School as Learning Organization (LO) or as Professional Learning Community (PLC)?

Abstract

     School reform is a global agenda for many countries to improve student’s learning outcomes. School-Based Management (SBM) approach was echoed to play a pivotable role in improving education quality through decentralizing decision-making authorities and offering more autonomy to schools in return for school’s accountabilities for learning. SBM approaches have been implemented differently across the countries, despite of its concluded four forms (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998). However, SBM was under critiques for the impacts it makes on only the school governance and management but not on student’s learning outcomes. Several scholars argued to reconceptualize the SBM with Professional Learning Community (PLC) to improve teaching and learning. The PLC has proven impacts on student’s learning achievement through improving teacher’s ways of work together to achieve shared vision and goals. However, the PLC has varied models and measurement tools, which is harder for generalizing and theorizing. The critical issue with PLC is inclusiveness of professional members to be counted in the PLC. In the constantly changing environment, school is argued to reconceptualized as Learning Organization (LO) in order to foster shared vision for learning, deeper collaboration across all staff in school for achieving the shared goals. The dilemma for school reform lies under two perspectives- reconceptualizing SBM with PLC or reconceptualizing the whole school as Learning Organization. Having reviewed the PLC models and the Integrated Model of School as Learning Organization, researcher argued the school reform agenda to uphold the Integrated Model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) as a framework for reconceptualizing school as learning organization.

Introduction

    School improvement, school changes and school development are always on the top agenda for educational reform. Many countries, mostly economically developed in the OECD, continuously review, research and reflect on their current educational performance and enact reform as a remedial strategy for improving their educational system. Research has proven the link between quality education and economic growth (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010; Hanushek & Wößmann, 2007) and it is the important rationale for educational improvement and reform. School-Based Management (SBM) has been used as the government reform strategy for schools for more than three decades. It comes in a variety of forms (World Bank, 2007) that different governments politically and ideologically (Caldwell, 2005) decided to decentralize the authority to school levels. Leithwood & Menzies (1998) argued for four forms of SBM- Administrative control, Professional control, Community control and Balance control. Santibañez (2006) argued to classify weak and strong SBM basing on the continuum of decentralized autonomy to schools, which is the higher the stronger SBM. Due to its various forms, SBM was argued to challenge with measuring impacts on learning outcomes (Santibañez, 2006; Grauwe, 2005; Wohlstetter & Odden, 1992). One among SBM critiques is its political motives in the reform strategy. The government’s decentralization strategy is to shift the deadlock at the central level and to improve the efficiency of management at school levels. Several scholars argued for the effectiveness of SBM in the boundary of school governance (Katuuk, Pasandaran & Pangalila, 2018; Mawanda, 2018; Botha, 2012), which can be inferred that the SBM strategies are the management strategies. How can we configure SBM reform for learning outcomes? Fullan & Watson (2000) argued to reconceptualize SBM to integrate Professional Learning Community (PLC). Wohlstetter & Odden (1992) recommended rethinking SBM reform as a systemic reform approach that connects the governance with content reform (Wohlstetter, Smyer & Mohrman, 1994) to develop a school organization for student’s learning. Murphy (2002) argued for closely connecting SBM with teaching and learning through revising the governance structure to support the reform in curriculum and instruction. Then the SBM reform needs to go beyond governance / management to integrate teaching and learning domains in the reform process. It is rather imperative for the school reforms to top up the SBM with PLC.

    In the recent debates on school reform, School as Learning Organization has drawn the attention from policy makers, education scholars and practitioners to move forward with the concept of SLO. Learning organization has proven the impact of the interconnected and complex globalization on organizational performances to be real, which required attention and remedial actions for the organizations to survive in the constantly changing environment. According to DuFour (1997), the organization's survival depends on its ability to function as a learning organization. Inspired by the Fifth Discipline (Peter, 1990) and the DLOQ model (Watkins & Marsick, 1993,1997, 2003), the Integrated Model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) was grounded to offer the SLO framework for school to reform as LO. Adopted by the OECD, UNICEF and UNESCO, the model was widely tested and applied in European countries, particularly Wales (Khay, 2024). Given the rise of a new paradigm shift for school reform, it is still unclear or undecided for the policy makers, education scholars and practitioners in other countries to adopt the SLO or to top up the SBM with PLC. 

