The application of learning organization to enhance learning in Singapore schools

Abstract

The rise of interest in the learning organization (LO) concept attests to the value of learning by individuals and organizations for continuous improvement and adaptability to the ever-changing environment. Although the LO concept originated from business contexts, it was subsequently extended to educational organizations, particularly to schools. This paper presents research on the way LO is practised by a school in Singapore that subscribes to the LO philosophy. Using Ortenblad’s four integrated LO aspects (organizational learning, learning at work, learning climate and learning structure) as a framework of analysis, the research shows that the school practises the four aspects in a way that is unique to its school context, but that wider cultural factors have to be taken into account when interpreting LO in an Asian school context.

Keywords

School teachers organizational learning learning at work learning climate learning structure

Introduction

In a rapidly evolving environment, many organizations experience change that requires them to review their way of management from that which was suited for an industrialized economy to one that is more suited for a modern knowledge economy. The knowledge economy demands that people learn efficiently and effectively in order to compete with others and adapt to the driving forces of change. Learning is a critical source of competitive advantage for an enterprise (Casey, 2005; Garvin, 2000). The emergence of the learning organization (LO) concept is recognition of the value of learning by individuals and organizations for continuous improvement and adaptability to the ever-changing environment (read, for example, Bui and Baruch, 2010; Grieves, 2000; Harvey and Denton, 1999; Kiedrowski, 2006; Rowden, 2001; Senge, 1990).

Although the LO concept originated from business contexts, it was subsequently extended to educational organizations, particularly for schools. Many now argue that schools should become LOs (read, for example, Johnston and Caldwell, 2001; Senge et al., 2000a). The argument is that schools that are learning organizations are able to enhance their capacity to respond to change (Corcoran and Goertz, 1995; Diggins, 1997; Fullan, 1993; Strain, 2000).

This paper presents research on the way LO is practised by a school in Singapore that subscribes to the LO philosophy. In the subsequent sections, the paper reviews the literature on LO, outlines the research and its methodology, discusses the research findings, and concludes with a discussion of the applicability of LO in the Asian school context.

Literature review

Much has been written about the LO concept since the 1990s. However, some have considered that a consistent definition of LO has been elusive (Henk, 2011; Thomas and Allen, 2006). Scholars and researchers working in the field tend to define LO according to their own experiences (Park, 2008) and each organization under study has its own characteristics and conditions that require it to develop its own version of the learning organization (Senge et al., 1994; Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992). While there are different ways of defining a learning organization, Senge’s definition has a humanistic perspective and is linked to learning that focuses at individual, group and organizational level.

Senge (1990) defines a learning organization as one in which people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to learn together. Such an organization focuses its attention on developing the conditions that motivate people to do great things for themselves and for their organizations. Organizations work the way they work because of how their members think and interact. Only by changing the deeply embedded thinking and habitual practises of employees can organizations develop new business capacities (Senge, 1990). Senge’s definition acts as an overarching framework to understand how people learn in this study.

There are different models and approaches to developing LO. Different LO proponents approach it from different angles but all have implications for leadership and management. Argyris (1999) focuses on double-loop learning over single-loop learning as a way to achieve a quantum leap. Huber (1991) suggests a four-step approach to LO development: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory. Senge (1990) advocates the five disciplines of Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning and Systems Thinking. More recently, Ortenblad (2004) proposes another LO developmental framework that comprises four integrated aspects of organizational learning (OL), learning at work, learning climate and learning structure. Integration of these four aspects, in particular, underscores the role of leadership. Very often components of a strategy attract different people and these may well pursue their favoured part of the strategy without considering the effect of that on the strategy as a whole. Leaders have to ensure that the components are kept in a coherent balance.

This is the framework of analysis that we use in this paper, as it emphasizes the significance of learning from different perspectives that encompass how learning is facilitated at various levels through different organizational activities and practices.

According to Ortenblad (2004), OL focuses on the different levels of learning, storing of knowledge and its use in the organization. Learning at work emphasizes the importance of ‘on-the-job learning’ as learning and knowledge are context-dependent. Learning climate recognizes the importance of management in creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace that is supportive, open and facilitates critical and new ways of thinking for learning to take place. An important aspect of the learning climate is that employees should be given the time and space to learn. That crucially means that management must allocate resources, including time to make this possible. Learning structure advocates a flexible organization where the structure is designed to allow flexibility, decentralization and for organizing members into teams. The learning structure is a crucial precondition for learning to be a continual process. All this puts special demands on management, which needs to master self-resistant, facilitating processes rather than ordering them into existence. Management needs to relinquish some power in order to empower ‘followers’. Followership, as expounded by Kelley (1988), requires the appropriate leadership.

