Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Theoretical background document
on organizational learning
2
Introduction
This theoretical background document on organizational learning is one of six attachments in the
Framework for school-based competence development in lower secondary school 2013 – 2017 (The
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2013). The Directorate requires that providers of
school-based competence development use this framework as a foundation for their work. Four of
the attachments elaborate on Chapter 5 in the framework describe what characterizes good
classroom management, -numeracy, reading and writing. The descriptions are based on research,
practical experience, the Education Act and the curriculum.
Priorities, themes and integrated practice
An important goal in the school-based competence development in lower secondary education is
that teachers should enhance their skills in four chosen areas: classroom management, numeracy-,
reading and writing. Assessment for learning and organizational learning are to be recurrent themes
when schools work with one or more of the areas of focus. A theoretical background document has
been produced for each of the areas of focus and recurrent themes in order to describe what
characterizes good quality. For lower secondary school teachers there will be a close connection
between the practical, subject-based elements in competence development. School-based
competence development must satisfy the needs felt by schools and teachers in their practice.
There is a close connection between good classroom management and good assessment practice,
and this forms the basis for the teachers’ pedagogical practice. If pupils are to improve their skills in -
numeracy -, reading and writing, they need teachers with good classroom management skills and
assessment practice. These teachers will foster good relationships, give -subject-spesific support and
guidance and provide a safe learning environment for their pupils, who are active participants in
their own learning process. Even so, this is not enough. If lower secondary school pupils are to
improve their basic skills in -numeracy, reading and writing, all their teachers must see this as their
responsibility and have sufficient competence in these areas.
All school employees must be involved in competence development. A good organizational culture is
a prerequisite for collective change, so the ways in which the school learns collectively, as an
organization, is important in this work.
The Background Document on Organizational Learning
This theoretical background document on organizational learning and school-based competence
development has been produced by Assistant Professor Knut Roald, university lecturer Roy Asle
Andreassen and Professor Mats Ekholm. Knut Roald has been chiefly responsible for the text work.
His area of expertise is quality and organizational learning at Sogn og Fjordane University College and
the University of Bergen. Knut Roald has also been a head teacher and Municipal Director of
Education. Roy Asle Andreassen lectures in Management and School Development at Volda
University College. He has also been a head teacher. Mats Ekholm is Professor Emeritus in Teaching
and Learning at the University of Karlstad. He has previously been Director of The Swedish National
Agency for Education and the Swedish representative in the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research
and Innovation (CERI).
3
4
Chapter 1 Organizational Learning and School-based Competence
Development
This theoretical background document is linked to The Norwegian Directorate for Education and
Training’s”Framework for Competence Development in Lower Secondary Education” (2012). The
Framework follows up the government White Paper “Motivation – Mastery – Opportunity” which
emphasizes the need for education that is motivating, practical and varied. In the framework, the
Directorate gives the following definition of school-based competence development:
“School-based competence development implies that the school, with its administration and
all employees, participate in a development process in their workplace. The aim is to develop
the school’s overall knowledge, attitudes and skills with regard to learning, teaching and
collaboration.”
Furthermore, the framework summarizes some of the most important lessons learnt from
implementing the Knowledge Promotion Reform (2006), which are:
Assessment and analysis of the situation before the development work is started makes it
more likely that the process will be successful. This applies to all levels: school, municipality,
county and state.
Using analysis tools (Point-of-view analysis, Organizational Analysis and Status Report) create
arenas for reflection and the formation of a -collective culture.
The most successful schools are those that have a common goal for developing the school
and improving the teaching practice.
A comprehensive, systematic competence development based on sharing experiences and
reflection leads to the spreading and enhancement of good practice.
Competence development works best when it is linked to the practice which is to be
changed.
When the leader communicates clear expectations to staff members, and to the result, this
increases motivation and helps participants work more effectively.
Therefore the key questions in this background document are:
What characterizes schools as organizations?
What are central perspectives in organizational learning discourse?
How -to lead organizational learning processes in a school?
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training has previously published six relevant texts
from the article-relay “A learning school”:
1. Writing as a tool for school development
5
2. Schools in development – many roads to organizational learning
3. School development through school subjects
4. Learning from learning organizations
5. Developing an organization is a learning process
6. A learning management – in a system perspective
There will be references and links to these six articles in the following pages of this document.
(unfortunately these articles are not translated into English)
A point found in all six articles, and in the present document, is: School-based competence
development requires collective analysis and development processes. Improving the school’s work in
classroom management, reading, numeracy and writing demands process competence from both the
administration and teaching staff. This is a challenge for the school administration as leaders of the
learning process, and for teachers as active and responsible participants in all the arenas where
pupils, classes and the school’s teaching are discussed.
6
Chapter 2 What Characterizes Schools as Organizations?
The way in which organizations have been viewed has fluctuated according to varying scientific and
epistemological discourses (Hatch and Cunliffe 2006). In the early twentieth century, the central
themes were formal structure, work sharing, co-ordination, hierarchy, administration and control.
From the 1930s, this classical perspective was partially replaced by an increased interest in the
relationship between the organization and its surroundings. The situational aspect gained
importance, and management became a question of adapting the organization in order to keep it
functioning. From the 1980s, socio-constructivists theories made a breakthrough. Studies of
organizational cultures have focused on how 1organizations are constructed and reconstructed as a
pattern of meaning created and maintained by the participants’ shared values, traditions and
customs. 1
In their review of several organizational studies, Bolman and Deal (2004) find that there are four
different frames that are of particular importance:
Structural frame
Human Resource frame
Political frame
Symbolic frame The structural frame sees organizations as rational systems which strive to achieve
certain goals. Organizational structure, procedures, responsibility and task assignment are key
concepts in a structural approach to understanding organizations.
The human resource frameemphasizes both the individual’s contribution in the organization and the
fact that human interaction is vital. In this perspective, needs and motivation are central ideas.
In the political frame organizations are seen as arenas for contests of interest, questions of power
and conflicts. Conflicts are often expressed through values which individuals or groups seek to realize
when for instance resources are being apportioned.
In the symbolic frame the main focus is on understanding the informal aspects of an organization.
Existence is no longer quite so rational and linear. Here one often uses concepts such as meaning,
belief and trust, and the focus is on metaphor, symbol and ritual. Conflicts and dilemmas are a part
of our daily lives, and what takes place in an organization is seen as a symbol of the meanings behind
the actions.
The various frames which are described by Bolman and Deal make it clear that school owners and
administrators must take several perspectives into consideration when working with school-based
1 Berger and Luckmann (1966) have made a central contribution to socio-constructivist approaches in an
organizational perspective Various approaches to the concept of organizations can be found in Morgan (1967),
Scott (1981), Røness (1997), Hatch and Cunliffe (2006), Røvik (1998, 2007)
7
competence development. It is important to utilize the individual employee’s competence and
energy, while constructing a common culture for school development. A genuine improvement of a
school’s practice often involves changing the organizational structure, routines, tasks and
responsibilities. At the same time it is important to remember that development work can be a
challenge to formal and informal power structures in the organization.
Individual and Collective
The relationship between the individual and the collective plays a central role in the discussion about
how organizations function and develop. In their book Professional Capital, Hargreaves and Fullan
(2012) discuss the question of whether the quality of the teacher is the single most important factor
in the pupils’ learning. They see teachers as the key to quality in a school, but argue that this does
not imply that one should encourage and reward individual teachers. Hargreaves and Fullan
emphasize the fact that highly successful schools and school systems are typically in a continual
collective development. Creating an even better school is a question of increasing the teachers’
professional capital from the perspective of a school as an organization. (Hargreaves and Fullan 2012:
5 – 23)
We find a similar line of thought in Ben Levin’s How to Change 5000 Schools (2010). He describes
how Ontario (Canada) has worked in a goal-oriented way to achieve high academic scores, increase
the number of pupils who complete their education, reduce social inequality and increase - parents’
and employers’ trust in schools. “A lasting improvement in pupils’ results requires a lasting
commitment to changing the school and classroom practice” (Levin, 2012: 49). This requires
sustained efforts from all participants in the education system.
Stability and Innovation
Irgens (2010) sees the discussion between the individual and the collective in the light of the
relationship between the day-to-day running of a school and development work. This can give rise to
both tensions and opportunities, as illustrated in Fig. 1
8
Figure 1: A development wheel for a school in motion (Irgens 2010: 136).
From a defensive point of view the relationship between these dimensions may appear to be
complications that make it difficult to improve the quality of a school. Viewed less defensively, the
balance between these dimensions can be seen as the driving force in a productive collaboration
between the administration and the group of professionals. A one-sided focus on management and
the individual may result in a reactive collaboration largely characterized by finding ad hoc solutions
to problems as they occur. A one-sided focus on development and the collective aspect may, on the
other hand, make it difficult to see and deal with important everyday issues in the workplace. 2
The teacher’s professional identity is traditionally closely linked to Space 4 in Figure 1: individual
management tasks which are central parts of the day-to-day teaching. Irgens argues that this is not
enough to maintain and develop quality in a school, as it leads to a school with a short-term
management perspective. Space 3 characterizes a school where individual teachers have the
opportunity to work with their own development. But if individual teachers enhance their own skills,
it will still not be sufficient to create a good learning environment which requires agreement on
shared goals, collaborative rules and routines. It is via collective management tasks (Space 1) and
collective development (Space 2) that one can foster a good school organization which supports the
enhancement of the quality of teaching and learning.
