The purpose of this study was to reflect the leadership strategies that may arise using a constructivist approach based on organizational learning. This approach involved the use of simulations that focused on ethical tensions in school principals’ daily experiences, and the development of codes of ethical conduct to reduce these tensions. The study included 50 teachers who served in school leadership roles in addition to their regular teaching jobs. The teachers participated in 50 simulation sessions. The data were analyzed with ATLAS.ti 5.0. Five dimensions of tensions between leadership strategies were found to be related to the central concept of “Leadership strategies derived from simulations:” Engagingversus Monitoring; Envisioning versus Implementing; Implementingversus Engaging; Monitoring versus Envisioning, and Articulating versus Envisioning—demonstrating the complexity of dialogue during the simulations, which include a multifaceted model of tension between values, and codes of ethical conduct. The study findings may encourage school principals and education leaders to use simulations to help unravel ongoing ethical dilemmas in school for the development of leadership strategies based on organizational and constructivist learning theories. These learning conditions may provide fertile ground for practicing difficult ethical decision-making and thus enhance the professional development of education leaders.
BaeteGS (2011) Differentiating school leadership: Facing the challenges of practice. School Leadership & Management31(5): 545–548.
4.
BaturayMHBayOF (2010) The effects of problem-based learning on the class-room community perceptions and achievement of web-based education students. Computers and Education55: 43–52.
CregoAAlcover de la HeraCMartinez-InigoD (2008) The transition process to post-working life and its psychological outcomes. Career Development International13(2): 186–204.
11.
DenigSJQuinnT (2001) Ethical dilemmas for school administrators. The High School Journal84(4): 43–49.
12.
EacottS (2010) Bourdieu’s strategies and the challenges for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education13(3): 265–281.
13.
EacottS (2012) Ledership strategies: Reconceptualising strategy for educational leadership. School Leadership & Management31(1): 35–46.
EyalOBerkovichISchwartzT (2011) Making the right choices: Ethical judgments among educational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration49(4): 396–413.
HallingerPHeckRH (2002) What do you call people with visions? The role of vision, mission and goals in school leadership and improvement. In: LeithwoodKHallingerP (eds) Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.9–40.
18.
HarrisKRGrahamS (1994) Constructivism: principles, paradigms, and integration. Journal of Special Education56: 233–247.
19.
HeckRHHallingerP (2005) The study of educational leadership and management. Educational Management Administration and Leadership33(2): 229–244.
20.
HillCSemlerS (2001) Simulation enhanced learning: Case studies in leadership development. Available at: http://www.learningsim.com(accessed 10 September 2013).
21.
KolbAYKolbDA (2005) Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education4(2): 193–212.
22.
LichtensteinBM (2000) Generative knowledge and self-organized learning. Journal of Management Inquiry9(1): 47–54.
NewmanLPollnitzL (2002) Professional, Ethical and Legal Issues in Early Childhood. NSW, Frenchs Forest: Pearson SprintPrint.
25.
NorbergKJohanssonO (2007) Ethical dilemmas of Swedish school leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership35(2): 277–294.
26.
NormoreAH (2011) Ethical decision making in school administration: Leadership as moral architecture. Journal of Educational Administration49(1): 95–97.
27.
OECD (2012) Better Policies for Better Lives. Available at: http://www.oecd.org(accessed 10 September 2013).
28.
O’NeillJBourkeR (2010) Educating teachers about a code of ethical conduct. Ethics and Education5(2): 159–172.
29.
OplatkaI (2009) The field of educational administration: A historical overview of scholarly attempts to recognize epistemological identities, meanings and boundaries from the 1960s onwards. Journal of Educational Administration47(1): 8–35.
30.
OplatkaIAddi-RaccahA (2009) Is ‘educational leadership’ a national-contextual field of study? Some insights from an analysis of the field’s major journals. In: WisemanAW (ed) Educational Leadership: Global Contexts and International Comparisons. Bingley, WA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.399–418.
31.
PerkinsD (1999) The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership57(3): 6–11.
32.
PhillipsDC (1995) The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher4(7): 5–12.
33.
PhillipsDC (1997) How, why, what, when, and where: Perspectives on constructivism in psychology and education. Issues in Education3(2): 151–195.
34.
PowellKCKalinaCJ (2009) Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education130(2): 241–250.
35.
RitterBA (2006) Can business ethics be trained? A study of the ethical decision-making process in business students. Journal of Business Ethics68(2): 153–164.
36.
RommeAGL (2004) Action research, emancipation and design thinking. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology14: 495–499.
37.
SalasEWildmanJLPiccoloRF (2009) Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education8(4): 559–573.
38.
SchönDA (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
39.
SchwartzmanR (1997) Gaming serves as a model for improving learning. Education118(1): 9–18.
40.
SchweitzerLStephensonM (2008) Charting the challenges and paradoxes of constructivism for pre-professional planning education. Teaching in Higher Education13(5): 583–593.
41.
ShapiroJStefkovichJ (2005) Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
Shapira-LishchinskyO (2012) Mentors’ ethical perceptions: Implications for practice. Journal of Educational Administration50(4): 437–462.
43.
Shapira-LishchinskyO (2013) Team-based simulations: Learning ethical conduct in teacher trainee programs. Teaching and Teacher Education33: 1–12.
44.
ShorttDHallettFSpendloveD. (2012) Teaching, morality, and responsibility: A Structuralist analysis of a teachers’ code of conduct. Teaching and Teacher Education28(1): 124–131.
45.
SimsRR (2002) Business ethics teaching for effective learning. Teaching Business Ethics6: 393–410.
46.
SimsRRFeltonEL (2006) Designing and delivering business ethics teaching and learning. Journal of Business Ethics63(3): 297–312.
47.
StarrattRJ (2004) Ethical Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
StrikeKAHallerEJSoltisJF (2005) The Ethics of School Administration. New York: Teachers College Press.
50.
TaylorSJBogdanR (1998) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. New York: John Wiley.
51.
ThavikulwatP (2009) The architecture of computerized business gaming simulations. Simulation & Gaming35(2): 242–269.
52.
The Code of Ethics of the American Association of School Administrators – AAS (1993) Available at: http://www.aasa.org/AASAintheNews.aspx(accessed 10 September 2013).
TrevinoLKWeaverGRReynoldsSJ (2006) Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management Education32(6): 951–990.
55.
von GlaserfeldE (1989) Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese80(1): 121–140
56.
WilleyLBurkeDD (2011) A constructivist approach to business ethics: Developing a student code of professional conduct. Journal of Legal Studies Eduction28(1): 1–38.
57.
WindschitlM (1999) The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan80(10): 751–755.
