MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563351758 · doi:10.1108/jpcc-09-2016-0022

The school as a learning organisation: a review revisiting and extending a timely concept

2016· review· en· W2563351758 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Professional Capital and Community · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Point (geometry)SociologyEngineering ethicsPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Schools today have to prepare students for life and work in a fast-changing world, for jobs and for using technologies some of which have not yet been created. But the schools and school systems are not keeping up and all too often, teachers are not developing the practices and skills required to meet today’s learners’ diverse needs. Changes indicate a greater imperative but also some cautions. This review is part of the attempt to work towards a common understanding of schools as learning organisations (SLOs) today which is both solidly founded in the literature and recognisable currently by researchers, practitioners and policy makers in many countries. But this is not just a theoretical exercise. If it is to be truly relevant and have the necessary impact, the concept also needs to support those who are interested in transforming or further developing their school(s) into learning organisations (LO) at this point in time. In this paper, the authors first summarise different perspectives on the concept of the LO as used more generally across disciplines. Next, the authors describe the methodology for exploring the SLO and discuss definitional issues, before presenting a summary of the integrated model with accompanying rationale, Finally the authors discuss plans to bring the model to life, with associated issues for researchers, educators and policy makers. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The search for this literature in the English language was carried out through: focussed searches of nine electronic databases – ERIC, SAGE, Google Scholar, Taylor & Francis, Emerald, JSTOR, SpringerLink, Google, Science Direct – using the search terms “SLO” and “learning school”; and contacts with leading experts in this area of work which led to identification of additional literature. The first approach led to selection of 25 most frequently found publications on the SLO and/or learning school. Through the second approach, the authors used an additional seven publications to further enrich the analysis. The interdisciplinary review was extended to include investigation of related organisational change, learning, school improvement and effectiveness literatures. Findings The starting hypothesis is that the seven action-oriented dimensions of the model together add up to a sustainable LO; that is, successfully realising all seven dimensions is greater than the sum of the parts. But, it is not clear how the individual dimensions relate to each other, and whether some are more important than others. Elements within dimensions are also likely to vary across country contexts. Over the next few years the authors will explore and amend the model, together with practitioners, policy makers and researchers from around the globe. Practical implications Despite differences in interpretation, common features emerge. First, there is general agreement that the SLO is a necessity for dealing with the rapidly changing external environment by any school organisation, regardless of context. This is exemplified by application of the concept in many countries including, for example, Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Iran, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, South-Africa and the USA. Second, the SLO is defined as “organic” and closely connected to its external environment. Third, the SLO literature strongly emphasises the importance of individual, group and organisational learning with inquiry, problem solving and experimentation as key drivers of change and innovation. Last, the literature highlights the importance of beliefs, values and norms of employees for continuous and collaborative learning, and processes, strategies and structures to create the conditions for such learning, experimentation and innovation to flourish. The review led to the design of a new action-oriented model. In its current form, the model is intended to offer a stimulus and provide practical guidance on how schools might support and use learning at all levels to improve and transform themselves into a LO and ultimately enhance outcomes. The language is deliberately action-oriented, and elements highlight both what a school aspires to and the processes it goes through in its journey of developing itself as a LO. Originality/value While the concept of a school LO is not new, at a time of constant and complex change, this multi-disciplinary international literature review has given it a new lease of life: drawing on previous studies, but connecting these to a wider relevant knowledge base and the current context. It offers a way forward while arguing that deeper understanding is needed on how schools can develop as LOs. It is now informing the OECD’s work on SLOs with policy makers and practitioners in different countries and the findings are being used to help assess impact at a range of levels.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it