2 Irgens underlines the point that these are simplifications of a complex reality, but models help to focus on
important aspects of the whole picture.
Collective
Space for collective Space for collective
routine tasks development
Space for individual Space for individual
routine tasks development
DevelopmentOperating
Individually
(1)Sharing information. Co-ordination meetings. Information meetings.
(2)Agree common goals. Find common solutions and routines. Common planning and assessment.
(4)Teaching.Plan lessons. Marking and assessment. General tasks.
(3)Improve efficiency of one's own work. Update professional expertise. Develop pedagogical and didactic competence.
9
Irgens argues that competence development should be school-based. An active development of
professionalism is largely dependent on a collectively orientated approach linked to the individual
workplace (Berg 1999; Day 1999; Hargreaves 2000). Good individual teachers are a necessary, but
not sufficient, prerequisite for a good school. A high-quality school needs teachers who enhance
their competence in all the four dimensions mentioned by Irgens, which again requires that
administrators are able to establish organizational learning processes among the employees.
The dimensions illustrated by Irgens in Figure 1 have been discussed in other studies in terms of a
balance between stability and innovation in school. Both Dalin (1995), Klette (1994) and Roald (2000,
2012) find that significant parts of schools’ development work are focused on maintaining the quality
of traditional tasks: culture and teaching basic skills. However, since society and its young people are
in a process of change, these basic tasks need new energy. In this perspective, organizational learning
will imply developing new and more relevant approaches to the school’s traditional goals and
content. At the same time it is necessary to make collective prioritizations and adaptations with
regard to new tasks which society expects the school to see as part of its task.
Ekholm has studied the inner life and development of schools since the 1960s. He maintains that
schools have an infrastructure which comprises various sub-systems that may have different qualities
(Ekholm 1988, 2012). The infrastructure is composed, among other things, of the school’s
communication system, the power and responsibility structure, and the fundamental norms which
are in force. Other aspects of the infrastructure are the reward systems for employees and pupils;
the school’s contact with its surroundings is also a significant subsystem. The most important -
systems in a school are those governing how time and money are spent, and the local assessment
and development systems. The different components in the local organization are geared towards
supporting the school’s core mission – that pupils learn according to how teachers manage the
learning activities.
The various components in the infrastructure contribute towards the learning work, and therefore
also towards the school’s results. Ekholm illustrates this point in the following way:
10
Figure 2: The various components in a school (Ekholm 2012).
School administrators and teachers must be able to see and understand all of these subsystems in
order to help prepare children and young people adequately for the future. School-based
competence development requires that one collectively is able to analyze how the subsystems
function in the school and how each part of the system can be further developed in order to enhance
the quality of the school’s teaching and learning.
Five Dimensions in the School as an Organization
Like Ekholm, Per Dalin has for a long period of time been interested in how schools must be viewed
as being more complex than the linear or hierarchical representations which are often used with
regard to public organizations.3 In several publications he has discussed how organizational theory
can provide the Educational Sciences with a new perspective on school development. Dalin attaches
importance to the fact that several internal dimensions in an organization influence each other
reciprocally, while also interacting with the school’s surroundings.
Dalin looks for factors and connections which can explain the organizational behavior in schools. He
discusses various organizational perspectives and -adresses the relationship between target-oriented
approaches and those that are more open and oriented towards relations. From this discussion Dalin
sees five main dimensions that are mutually dependent upon each other in the school organization:
values, structures, relations, strategies and surroundings.
3 Dalin 1978, 1991, 1994, 1999, 2005
Norms
0 Physical development
Development systems
Communication systems
Groups
Reward systems
Power and responsibility systems
Assessment systems
Time resource budget
Pupils learning leading to:
0 Social development
0 Emotional development
0 Cognitive development
Financial budget
Pupils' and
teachers' work.Social intercourse
and collaborationbetween pupils and teachers
11
Figure 3: Five dimensions in the school as an organization (2005:72).
Changes in one dimension may in different situations influence the others. In other cases, because
they are loosely linked, we see that a school as an organization may avoid taking the consequences
of challenges or events that are only relevant for parts of the organization. Dalin emphasizes that one
dimension is not ranked higher than the others. For example, it is not the case that all school
development has to start with a change in values. It is equally probable that values and norms can be
changed as a result of changes in structures and relations between those who are working -in a
school. Events and situations in the surroundings can also influence the inner life of a school, in the
same way as innovations in the school can influence its surrounding.
Values are the basic understandings -in the way they are expressed in the schools’ ideological and
philosophical foundation. Values may also be expressed through the ceremonies and symbols which
a school chooses to attach importance to. The values dimension includes explicit goals and more
informal norms. Dalin points out that schools often have a wide spectrum of values, where there may
be conflicts between the formal goals and the values which are in fact in force. There can also be a
fairly wide gap between expressed goals and what is actually done. For this reason it is important to
clarify the formal and informal goals that are present in the school community.
Structures are the formal framework for organizing employees, pupils, time, material and financial
resources. Certain structures clarify task assignments, lines of communication and decision-making
processes. Good structures maintain routines and traditions and contribute towards effective
problem-solving, but structures must also be flexible enough to allow for change and innovation.
Relations Structures
Values
Strategies
Surroundings
Surroundings
12
Relations are aspects of inter-personal relationships such as collaboration, commitment, conflict,
power, motivation, trust and support. Both individual and -organizational learning generally take
place through interaction. Therefore the quality of a school –is highly dependent on the quality of its
inter-personal relations. Dalin, however, warns against seeing all problems as a result of inter-
personal relations. Difficulties are often expressed via personal interaction, but may be caused by
unresolved value conflicts, ineffective structures or by the surroundings.
Strategies are defined by Dalin as the methods and tools one chooses to use in the school’s
development work. Attention is focused on how leader solve problems together with their staff, how
they make decisions, delegate, reward, set boundaries, plan competence development and use
resources. The central strategic challenge for a leader is to find balance and dynamics between the
school’s goals, structures, relations and surroundings. In Dalin’s opinion this presupposes a collective
ability to analyze and understand the situation, so that one can seize the dynamics in the school and
exploit its development capacity to the full.
A school’s surroundings are also an important aspect of the school’s inner life. Schools have a formal
relationship with the municipal administration, local politics and the state. Quite often, the
interaction with public and private institutions, associations, culture, business and the media can be
equally important.
In Chapter 3 we shall look in more detail at how outlooks on various subsystems and dimensions in
schools can be used when leading organizational learning processes.
Loosely coupled or a connected system?
Fevolden and Lillejord (2005) see the theory of loosely coupled systems as a significant way of
understanding schools as organizations.4 Loose couplings between levels in an organization can result
in important decisions being made by those who are involved in their practical execution. Those who
are in this “practice core” often have a one-sided or weak -platform of knowledge when they make
choices or priorities which formally speaking belong on a higher level. In a school this could mean
that decisions pertaining to the core activities are made in the classroom, and the administrators are
not consulted or involved in any way. The organization, execution, assessment and development of
teaching is decided upon by teachers in their interaction with pupils, based on their own values and
attitudes, which at times are disconnected from both local and national goals. In a loosely coupled
school system, the administrative level has little say in how the school’s teaching is conducted, and
can only influence this work by appealing to the teachers to voluntarily alter their teaching practice
(ibid: 156 – 159). In this way there can be said to be an “unwritten agreement” between teachers
and administrators that the two groups do not interfere with each other’s work.
Even though teachers have a long formal education, because of the “loosely coupled system”, the
professional development in schools is weak. The professional knowledge is often silent, situated and
4 They refer to Bidwell 1965; Weick 1976; Lortie 1975, 1987; Meyer and Rowan 1983 and Rowan 1990.
13
based on discernment and individual assessments. This makes it difficult to transfer knowledge which
has been acquired in a certain context to new pedagogical situations.5 Meanwhile, in-service training
is often limited to short courses in subjects or topics the teacher teaches, rather than a more
comprehensive school-based analysis of the school’s content and methods (ibid).
Traditionally, it has not been the task of the school administration to organize teaching activities.
First and foremost administrators have dealt with issues outside the teaching itself. According to the
theory of loosely coupled systems, what is not managed directly will screen from view and will not be
subject to outside disturbance or influence. This can to some extent explain why so many changes in
schools take place on a higher level, without really influencing the school’s practice. It can also be a
reasonable explanation as to why documented, successful teaching practice so rarely leads to
permanent changes in more than a - minority of classrooms and schools (Cuban 1990, 1993; Tyack
and Cuban 1995, Elmore 1996).
Good Tips in the series of articles “A Learning School”
We referred to this series of articles from The Norwegian Directorate in Chapter 1. In connection
with Chapter 2 we recommend that you read these two articles:
Article 1; Skriving som reiskap for skoleutvikling (Haugaløken, Løkensgard og Hoel 2006)
http://www.udir.no/Upload/skoleutvikling/Artikkelstafett/Skriving_som_reiskap_for_skoleutvikling.
Article 3; Skoleutvikling gjennom fag (Blichfeldt, Christensen og Sætre 2007)
http://www.udir.no/Upload/skoleutvikling/Artikkelstafett/Skoleutvikling_gjennom_fag.pdf
5 Lillejord elaborates on this point in an article in Nordisk pedagogikk (Lillejord 2005)
14
Chapter 3 Central Perspectives in the Professional Discourse on Organizational Learning
In this chapter we shall look more closely at some of the theoretical positions in the discourse on
organizational learning. We have already argued that a school-based competence development must
to a large extent build on productive, collective learning processes. What is it then that characterizes
different viewpoints on how such collective learning processes can take place?
