Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining organizational learning in schools: The role of psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning

  • Published:
Journal of Educational Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study draws upon theory and methods from the field of organizational behavior to examine organizational learning (OL) in the context of a large urban US school district. We build upon prior literature on OL from the field of organizational behavior to introduce and validate three subscales that assess key dimensions of organizational learning that build upon and extend prior education research: psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning. Data from 941 teachers across 60 schools in this urban district suggest that organizational learning is an underlying condition which is expressed by teacher perceptions of subfactors of psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning. Implications for adopting the conceptual framework and methods employed in this research for studying organizational learning and school change are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to our district contact, district surveys typically have response rates of about 20%.

  2. Principals were categorized according to whether or not they were new; 60% of the sampled schools were led by new principals.

  3. See Appendix A for the text of study measures.

  4. EXP3: “This school has a formal process for conducting and evaluating experiments or new ideas.”

  5. LTRL6: “My principal criticizes views different from his or her own.”

References

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, methods and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1989). Causal modeling via structural equation systems. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology: Perspectives on individual difference (2nd ed., pp. 317–335). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (Eds.). (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, W. L. (Ed.). (2008). American Journal of Education, 114(4), 521–700.

  • Bryk, A. S., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. E., Allensworth, A. L., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chicago Consortium for School Research. (2007). Items that compose the measure innovation. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/surveymeasures2007/innv.html.

  • Cohen, D. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39(5), 250–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, V., Cook, T., & Conley, S. (2006). Organizational learning in schools and school systems: Improving learning, teaching, and leading. Theory into Practice, 45(2), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copland, M. A., & Knapp, M. S. (2006). Connecting leadership with learning: A framework for reflection, planning, and action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, J. B. (1996). Understanding organizational learning for educational leadership and school reform. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, P. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 589–652). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review, 86(7), 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. F. (2002). Unwarranted intrusion. Education Next, 2(1), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friendly, M. (1995). Planning a factor analytic study. Retrieved from http://www.psych.yorku.ca/lab/psy6140/fa/facplan.htm.

  • Fullan, M. (1995). The school as learning organization: Distant dreams. Theory into Practice, 34(4), 230–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 541–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, S., Cousins, J., & Elliott, C. (2006). Organizational learning capacity, evaluative inquiry and readiness for change in schools: Views and perceptions of educators. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 289–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, S., & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. European Management Journal, 15(5), 575–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. I. (2004). Where’s the ‘up’ in bottom-up reform? Educational Policy, 18(4), 527–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, M. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 627–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D., Harris, A., & Jackson, D. (1997). Understanding the school’s capacity for development: Growth states and strategies. School Leadership and Management, 17(3), 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Reform as learning: When school reform collides with school culture and community politics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imants, J. (2003). Two basic mechanisms for organisational learning in schools. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(3), 293–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading change: The challenge of the new superintendency. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, M. (2008). How can organizational and sociocultural learning theories shed light on district instructional reform? American Journal of Education, 114(4), 521–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., & Aitken, R. (1995). Making schools smarter: A system for monitoring school and district progress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 243–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M. W., Talbert, J. E., & Bascia, N. (1990). The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’ realities. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovative climate in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113(9).

  • Porter, A., Polikoff, M., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S., & May, H. (2010). Developing a psychometrically sound assessment of school leadership: The VAL-ED as a case study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 135–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schechter, C. (2008). Organizational learning mechanisms: The meaning, measure, and implications for school improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 155–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth dimension: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silins, H. C., Mulford, W. R., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 613–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M., & Coburn, C. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 583–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L. (1999). Realising our potential: Understanding and developing capacity for lasting improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 503–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2/3), 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, D., & Polley, A. (1992). Learning while innovating. Organization Science, 3(1), 92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1996). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Appian Way, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Monica Higgins, Ann Ishimaru, Rebecca Holcombe & Amy Fowler

Authors
  1. Monica Higgins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann Ishimaru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Holcombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amy Fowler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Higgins.

Appendix A: Items in the scales

Appendix A: Items in the scales

Indicators in the initial, hypothesized subscales of organizational learning

Items in the psychological safety (PS) subscale:

  1. (1)

    In this school, it is easy to speak up about what is on your mind.

  2. (2)

    People in this school are usually comfortable talking about problems and disagreements.

  3. (3)

    People in this school are eager to share information about what does and doesn’t work.

Items in the experimentation (EXP) subscale:

  1. (1)

    This school experiments frequently with new ways of working.

  2. (2)

    This school experiments frequently with new instructional practices or strategies.

  3. (3)

    This school has a formal process for conducting and evaluating experiments or new ideas.

Items in the leadership that reinforces learning (LTRL) subscale:

  1. (1)

    My principal invites input from others in discussions.

  2. (2)

    My principal acknowledges his or her own limitations with respect to knowledge, information, or expertise.

  3. (3)

    My principal asks probing questions.

  4. (4)

    My principal listens attentively.

  5. (5)

    My principal encourages multiple points of view.

  6. (6)

    My principal criticizes views different from his or her own. (reverse coded item)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Higgins, M., Ishimaru, A., Holcombe, R. et al. Examining organizational learning in schools: The role of psychological safety, experimentation, and leadership that reinforces learning. J Educ Change 13, 67–94 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9167-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9167-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation