge can be applied effectively to enhance performance. Pfeiffer and Sutton claim that people can have a lot of ideas and they fail to put these ideas in action, and as a result fail to make progress. This paper looks at te principle of knowing the gap by analyzing how data can be used in accelerating school improvement in which it will specifically address effective decision making models. The paper will also relate how the decision making models are applicable in my own setting of education with the aim of improving the school performance as well as reforming the school.

The first principle put across by Pfeffer and Sutton (1999) is that knowledge is acquired by the actual act of doing the task rather than learning how to do the job. Data to improve schools can be acquired through scores achieved from tests, accuracy of coursework, attendance rates, promotion rates, graduation rates, and the number of individuals taking part in co-curricular activities. For instance, accuracy of course work data can be used in determining the school’s shortcomings and areas which require improvement. This kind of information can be used in the implementation of other policies in school to enhance performance rather than spending a lot of time in planning from raw data. Analysis of data shows which student groups need more improvement, helping school leadership to address the needs of students. Schools should also stop reacting to a single test score when data is being interpreted. The longitudinal collection of data that is from year to year is crucial if the measure of change, progress, and growth are to be done appropriately (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999).

Data collected through observations, surveys, and standardized test score analysis can be presented through reports on grade levels, school buildings, classes, and individuals. Through the use of this data, schools will be able to make appropriate decisions in regards to the structure and alignment of curriculum. The results will help the school board, administration, and faculty see if they are meeting the needs of students and steadily increasing their improvement process to the maximum potential. The data collected should not be used to establish competition in a school, but rather to compare with other schools around them. By doing so, students will understand that they are not competing against each other internally, but against external students. This will foster cooperation, collaboration, and organization in an institution whereby students will help each other succeed through teamwork which will involve studying together and overcoming the fear of being defeated (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). Internal competition will not promote school improvement.

The next principle put across by Pfeffer and Sutton is the idea of simple versus difficult paradigm. Schools can compare their data with other schools around them to come up with better strategies and better ideas on how the schools can improve in terms of performance and graduation rates. This can also help schools in coming up with very unique strategies which match with their operation systems of the schools and boost the overall performance in not only the students, but also the teachers and other respective staff. Measurement also acts as an obstacle to closing the gap between knowing and doing which is relevant in a school environment (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999). The collecting of data in schools to accelerate the rate of improvement as mentioned above should involve other schools in the surrounding area. The measurements should focus less on individual performance and more on factors that are critical for the success of the school. The data should be used to leverage knowledge effectively. Data collection can affect what students do, what they notice, and ignore. Schools should incorporate evaluation of data which gives an overview of the process rather than just the outcome.

It is better to have the kind of data which focuses on the school curriculum rather than having a general data without a specific focus. This kind of data should be able to transform knowledge into action in specific areas which contribute towards the improvement of the overall performance of the school.  The end goal should be to reduce the gap in performances among students while increasing excellence for everyone. The final principle is in regards to what the leaders do and how they allocate resources. Leaders who have been successful in closing or rather minimizing the knowing-doing gap understand that the most crucial task is not merely about making strategic decisions but rather to develop a system that will promote the transformation of knowledge into action simply and reliably (Pfeffer & Sutton, 1999).

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model can be used to impact school improvement and reform as it dictates that not all decisions are created equal (Zane, 2016). The decision about school reform and improvement is fundamental and thus will require the input of its stakeholders like the parents and students. The attention should be focused on the decisions that will have a significant impact on shaping the school’s improvement. The decision should also be made in consideration of how it will impact everyone who is connected to the school both internally and externally. This model can have significant impact on school improvement and reforms as it demands decision makers to analyze the factors that make up each decision and the type of leadership that will be best suited for the decision (Zane, 2016). The OODA (which stands for observe, orient, decide, and act) Loop decision-making model is simple and straightforward yet highly effective. This model is a loop meaning that it is continuous with no end for the growth of the institution.

The OODA loop can be used in analysis of different kinds of information effectively. This can be achieved through orienting people with the information which they have collected in regards to its improvement plans they will be able to make the right decision (Zane, 2016). It will also require that past experiences that are not relevant to the decision being made are not incorporated as it will hinder the expected outcome. The Recognition-Primed Decision model requires swift action after analyzing the available data. This type of decision model will impact areas that need fast response and do not have time to be thought through (Zane, 2016). The data collected will help a school understand the situation. The data is crucial because without it a school will not be able to implement appropriate decision. The model also ensures that reforms and improvements are analyzed before they are implemented. This kind of implementation ensures that the changes made are effective because they are evaluated and examined before making a decision of implementing the changes.

The Paired Comparison Analysis model is crucial when making decisions that have a lot of complexities involved. This decision-making model will include the laying out of the options available in regards to reform and improvement of the school (Zane, 2016). By laying out the options available, a comparison will be made, and the one that is accepted by many people will be selected. This type of decision model will shed some light in school improvement and reforms as there will be many competing options that should be implemented. The final decision-making model is the Ladder of Inference. This model is used in schools, especially by the faculties and then school board to help them in avoiding the application of the wrong  reforms or putting in place the wrong improvement plans based on the past experiences or factors (Zane, 2016). This decision model will ensure that personal influences are not incorporated in the school improvement and reforms.

 When the personal or past experiences are considered, they interfere with the decision-making processes which in return can have a significant effect on loosing tract of the already existing information (Zane, 2016). The Ladder of Inference model includes ascertaining the facts as well as in the selection and interpretation of the information, developing assumptions, coming up with conclusions, beliefs, and finally acting on the decision. The implementation of the reforms and improvements can be used in enhancing the overall performance (Zane, 2016). The use of this model will ensure that the school can effectively identify the shortcomings in the reforms that have been proposed so that they can be amended and developed in a logic manner.     

Conclusion

Data gives quantifiable proof thus removing the emotion and rancor from the process of making a decision. The principles developed by Pfeffer and Sutton allow for knowledge to be transformed into action. Through the use of the principle of knowing-doing gap, data collected in schools will help in understanding the reason behind student performance, teacher quality, and the overall improvement of the school. By using the data gathered, schools would be in line with their vision and purpose. The decision-making models ensure that the right reforms are implemented and at the time when they are needed. These models also ensure that personal experience or biases are not included in the changes and improvements that are to be implemented.