A complex field in constant development
Organizational learning has become a central theme in both academic literature and in documents
on education policy. Even so, it is a valid question whether we find the same understanding in the
academic, administrative and political interest in organizational learning.
Political documents often express a positive attitude that organizational learning will lead to an
enhancement in the quality of teaching. At the same time academic literature on organizational
learning portrays a more complex and problematizing picture.6 They see learning as a value-neutral
concept which does not say whether the result is good or bad. Collective learning processes can help
achieve the desired goals, but they can also result in existing practices being cemented, so that
targets are not met. Learning processes can also lead to unwanted or unintended results. Learning
takes place within an organization in the daily work and as a result of more systematic changes. The
question is not whether learning occurs, but rather what is learnt, and how learning processes take
place.
In a thorough study, Easterby-Smith and Lyles (2003a) have pointed out that the field of
organizational learning is relatively new and unclarified. At the same time there is a strong increase
in research activity. Most of the publications are dated after 1995, despite the fact that some of the
most basic questions were raised as early as the 1960s and 1970s. The subject area is to a significant
degree interdisciplinary, drawing on social sciences such as psychology, pedagogy, sociology,
management, economics, anthropology, history and political science (Dierkes, Berthoin Antal, Child
and Nonaka 2001).
Two different approaches illustrate the span in this field of study: Cyert and March (1963) make an
early contribution in A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. They underline that organizations must be able
to maintain stability through an ongoing adjustment of goals and routines based on experience that
is gained. Three decades later, in The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge attaches importance to other
dimensions when he defines learning organizations as: Organizations where 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, end where people are continually
learning how to learn together.
6 Glosvik 2000; Maier, Prange and Rosenstiel 2001; Edmonson and Woolley 2003; Ligaarden and Dysthe 2008;
Lillejord and Kirkerud 2009; Filstad 2010; Scharmer 2011
15
Cyert and March’s reasoning has links to a behaviourist approach to learning with emphasis on
gathering empirical data and adjustment. Their approach is based on traditional themes in
organizational theory such as the establishment of routines, rules, procedures and specialized
working tasks. Senge, on the other hand, places emphasis on relational perspectives and a future-
oriented approach as being the central aspects of an organizational learning process; at the same
time he is interested in the meta-dimension of “learning to learn”. In the following pages we shall
look more closely at some of the central positions in the field -of organizational learning.
Different forms of learning
Wells (1999) stresses the point that that learning can appear in different forms, depending on what
types of learning activities are used. Wells sees learning as a continuous process in which cultural
resources are recreated, modified and developed through a collective and individual understanding
and knowledge acquisition. He outlines this as a model for creating meaning in the interface between
the individual and the community and between high and low intentionality:
Figure 4: Wells’ Learing Cycle (Wells 1999:85).7
7 Wells presents the four forms of learning on the horizontal axis individual - community Wells (1999: 85) The
high/low intentionality axis comes from Wells’ text. The idea of illustrating intentionality as a vertical axis is
from Ottesen (2007)
Information
Knowledge Acquisition
Insight
Experience
Individual Community
High intentionality
Low intentionality
16
An individual’s experiences are unique, but they are still influenced socially and culturally, since they
are made through interaction. Information is other people’s opinions and interpretations of
experience, which we remember or forget depending upon whether or not we integrate this
information in our own experience. Knowledge acquisition is defined by Wells as the processes
whereby participants develop understanding and actions linked to a shared activity. Experience and
information are transformed by the knowledge acquisition activities that people share. The point is
now not to repeat information, but to create an understanding of what the information means in
new contexts. In this way, knowledge acquisition contributes towards a new shared knowledge and
personal insight based on both individual experience, information and collective knowledge
acquisition. This insight forms the interpretation framework for new activities, new information etc.
Wells’ ideas make it possible to discuss several complementary forms of learning in the quality-
related work done in schools and local authorities. The high/low intentionality dimension implies that
learning processes can reach varying depths, depending upon how one manages to establish the
meeting between individual and social dynamics. School-based competence development has a high
degree of intentionality when one collectively acquires new knowledge about how learning and
teaching can be even more motivating, practical and varied.
Learning on different levels as an approach to the concept of competence
Gregory Bateson (1978, 1996) has laid an important foundation for the later development of theories
about organizational learning, and is increasingly referred to in modern Scandinavian academic
literature. 8 He is concerned with clarifying the relationship between the forms of knowledge in the
social sciences and in the natural sciences, and focuses on investigating learning as a process which
can take place on several levels. In his main work Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972), Bateson
discusses learning from an ecologically oriented system perspective, not as something linear or
causal.
Bateson’s starting point is that a one-way transfer of stimuli must be regarded as a linear transfer of
information which has little to do with complex learning processes. From this starting point he builds
his logical categories for different levels of learning:
Learning I
Bateson also uses the expression “first order of learning” about automatic, habitual behavior where
one keeps up and transfers to others a model of activity which is not the result of conscious choices.
This may not seem very important in the context of a discussion on learning, but routines are often
important in organizations because they maintain stability, which is important for the organization’s
ability to achieve its goals.
8 Gleerup 1998; Laursen 1998; Glosvik 2000; Ryberg 2002; Ryberg and Thrane 2003; Scherp and Scherp 2007
17
Learning II
Learning II is characterized by the fact that the learning system can, within a given framework,
choose between different alternative actions on the basis of trial and error. This means that in
Learning II one is able to see how the models in Learning I actually function. Among others, Bateson
refers to Pavlov’s “classical conditioning” and Skinner’s “operant conditioning”. Learning II is content-
oriented, but it is not immediately clear what or who brings about what kind of learning. On this
level, it is not a question of a relational -interaction that leads to reflection and new meaning, but
rather a level which allows for a change in actions within an unalterable set of alternatives.
Learning III
On this level, the learning system not only observes and changes its own practice, but also reflects on
and changes the principles for its learning. The third level of learning deals with the way in which
actions and experiences are categorized so they can be used in new contexts. By meta-reflection one
therefore changes the principles for learning of learning, which Bateson calls “deutero-learning”, 9 “a
corrective change in the set of alternatives from which choice is made, or it is a change in how
sequence of experience is punctuated” (ibid:293). Learning occurs in relation to other people,
material objects and cultural tools in concrete situations. Meaning is created both through
communication an in practical interaction.
Learning IV
This level represents changes in how the processes in Learning III are constituted, and is a radical
change in the learning culture itself. This implies a replacement of the premises that Learning III is
usually based on. This kind of change demands a large degree of flexibility and freedom from the
context which is the framework for learning on the lower levels. It can for instance take place in
situations where all the alternative choices in Learning III involve a conflict. Learning IV can take place
if the focus is on both the problem itself, and also on its pre-conditions and premises. Bateson
considers Learning IV to be so challenging that participants can easily lose their way. On the other
hand, learning on this level can lead to a favourable result. One finds new turning points for gaining
experience in the system, which makes it possible to create new meaning.
The various levels of learning outlined by Bateson are relevant in a discussion of school-based
competence development. How meaning is constituted at a school is likely to be crucial if
development work is to have a function that goes beyond trying to correct mistakes.
The Concept of Competence
Lars Qvortrup (2001) bases himself on Bateson when he describes how different organizations
achieve varying depths in learning levels in their competence development. To do so, he uses the
following concepts: Qualification, Competence, Creativity and Culture
9 Subsequently the term «deutero-learning» has been applied to the third level of learning. Bateson has
furthermore tried out the terms “set learning”, “learn to learn” and “trio-learning”
18
Forms of
Knowledge
Forms of Stimuli Forms of Result Forms of Skill Output Effects
The first order Direct learning
stimulation
Qualifications Factual
knowledge
Proportional
effect
The second order Appropriation Competence Reflection Exponential
effect
The third order Production Creativity Meta-reflection Quantum leap
The fourth order Social evolution Culture General
education
Paradigm shift
Figure 5: The Relationship between level of knowledge, level of learning and competence
development. (Qvortrup 2001:107)
A simple transferal of knowledge from an instructor to an audience will as a rule result in repeatable
qualifications and facts. One can give an organization this kind of “factual knowledge” without it
leading to any changes. This is a challenge when schools and local authorities want to enhance the
teachers’ skills in order to improve pupils’ weak results. According to Qvortrup, there will be little
benefit to be had from courses where the teaching staff is mere recipients of knowledge.
The competence development will be more profound when there is interaction between participants
in which they must solve challenging tasks within the organization’s framework (Learning II). The
dynamics in the group and the challenges in the tasks will lead to deeper learning processes and
more complex competence. This will also stimulate reflection, so that the individual participants will
be able to acquire new competence on their own at a later date.
On Qvortrup’s third level, the collective ability for competence development has reached the level of
meta-reflection and has the creative ability to solve tasks beyond the level of skill found in the
individual and in the organization itself. The fourth level implies a change in the organization’s
fundamental set of values via a continuous collective dialogue. The organization’s culture undergoes
such a significant change that Qvortrup uses the concept “paradigm shift” with regard to self-
understanding and understanding the outside world.
Like Qvortrup, Boreham (2006) underlines that it is not enough to understand competence in terms
of a personal and individual skill. Within an organization, it is also important to see competence as
something that is constructed socially in connection with how tasks and challenges evolve. In this
way, competence will to a significant extent be developed between people who work together on
real tasks. In the context of work, being competent is to a large extent the ability to meet challenges
19
that are important in the –organizational culture one is a part of. Interaction in larger or smaller
groups will therefore be important.
Systems Thinking in the Learning Organization Five disciplines for developing an organization
Peter Senge -draws on Bateson (1972) and Argyris and Schøn (1996), among others, when he further
develops systems thinking through five disciplines for developing an organization. In his first edition
of The Fifth Discipline Senge presents the conditions (disciplines) necessary for developing a learning
organization.; these are “systems thinking”, “personal mastery”, “mental models” “building shared
vision” and “team learning”. Senge defines a discipline as “… a body of theory and technique that
must be studied and mastered to be put into practice” (1990: 10).
Systems Thinking is the holistic approach which must form the foundation for understanding
connections and patterns in an organization. Senge emphasizes that reality consists of circular and
connected functions, whereas we often think in terms of a linear and causal understanding. In
assessment and development work the main challenge is to seek insight into wholes and parts at the
same time. Participants must therefore be able to see themselves as both a part of the challenges
and of the solutions; in this way they can participate in developing the organization rather than
assigning blame to others.
Personal Mastery deals with the ability to be visionary and realistic at the same time. The current
situation is a starting point, but should not be given most attention. The members of the organization
must be able to evaluate a desired future and know what it takes to make it happen. Senge points
out that the learning processes in a healthy organization have to be based on both rational thinking
and intuition, and that the main direction and connections are more important than the details. In
this way, the members of the organization will be able to develop their own holistic understanding by
standing in the creative tension between visions and reality.
Mental Models are the ideas in an organization which are fundamental to it, but rarely expressed.
Senge is concerned that these mental models should be brought to the surface and tested. By
discussing and testing them together, we can build new mental models, or keep the ones that
already exist. It can happen in some organizations that even successful projects do not lead to
changes in how people act later, because the organization’s mental models block the way for long-
term change.
Shared Vision is the intention that community has with its collective effort, which forms the basis for
a shared vision of the future. Senge believes that sustainable visions are created in processes where
all participants make their personal set of values visible for each other. The integration of personal
and shared visions presupposes that there is a supportive climate in the organization. If one develops
shared principles and practice in order to meet the future, this will lead to greater tolerance of new
methods and mistakes that may be made when testing the new practices.
Team Learning takes place when groups think their way to new knowledge and new methods which
the individuals would not have managed to do on their own. Group learning is a collective discipline,
20
but Senge emphasizes that it also requires individual skill and understanding. He distinguishes
between dialogue and discussion as two types of communication in the team work. Dialogue entails
listening and reflecting to gain new insight. Discussion can be characterized by politics, power,
right/wrong, hidden agendas, dishonesty, lack of consideration, and fear.
If we try to say what typifies Senge’s five disciplines, a short summary might be: seek a holistic
understanding by looking forward and outward, not backward and inward. Leaders and employees in
an organization cannot abdicate from a total responsibility. This implies a break with more rationally
oriented bureaucratic models where the main idea is that certain people and groups are responsible
for certain tasks. Senge also looks forward and outward where earlier organizational theorists focus
on systematizing internal experiences. In Senge’s opinion, learning is not simply dependent on
history, it is also a development process which is based on expectations10, and active organizational
learning is dependent upon a dynamic relationship between the organization and its surroundings.
Deeper Levels of Learning and Strategy
As Senge develops his ideas on organizational learning, we can see clearer connections with
Bateson’s reasoning about different levels of learning. In Presence (2005) Senge and his colleagues in
“The Society of Organizational Learning” (SoL) elaborate on how we must strive for learning on a
deeper level in order to grasp the systems understanding (Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski and Flowers
2005). 11Our analysis and choice of strategy will fail if we look at organizations and society as if the
whole were a mechanical sum of the individual parts, which we can study and develop in isolation.
We have to focus our attention on the underlying patterns in the interaction between the whole and
its parts. When looking for the essential pattern in the whole, we must understand that
organizational learning is a process which can take place on several levels. A deeper degree of
learning creates a deeper understanding of the whole, as Senge et al. illustrate in Figure 6:
10 With reference to traditional definitions of learning some people might find it debatable whether
expectation-based development processes can be called learning, but as early as the middle of the 20th
century
Allport (1962) suggested that intentionality has a major influence on learning.
11 In the introduction to Presence we also find the extended social perspective which is expressed in a more
pronounced way the following year in the revised edition of The Fifth Discipline.
21
Figure 6: Deeper levels of learning in an organization (Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski og Flowers 2005:9)
The relationship between the two vertical arrows indicates that how much/how little depth the
learning processes in an organization reach corresponds to the sustainability of the development
efforts that are set in motion. 12Just like Qvortrup, Senge et al. see a connection between the level of
learning and the level of competence that an organization can achieve. Reactive learning leads to
simple and superficial analyses with correspondingly simple corrections as a result – corrections
which may appear to be adequate, but which in the long term often prove to be detrimental to the
organization. Deeper levels of learning will result in a more fundamental innovation in an
organization. These deeper insights into a holistic pattern are the basis for an organization to be
proactive and reach continually higher levels of competence.
In 2006 Senge published a revision of The Fifth Discipline. Here he places more emphasis on the
complexity of economic, environmental and demographic challenges in the world. Furthermore, he
links organizational learning more closely to the quality assessment discourse. He also further
develops his ideas about organizational disciplines in a representation of three main dimensions as
illustrated in figure 7:
12 This is also called «Theory U» or «The U-turn» (www.solonline.org)
Thinking Doing
Deeper Levels of Learning
Increa
sing a
wa
reness
of th
e wh
ole
Act
ion
th
at
incr
easi
ngl
y
serv
es th
e w
ho
le
22
Figure 7: Three dimensions in organizations’ learning capacity (Senge 2006:xiii).
When Senge now groups his five disciplines under three main dimensions, his approach to
organizational learning is sharpened. He emphasizes that the learning processes in an organization
are dependent upon the willingness and ability to look forward (aspiration). The dynamics in the
learning processes are created by the interpersonal communication (reflective conversation) and
analysis and development work in an organization must be based on a holistic understanding
(understanding complexity). Senge underlines again that understanding complexity follows a
different logical pattern than linear and hierarchic models, which often result in an emphasis on
rules, control, statistics and the creation and re-creation of hierarchy.
Knowledge development and the middle management in an organization
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) focus on knowledge development in an organization based on a
dynamic interaction between -tacit and explicit knowledge. In -their opinion this implies leaving
behind early theories on organizational learning which have had a too strong focus on acquisition,
accumulation and use of existing knowledge. The subjective and tacit aspect must be given more
space in a knowledge development which Nonaka and Takeuchi define as “… the ability in the whole
organization to create knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organization and incorporate it in
its production, services and system” (1995:3)
Nonaka and Takeuchi see knowledge development in an organization as a series of procedural steps.
Development does not take place as a result of ad hoc planning and isolated projects. By
experimentation and reflection important elements of the tacit knowledge can be conceptualized as
conscious thoughts and expressions. When tacit knowledge is made explicit in this way, it is not in
itself an evaluation of what is useful and good knowledge for the organization. Therefore the
The Organization's
Learning CapacityAspiration• Personal mastery• Shared vision
Understanding complexity*Systems thinking
Reflective conversation*Mental models
*Dialogue
23
knowledge must be collectively anchored through dialogue which makes the new explicit knowledge
acceptable before it can be disseminated in internal and external networks.
Nonaka and Takeuchi represent the relationship between the different procedural steps as circular
and cumulative processes. They illustrate the course of these processes as a spiral:
Figure 8: The - Spiral of Knowledge Creation- four forms of communication in knowledge development
(Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995: 62-71).
In this type of circular knowledge development, socializing occurs when knowledge goes from tacit in
one person to tacit in someone else. This socializing is largely based on non-verbal communication in
the day-to-day community practice. In externalizing, tacit knowledge becomes explicit by interaction
and dialogue. Nonaka and Takeuchi see this as a form of knowledge development which academic
literature does not generally pay much attention to. The use of metaphors is central in establishing
knowledge in this way, as metaphors invite free associations and can stimulate externalizing.
Combining implies that explicit knowledge from several sources is put together to make new forms of
knowledge. This type of transferal generally takes place verbally as we see in networks and quality
groups. Internalizing takes place when knowledge goes from being explicit to tacit. Knowledge which
was once developed by externalizing and/or combining becomes established as given and is
embodied in mental models and daily practice. Internalizing and socializing can be useful and
effective when it comes to simple routines. In complex tasks, however, tacit and underlying steering
mechanisms can weaken the development, which makes it important that organizations should
regularly challenge themselves by going through new rounds of externalizing and combining.
24
In developing their theory, Nonaka and Takeuchi -emphasizes the functions of middle management
in an organization. In their opinion, traditional discussions of “top-down” and “bottom-up”
perspectives miss important aspects of collaboration and leadership in development processes. We
often find the most important groups in knowledge development in an organization’s middle
management. It is here the crucial meeting between tacit and more explicit knowledge – embodied
in theoretical learning, goals and plans - takes place (“middle- out”).