Like many other management concepts, the learning organization has its critics (read, for example, Eijkman, 2011; Grieves, 2008; Jackson, 2001; Smith, 2008; Tsang, 1997). Several researchers have also argued that management models and theories (including LO) that were based on western assumptions might not be culturally suitable for application in non-western organizations (Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Hofstede, 2001; Javidan and House, 2001). Despite these debates, LO still appeals to practitioners and researchers (read, for example, An and Reigeluth, 2005; Marquardt, 2002). In the Singapore school context, Ng (2005) opines that LO ‘is not the perfect way, but it is a framework that is relatively easy to understand and practise’ (Ng, 2005: 9). Along the same line of discussion, there is some literature that claims the adoption of LO in schools with successful outcomes (Brandt, 2003; Lick, 2006; Moloi, 2010).

When LO is applied in the school context, it is referred to as a learning school (Ng, 2005; Senge et al., 2000a, 2000b). It is one that builds new capacities for deep learning and adaptation to social changes (Ng, 2005; Robinson, 2001; Senge et al. 2000b). According to Senge et al. (2000a: 5), a learning school is one that is ‘re-created, made vital, and sustainably renewed not by fiat or command, not by regulation, but by taking a learning orientation. This means involving everyone in the system in expressing their aspirations, building awareness and developing their capabilities together’. In Singapore’s context, Ng (2005: 1) explains the philosophy of the learning school:

The learning school is one in which learning is central to its being. That means that the school exists because it is centred on learning. In a learning school, everyone is a learner. The students, teachers, leaders and administrators are all learners. The ethos of the school is an aspiration for everyone to be efficient and effective at learning and learning how to learn together.

There are of course challenges to leading and managing a LO. Specific organizational attributes inform the careful consideration of the appropriate types of intervention and modification for learning and change to happen (Appelbaum and Gallagher, 2000; Cook and Yanow, 1993). Considering all these, leaders of LOs play a critical role in the process of OL (Hallinger, 2011; Wenger, 2000; Yeo, 2007).

Schools as LOs constantly experience tension, particularly when learning is viewed both as a phenomenon that is dependent on both the individual and the environment (Ng and Liang, 2010). Liljenberg (2014: 155) identifies five significant areas of challenges and points of tension in leading and managing schools as learning organizations: organizational structures; goals, visions and values; responsibility and decision making; reflection and evaluation; and attitudes. Moreover, ‘being aware of emerging tensions, together with expanded collaboration and a professional attitude characterised by respect and trust, is also needed in order to avoid deeply rooted conceptions about teaching, leadership and school organisations’ (Liljenberg, 2014: 167). Beyond the walls of the school, external tensions of overcoming standardized reforms agenda also possibly impede the progress of learning organizations by ‘actively undermining the efforts and successes of those few, truly creative ‘knowledge society’ schools, and their teachers’ (Giles and Hargreaves, 2006: 152).

So, there are a few points that leaders should note in leading a school as a LO. Firstly, leaders must ‘have a vision of how learning should be institutionalized through the intervention of systems, structure and strategy’ (Yeo, 2007: 525). By sharing their vision, leaders promote participation of school staff. This consequently allows for more opportunities to overcome hierarchical inadequacies and leads to collective efforts at learning and change (Sheehan, 2004). In fact, leadership is crucial to facilitate learning ‘even when there are no immediate answers to complex issues during change’ (Yeo, 2007: 548).

Secondly, leaders must learn to become stewards of learning. In leading and managing LOs, leaders become stewards when they act as unifying enablers to create a sense of meaning and direction during the change process in a complex environment (O’Connor, 2004; Yeo, 2007). They help to provide to staff ‘the overarching explanation of why they do what they do, how their organization needs to evolve, and how that evolution is part of something larger’ (Senge, 1990: 346).

Thirdly, leaders must learn to become chief learners. They need to demonstrate their own willingness to learn, in particular to master skills in systems thinking and the ability to work within set timeframes (Dervitsiotis, 1998). They need to demonstrate the outcomes of their own learning as agents of change, especially in leading the school to ‘convert mandates and problems into challenges and opportunities’ (Bass, 2000: 37). In doing so, they encourage staff to actively utilize knowledge and continuously support OL (Edmonson and Moingeon, 1998; Sheehan, 2004; Yeo, 2007).

One impetus for the adoption of the learning school philosophy in Singapore is the launch of the nation’s vision of ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ (TSLN) in 1997. TSLN encapsulates Singapore’s vision of meeting its post-independence challenges in the 21st century as an emerging economic powerhouse. Introduced by Goh Chok Tong, who was then Prime Minister, TSLN became the foundation upon which future education reforms and initiatives were based. It was essentially a vision of a total learning environment that could develop the nation’s human capital (Ng, 2008). Goh (1997) elucidated:

The world today is very different from the world 10 or 20 years ago. As change will occur at an even faster rate, we can expect the world in 10 or 20 years’ time to be radically different from the one we see today. Our capacity to learn, as individuals and as a nation, will decide our future, whether we stagnate, perish, or continue to succeed.

