Session Information
32 SES 02, Organizational Learning in/by Schools
Paper Session
Contribution
Theoretical framework and research question
Against the background of a complex and constantly changing world, schools as organizations also increasingly face the task of constantly adapting to their environment (Child, 2016). Schools as organizations have been confronted with changing educational conceptions, the demographic change of their students, or new governance systems to which they have to respond. This requires schools to learn at the organizational level (Marks & Louis, 1999). Organizational Learning enables schools to react autonomously to challenges and thus to adapt and improve constantly (Maag Merki, 2017). To build a capacity for organizational learning, schools need to implement structures, routines, and a culture supporting communication and collaboration between teachers (Feldhoff, 2011).
Especially schools in challenging circumstances are confronted with social change and the consequences of migration and segregation processes. Due to the situation in socially disadvantaged areas, those schools face a high proportion of students from challenging socioeconomic backgrounds, which can lead to multiple challenges in everyday school life. For example, students lack parental support as well as social and professional skills. In addition, the teachers at these schools are under greater strain, which leads to a higher turnover rate (Racherbaeumer et al., 2013). As a result, schools in challenging circumstances in particular have to deal with the task of adapting to the school-specific context and, accordingly, capacities for organizational learning are particularly necessary here (Holtappels et al., 2017).
However, the challenging school context can have a negative impact on internal factors, which is reflected, for example, in a weak learning culture due to discipline and motivation problems or a lack of cooperation and openness for educational innovations among teachers (Huber, 2017). It is therefore questionable to what extent schools in challenging contexts fulfil the necessary structural and cultural requirements in terms of organizational learning.
The capacity for organizational learning in schools has so far mainly been part of Anglo-Saxon research. These studies conceptualize the capacity for organizational learning mostly as different but not independent dimensions. The dimensions focus on structures that support communication and cooperation as well as the culture and quality of communication and cooperation processes (cf. Higgins et al., 2012; Thoonen et al., 2012; Schechter & Atarchi, 2013). But there is no consistent use of instruments for measuring the capacity for organizational learning (Maag Merki, 2017). However, findings indicate differences in the degree of the capacity for organizational learning between schools as well as in the degree of the individual dimensions within schools. In addition, correlations with factors of school quality and learning outcomes can be found (Marks, Louis, & Printy, 2000).
With regard to Germany, only a sparse number of findings can be ascertained so far. One of the largest studies, conducted by Feldhoff (2011), adapted the model of capacity for organizational learning by Marks et al. (2000) as part of a pilot project on school autonomy in Germany. Feldhoff (2011) describes the capacity for organizational learning with seven broadly composed dimensions (structure, shared commitment and collaborative activity, knowledge and skills, leadership and management, feedback and accountability, external exchange, teacher empowerment) and was able to establish a basic level of capacity for organizational learning at the schools participating in the project.
The aim of the present study is therefore to transfer the model of capacity for organizational learning according to Feldhoff (2011) to the special context of schools in socially deprived locations. Therefore, the question of which degree of capacity for organizational learning can be found in schools in socially deprived contexts will be investigated, with particular emphasis on the individual dimensions of the capacity for organizational learning and their interrelations.
Method
Data Sources and Sample The study (BONUS study; Boese et al., 2017) is based on a scientific monitoring of a funding program (the so called “Bonus-Program”) for schools in challenging circumstances in Berlin, Germany. At three measurement points school principal surveys were conducted at the program schools. From the second measurement point teacher surveys were conducted at N = 55 randomly selected schools. The teacher survey at the second measurement point forms the basis for the present study with N = 487 teachers at overall N = 52 schools. Additionally, data from the school principal surveys from the first and second measurement point as well as administrative school data were taken into account. Instruments The capacity for organizational learning was operationalized ex post based on the mentioned data sources. The aim was to represent the variety of different aspects of the separate dimensions of the capacity for organizational learning. The dimension “structure” is represented by the variables “regularity of team meetings,” “existence of a steering group,” and “school size”. “Shared commitment and collaborative activity” is represented by the variables “collaborative activities,” including activities such as sharing of class room practices or designing the curricula collaboratively, “reflection of collaboration activities,” “stressed working atmosphere,” and “shared goal orientation”. “Knowledge and skills” is represented by the variables “innovativeness of the faculty” and “willingness to further training”. “Leadership and management” is represented by variables of cooperative, transactional, and instructional leadership styles. “Feedback and accountability” is operationalized by the variables “evaluation of goal attainment” and “internal evaluation activities” including activities such as job shadowing among teachers, school internal surveys, and school specific evaluation of standardized performance tests. “External exchange” is represented by the amount of external cooperation partners of the school. “Teacher empowerment” is represented by the variable “perceived participation”. All in all, 16 different scales and items were used to represent the seven capacity dimensions. Methods First of all, the data from the teacher survey were aggregated at the school level in order to operationalize the dimensions of the capacity for organizational learning at the school level. The intraclass correlation was then measured to assess the extent to which teachers in a school are similar in terms of the variables used. Next, correlational analyses were conducted for the used items and scales. Finally, a descriptive analysis of each variable followed to assess the level of each dimension of the capacity for organizational learning.