If we take “middle- out” as our starting point, it is the teaching staff that represents the dynamic
level between the school’s administration and the pupils/parents. It is therefore an important
challenge for the leaders to release the dynamic energy is this professional group. At the same time,
the “middle- out” perspective represents a challenge for the relationship between the school and the
municipal authorities. How the teachers’ competence development and the pupils’ educational
provision function will in this context primarily depend upon the types of dynamic knowledge
development processes one is able to establish at individual schools and in meetings between
schools, the municipality and the politicians.
In connection with this chapter we recommend the following articles from the series “A Learning
school”:
Article 2: Skoler i utvikling – mange veier til organisasjonslæring (Hammersvik, Jensen og
Møller 2007) http://www.udir.no/Upload/skoleutvikling/Artikkelstafett/Skoler_i_utvikling.pdf
Article 4: Læring fra lærende virksomheter (Gjersvik, Carlsen og Bygdås 2008)
http://www.udir.no/Upload/skoleutvikling/Artikkelstafett/Laring_fra_larende_virksomheter.pdf
Article 5: Å utvikle en organisasjon er en læringsprosess (Hansen 2008)
http://www.udir.no/Upload/skoleutvikling/Artikkelstafett/Utvikle_en_organisasjon.pdf
Article 6: Lærande leiing – i eit systemisk perspektiv (Glosvik, Roald og Fossøy 2009)
http://www.udir.no/Upload/skoleutvikling/Artikkelstafett/Larande_leiing.pdf
25
Chapter 4 How to Lead Organizational Learning in Schools?
In this chapter we shall be looking at how organizational learning processes are led. We point out
some of the most important challenges school administrators face when working with school-based
competence development. The perspectives and examples are, in this limited framework, examples
of possible approaches. We refer to supplementary sources where it will be advantageous to study
even more approaches.
Our starting point is the leading of learning. Irgens(2011) sees learning oriented development as a
dynamic process between change and stability. It involves a continuing process where one creates
new organizational knowledge through collective reflections – which takes into account both
experience and new challenges. Irgens stresses a basic question: Outlook on change as institutional
«programming» or a collective learning process.
Instrumental Approach Interpretative Approach
Outlook on learning: Programming
Rational, mechanically bureaucratic,
instrumental
Characteristics: programming, centrally directed.
Control, structured
Focus on structures, plans, target documents,
quantifiable targets, hierarchical structure
Change as a technical challenge
Outlook on learning: Learning Process
Interpretative, constructivist, learning, adaptive,
exploratory
Characteristics: adaptation, delegating, creation
of meaning, local opportunities and limitations
Focus on process, meaning, values, norms, basic
principles, normative targets in which the focus
is on the processes
Change as a creative process
Figure 9: The relationship between instrumental and interpretative approaches (Irgens 2011).
Formerly, learning in organizations was primarily discussed on the basis of individual acquisition of
information and knowledge – linked to the individual’s abilities and skills in communication, analysis
and reflection (Argyris, 1999; Argyris and Schøn 1996). Recent research in learning tends to see it as a
social process through participation in a shared practice. In this perspective learning has a common
starting point in a concrete, practical context. Lave &Wenger use the term trajectories of
participation when they describe how participation in different contexts leads to learning (Lave
&Wenger, 1991, 2003).
26
Distributed leadership has gradually established itself as a concept. Leadership is here defined as the
product of a shared interaction between leaders and participants within the framework of the
routines and tools in which the interaction takes place (Spillane, 2006). In such a perspective, James
Spillane emphasizes three central elements:
Leadership practice is the central and anchoring concern
Leadership practice is generated in the interactions of leaders, followers and their situation;
each element is essential for leadership practice
The situation both defines leadership practice and is defined through leadership practice
In the interactive, participant-oriented perspective outlined by Spillane and Lave & Wenger, Leading
learning processes will largely require an interpretative approach, rather than one that has an
instrumental basis (Programming versus Leaning Process). We shall now look at some approaches to
leading collective learning processes.
Subsystems and Organizational Dimensions as a Starting Point for Quality Assessment and Quality Development
In Chapter 2 we outlined how Mats Ekholm describes schools as an infrastructure composed of
different subsystems.
Communication systems
Groups
Norms
Power and Responsibility Systems
Assessment systems
Development systems
Financial budget
Time resource budget
When working with quality assessment and development, a colleague-oriented analysis based on
each of these subsystems is extremely useful. If one works systematically, assessing for example the
school environment, classroom management or work methods in various subjects, it will be possible
to isolate the strong and weak sides of each of the subsystems. Here are some examples of questions
that could be asked:
What are the strong sides of how we communicate teaching and learning?
What are the weak sides of this communication?
27
Give 3 – 5 concrete suggestions as to how we can improve our communication.
One can analyze the other seven subsystems in a similar fashion.
In the same way one could use Per Dalin’s five dimensions which he describes as being mutually
dependent in a school’s organization:
Values
Structures
Relations
Strategies
Surroundings
One can analyze each of these dimensions and find their strong and weak sides, using the types of
questions mentioned above in connection with Ekholm’s subsystems. Based on these analyses one
can then plan and execute relevant initiatives with a view to further enhancing the school’s teaching
and learning. There is a thorough discussion of Dalin’s approach in Enthusiasm for Change – a
handbook for school administrators (Skandsen, Wærness and Lindvig 2011) and in Roald (2012):
Quality Assessment as Organizational Learning. In this type of analytical work it is often useful to
alternate between individual, group and plenary sessions (IGP), a method which Bjørnsrud describes
in Room for Action Learning (2005).
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training has developed analysis tools which further
pose specific questions about various aspects of the school which directly or indirectly influence
teaching and learning:
The Point-of-view analysis
The Organizational Analysis
These tools provide a good foundation for analyzing the school as an organization and learning
arena. Having said that, they presuppose that the administration and teaching staff are able to work
further with the findings. In this respect the guidelines for the Point-of-view analysis and the
Organizational Analysis give good pointers. The IGP strategy proposed by Bjørnsrud will often be a
useful approach.
Under the heading “What typifies a learning meeting?” we shall later outline a number of typical
aspects of productive organizational learning. This includes concrete suggestions for things that
should be focused on when leading collective learning processes.
28
Exploiting latitude
The Knowledge Promotion Reform gives local authorities and schools more opportunity and
responsibility for the quality of education. In the research project Achieving School Accountability –
ASAP (Langfeldt, Elstad and Hopmann 2008) and Quality Assessment as Organizational Learning
between Schools and Local Authorities (Roald 2010) it was found that increased local responsibility
can result in both narrower and broader latitudes. The school and municipal authorities can develop
forms of interaction in which quality assessment is a useful tool in developing the school. At the
same time, local participants may tackle the task of quality assessment in ways that are
unproductive, with the result that both schools and local authorities lose the power to develop.
These two outcomes are illustrated in Figure 10.
Figure 10: From hierarchic management to unproductive or productive quality assessment work.
Figure 10a illustrates a classical rule-oriented hierarchy with traditional divisions and connections
between the levels. Figure 10b illustrates the situation when quality assessment chiefly creates
tensions which result in increased distances between the levels. The distance may be called an
unproductive vacuum and a reduction of the local latitude. Schools experience a greater distance to
control-oriented municipal officers, county executive officers and politicians, a distance that is
worsened by the fact that municipalities have reduced their support for development work in
schools. For their part, municipalities feel there is a greater distance between them and the county
authorities, the Directorate and the Ministry for Education and Research, since these act based on an
ordering position asking for revision reports. 13
13 The control-oriented approach of municipal officers, county executives, local politicians and state-run
agencies has been characterized by Hunstad (1998) as “negated learning”. There are perceptions of what is not
wanted, but no indication as to the direction in which the schools’ quality is to be developed further. Glosvik’s
description of “pathological learning” is also relevant. All the attention is on mistakes that must be corrected,
and in this way certain aspects of a school’s activities are over-focused at the expense of other, more important
tasks.
ba c
29
Figure 10c expresses the idea that quality assessment can also stimulate greater interaction between
politics, administration, profession, pupils and parents. In this situation local autonomy is felt to be
increased, leading to a more active local development.
If we look more closely at the dynamics of interaction illustrated in Figure 10c, we find that the
arenas and forms of meetings are developed in ways which support productive organizational
learning processes. The important transition from information to knowledge (Wells) takes place
when one has established functioning meeting arenas both within and across the hierarchic levels.
The circle in 10c indicates that there is a high degree of systemic and circular organizational learning
processes in which both politicians, municipal authorities, school administrators, teachers, pupils and
parents play responsible, active roles. Dialogue and practical experimentation are basic principles to
further knowledge development, unlike traditional assignment of tasks, administrative procedures
and formal decisions (10a). This also gives a transparency in all parts of the organization which
functions as an indirect form of control with considerably more legitimacy than a purely bureaucratic
control function (Roald 2012: 195 – 204).
In municipalities which are working actively to establish productive organizational learning processes,
headmasters’ meetings are changing from being an arena for information and individual interests to
becoming an active forum in the municipality’s quality -assessment work. Efforts are also being made
to develop a more learning type of management dialogue between schools and municipal
authorities, and between employers’ and employees’ organizations. First and foremost, various
meetings at individual schools are characterized by a conscious organizational learning logic (ibid). In
order for these arenas to be able to function in ways that are conducive to knowledge development,
there must be a framework which nurtures reflection and creative participation better than
traditional administrative meetings with their procedures, votes and decisions. The aim must be to
develop the organization’s learning capacity from unsystematic to systematic to systemic (Figure 11).