What is the Professional Learning Community (PLC)?

    The Professional Learning Community (PLC) has gained popularity as a fix to teaching and learning for school improvement. The concept of school transformation to PLC has spread across English speaking countries (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace and Thomas, 2006). In Wales, there was system-wide reform to adopt PLC in school (Harris and Jones, 2010) and PLC was illustrated as a guide for professional development in Hong Kong school on the top of SBM reform (Advisory Committee on School-based Management, 2000). The overwhelming support for PLC lies on its positive effects on student’s learning (Vescio, Ross & Adams, 2008) which was orchestrated in the UK schools (Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Thomas, Wallace, Greenwood, Hawkey, Ingram, Atkinson & Smith, 2005) and the US schools (Lieberman, Miller, Wiedrick & von Frank, 2011; Bryk, Camburn & Louis, 1999; Louis & Marks, 1998; Hord, 1997; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). PLC made compelling evidences that collective teacher’s collaboration to improve teaching and the shared accountabilities for student’s learning would impact on student’s achievements. Albeit, several researchers disagreed on the common and operational definition of PLC to be used (Stoll & Louis, 2007; Stoll et al., 2006), including the PLC term. Hord (1997, 1998) raised the interchangeable term of PLC with Communities of (Continuous) Inquiry and Improvement. It would rather be a common definitional issue among scholars who conceptualize a complex construct like the PLC (Hairon, Goh, Chua & Wang, 2017), which will also incur a problem of construct validity and the measurement of its effects. In all, PLC has proven positive impacts on student’s learning outcomes through improving teacher’s collaboration and shared accountabilities for student’s learning. However, there is still a disagreement among scholars to move forward with one operational definition and the measurement for impacts.

 Models of PLC

     It is confirmed that PLC lacks consensus on its definition. Prominent scholars who actively investigated the PLC offered different models or characteristics of PLC to be used at schools. Hord (1997) developed a model of PLC with five dimensions which reflected on the community of continuous inquiry and improvement. School Professional Staff as Learning Community was developed as a measurement instrument of Hord model of PLC. Later, Hipp & Huffman (2003) expanded the Hord’s model by integrating several critical attributes to each dimension with three stages of the change model of Fullan. They also developed their own instrument to measure the impact of the model. Vescio, Ross & Adams (2008) elaborated the essential five characteristics of PLC by Newman and his associates. In addition, Stoll et al. (2006) and Bolam et al. (2005) argued for five effective characteristics of PLC which will be indicated in the table below.
 
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

 From the table, shared value, norm and visions are congruent among the three models, which implies the essence of shared vision and values in shaping the effective professional learning in school. Although different wording and phrases, the overall implication of PLC characteristics is to embed collaboration, reflection and accountability to achieve student’s learning outcomes. The effectiveness of PLC lies on the level of teacher’s collaboration, reflection and taking accountabilities and the continuous improvement of all of these (Lieberman, Miller, Wiedrick & von Frank (2011). It is worth saying continuous stronger collaboration, deeper reflection and higher accountability taking will guarantee the student’s learning outcomes. 

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.

The Integrated Model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016)

    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). 

Discussion

    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. 