Expected Outcomes
Results and Conclusion The correlational analyses show overall weak and moderate interrelations between the used variables of the capacity dimensions. Only the variables of the dimension “structure” do not correlate significantly with each other and with the variables of the other dimensions. Therefore, the results can be considered as consistent with the theoretical implications of the individual dimensions of the capacity of organizational learning. The descriptive findings imply that the average values of the considered variables are mainly above the theoretical average of the respective scale. With reference to Feldhoff (2011) the level of the capacity for organizational learning at the analyzed schools can be rated as basic. However, differences in the degree of individual dimensions are apparent. The variables of the dimensions “structure”, “leadership and management”, “external exchange,” and “teacher empowerment” are positioned clearly above the particular theoretical averages. In contrast, the dimensions “shared commitment and collaborative activity”, “knowledge and skills,” and “feedback and accountability” are positioned only slightly above the respective theoretical averages and therefore appear to be expandable. However, considering the moderate variation of the used variables, the analyzed schools do not seem to be homogeneous in terms of the capacity for organizational learning. To sum up, the capacity for organizational learning at schools in challenging circumstances in Berlin seems to be at a basic level. In detail, the dimensions related to structures, leadership, and empowerment reach a higher level. This seems unexpected given the internal challenges described, which often occur in these schools. In contrast, the dimensions more related to the teaching and work processes of the teachers seem to be expandable at the schools under consideration. This may show the need to focus on improving teaching at schools in challenging circumstances.
References
Boese, S., Neumann, M., Gesswein, T. & Maaz, K. (2017). Das Berliner Bonus-Programm zur Foerderung von Schulen in schwieriger Lage – Eckpunkte des Programms und erste Ergebnisse der BONUS-Studie [The Berlin Bonus-Program: Supporting Schools in Challenging Circumstances – Description of the Program and First Findings of the BONUS-Study]. In V. Manitius & P. Dobbelstein (Eds.), Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen (S. 179–203). Muenster, New York: Waxmann. Child, J. (2016). Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22. Feldhoff, T. (2011). Schule organisieren: Der Beitrag von Steuergruppen und Organisationalem Lernen zur Schulentwicklung [Organizing School: The Contribution of School Improvement Teams and Organizational Learning to School Improvement]. Educational Governance: Bd. 15. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fuer Sozialwissenschaften. Higgins, M., Ishimaru, A., Holcombe, R. & Fowler, A. (2012). Examining organizational learning in schools: The role of psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning. Journal of Educational Change, 13(1), 67–94. Maag Merki, K. (2017). School Improvement Capacity als ein Forschungsfeld der Schulentwicklungs- und Schuleffektivitätsforschung: Theoretische und methodische Herausforderungen [School Improvement Capacity as one Research Interest of School Improvement and School Effectiveness Research: Theoretical and Methodical Challenges]. In U. Steffens, K. Maag Merki & H. Fend (Eds.), Beiträge zur Schulentwicklung: Vol. 2. Schulgestaltung. Aktuelle Befunde und Perspektiven der Schulqualitäts- und Schulentwicklungsforschung (1. Aufl., S. 269–286). Münster: Waxmann. Marks, H. M. & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher Empowerment and the Capacity for Organizational Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707–750. Marks, H. M., Louis, K. S. & Printy, S. M. (2000). The Capacity for Organizational Learning: Implications for Pedagogical Quality and Student Achievement. Management and Educational Policy, 4, 239–265. Racherbaeumer, K., Funke, C., van Ackeren, I. & Clausen, M. (2013). Datennutzung und Schulleitungshandeln an Schulen in weniger beguenstigter Lage: Empirische Befunde zu ausgewaehlten Aspekten der Qualitaetsentwicklung [Quality Development of Schools in Challenging Circumstances. Empirical Findings on Data Use and Quality Development]. DDS - Die Deutsche Schule. (Beiheft 12), 226–254. Schechter, C. & Atarchi, L. (2013). The Meaning and Measure of Organizational Learning Mechanisms in Secondary Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 577–609. Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J. & Peetsma, T. T. (2012). Building school-wide capacity for improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 441–460.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.