Learning capacity
Unsystematic Systematic Systemic
30
Figure 11: The relationship between unsystematic, systematic and systemic organizational learning
(Roald 2012:211).
Unsystematic work implies that single evaluation initiatives are carried out without being part of a
comprehensive plan which has been agreed upon by the administration and staff. For example,
national tests, the pupil survey and some diagnostic tests are conducted primarily because the State
has made them mandatory. At the same time it is unclear as to what kinds of internal and external
quality evaluations are to be conducted, and how the school and local authorities are to collaborate
on analyses and management initiatives based on the results. Insofar as evaluation results are
followed up, there will probably be few concrete declarations of intent or commitments to work to
achieve progress. A situation such as the one outlined here corresponds to what Bateson calls
Learning-I, where a linear transferal of summative information is based on a stimulus-response
approach. With reference to Senge’s reasoning about the connections between collective reflection
and action, the analyses will therefore have little chance of reaching deep levels of intention, and
follow-up work will not be very sustainable.
Systematic work is based on a plan for what types of evaluations are to be conducted and how the
results are to be interpreted and communicated. There is a quality system which by and large
satisfies the requirements in the Education Act, and use is often made of external and internal quality
evaluations. This systematic approach clarifies progress plans, positions of responsibility and how the
results of surveys are to be presented to the political environment. With regard to the concept
“quality system”, many of the technical aspects are in place, but when it come to the concept
“quality work”, it is by no means clear what types of interactive processes are meant to lead to
knowledge development.
Systemic work is more clearly characterized by an ecological approach than the systematic (Bateson).
The comprehensive philosophy is apparent since it demands quality in a way that implies that
qualitative and workplace-based evaluation methods are considered equally important as
quantitative and external evaluations. In addition, importance is attached to creating dialogue and
interaction across traditional hierarchic levels in order to establish processes that are conducive to
knowledge development. To create a learning quality work, complementary arenas are established,
in which one discusses how evaluation results should be interpreted, and what initiatives they should
lead to.
Roald (2012) sees it as crucially important that school administrators should see and understand the
difference between the logic of administration and that of learning, if they are to initiate systemic-
oriented processes of analysis and development. For example, when working to analyze various
aspects of an organization, it demands certain forms of preparation, execution and follow-up that
differ from those of traditional administration. It is vital to create a learning meeting, as described
below.
31
What typifies a learning meeting
Roald (2012:223) has systematized characteristic marks of what can be called a learning meeting in
schools. These marks also appear to be found in arenas inside a school, in meetings between school
and local authorities and in meetings between employees’ and employers’ organizations, in head
masters’ meetings and in various arenas across politics, administration and school.
Collaboration rather than co-determination
Collaboration implies that all participants are well prepared for the meeting and can make concrete
suggestions. This differs from a traditional administrative procedure, where a leader or a committee
presents a proposal, and the other participants understand their role in the context of co-
determination.
It seems that it works best when viewpoints are presented in turn, rather than in an open floor
discussion.
When new issues arise, it appears to strengthen the dynamic development if one takes short time-
outs, to allow participants to reflect on the issue either individually or in groups.
Summarizing works best when each group presents one idea, rather than getting all the proposals
from one group first and then letting other groups supplement it with their ideas.
Questions rather than proposals
Instead of the traditional administrative procedure ahead of meetings, we see that it functions better
when leaders formulate questions which participant are required to work with before a meeting. This
would appear to be an important condition to optimize the creative work done by all the
participants.
Development processes will then be defined by a way of working that emphasizes knowledge
development rather than the proceedings that characterizes politically oriented processes.
Leave out objections in the search phase
It appears to strengthen the shared responsibility for constructive development processes if all the
participants are in an investigative mode in the introductory phase. Initially, ideas and reflections are
brought into the discussion by all the participants; then they all look critically at the ideas that have
been presented. This leads to a more constructive and reflective process than meetings where some
participants come with proposals and the others focus on making objections.
32
Look for connections rather than causes
It seems to be important that development work takes as its point of departure the fact that schools
are complex organizations where many circumstances influence the daily work done by pupils and
teachers. This means that one must look for a broad register of circumstances in both the analysis
and initiative phases of the process. A linear search for individual causes appears to result in a more
limited set of measures, which contributes little towards meeting complex challenges.
Positive experiences before negative ones
When a meeting is discussing daily operations or targeted development work, it seems to work best
if one consciously starts with the positive assessments before moving on to the negative ones. This
provides the best foundation for a constructive dialogue if one sees assessment as a systematic study
of the strong and weak sides of the matter in hand. A more random collection of positive and
negative factors seems to result in the negative dominating the discussion, which is not particularly
constructive.
Take it in turns to chair meetings
The shared responsibility for development processes strengthened when the leading of the meeting
is shared systematically. Even though schools, municipal authorities and various professional and
political forums have their own formal leaders, it can strengthen the process if all the participants in
a meeting take it in turns to chair meetings and do the secretarial tasks.
Heterogeneous work groups
Schools are often organized in such a way that they have set structures in the form of teacher teams
working with a particular class, year group or subject. Similar structures are to be found locally at the
administrative and political levels. These are reasonable structures for the day-to-day work, but not
for development processes, where they tend to impose limitations. As a rule, therefore,
development processes will go deeper and be more dynamic if one breaks up these structures and
forms new groups across them.
Priorities rather than polls
Development processes often deal with a number of different proposals for possible measures to be
taken. When there are some proposals on the table, it seems to be more effective if participants are
asked to prioritize them either individually or in groups. More unsystematic discussions often lead to
a strong focus on what participants see as being negative.
Milestones and assigning responsibility
The progress in a development project seems to be strengthened by setting up milestones and
clearly assigning responsibility for flowing up tasks. In this area schools often appear to have unclear
procedures when it comes to follow-up responsibility in different forums. Interim reports at agreed
milestones can be just as important as comprehensive final assessments, which can come too late for
the course to be adjusted.
33
Action-oriented reports on competence development
Both at school and municipal level reports are often given by people who have taken part in courses,
conferences, development projects etc. It would appear to be most effective for further
development when reports of this kind focus on what the participants were inspired to try out in
their own practice. More general or theory-based reports do little to makes others interested in the
issues in question. It would also appear to be the case that the capacity for change increases if
several staff members participate and give a report.
The lunch room is not a good workplace
Most workplaces have a lunch room that functions well for breaks and socializing. However, if the
same room is used for professional meetings, it tends to be counter-productive. The social groups
formed in the lunch room are not necessarily the best point of departure for creative development
work. For this reason it is better to use other rooms for meetings, and consciously form other groups
than those in the lunch room.
Division between development issues and administrative ones
Development issues require work processes that are more time-consuming and complex than
practical, administrative issues. In forums where there is an awareness of development processes,
people will try to spend less time on administrative matters. Their point of departure is a shared
understanding that practical questions can often be solved by management without plenary
discussions.
Phases in schools’ development work
In the book Enthusiasm for Change, Skandsen, Wærness and Lindvig explain four central phases in a
school’s development work:
1. Defining
2. Testing
3. Assessing
4. Using
Each of the chapters provides both an illustrative case and good examples of possible approaches,
with Miles et al.(1987) as a source of inspiration to understand the complexities of change processes.
In the defining phase great importance is attached to involving all the employees in an analysis of the
current situation-. Individual preparation and group work, as described above, are central to the
process. In the analysis phase, one tries to describe a desired development – a so-called glossy
picture (p 50-88). By means of collective discussion and prioritizing one agrees on some areas that
34
have been chosen for further development. A number of tools to facilitate the work are presented.
The following five-step model (IDEPRO) can serve as an example:
1. Participants generate their own ideas (written notes are important)
2. In groups of two or more participants present ideas for each other without interruption.
Discussion after the presentation.
3. The ideas are presented in a plenary session. Discussion in groups.
4. Proposals are ranked as all groups choose those they think are important
5. Finally, the most important job: organizing proposals in order of importance
In their text Skandsen, Wærness and Lindvig go on to present similar tools so that:
Individuals commit themselves to participation, writing and binding choices
The dynamics of group and plenary session are optimized
Similar reviews and good examples of tools and process strategies are to be found in Postholm, M.B.
(2012) Teachers’ Learning and Leading Professional Development.
Networking between schools as a competence strategy
The Norwegian Directorate’s work with the project Assessment for Learning has clearly
demonstrated how valuable it can be to establish arenas where teachers and administrators from
different schools can meet. Learning Networks of this type can heighten responsibility for internal
development work, as well as providing an opportunity for outsiders to contribute towards
developing a school’s teaching and learning.
Networking involves many of the same challenges as internal school development It is only when
participants are committed and active, that networking becomes productive. The work methods that
are outlined above Roald 2012; Skandsen, Wærness and Lindvig 2011) will also form a useful
framework for networking.
School self-evaluation as a key to organizational learning
School self-evalution has been statutory in Norway since 1996. This type of self-assessment
flourished from the middle of the 1990s up to 2004, when the national quality -assessment system
was established. The introduction of National Tests and the Pupil Survey meant that many
municipalities and schools paid less attention to school self-evaluation (Langfeldt, Elstad and
Hopmann 2008).