Therefore, in order to develop this capacity to learn, TSLN articulated a vision of a ‘school system that can develop creative thinking skills, lifelong learning passion and nationalistic commitment in the young’, and a Singapore society where learning is ‘a national culture, where creativity and innovation flourishes at every level of the society’ (Ng, 2008: 6).

Over the years since the launch of TSLN, various major initiatives were launched under its umbrella, including National Education, ICT Masterplan and the Teach Less Learn More (TLLM) initiative (Ng, 2008). While these policies appeared to be top-down, more autonomy was given to schools to interpret and implement them. The government also encouraged more bottom-up school-based innovations in the areas of curriculum implementation and pedagogical advancement (Tan and Ng, 2007). All these changes put a premium on the capacity of schools and their staff members to learn and change. Schools are faced with the great challenge of transformation so that they may have the capacity to learn, innovate and adapt to the changing times (Ng, 2005, 2008).

During this journey of change, teachers and school leaders are highly challenged to be accountable to students, parents, the public and the country, both a moral educationalist perspective and a bureaucratic perspective, to deliver holistic education and maintain good results (Ng, 2013). The Singapore education system is a high accountability system. This is also a system that is operated by people who are highly motivated and responsible (Ng, 2013). Against this backdrop, this research project, which is situated in a Singapore school, is harmonious with calls for utilizing a contextualized approach in studying OL (Ortenblad, 2011; Snell and Hong, 2011).

Research question and methodology

This research took place in a Singapore school that subscribed to the LO philosophy. The main research question was: how does a school in Singapore practise LO? The question was addressed using Ortenblad’s (2004) four integrated LO aspects (OL, learning at work, learning climate and learning structure) as a framework of analysis.

Data was collected through three means: face-to-face interviews with staff members, personal observations and examination of documents. Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 16 teachers of the school. These teachers were asked two key questions, with further probes for clarification and elaboration. The first question focused on the teachers’ understanding of learning and its importance. The second question dealt with the practice of learning organization principles and the advantages and challenges encountered during its implementation. Personal observations of LO practices were carried out in the school and documents such as published literature regarding LO in Singapore schools were included in the analysis. The data was examined using Ortenblad’s (2004) four integrated aspects of LO as a set of lenses and the findings are presented in the next section.

Discussion of the findings of the research

Learning at work

Learning at work recognizes the importance of context as an integrated process for people to learn in an organization (Gherardi, 2000; Kolb, 1984; Ortenblad, 2011; Revans, 1982). According to Hodkinson (2004: 12), there is agreement in the literature that ‘learning at work cannot be separated from the everyday working practises of the workplace’. This implies that learning and knowledge are seen as context-dependent and therefore most learning takes place on-the-job and not in formal training courses (Holton et al., 2003; Ortenblad, 2004).

In the school context, the research shows that learning at work is generally practised by proactively engaging in one’s personal and professional development. For example, a teacher in explaining her commitment to teaching and her own professional learning, said:

As a teacher we learn every day from our own teaching, from other subject specialists, HODs [heads of department] and even from our Principal. Learning is a continuous process for teachers. We learn from our daily teaching activities. We also reflect and learn more from our reflections.

This is reinforced by a head of department (HOD) who commented:

Learning is much valued in our school. Being a HOD, I am learning from other HODs and teachers by engaging in productive discussions, sharing of teaching strategies, ideas and experiences. Our job is such that we learn and grow together in the school.

As the HOD has indicated, it is the job of a leader to learn and grow together with other leaders and teachers in the school. This comment is harmonious with the idea of leaders who take the role of chief learners and who demonstrate their own willingness to learn. This is especially important when there are no easy answers to the challenges of change (Yeo, 2007).

Teachers’ work is a multifaceted process and in this process teachers have many opportunities to learn in a wide variety of activities, such as:

social interactions about one’s own teaching and seeking advice (Frank et al., 2004);

discussing with others on teaching strategies (Little, 2003);

experimenting with new initiatives (Davis, 2003);

observing classroom practice of others (Daniel, 2012);

peer mentoring and being mentored (Kedzior and Fifield, 2004).

While these activities provide opportunities (Little, 2002) for learning on-the-job, teachers attend formal courses as part of their professional growth (Borko, 2004). The aspect of learning at work is, to a large extent, evident in Singapore schools (Retna and Ng, 2008). It is also seen as a commitment towards life-long learning. Also the researcher’s observations indicate that there are many professional learning platforms in the school, including professional learning community (Salleh, 2011; Salleh and Dimmock, 2012) and mentoring and coaching schemes (Ng, 2012).