 Recommendation

     School needs to transform to the learning organization (LO). It is necessary to recognize school as an organization before moving the concept of SLO forward. When some other educational scholars challenge to accept that school is an organization, it is not worth transforming school as learning organization. Since school needs to prepare their students for an uncertain and constantly changing world, reconceptualizing school as learning organization will go beyond the PLC to embrace all staff and school stakeholders in the reform process to achieve the learning goals. Unlike PLC, SLO resolves the issue of inclusive members to make the change happen and offers an articulate structure framework and system to achieve the goal of becoming a learning organization. The Integrated Model of SLO conceptualized by Kools & Stoll (2016) was the only SLO model for school to be adopted by the OECD countries, UNICEF and UNESCO for other countries to prepare the SLO transformation. Since the model has sufficiently been tested in some European countries (Khay, 2024), it met the validity and reliability across the schools in European countries. To generalize the model, it is necessary to test its construct validity in different sociocultural contexts, particularly in those countries in Asia, Middle-East and Africa. If the hierarchical structure, high sociocultural norms and power distance are the barriers for the SLO implementation across different countries, more research on the effective system, structure and process to support schools to become SLO is urgently important to effectively implement the seven-action oriented dimensions. Since school is to re-configure to an organization, system, structure and process are needed to support the framework execution. Therefore, more research is needed to prove the supporting structure and work process for SLO to be effectively implemented at schools.  

The SLO model for School: The Integrated Model of School as Learning 

Introduction

A learning school or a school that learns will be more important for today or tomorrow. A successful and sustainable school is one that learns and adapts to its evolving environment. Since the world constantly changes, school needs to produce human capitals who are future ready for the uncertain and complex society. To do that, schools must continually learn to improve themselves. Moreover, the significant role of technology aggravates the complexity and uncertainty through its powerful interconnectedness. To prepare for the unknown changes to come, schools must have the ability to learn to become a learning school. Unlike other business organizations, school is a place for long-term learning services. In addition, schools produce human resources where knowledge, skills and attitudes are the intangible products from schools. How do schools learn? There are several models of learning organizations in business organizations where one-off service and goods are dealt with. The Fifth Discipline   (Peter, 1990) was a popular model of learning organization to theorize five disciplines (Personal Mastery, Mental Model, Shared Vision, Team Learning and Systemic Thinking) to transform a traditional organization into a learning organization. Building on the gaps of the Fifth Discipline, the Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaires (DLOQ) model was developed by Watkins & Marsick (1997) to provide a structured framework for both self-evaluating to be a learning organization and measuring the performances. Since the model came with question sets under each seven dimensions, it was plausibly researched in many context, including school contexts (Watkins & O’Neil, 2013; Sheng, Watkins, Yoon & Kim, 2021; King Smith, Watkins & Han, 2020; Akram, Watkins & Sajid, 2013). However, the DLOQ model did not elaborate on how the school learns, merely how to measure to become a learning organization. Kools & Stoll (2016) theorized the Integrated Model of School as Learning Organization (Integrated Model of SLO) on the foundation of DLOQ model (Watkins & Marsick, 1997). The model was argued to extend the DLOQ model that lacked how to implement each seven dimensions in school contexts (Kools & Stoll, 2016). In addition, Kools, Stoll, George, Steijn, Bekkers & Gouëdard (2020) developed a measuring tool for the Integrated Model of SLO which could be tested in schools. Although the latest model was developed for school and it was adopted by the UNICEF and OECD for school reforms, it may not draw much attention from many academics or scholars to study and test this model either in Europe (Lavrinoviča, Linde, Siliņa-Jasjukeviča & Lūsēna-Ezera, 2023) or in other countries. Having conducted major searches of this model on several research databases namely Google Scholar, Eric, EBSCO, European Journal of Education, OECD ILIBRARY, we hardly find the model being tested or studied. Since there is limited research of the model, understanding it and its effects and impediments when applying in schools is crucial for further research to generalize the models in a wider school context. 

What is the Integrated Model of SLO?

