Problem Solving versus Appreciative Inquiry

A teacher trying to plan next term faces a choice that is usually invisible. Frame the work as “fix what is broken” and the planning will follow one path. Frame the work as “do more of what already lives” and the planning follows a different path. The two approaches are different in nearly every step.

The problem-solving sequence

Traditional problem-solving runs through four steps.

1. Identify the problems. Make a list of what is wrong.
2. Conduct root cause analysis. Trace each problem to its underlying causes.
3. Brainstorm and analyse solutions. Generate options and evaluate them.
4. Develop action plans. Pick a plan and assign tasks.

The metaphor underneath this sequence is that teaching involves problems to be solved. The teacher is a fixer. The classroom is a list of broken things. The job is to repair.

This metaphor has uses. Some classroom problems do need direct fixing: a discipline pattern, a misaligned schedule, a unit that fails year after year. But applied to everything, the metaphor flattens the work and exhausts the practitioner.

The appreciative inquiry sequence

Appreciative inquiry runs through a different four steps.

1. Appreciate “what is.” Look at what already works. What is the system doing well right now?
2. Imagine “what might be.” Picture how the system could look if the best moments became more common.
3. Determine “what should be.” Decide what the system needs to commit to in order to get there.
4. Create “what will be.” Put the design into practice and live with it.

The metaphor here is that teaching is a solution or a mystery to be embraced. The teacher is a noticer and a designer. The classroom is a place where good things sometimes happen, and the job is to study those moments and build on them.

The two sequences produce different action plans. The problem-solving plan is a list of fixes. The appreciative plan is a list of strengths to extend.

The deficit language trap

Reflective practice as commonly taught tends to slide toward deficit language. Three habits show up.

Making improvements. The reflective teacher is always improving, which assumes there is something below standard right now.

Changing things for the better. The default is that things should change.

Correcting what is wrong. The default frame is “wrong.”

None of these habits are bad in isolation. Together, they build a worldview where the teacher is permanently below the bar. Over a career, that worldview is corrosive.

AI is not the opposite habit (“everything is fine”). It is a balancing habit. The reflective practitioner who uses AI alongside problem-solving asks both kinds of question and uses both kinds of data.

What AI looks at instead

For the reflective practitioner, using AI shifts attention to a different set of prompts.

Positive attributes. What does this teacher do well? What does this student bring to the room? What does this school excel at?

Peak experiences. Describe a peak experience or high point in your teaching. The story of one good day tends to contain more useful information than a list of bad days.

Times of effectiveness. Identify a time in your experience when you felt most effective and engaged. What were the conditions? Can any of them be reproduced?

Wishes. What are three wishes you have to enhance the quality of your teaching? The wishes name where the energy wants to go.

A staff meeting that runs through these prompts produces a different agenda from the one a problems list produces.

The underlying benefits

Appreciative inquiry tends to release energy in a school. Six benefits show up consistently.

1. Building relationships. Conversations about strengths build trust faster than conversations about problems.
2. Creating opportunities for teachers to be heard. A teacher invited to share a peak experience speaks differently from one asked to list complaints.
3. Generating opportunities for teachers to dream. Teachers who only solve problems stop dreaming. AI gives the dreaming back.
4. Allowing teachers to choose how they will contribute. A strength-based plan asks each teacher where they are most useful, rather than assigning fixes from above.
5. Giving teachers support to act. When the plan is built on what works, the people doing the work feel backed rather than exposed.
6. Encouraging teachers to be positive and affirming. This is contagious. Affirming teachers tend to produce affirming students.

Flashcard

What is the metaphor underneath problem-solving compared with appreciative inquiry?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Problem-solving treats teaching as problems to solve; AI treats it as a mystery to embrace

Problem-solving sees the classroom as a list of broken things to repair. AI sees it as a place where good things sometimes happen and tries to study those moments and multiply them. Both approaches have uses; the warning is against using only one of them.

When to use which approach

The two approaches are not opposites. A reflective practitioner uses both.

Problem-solving is the right tool when there is a specific, concrete failure to address: a discipline pattern, a missed deadline, a unit students keep failing. The fix needs root causes and an action plan.

Appreciative inquiry is the right tool when energy is low, when a school needs a fresh starting point, when a team has been stuck in deficit talk too long, or when planning new direction. AI is also better at the start of a year, before the year has produced enough specific failures to analyse.

A school that runs only on problem-solving exhausts its teachers. A school that runs only on AI may avoid the hard problems. The combination, used deliberately, holds both kinds of conversation.