‘Learning on the job’ requires empathetic and supportive leadership from management. Learning, after all, is an admission of ignorance and imperfection. It is critical for leaders to continuously create opportunities and a non-threatening, conducive environment for all organizational members to learn on the job. This can be made possible through strategies and structures that facilitate learning experiences for employees (Yeo, 2007).

Organizational learning

Early studies on organizational learning (OL) have been linked to different levels and types of learning, such as single- and double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978). These levels and types of learning were ultimately associated with the process of how individuals and organizations learn in their daily activities. The new OL in Ortenblad’s framework (2004) focuses on individual learning and sharing of knowledge that takes place among members in the workplace. Interpreted in this way, OL emphasizes the collective, rather than individual, entity of learning in organizations (Ortenblad, 2011).

One current and critical aspect of OL for teachers is to collectively rethink pedagogy to reform teaching and learning (Ng, 2008). In Singapore, teachers are encouraged to ‘teach less and learn more’ (Ng, 2008). This is a fundamental reform that requires educators and other stakeholders to understand how effective teaching and learning can be achieved in schools. Teachers need to realize the difference between knowledge transmission and knowledge construction. The OL efforts of the school helped some teachers to change their perceptions about teaching and learning:

I belong to the old system of education where the teacher tells everything and students will learn and pass examination. Initially, this style of teaching was part of my thinking. It worked for me, so I thought it will work for my students. Now, I am convinced that my traditional thinking has to change. My school is transforming. We are learning to question our old methods and beliefs and are making some progress in learning collectively and doing things differently.

We are slowly changing the traditional style to more student-centred learning. The degree of involvement by teachers and HODs to create a culture of questioning the way we do things here is impressive. We are now motivated to learn and work as a school.

The collective and organizational aspect of learning becomes a powerful movement in the school when teachers act together and see one another in action. Furthermore, the ability to learn from experiences drawn from one another adds to the power of OL (Doos and Wilhelmson, 2011).

To facilitate OL in schools, a shared vision is important to drive the process. Shared vision is the capacity to build and develop a shared picture of the future that a group of people truly wish to create (Senge, 1990). In a school context, shared vision can be practised by developing and committing to an agreed direction that guides a school’s everyday activities and long-term progress (Silins et al., 2002). A shared vision of the school brings teachers together to work towards common goals and for the future. Shared vision encourages genuine commitment not compliance from people (Senge, 1990). It requires communication, participation and building of good relationships among those involved in the visioning process.

However, local culture has an effect on the way the discipline of shared vision is practised and the process by which a vision is derived or implemented. Our research shows that teachers in Singapore are generally more inclined to carry out the vision than to develop the vision, in spite of opportunities given for all to be involved in the visioning process. This means that many school envisioning exercises appear to be more ‘top-down’ than what is advocated in the literature. However, that does not diminish the teachers’ commitment to focus on achieving the desirable outcomes of the school vision, one of which is to facilitate OL in the school. One teacher’s remark was illuminating:

We are told to join in crafting the vision for our school. But many of us don’t really think it is important for everyone to give ideas. Our principal and HODs have lots of ideas and we know it is meant for making our school the best for students and teachers. What is important is that we carry out what is in our vision and mission.

Another senior teacher’s expression:

In coming with a vision, people are invited to attend the brain storming session. Mostly our seniors and principal are involved. People contribute many ideas and finally people settle for a vision statement. Whether I like it or not, a vision is a direction from the school leader. So, I work towards it because there is no bad ‘vision’. It is for the good of the school.

It is interesting to note that Singapore teachers are willing to implement the school vision based on trusting their leaders. So, it is evident that there is a cultural element to the discipline of shared vision.

Moreover, a societal culture that puts a premium on fast pace change and getting results, affects the mind sets of staff members. It presents challenges to OL, as the following remarks show. From a teacher:

When new initiative comes out, it must be implemented fast. LO is good but the change cannot take place so fast. All of us need time to absorb and follow. We cannot let new changes affect our students’ results. As a teacher, I must make sure my students’ results are good. This is my main focus; otherwise I cannot progress in my career.

From a HOD:

In my school LO is pushed for quick results. My principal understands our highly time pressured situation, yet she expect to see fast change in the school. (But) whatever new things we face, our mind must be on our students’ results.

In these ways, the dynamics of OL is influenced by the culture of the school and the wider culture of the community. Also, the above responses from participants show that change processes can cause anxiety and can inhibit learning (Yeo, 2007). As work environments are established by leaders (O’Connor, 2004), it is important for leaders to consider the defensive dynamics and avoid deeply embedded conceptions about leading and managing schools (Liljenberg, 2014). This challenge could be managed by creating a team learning environment (Yeo, 2007) as it allows opportunities for dialogue and inquiry that helps staff to understand the importance of OL and the goals and visions of the organization (Liljenberg, 2014).