35
In a study of quality assessment work done by schools and local authorities, Roald (2012) found that
school self-evaluation is probably even more important after the introduction of the national quality
assessment system. This type of self-evaluation provides a basic understanding which will make it
easier to look into results and establish didactic discussions on the planning, execution and
assessment of teaching.14 15The indications are that through a self-evaluation of operations
management, teachers, pupils and parents gain an understanding of assessment which is useful
when working with information from external assessments such as national tests and reports from
assessment groups or the County Governor. Self-evaluation is most effective in schools that have
experience with developing formative and summative aspects of pupil evaluation. There would
therefore appear to be a connection between pupil evaluation, self-evaluation of operations and
external evaluation. This is illustrated in Figure 12:
Figure 12: Connections between pupil evaluation, evaluation of operations and external evaluation
(Roald 2012).
Reinforcing the connection between pupil evaluation, self-evaluation of operations and external
evaluation is important in order to avoid a situation where quality development and the school’s
pedagogical practice take place in two separate spheres. Developing a broad culture of assessment is
important for the school and municipal levels to be able to work together on analyses and practical
development initiatives based on quality assessment. When political, administrative and professional
14 Bjørndal and Lieberg 1978; Lillejord 2003; Langfeldt 2008
15 Although the most widely used expression is “school self-evaluation”, the term «evaluation of operations» is
used here because it also includes training in workplaces.
36
participants collaborate to develop the school’s pedagogical practice there seems to be a basis for
saying that the logic of liability management gives schools and municipalities a genuine opportunity
to exercise power locally.
Do school administrators have a learning style?
The discussion as to how far pupils have different learning styles is well-known, just as the various
learning styles can work differently from person to person. If one looks more closely at how school
administrators work with quality development, one can see the contours of different strategies that
are chosen (Roald 2000, 2012). These strategies may be characterized as follows:
Control-oriented strategy
Decision-oriented strategy
Teaching-oriented strategy
Process-oriented strategy
A control-oriented strategy emphasizes measuring results using various types of tests and user
surveys, which are mainly quantitatively based. Audits and the legal and statutory framework are
also seen as appropriate instruments. The idea seems to be that information about results and
reports is a strong incentive to improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools.
Decision-oriented strategy implies that formal decisions are seen as an instrument when schools and
municipalities are facing challenges in the quality of their work. In order to improve quality, one
attempts to adopt new forms of organization or work methods. Before decisions are made,
administrative procedures are employed to ensure a rational process.
A teaching-oriented strategy tends to see in-service training for teachers as the solution to most
challenges. Problems are often seen as being a result of a lack of knowledge or competence, and so
individuals or groups will be given continuing education and training. Alternatively, an expert may be
invited to give a course for the whole staff.
Process-oriented strategy implies that quality enhancement is primarily seen as being a question of
inter-personal knowledge and -seaking meaning through communicative processes. One seeks to
develop new knowledge in learning-oriented meetings across professional and political boundaries. It
is also an aim to mobilize both explicit and tacit knowledge by alternating between reflection and
experimentation.
These strategies may be summarized as in Figure 13:
37
Figure 13: Different strategies in the work with quality development (Roald 2012).
Both people and environments can have tendencies towards certain types of responses, with the
result that the same strategies are chosen, irrespective of the type of challenge in question. All the
strategies may have strong and weak sides, depending upon the context. A control-oriented or
decision-oriented strategy could be appropriate choices in critical situations or when securing an
individual’s rights is the issue. The teaching-oriented strategy is useful after the curriculum has been
revised. Process-oriented strategies work best when subject-related or social problems which the
school is facing are of a complex nature, which demands a knowledge-development co-operation in
order to achieve a deeper understanding of the issues and possible solutions.
38
The ability to choose suitable strategies for different situations appears to be vital for the
development capacity for schools and municipal authorities. For organizational learning at school and
municipal levels to be productive it seems to be important that both professionals and politicians are
able to assess their choice of strategy from the outside, and continually work to strengthen the
ability to combine several strategies. The ability to perform such self-evaluations, both individually
and collectively, will contribute towards a profound and sustainable school-based competence
development.
39
Litterature Allport, G. W. (1966). Personligheten - hvordan formes den? Oslo: Dreyer. Argyris, C. og Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, method and practice.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Bateson, G. (1972). Step to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine. Berg, G. (1999). Skolekultur - nøkkelen til skolens utvikling. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. Berger, P. L. og Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology
of knowledge. London: Penguin. Bidwell, C. (1965). The School as a Formal Organization. I: March, J. G. (red.). Handbook of
organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally. Bjørndal, B. og Lieberg, S. (1978). Nye veier i didaktikken? En innføring i didaktiske emner og
begreper. Oslo: Aschehoug. Bjørnsrud, H. (2005). Rom for aksjonslæring: om tilpasset opplæring, inkludering og
læreplanarbeid. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Bolman, L. G. og Deal, T. E. (2004) Nytt perspektiv på organisasjon og ledelse: strukturer, sosiale
relasjoner, politikk og symboler. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Boreham, N. (2006). The co-consturction of individual and organizational competence in
learning organizations. A paper presented at ECER 2006, Geneve, September. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming Again, Again, and Again. I: Educational Researcher,19/1. Cuban, L. (1993). How Teachers Taught, 1890-1980. New York: Teachers College Press. Cyert, R. M. og March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall
International. Dalin, P. (1978). Limits to educational change. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Dalin, P. (1982). Skoleutvikling. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Dalin, P. (1994). Skoleutvikling: Teorier for forandring. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Dalin, P. (1995). Skoleutvikling: Strategier og praksis. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Dalin, P. (2005). School development: theories and strategies: an international handbook.
London: Continuum. Dalin, P. og Rolff, H. G. (1991). Organisasjonslæring i skolen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J. og Nonaka, I. (2001). The Handbook of organizational learning
and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Easterby-Smith, M. og Lyles, M. A. (2003b). The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning
and knowledge management. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement. The Imperative for
Professional Development in Education [Online], Tilgjengelig: http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf [2009, 12. Juni].
Elmore, R. (2003). Accountability and Capacity. I: Carnoy, M., Elmore, R. F. og Siskin, L. S. (red.). The New Accountability. High Schools and High Stakes Testing. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Elmore, R. (2004a). Conclusion: The Problems of Stakes in Performance-Based Accountability Systems. I: Fuhrman, S. H. og Elmore, R. F. (red.). Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Elmore, R. (2004b). School Reform from the Inside Out. Policy, Practice, and Performance. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Ekholm,M.(1988). Skolor som lokala organisationer. I: Zaar, M. (red) Skolans själ. Utbildingsförlaget. Stockholm
Ekholm, M. (2012). Skolor i det längre perspektivet. I: Troyer mfl. Utvikling - veier og omveier til en god skole. Cappelen Damm Akademisk
Fevolden, T. og Lillejord, S. (2005). Kvalitetsarbeid i skolen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Filstad,C. (2010). Organisasjonslæring – fra kunnskap til kompetanse. Fagbokforlaget
40
Gleerup, J. (1998). Organisationskultur som læreproces og kommunikation: Svendborg Fingarveri 1931-1990. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.
Glosvik, Ø. (2000). I grenselandet: læring mellom stat og kommune. Avhandling dr. polit. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen. Institutt for administrasjon og organisasjonsvitenskap.
Hargreaves, A. (1996). Lærerarbeid og skolekultur: Læreryrkets forandring i en postmoderne tidsalder. (Overs. av K. M. Torbjørnsen). Oslo: Ad notam Gyldendal.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Læring og undervisning i kunnskapssamfunnet: utdanning i en utrygg tid. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Hargreaves & Fullan (2012). Professional Capital – Transforming Teaching in Every School Hatch, M. J. og Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern
perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hustad, W. (1998). Lærande organisasjonar: Organisering for kunnskapsutvikling. Oslo: Det
Norske Samlaget. Irgens, E.J. (2010). Rom for arbeid. I: Andreassen mfl. Kompetent skoleledelse. Tapir Irgens, E. J. (2011). Dynamiske og lærende organisasjoner. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Klette, K. og Carlgren, I. (2000). An Increase in the Technical Elements of Teachers’ Work? I:
Klette, K., Carlgren, I. og Rasmussen, J. Restructuring Nordic Teachers: An Analysis of Policy Texts from Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Report n10 (Institute for Educational Research. University of Oslo), p. 363-390.
Klette, K. og Carlgren, I. (2000). An Increase in the Technical Elements of Teachers’ Work? I: Klette, K., Carlgren, I. og Rasmussen, J. Restructuring Nordic Teachers: An Analysis of Policy Texts from Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Report n10 (Institute for Educational Research. University of Oslo), p. 363-390.
Langfeldt, G. (2008). Ansvar og kvalitet. Strategier for styring i skolen. Oslo: Cappelen akademisk forlag.
Langfeldt, G. (2008). Ansvar og kvalitet. Strategier for styring i skolen. Oslo: Cappelen akademisk forlag.
Langfeldt, G., Elstad, E. og Hopmann, S. (red.) (2008). Ansvarlighet i skolen. Politiske spørsmål og pedagogiske svar. Resultater fra forskningsprosjektet "Achieving School Accountability in Practice". Oslo: Cappelen akademisk forlag.