The concept of school as a learning organization has drawn attention to many academic researchers and practitioners following the popular learning organization book by Peter Senge “The Fifth Discipline” (Peter, 1990). It was not until later the Fifth Discipline (FD) was proposed in school through a book “Schools That Learn” (Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith & Dutton, 2012). Due to its debatable structures and generalization into different cultures (Babak Alavi& McCormick, 2004; Caldwell, 2012), the FD was not overwhelmingly tested in schools. Several researchers have tried their own propositions to conceptualize school as a Professional Learning Community (Moore, 2009; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006), a Professional Development School (Harris, & van Tassell, 2005), School Success Profile-Learning Organization (Bowen, Ware, Rose & Powers, 2007), Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaire (Watkins & Marsick, 1997) and Integrative Model of School as Learning Organization ( Kools & Stoll, 2016). The conceptual models of school as learning organization (SLO) vary by perspectives of prominent researchers who see the school in different angles. Notably, the Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) theorized on the foundation of the Fifth Discipline and other organizational learning models which could address the challenge of clarity in practice. Although the DLOQ mode was well-researched in school contexts (Sheng, Watkins, Yoon & Kim, 2021; King Smith, Watkins & Han, 2020; Akram, Watkins & Sajid, 2013). However, the DLOQ model was argued to lack content of each dimension which caused confusion in implementing the seven dimensions (Kools, Stoll, George, Steijn, Bekkers & Gouëdard, 2020). Theorizing on the DLOQ model (Watkins & Marsick, 1997), Kools & Stoll (2016) proposed the Integrative Model of School as Learning Organization (Integrative Model of SLO) to provide clarity of content in each dimension and to contextualize the concept of learning organization in school setting. 

The Integrated Model of SLO

The Integrated Model of School as Learning Organization (Integrated Model of SLO) was theorized from the grounded model of Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaire (Watkins & Marsick, 1997). The model was adopted by UNICEF and OECD countries to transform their schools to learning organizations (Stoll & Kools, 2016). With clarity in purpose, the model provided the transformative actions in each of the seven dimensions to help schools become learning organizations. The model was developed with Student Learning in the center surrounded by the seven dimensions for school transformation. The outer spheres are composed of vital stakeholders to influence education, namely parents, school networks, NGOs, companies, government and so forth. These stakeholders can be either beneficiaries and controllers who indirectly affect the school transformation. However, there lacks elaboration on the roles of each stakeholder in the school transformation process to become a learning organization. In addition, time, trust, thinking together and technology are argued to facilitate implementing the seven dimensions in learning school transformation. Since it is a culture transformation approach for learning, it is undeniably time consuming to build trust in the new model of systemic thinking and learning. Since technology is powerfully evolving, its role aggrandizes to facilitate the transformation process. For example, virtual learning and web-based learning heavily impact the individual staff learning process. Cloud-based application also paves a way for staff to learn and share, needlessly, Google Workspace. Collaborative work is always achieved with virtual meeting platform like Google Meet, Zoom…

The crucial part of this model is the seven dimensions of actions to transform the school into a learning organization. 

Dimension - Developing a shared vision centered on the learning of all students

    This dimension argues to build a vision where students, staff, parents, teachers and school leaders participate in the process and converge their mental model, attitude and behavior to the one vision of student’s learning. It is quite obvious that learning vision is paramount for the school as a direction where everyone is to follow and achieve it. Shared vision about student’s learning should be a distant but measurable dream where multiple stakeholders in schools need to agree on the common learning outcome of the students. Shared vision is hardly formulated due to the diversity of multiple stakeholders involved. Parents and students may have limited ability to visualize but argue to be a short-term vision. School leaders and teachers are professionals in the field and they are better at conceptualizing the learning vision. Therefore, having a shared vision is good but it is practically hard to formulate and consent. As stated in the model, Stoll & Kools (2016) argued the vision for learning to address quality and equity of student’s learning. Quality learning outcomes are raised by the PISA test where students will take reading, math and science subjects. However, it is also more considerate to add international standard tests like Cambridge international assessment in multiple subjects.