Learning climate

A learning climate facilitates the learning of its individuals and is an important aspect of a learning organization. It refers to employees’ perception of the environment that an organization creates through its practices and procedures to facilitate learning (Cunningham and Iles, 2002; Ortenblad, 2004). The essence of a learning climate is that it must provide space and time for reflection so that meaningful learning can take place (Kolb, 1984). Furthermore, it must promote experimentation and allow employees to take risks. It also accepts failure, provided that employees reflect and learn from it (Honey and Mumford, 1989; Mumford, 1986; Poell et al., 1997). For employees to learn individually and collectively, a learning climate must be supportive and challenging (Boydell, 1976; Knox, 1986). A conducive climate of learning facilitates the discipline of team learning (Senge, 1990).

The research shows that to foster a climate of learning in the school, one critical tool is dialogue. The research findings suggest that a critical factor to fostering a learning climate is to foster open-ness in dialogue. According to some studies, dialogue can have a positive influence on teachers’ knowledge in applying new pedagogies (Dinham et al., 2008; Little and Horn, 2007). Dialogue enables teachers to see new points of view and helps challenge their own mental models. One teacher commented on the impact of dialogue:

Dialogue allows us to discuss issues without any fear of being ‘marked’ by seniors. It helps us to see each other’s view and learn from others.

Another teacher pointed out:

I feel dialogue is very useful for staff to interact on important issues, like improving teaching. It encourages people to speak their thoughts openly. It makes me feel so good to share my opinions, ideas without fear. I enjoy dialogue sessions because I can learn so much from others.

The findings in our research suggest that Singapore teachers are receptive towards dialogue and appreciate new ideas on solving teaching related issues from colleagues. The practice of dialogue helps to enhance the learning climate in schools. However, on more controversial issues, the effects of local culture come into play. Many teachers still find it difficult to share true feelings and opinions, electing to keep quiet about what they really think. It is interesting to note that Singapore teachers are generally willing to go along with the predominant discourse, despite their private views. So, it is evident that there is a cultural element to the discipline of team learning, especially when it comes to dialogue (Ng and Liang, 2005). The very word ‘team’ comes with cultural connotations. It can mean a group of equals, a group of seniors and juniors, and so forth. Culture cannot be ignored, but must be taken into account.

Learning structure

In an organization, a good structure provides the platform for work to be done efficiently and for learning to take place at different levels by individuals and teams. According to Ortenblad (2011), a learning structure is one that is characterized as flexible, decentralized and with fewer hierarchical levels. Furthermore, a learning structure ‘has a theoretical root in organic structure’ (Ortenblad, 2011: 32). Therefore, in a learning organization, a facilitative learning structure is flexible and organic (Mintzberg, 1983; Ortenblad, 2011). A flexible and organic structure is more conducive to learning than a bureaucratic one (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). From this perspective, a flexible learning structure is crucial in a dynamic, uncertain and complex environment where organizations have to learn continuously to survive (Senge, 1990).

A school is a complex, interconnected system where everyone is interdependent on everyone else to provide the best education for students. Interdependence is a crucial factor for schools to be a learning school (Little, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989). The natural extrapolation of the above discussion is that a flexible learning structure in a school should not be hierarchical. However, this is where culture comes into play again. Even as a school implements LO, its learning structure has to reflect the high-power distance culture (Hofstede, 2001). Singapore’s school system may exhibit more ‘command and control’ features (Salleh and Dimmock, 2012) compared to schools in the West. However, the research finds that learning activities continue to take place within the constraints of a hierarchical system. So, even as the school implements LO, one teacher commented:

Singapore believes in hierarchy in everything. In school, we too follow the hierarchy. Whatever new initiative we implement, we must not forget our hierarchical system, culture and structure.

Another senior teacher strongly expressed her views:

We are Singaporeans. So hierarchy is something we understand and respect in our workplace. When I really think deeply about it, hierarchy helps to move things fast for improvement.

So, interestingly, while hierarchy is generally assumed to be unhelpful in building a learning school, LO development has to take into account of real cultural factors. Perhaps the structure does not offer a great level of flexibility, autonomy or empowerment. However, within the learning structure, the teachers have enough space to learn from each other and work as teams to attain a high level of competency in teaching and other various roles they undertake. The leadership challenge is to find the balance that is effective in the Singapore culture between driving change through a top-down approach and empowerment through a bottom-up approach. Creating opportunities for participation and collaborative learning among different levels will allow a degree of empowerment (Sheehan, 2004) that can help to address the restrictions of hierarchy (Senge, 1990).

