School as Learning Organization (LO) or as Professional Learning Community (PLC)?
Table 1. Different Models of PLC
|
Hord’s model (1993, 1997) |
Newmann
et al. (1996) |
Bolam
et al. (2005) |
|
Shared values and visions |
Shared
values and norms |
Shared
Values and Vision |
|
Shared and supportive leadership |
Clear
and consistent focus on student’s learning |
Collective
Responsibility |
|
Collective learning and application |
Reflective
dialogue on curriculum, instructions and student’s development |
Reflective
Professional Enquiry |
|
Shared personal practice |
Deprivatize
practice to make teaching public |
Collaboration |
|
Supportive condition |
Collaboration |
Group
and Individual learning is promoted |
Key Challenges of PLC
PLC is a popular strategy to improve teaching and student’s learning. Its positive effects as stated above proved the link between teacher’s collaboration and reflection on teaching practice with student’s learning outcomes. The assessment was made based on each scholar’s model and there were three influential PLC models as in table 1. Hord’s model (1993) seemed to be the most applied to measure the impact of PLC on student’s learning. However, Bolam et al. (2005) and Stoll et al. (2006) raised the skeptical boundary of PLC members to be included in the PLC. According to Stoll & Louis (2007) and Bolam et al. (2005), the PLC members must include all school stakeholders which are not limited to teachers and school leaders. If it is an inclusive community, the PLC measurement needs to extend to janitor, guards, nurse and so forth. Then it would be more challenging to involve the guards or janitors in improving teaching and students’ learning. Hairon, Goh, Chua & Wang (2017) raised three critical agendas for PLC to move forward with construct validity (operational definition of PLC), causality / effect measurement of PLC and contexts- where PLC can be generalized. The lack of operational definition will lead to problematic construct validity and variety of assessment tools. A recent finding confirmed that at least 11 types of assessment instruments of PLC have been used (Lee, Kim, Mo & Walker, 2022). Then different models of PLC will generate different effects on students and teachers. Eventually, it will end up a contextual issue where one PLC model is effective in the Western context but not in the ASIAN or African context. Therefore, theorizing the PLC model is paramount to solve the construct validity, a variety of measurement tools and contextual issues.
Being reconceptualized by Kools & Stoll (2016) on the grounded model of DLOQ model (Watkins & Marsick, 1993), the Integrated Model of School as Learning Organization (The Integrated Model of SLO) proposed seven action-oriented dimensions and 49 items of measurement questionnaires. The model was adopted by OECD and UNICEF as an LO framework for school transformation. According to the Integrated Model of SLO, Kools & Stoll (2016) offered an operational definition of school as learning organization as one “that has the capacity to change and adapt routinely to new environments and circumstances as its members, individually and together, learn their way to realizing their vision”. The model was developed for policy makers, scholars and educators to guide the transformation plan and process through its seven dimensions and forty-nine elements. In Wales’s education system, Kools, Stoll, George, Steijn, Bekkers & Gouëdard (2020) developed the measurement questionnaires of 65 item scales for Wales’s pilot research of the model to validate the construct and to measure impacts on teacher’s outcomes and job satisfaction. The measurement scales were proposed for Wales’s context but international studies can also use these measurement scales of the model to customize based on their contextual differences.
Figure 1. The Integrated Model of School as Learning Organization
Note: Adapted from Kools & Stoll (2016)
The
Integrated Model of SLO has been tested in several European countries, namely
Wales, Greek, Latvia, Romania, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria and Turkey, to validate
the construct measurements and its effects on the school performance. In a
recent progress of measuring effects on teacher’s job satisfaction, Gouëdard,
Kools & George (2023) conducted a cross-country analysis of the Integrated
Model of SLO and confirmed the impact on teacher’s self-efficacy and job
satisfaction. Wales was the piloting country of restructuring their education
system to apply the Integrated Model of SLO (Kools, Pont,
Gouëdard, Rodriguez, Stoll & George, 2018) and many nationwide
research studies to validate the constructs and to test the instruments were
conducted. Kools, Gouëdard, George, Steijn, Bekkers & Stoll (2019)
validated the model’s questionnaires and confirmed the impacts of the
Integrated Model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) on teacher’s and staff’s job
satisfaction and performance outcomes. Several studies also confirmed the
applicability of the model in Wales (Harris, Elder, Jones & Cooze 2022;
Kools, Stoll, George, Steijn, Bekkers & Gouëdard, 2020). Likewise in
Greek, Papazoglou & Koutouzis (2020)
validated the Integrated Model of SLO instruments with 418 primary schools and
studied the effects of school size and geographical differences on implementing
the SLO model. They confirmed that smaller school size would accelerate the
school transformation and geographical difference did not affect the school
transformation to LO. However, one desk review by Tan (2020) in China context
proved that the Integrated Model of SLO was not applicable in Chinese
bureaucratic, hierarchical and high cultural contexts. Although the finding was
not empirically tested, the implication lied on the context where SLO will be
applied. Khay (2024) conducted a study to explore the prerequisites for
transforming schools to learning organization among the European countries who
applied the Integrated Model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) and argued
designing a flatter structure to be one of the key prerequisites. Given the
model was empirically tested in the European context, it is argued for the
empirical studies of this model in Asian contexts, where hierarchical,
power-distant and high cultural setting in schools (Walker, Hallinger &
Qian, 2007; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger, 1998).