Levin, B. (2010). How to Change 5000 Schools. Laursen, E. (1998). Glemsel, Leg og Hierarkisering. I: Christensen, A. Den lærende
organisationens begreber og prksis. Læring, refleksion, ændring. Aalborg: Aalborg universitetsforlag
Lave, J. og Wenger, E. (2003). Situeret læring - og andre tekster. København: Reizel. Ligaarden, L. (2007). Skolen som lærende organisasjon - utopi eller mulighet? Masteroppgave i
pedagogikk. Lillehammer: Avdeling for samfunnsvitenskap, Høgskolen i Lillehammer. Lillejord, S. (1997). Målstyring, skoleutvikling og skoleledelse. I: Fuglestad, O. L. og Lillejord, S.
(red.). Pedagogisk ledelse - et relasjonelt perspektiv. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Lillejord, S. (2000). Handlingsrasjonalitet og spesialundervisning - en analyse av
aktørperspektiver. Avhandling til dr. philos.-graden. Det psykologiske fakultet. Universitetet i Bergen.
Lillejord, S. (2003). Ledelse i en lærende skole. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Lillejord, S. (2005): Hva er pedagogisk kunnskap? Et eksempel fra praktisk-pedagogisk utdanning.
I: Nordisk Pedagogikk, 25/2. Lillejord, S. og Dysthe, O. (2008). Productive Learning Practice. A theoretical discussion based in
two case studies. I: Journal of Education and Work, vol. 21 (1), s. 75-89. Lillejord, S. og Fuglestad, O. L. (1997). Skoleledelse i en reformtid. I: Fuglestad, O. L. og Lillejord,
S. (red.). Pedagogisk ledelse - et relasjonelt perspektiv. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
41
Lillejord, S. og Kirkerud, G. (2009). Produktive læringsprosesser og ledelse av skoleutvikling. I: Monsen, L., Bjørnsrud, H., Nyhus, L. og Aasland, B. (red.). Kvalitet i skolen. Forskning, erfaringer og utvikling. Oslo: Cappelen akademisk forlag.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lortie, D. C. (1987). Built In Tendencies Toward Stabilizing the Principal’s Role. I: Journal of Research and Development in Education. v22 n1 p80-90.
Maier, G. W., Prange, C. og Rosenstiel, L. von (2001). Psychological Perspectives of Organizational Learning. I: Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J. og Nonaka, I. The Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. P. 14-34. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meyer, J. W. og Rowan, B. (1983). The Structure of Educational Organizations. I: Meyer, J. W.og Scott, W. R. (red.). Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Meyer, J. W. og Rowan, B. (1983). The Structure of Educational Organizations. I: Meyer, J. W.og Scott, W. R. (red.). Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Nonaka, I. og Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford
University Press. Ottesen, E. (2007). Det viktigste er læring. I: Mikkelsen, R. og Fladmoe, H. (2007). Lektor -
adjunkt - lærer. Innføringsbok for praktisk-pedagogisk utdanning. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Qvortrup, L. (2000). Det hyperkomplekse samfund: 14 fortællinger om informationssamfundet.
København: Gyldendal. Qvortrup, L. (2001). Det lærende samfund: hyperkompleksitet og viden. København: Gyldendal. Qvortrup, L. (2002). Det hyperkomplekse samfund: om læring og dannelse. I: Fritze, Y.,
Haugsbakk, G. og Rønning, R. (red.). Fleksibilitet som utfordring: noen erfaringer og refleksjoner. Tromsø: SOFF.
Roald, K. (1988). Ressursdisponering i lokalt læreplanarbeid. I: Raaen, F. D. og Ålvik, T., Håndbok i lokalt læreplanarbeid (s. 118-135). Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.
Roald, K. (1991). Rom, fora og ressurser i skolebasert vurdering. I: Ålvik, T. (red.). Skolebasert vurdering - en innføring (s. 211-223). Oslo: Ad notam Gyldendal.
Roald, K. (1999). Kan skular lære? Organisasjonslæring som verktøy i skuleutvikling. Sogndal: N-NR 4/99, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, avdeling for lærarutdanning.
Roald, K. (2000). Ungdomsskular som lærande organisasjonar. Sogndal: R-NR 6/2000, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, avdeling for lærarutdanning.
Roald, K. (2001). Kvalitetsutvikling i grunnskulen 2000-2004. Planar for bruka av statlege midlar til utviklingsarbeid i Sogn og Fjordane. Leikanger: Statens Utdanningskontor.
Roald, K. (2002). Skulevurdering - ekstern eller intern? Sogndal: R-NR 3/2002, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, avdeling for lærarutdanning.
Roald, K. (2003a). Pedagogikk, timeplanar og økonomi. Eit fruktbart møte eller? Magasin for ledere, 2, 8-10.
Roald, K. (2003b). Rytmisk kompetanseutvikling i kommunane i Sogn og Fjordane. Sogndal: R-NR 6/2003, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, Avdeling for lærarutdanning og idrett.
Roald, K. (2004a). Organisasjonslæring i skolar. Teoretiske og praktiske perspektiv. Sogndal: N-NR 15/04, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, avdeling for lærarutdanning og idrett.
Roald, K. (2004b). Skular som lærande organisasjonar. Ei leiarutfordring. Skoleledelse i endring (s. 12-19). Hefteserie nr. 6-2004. Oslo: Utdanningsforbundet.
Roald, K. (2004c). Å forske på organisasjonslæring i skolevurdering. Ei kritisk drøfting av ulike tilnærmingsmåtar. Sogndal: N-NR 14/04, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, avdeling for lærarutdaning og idrett.
Roald, K. (2006). Organisasjonslæring - eit fruktbart perspektiv på skoleleiing? I: Langfeldt, G.; Sivesind, K og Skedsmo, G. (red.). Utdanningledelse. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
42
Roald, K. (2008). Debatten om læringsresultat i norsk skole. Ein gjennomgang av skoledebattar i fire landsdekkande aviser 2007/2008. Sogndal: N-NR 8/08, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, avdeling for lærarutdaning og idrett.
Roald, K. (2010). Kvalitetsvurdering som organisasjonslæring mellom skole og skoleeigar. Doktorgradsavhandling. Universitetet i Bergen
Roald, K. (2012). Kvalitetsvurdering som organisasjonslæring - Når skoleog skoleeigr utviklar kunnskap. Bergen : Fagbokforlaget
Roald, K. og Hustad, W. (1999). Kompetanseutvikling i kommunane - rørsle utan rytme?. Sogndal: R-NR 4/99, Høgskulen i Sogn og Fjordane, avdeling for lærarutdanning.
Roald, K. og Øydvin, A. (2006). Skolevurdering for læring. Korleis skape gode koplingar mellom lokale og nasjonale vurderingssystem? I: Bjørnsrud, H.; Monsen, L. og overland, B. (red.). Utdanning for utvikling av skolen. Om skolelederes og læreres læring. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Roald, K. og Øydvin, A. (2009). Kvalitetsvurdering - eit lærande møte mellom skole og skoleeigar. I: Monsen, L., Bjørnsrud, H., Nyhus, L. og Aasland, B. (red.). Kvalitet i skolen. Forskning, erfaringer og utvikling. Oslo: Cappelen akademisk.
Roness, P. G. (1997). Organisasjonesendringar: Teoriar og strategiar for studiar av endringsprosessar. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and Control: Alternative Strategies for the Organisational Design of Schools. I: Cazden, C. B. (red.). Review of research in Education. Washington DC: AERA.
Ryberg, B. (2002). Kommunikation med refleksive muligheder. Ph.d. afhandling. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet.
Ryberg, B. og Thrane, M. (2003). Skolen som lærende organisation: i teori og praksis. Århus: Klim.
Røvik, K. A. (1998). Moderne organisasjoner: trender i organisasjonstenkningen ved tusenårsskiftet. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget
Scharmer. C.O (2011). Teoril U –Lederskap som åpner fremtiden. Hinnerup: Forlaget Ankerhus. Scherp, H. og Scherp, G. (2007). Lärande och skolutveckling: Ledarskap för demokrati och
meningsskapande. Karlstad: Universitetsforlag. Scott, R. W. (1981). Organizations. Rational, natural and open systems. New Jersy: Prentice Hall. Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J. og Flowers, B. S. (2005). Presence: Exploring Profound
Change in People, Organizations, and Society. London: Nichilas Brealey Publishing. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday Currency. Senge, P. M. (1994). How do You Know if Your Organization is Learning. I: Reflections on Creating
Learning Organizations. Cambridge, USA. Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday/Currency. Senge, P. M. et al. (1999). The Dance of Change: A Fifth Disipline Resource. New York: Random
House, Doubleday. Senge, P. M. et al. (2000). Schools that learn. London: Nicholas Brealey. Senge, P. M. et al. (2004). Presence: humane purpose and the field of the future. Cambridge,
Mass.: SoL. Senge, P. M. et al. (2007). Forandringens formationer: udfordringerne i at bevare fremdriften i
den lærende organisation. Århus: Klim. Spillane, J.P. Distributed leadership. San Francisco, Cal: Jossey-Bass Stortingsmelding nr. 31 (2007-2008). Kvalitet i skolen. Oslo: KD. Stortingsmelding nr. 22 (2010-2011). Motivasjon-mestring-Muligheter. Oslo: KD Tyack, D. og Cuban. L. (1995). Tinkering towards Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Eduvational Review.
43
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosly Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (1): 1-19.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Weick, K. E. (1991). The nonetraditional quality of organizational learning. Organization Science,
1/1991, 116. Weick, K. E. og Westley, F. (1996). Organizational Learning: Affirming an Oxymoron. I: Clegg, S.
R., Hardy, C. og Nord, W. R. (red.). Handbook of organization studies. London: Sage. Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