Conclusion

Using Ortenblad’s (2004) four integrated LO aspects (OL, learning at work, learning climate and learning structure) as a framework of analysis, this paper has presented research on the way LO is practised by a school that subscribes to the LO philosophy. The research shows that the school practises the four aspects in a way that is unique to the school context, but wider cultural factors have to be taken into account in interpreting LO in an Asian school context.

In concluding this paper, the applicability of the LO concept in a school in Singapore has to take into account a few issues and challenges that relate to the fundamentals of schooling. According to Ng (2005), one defining characteristic of a learning school is that in such a school, learning is joyful. Singapore schools are well organized for effective and efficient learning. They are always ranked high in international tests such as TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science) and PISA (Program of International Student Assessment). However, they may not be very well organized for joyful learning. The society still values results in high-stakes examinations (Ng, 2005). This undoubtedly presents a challenge to school leadership. School leaders need to lead teachers in transforming learning into joyful experiences, within a system where there are tests and examinations. That is part of what a learning school has to learn.

A learning school is one that promotes mastery of knowledge and skills that are premised on good values. It is important to inculcate good values (Lipman, 2003), especially with the emphasis on the use of technology, that can bring about undesirable outcomes if proper values are not integrated in the teaching and learning process. The increasing reporting of unethical behaviour in business and organization is a good reminder for schools to ensure that the learning is not only joyful but imparts good values. As part of their learning and practising good values, students need to learn how to respect others and embrace diversity. Students also have to learn how to make moral decisions in complex situations. The textbooks may not necessarily address issues that relate to values and moral dilemmas that they will encounter in their future. Teachers can fill that gap, drawing on the experience of students and what is going on around them, in school and the wider society. Teachers have to lead students in embracing diversity, by being the first to do so.

The ability to work with people has become a critical skill in the workforce (Brodt and Thompson, 2001). The school is an ideal platform for students to learn to work with classmates collectively and collaboratively. However, despite recent encouragement for students to work in teams, there is still a high tendency for students to learn alone. The ‘me-and-my-grades’ examination system rewards individual ability rather than the capacity to work well with others. Therefore, it is possible that ‘a student can get [a] good set of results but not have any friends’ (Ng, 2005: 6). However, a learning school embraces both individual and collective learning. The preference for competitive individual learning poses a great challenge for the learning school and for the entire education system.

One key question that remains is whether the learning school concept is indeed the answer to the demands placed upon schools. However, paradoxically, many of the current criticisms of schools, in general, seem to suggest that under the social, political and economic agenda of the society, schools are ‘learning’ too well to ‘play the game’. Such learning may serve only to reproduce an educational system that is not any different from the existing one, which has been increasingly acknowledged as inadequate to the needs of the knowledge age and the demands of globalization. Therefore, the learning school is not about techniques, it is about essence. It is not about fitting into specific LO typologies; it is about promoting quality education, interpreted within the culture of the stakeholders. The challenge for school leaders will be to decide whether they will lead their school to put learning as a centre of their being or to be driven by grades and rankings. This is not merely a philosophical or rhetorical question. This is the most practical question that leaders will have to answer for themselves because it influences all other efforts at developing a LO in school. However, given the existing culture and reality, school leaders will have to develop the ability to walk the tight rope to both promote the learning school and to obtain results. Both can be achieved for they are not incompatible goals. However, it will take wisdom to be able to achieve that (Ng, 2008). Of course, wisdom develops from one’s willingness to learn deeply and continuously. However, there is great hope for Singapore is reputed to have a cadre of capable school leaders and a robust system of professional development (Stewart, 2013).

Therefore, in moving forward, a pertinent question for further research and analysis is to re-examine the very philosophy and substance of what a learning school is and fundamentally what it is supposed to learn. Even though this paper provides some empirical evidence of the practice of LO in a school context, it raises more questions about whether there are certain fundamentals that make a learning school different from a learning business organization. These two issues provide an agenda for future research.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Reigeluth

(2005) A study of organisational learning at Smalltown hospital. Performance Improvement 44(10): 34–39.

Appelbaum

Gallagher

(2000) The competitive advantage of organizational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning 12(2): 40–56.

Argyris

(1999) On Organisational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Argyris

Schon

(1978) Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Bass

(2000) The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 7(3): 18–40.

Borko

(2004) Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher 33(8): 3–15.

Boydell

(1976) Experiential Learning. Manchester: Manchester Monographs, University of Manchester.

Brandt

(2003) Is this school a learning organisation? 10 ways to tell. Journal of Staff Development 24(1): 10–16.

Brodt

Thompson

(2001) Negotiating teams: A level of analysis approach. Group Dynamics 5(3): 208–219.

10.