Theorizing PLC is a necessity for moving forward the consistent measurement of PLC effects in all contexts (Hairon, Goh, Chua & Wang, 2017). However, several scholars cannot tackle the operational definition of PLC which is more general and diverse, for instance “Professional, Learning & Community” (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace and Thomas, 2006). Bolam et al. (2005) and Hord (1997) contradicted their views on the term professionals to involve in the PLC whether to involve non-teaching staff to expand the school stakeholders for effective PLC or to exclude them for direct PLC effect on students’ learning achievements. Stoll & Louis (2007) strongly argued to add new members into the PLC for inclusiveness. Next, excluding or including new members besides teachers is still debatable and each has a compelling argument that is differed by the contexts (primary school, early year or daycare schools). Another underlying issue with PLC is its broad term which incurs the disagreement on operational definition. As argued by Bolam et al. (2005), Stoll et al. (2006) and Stoll & Louis (2007), the terms “professional, learning and community” were problematic, which puts the PLC model to a halt toward theorizing. According to Hairon et al. (2017), the multidimensional concept of PLC raised the challenge of universal definition for construct validity and measurement. Moreover, the term community is ambiguous by itself and it is still debatable for its scope or inclusive members. Goode (1957) mentioned about community within a community to imply multiple groups within a societal group. According to Clark (1973), there were ninety-four different definitions of community which conclude that community is defined by different groups of professions from the perspectives of sociologists, economists and educationists. The term community implies unstructured groups, guided by norms and values, where members come together for a common or shared goal. Therefore, theorizing the PLC will become a mission impossible for schools to effectively apply in their contexts.
Similarly to the PLC, the Learning Organization also has a challenge with one operational definition and the measurement constructs as stated above. However, the LO in school may differ from the LO in business. Kools & Stoll (2016) offered one operational definition of SLO, in which the model was adopted by the OECD, UNICEF and UNESCO as a framework for school transformation to LO. Although the operational definition of School as Learning Organization is still debatable, the Integrated Model of School as Learning Organization (Kools & Stoll, 2016) proves the convincing evidence toward theorizing through empirical findings of its effects on teachers and school performance. However, most educational scholars are hesitating to move the concept of school to organization but, in fact, it already is. Schools, like other generic forms of organizations, need to establish vision, mission, core values and to define clear roles and responsibilities, financial management, personnel management. Schools also need to establish several systems and work processes for implementing school plans. Teaching and learning are one of the critical action plans to be performed for student’s learning outcomes. Although the term organization is still broad, as argued by Bittner (1965), a sociologist, the generic characteristics that every organization has is structure, system, process, people and goals (Cunliffe, 2008). If school is to effectively operate, it needs to be an organization where it can properly function to deliver the learning outcomes.
PLC, differently from the SLO, is not meant to bind teachers to collaborate. Instead, it is more voluntary and implies free will, through inspiration, to participate. From our perspective, PLC is not sustainable in school when teachers leave. Without structure, system and process, PLC exists only in a marginal but still a crucial part of teaching and learning. School operation requires system, structure, process and people to turn resources (human resources, capitals and materials) into achieving student’s outcomes. If we need to resolve the inclusiveness of professional persons to be in the PLC, as argued by Bolam et al. (2005) and Stoll & Louis (2007), there must include all people from labor staff (janitor, security guards), service staff (receptionist, admission team, assistants) to teaching staff. Providing transforming school to PLC, it will endanger the whole school operation, which the term community per se is already a challenge. The generic form of organization implies the binding actions to follow the structure, system and process. To become the SLO, school needs to have the supporting system, structure and process that binds all courses of actions to achieve the goals. Therefore, there will be not any difference between the SLO and PLC if they go without the generic forms of organization.
Transforming school to learning organization is argued to raise the bar in the complex and constantly changing environment. According to the generic form of organization, the Integrated Model of SLO also lacks the supporting structure, system and process to implement the seven action-oriented dimensions that are the key tools to achieve the SLO transformation. One good example to explain the gap is what is the effective process for developing inclusive visions? Moreover, setting up the school data server requires huge investment on building the infrastructure to capture the teaching and learning data which can be used by all teachers and non-teaching staff. Will the financial system play a role here to establish a supporting system for setting up the school databases? From the model’s review, the Integrated Model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) appeared to maintain the school as a non-organization where the concept is an upgraded version of the PLC. Without elaborating on the systems, process and structures to support the implementation of the seven dimensions, school will do better in the PLC than in the LO model. If educational scholars are hesitant to recognize school as an organization, transforming school to the LO will encounter the challenges with ambiguous system, process and structure. Moreover, structure was earlier argued to put the SLO transformation in a halt. The hierarchical structure will distance the relationship between team members and their leaders. Power distant management will also deteriorate the implementation of few dimensions, namely team learning and collaboration, establish the culture of inquiry, exploration and innovation and learning leadership. In addition, rigid systems and processes will also add another issue of organizational learning. One good example is the time-consuming fund request process for staff to join the professional learning outside the school. In all, financial system sets up the transparent but complicated process to safeguard against any loophole in spending.