Dimension - Promoting and supporting continuous professional learning of all staff

    This dimension has two important parts, promoting and supporting the continuous professional learning of all staff. As seen in the element of this dimension, an induction program needs to set up and proper time, resources must be allocated to enable professional learning to happen. Time constraint is one of the biggest challenges for teachers to learn. Without proper time allocation for teachers, there will result in frustration and pressure for learning and development. From the Self Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), autonomous motivation will arouse intrinsic interest at work. If teachers are pressured to race against the time to learn, they are extrinsically motivated to learn and they will quit when no pressure or enforcement from the superior. The model raised a professional life cycle with three components from induction to mentoring and to continuous professional development. The supporting part of professional learning is the most salient in maintaining the quality of professional learning. Therefore, Kools & Stoll (2016) argued to change a term of professional development to professional learning. Although the switching term impacts on the professional learning concept and practice, not many schools may be ready for the new term of professional learning. Professional learning implies the learning not only for when development is needed but a constant self-learning for improvement to team and organizational learning. The key tenet of learning school is a professional learning where all staff converge their thinking to learning. Otherwise, school cannot transform from professional development to professional learning. In this model, the professional learning can start from induction & mentoring to feedback for reflection and to embedment of the professional learning at work. 

Dimension - Promoting team learning and collaboration among all staff

    Team learning is another dimension for the learning school to transform the culture from just working together to thinking and working together. Collaboration and collective thinking are essential parts for team learning as team activity is argued to be insufficient for teams to learn from each other. To foster a learning community, team learning is to achieve team member’s mutual learning. To succeed in mutual learning, it is recommended for trust and respect to facilitate effective team learning. When team members’ relationships turn sour, team learning will achieve only the surface of intertwined behavior. In short, team learning requires a deep and inner positive attitude of each member to value collaborative work and its important role to impact on student’s learning. Another barrier for building trust is revealing one's own weakness and the champion motive of teams. Teachers are reluctant to admit their weakness and pave a way for other teachers to explore through peer observation. If the school has a rewarding system for best performance teachers, this will exacerbate the trust building and team learning. Therefore, promoting team learning is about transforming a culture of roleplaying teamwork to deeply learn and act together as a team. To achieve that, school needs to address mutual trust and respect to pave an open way for teachers to learn, reflect and improve their team for students’ learning, as the ultimate goal of school. 

Dimension - Establishing a culture of inquiry, exploration and innovation

    The central element of learning school is the ability to sustain through innovation. Continuous improvement is argued to be an innovative process where new ideas, initiative and even disruptive thinking will be put together for innovation. Inquiry is a process to explore, to prove and to clarify which will enhance the process of innovation. In this dimension, enabling a culture of inquiry, exploration and innovation is achieved through an enabling environment for trial & error, motivation to take new initiatives and flat structure, which encourage more flexible and less bureaucratic process from ideation to actions. Openness, risk-taking and learning from failure are stated to arouse teachers to innovate, explore and experiment with new approaches. When teachers can think out of the box and dare to risk doing something new to improve their teaching and way of work, they tend to keep learning and doing new things which will contribute to the school's learning. Learning from failure is another key success for a learning school. However, it is easier to say than doing. People normally treat failure as their weakness and they do not want to start over from the failure. When failure causes huge impacts on the results and staff is accountable for the failure, they may try to avoid the failure rather than to learn from it. Risk and failure aversion and avoidance will discourage teachers from taking bold initiatives, inquiring and exploring. In conclusion, establishing a culture of inquiry, exploration and innovation requires school to enable the supporting environment for openness, risk-free, trial and error and learning from failure. 

Dimension - Embedding systems for collecting and exchanging knowledge and learning

    Learning without actions may not complete the process of knowledge acquisition and modifying through actions. As Schunk (2012) argued, learning must involve changes. Having teachers transform their cultures of learning is insufficient when schools do not embed a system to capture their learning and changes resulting from the learning. Therefore, the dimension pinpoints a system to retain, to be accessed and to feedback the learning of individual staff, team and school as the whole organization. The system must be able to provide timely data for teachers to reflect and for schools to evaluate the performance. Baseline data of students’ performance, teachers’ training and other indicators can be stored on cloud-based drive where all staff can access for learning and reflection. Kools & Stoll (2016) argued for the important ICT role in facilitating the knowledge base system. This dimension also raised the value of monitoring and evaluation systems through regularly evaluating the theories of actions and changes. ICT-based systems to capture the learning and action data will be more effective and efficient to tackle the monitoring and evaluation process. 