Bui

Baruch

(2010) Creating learning organisations: a systems perspective. The Learning Organisation 17(3): 208–226.

11.

Casey

(2005) Enhancing individual and organisational learning. Management Learning 36(2): 131–147.

12.

Cook

Yanow

(1993) Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry 2(1): 373–393.

13.

Corcoran

Goertz

(1995) Instructional capacity and high performance schools. Educational Researcher 19(9): 27–31.

14.

Cunningham

Iles

(2002) Managing learning climates in a financial services organisation. Journal of Management Development 21(6): 477–492.

15.

Daniel

(2012) Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership 70(3): 32.

16.

Davis

(2003) “Change is hard”: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practises. Science Education 87(1): 3–30.

17.

Dervitsiotis

(1998) The challenge of managing organizational change: Exploring the relationship of re-engineering, developing learning organizations and total quality management. Total Quality Management 9(1): 109–122.

18.

Diggins

(1997) Reflections on leadership characteristics necessary to develop and sustain learning school communities. School Leadership and Management 17: 413–425.

19.

Dimmock

Walker

(2000) Developing comparative school leadership and management: A cross-cultural approach. School Leadership and Management 20(2): 143–60.

20.

Dinham

Aubusson

Brady

(2008) Distributed leadership as a factor in and outcome of teacher action learning. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning 12(4): 1–13.

21.

Doos

Wilhelmson

(2011) Collective learning: Interaction and a shared action arena. Journal of Workplace Learning 23(8): 487–500.

22.

Edmonson

Moingeon

(1998) From organizational learning to the learning organization. Management Learning 29(1): 5–20.

23.

Eijkman

(2011) The learning organisation as concept and journal in the neo-millennial era – A plea for critical engagement. The Learning Organisation 18(3): 164–174.

24.

Fiol

Lyles

(1985) Organisational learning. Academy of Management Review 10: 803–813.

25.

Frank

Zhao

Borman

(2004) Social capital and diffusion of innovations within organisations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education 77: 148–171.

26.

Fullan

(1993) Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer.

27.

Garvin

(2000) Learning in Action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

28.

Gherardi

(2000) Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organisations. Organisation 7(2): 211–223.

29.

Giles

Hargreaves

(2006) The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly 42(1): 124–156.

30.

Goh

(1997) Shaping Our Future: Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, Singapore Government Press Release. Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking, 2 June.

31.

Grieves

(2000) Navigating change into the new millennium: Themes and issues for the learning organisation. The Learning Organisation 7(2): 54–74.

32.

Grieves

(2008) Why we should abandon the idea of the learning organisation. The Learning Organisation 6(15): 463–473.

33.

Hairon S and Dimmock

(2012) Singapore schools and professional learning communities: Teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system. Educational Review 64(4): 405–424.

34.

Hallinger

(2011) Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration 49(2): 125–142.

35.

Harvey

Denton

(1999) To come of age: The antecedents of organisational learning. Journal of Management Studies 36(7): 897–918.

36.

Henk

(2011) Making sense of the learning organisation: What is it and who needs it? The Learning Organisation 18(5): 412–414.

37.

Hodkinson

(2004) Research as a form of work: Expertise, community and methodological objectivity. British Educational Research Journal 30(1): 1–26.

38.

Hofstede

(2001) Cultures and Consequences. CA: SAGE Publications.

39.

Holton

Chen

Naquin

(2003) An examination of learning transfer system characteristics across organisational settings. Human Resource Development Quarterly 14: 459–482.

40.

Honey

Mumford

(1989) The Manual of Learning Opportunities. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications.

41.

Huber

(1991) Organisational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organisation Science 2(1): 88–115.

42.

Jackson

(2001) Management Gurus and Management Fashions. London: Routledge.

43.

Javidan

House

(2001) Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from project GLOBE. Organisational Dynamic 29(4): 289–305.

44.

Johnston

Caldwell

(2001) Leadership and organisational learning in the quest for world class schools. The International Journal of Educational Management 15(2): 94–102.

45.

Kedzior

Fifield

(2004). Teacher professional development. Educational Policy Brief 15: 1–6.

46.

Kelley

(1988) In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review 66(6): 142.

47.

Kiedrowski

(2006) Quantitative assessment of a Senge learning organisation intervention. The Learning Organisation 13(4): 369–383.

48.

Knox

(1986) Helping Adults Learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

49.

Kolb

(1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

50.

Lick

(2006) A new perspective on organisational learning: Creating learning teams. Evaluation and Program Planning 29: 88–96.

51.

Liljenberg

(2014) Distributing leadership to establish developing and learning school organisations in the Swedish context. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1): 152–170.

52.

Lipman

(2003) Thinking in Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Little

(1990) The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teacher College Record 91: 509–536.