Should schools uphold the PLC or move forward with the SLO? The Integrated Model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) is more compelling to move forward to theorizing basing on its structured seven-dimension framework and the valid instruments to measure each dimension. The constructs have been empirically tested for their validities and reliability in a real school setting. Also, the model proved a positive correlation between SLO and teacher’s job satisfaction and work outcomes. Being theorized on the DLOQ model, the construct measurements of the Integrated Model of SLO also assume to meet the cross-contextual validity and reliability similarly to the DLOQ construct. The DLOQ model was used to measure the organizational performance and found the positive link between transforming to LO and the improvement of financial and knowledge performance. Albeit the Integrated Model of SLO has not been used to measure the school performance, which are the staff’s knowledge performance, student’s learning outcomes and financial performance (school’s decreasing expenditures…), it is a good progress from afar that school is conceptualized to an organization to place learning in the center of system. In addition, the term organization implies specific and certain structure and process for going through to achieve the goal. SLO will be easier to measure with a specific framework than the PLC that is more ambiguous and harder to move forward to theorizing. As mentioned above, many scholars have to agree on a single operational definition that is already complicated. How we claim the PLC model’s positive effects on student’s learning outcomes by excluding non-teaching staff whilst other scholars proved the impacts of PLC inclusive of non-teaching staff on student’s learning. From the review of PLC models, the key actors target only teachers who come together for a common goal of student’s learning outcomes. However, student’s learning is a multidimensional construct that is impacted by multiple actors, namely parents, teachers, school leaders, their peers and external stakeholders. The SLO resolves this debatable issue with the term organization that is inclusive of all staff in school. The Integrated Model of SLO also extended key actors beyond school to integrated external stakeholders who will influence student’s learning from afar. More importantly, the term community is vague and implies unstructured organization to be defined by its voluntary will to bond the connection for a common goal or objective. Without formality or legal binding, people can be in and out at will. In all, schools need to be the SLO to establish an effective and supportive structure, system and process for implementing the PLC to impact on student’s learning.
Conclusion
School effectiveness has long existed on the top agenda of educational reforms. SBM has been argued to leverage the school effectiveness through the decentralization of autonomy in decision-making to school level. Many researchers have tried, but failed to confirm, to explore the linkage between SBM and student’s learning outcomes. The researchers could confirm SBM’s indirect relationship with the learning outcomes. The findings aroused further studies to configure SBM for the direct linkage with student’s learning outcomes. Therefore, prominent scholars in SBM, namely Wohlstetter & Odden (1992), Wohlstetter, Smyer & Mohrman (1994), Fullan & Watson (2000) and Murphy (2002), argued to connect school governance reform with learning through integrating PLC in the SBM reform. PLC has proven to impact on student’s learning through collaborative work of teachers to improve teaching for learning. PLC has been conceptualized on different model frameworks for implementation. However, we found three seminal models, the Hord model (1993, 1997), Newman et al. (1996) and Bolem et al. (2005) which were mostly used in research studies of PLC’s effects. However, measuring PLC raises a problem of theorizing the PLC model to generalize into different contexts. According to Hairon, Goh, Chua & Wang (2017), PLC model lacks operational definition which causes its construct development to be hardly achieved. Without a valid construct, measuring PLC also encounters reliability or consistency issues in different contexts.
The Integrated Model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) was reconceptualized on the grounded DLOQ model and it was adopted by the OECD, UNICEF and UNESCO as a framework for school transformation to the learning organization. Several education scholars, particularly those in European countries, argued to reconceptualize school as learning organization. Will transforming school as learning organization is more ideal than reconceptualizing the SBM with a PLC? Facing similar issues to the PLC, SLO also has different models and definitions. However, Kools & Stoll (2016) offered an operational definition of SLO and valid measurement instruments to remove the barrier and to move the model forward. Moreover, PLC will never achieve one operational definition on the account of its three different constructs, namely Professional, Learning and Community. Also, PLC scholars disagreed on the inclusiveness of PLC members in school. The last critical challenge of PLC is its community term. The implication of community is voluntary will to join with common goals. Without organizing structure or legitimate power binding, PLC sustains only with existing members already bought in. PLC is established as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. The SLO, in contrast, implies structure, system and process to organize people with tasks to achieve the goals together. The Integrated Model of SLO has a compelling framework and measurement instruments which could guide schools to transform to learning organization. The SLO term also captures narrower concepts which will be easier to develop into a theoretical model where the constructs can be empirically tested for multiple validity measurements. Moreover, the SLO has few dimensions that are built on the PLC model which would be worth integrating the PLC in the SLO. In all, school reform strategy needs to move forward with the Integrated Model of SLO to prepare students for the constantly changing society.
No comments:
Post a Comment