54.

Little

(2002) Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(8): 917–946.

55.

Little

(2003) Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record 105(6): 913–945.

56.

Little

Horn

(2007) Normalizing problems of practice. Converting routine conversation into a resource for professional learning in professional communities. In: Stoll

Louis

(eds) Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press, pp.79–92.

57.

Marquardt

(2002) Building the Learning Organisation: Mastering the 5 Elements for Corporate Learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing, Inc.

58.

Mintzberg

(1983) Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

59.

Moloi

(2010) How can schools built learning organisations in difficult education contexts. South African Journal of Education 30: 621–633.

60.

Mumford

(1986) Learning to learn for managers. Journal of European Industrial Training 10(2):1–28.

61.

(2005) The Learning School: Innovation and Enterprise. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

62.

(2008) Educational reform in Singapore: from quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 7(1): 5–15.

63.

(2012) Mentoring and coaching educators in the Singapore education system. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 1(1): 24–35.

64.

(2013) An examination of school accountability from the perspectives of school leaders in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 12(2): 121–131.

65.

Liang

(2005) Speaking the unspeakable: The Paper Dialogue approach. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management 5(2): 190–203.

66.

Liang

(2010) Educational institution reform: Insights from the complexity-intelligence strategy. Human Systems Management 29(2): 1–9.

67.

O’Connor

(2004) The workplace learning cycle: A problem-based curriculum model for the preparation of workplace learning professionals. Journal of Workplace Learning 16: 341–349.

68.

Ortenblad

(2004) The learning organisation: towards an integrated model. The Learning Organisation 11(2): 129–144.

69.

Ortenblad

(2011) Making Sense of the Learning Organisation: What is it and who needs it? Malaysia: Yayasan Ilmuwan.

70.

Park

(2008) Validation of Senge’ Learning Organisation model with teachers of vocational high schools at the Seoul Megalopolis. Asia Pacific Education Review (9)3: 270–284.

71.

Poell

Tijmensen

ECM

van der

Krogt FJ

(1997) Can learning projects help to develop a learning organisation? Lifelong Learning in Europe 2(2): 67–75.

72.

Retna

(2008) The perception of staff on the effects of transformational leadership in a Singapore school. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice 23(1): 64–77.

73.

Revans

(1982) The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. Lund: Student Literature.

74.

Robinson

VMJ

(2001) Descriptive and normative research on organisational learning: locating the contribution of Argyris and Schon. The International Journal of Educational Management 15(2): 58–67.

75.

Rosenholtz

(1989) Teachers’ Workplace. New York: Longman.

76.

Rowden

(2001) The learning organisation and change. SAM Advanced Management Journal 66(3): 11–20.

77.

Salleh

(2011) Professional learning communities in Singapore schools: Potentialities and issues. In: Choy

Tan

(eds) Education Reform in Singapore: Critical Perspectives. Singapore: Prentice Hall, pp.149–164.

78.

Senge

(1990) The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.

79.

Senge

Cambron-McCabe

Lucas

. (2000a) Schools that Learn. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

80.

Senge

Cambron-McCabe

Lucas

. (2000b) Schools that Learn. A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone who cares about Education. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

81.

Senge

Roberts

Ross

. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organisation. London: Nicholas Brealey.

82.

Sheehan

(2004) Learning as the construction of a new reality. Journal of Workplace Learning 16(3): 179–196.

83.

Silins

Zarins

Mulford

(2002) What characteristics and processes define a school as a learning organisation? Is this a useful concept to apply to schools? International Education Journal 3(1): 24–32.

84.

Smith

PAC

(2008) The learning organisation turns 15: A retrospective. The Learning Organisation 15(6): 441–448.

85.

Snell

Hong

(2011) Asian perspectives on organisational learning. In: Easterby-Smith

MPV

Lyles

(eds), Handbook on Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, pp.635–658.

86.

Stewart

(2013) School leadership around the world. Education Leadership April Issue: 48–54.

87.

Strain

(2000) Schools in a learning society: New purposes and modalities of learning in late modern society. Educational Management and Administration 28(3): 281–298.

88.

Swieringa

Wierdsma

(1992) Becoming a Learning Organisation: Beyond the Learning Curve. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.

89.

Tan

CHP

(2007) The dynamics of change: the decentralized centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change 8(2): 155–168.

90.

Thomas

Allen

(2006) The learning organisation: A meta-analysis of themes in the literature. The Learning Organisation 13(2): 123–139.

91.

Tsang

(1997) Organisational learning and the learning organisation: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations 50(1): 73–89.

92.

Wenger

(2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7(2): 225–246.

93.

Yeo

(2007) Change interventions to organizational learning: Bravo to leaders as unifying agents. The Learning Organization 14(6): 524–552.