Dimension - Learning with and from the external environment and larger system

    In this dimension, a learning school is argued to embrace an open system for multiple inputs to improve school practice. The open system is argued to help schools learn from external environments where threat and opportunities are important factors for schools to regularly scan and review their impacts on school operation. The open system also provides access to schools to collaborate with other stakeholders to fill the gaps and to improve the student’s learning. Education for the uncertainty and complex world requires schools to have interconnected partnerships to learn and to share mutual interests. In addition, the model also stressed the important roles of parents, students and authorities and other non-governmental organizations for school networking and collaboration. Needlessly, the ministry of education or relevant education authorities also influence the school practice with whom it is to collaborate. Interconnected partnership with other schools is also promoted in the model. However, schools may have limited collaborative work when schools are competing with one another to gain credibility and trust from parents, students and other public. Private schools even exacerbate mutual relationships when both sides are hiding the confidential practice for competitive advantages over others. In spite of few drawbacks from the collaborative aspects, school is encouraged to learn from the external environment through making itself an open system for multiple inputs to inform planning and decision making for sustainability. 

Dimension - Modeling and growing learning leadership

    Learning leadership is the last dimension argued to be the moderator for learning school transformation. Although it is the last dimension, learning leadership systematically catalyzes all dimensions to happen. Without leadership to inspire learning, the whole school learning will be inconsistent and short-term processing. Learning leader is an enabler for all the actions to happen. In this dimension, leaders need to model learning and embed a culture of learning to inspire the mental model of learning among teachers and other staff members. School principal is argued to demonstrate the effective learning example and distribute the learning leadership beyond the staff members to students, parents and wider communities. School leaders need to raise positive attitudes of learning and value learning opportunities for all staff members. In all, learning leadership is to catch the concept of change agent resulting from learning. When leaders can transform staff members to embrace change agencies, they are enthusiastic to hold up self-directed learning which is essential for team learning and school wide learning.

Discussion

    The integrated model of SLO theorized by Kools & Stoll (2016) originated from the Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaires(Watkins & Marsick,1997). The DLOQ model has been tested in various contexts to generalize the applicability of this model (Watkins & O’Neil, 2013). The DLOQ model was well-researched in school context to test its applicability in education. Sheng, Watkins, Yoon & Kim (2021) tested the DLOQ in K-12 schools to validate the DLOQ and to link the relationship of school as a learning organization, applying DLOQ model with improved organizational performance. Another research by King Smith, Watkins & Han (2020) using the DLOQ model to prove the improvement in school principal capacity to learn and how the DLOQ helps schools improve their learning gaps. Can the DLOQ generalize into different cultures and contexts? It is important for the model that transforms the learning culture to be applicable in different cultural settings and contexts. According to Akram, Watkins & Sajid (2013), the DLOQ has been researched in many cultural settings and contexts to prove the reliability and validity of the seven dimensions. Although the DLOQ was originally designed for business, it can be concluded that the DLOQ model for school as a learning organization can be a valid construct for measuring school as a learning organization. It is therefore ideal for the Integrated model of SLO (Kools & Stoll,2016) to assume its applicability in several education contexts similarly to the DLOQ model. 

    

    There arises another question about the existence of the integrated model of SLO by Kools & Stoll (2016) in the junction with the DLOQ model by Watkins and Marsick (1997). As a rationale by Kools & Stoll (2016) for conceptualizing one SLO model for education context, there underlies a specific need of school as a learning organization. School is a uniquely different organization where learning provision takes place and learning outcomes are the products of school. To become a learning school, school per se must embrace both providing learning and acquiring learning. It is a dual process of learning. Is there a need for another version of the DLOQ model for school? Having another version of the DLOQ model for school is paramount for educational researchers and school practitioners to foster validating the constructs and applicability in different socio-cultural contexts. Moreover, many educational researchers may be reluctant to uphold the model grounded from a business context where they believe in the unique school context. It became more compelling when UNICEF adopted the integrated model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2017) for the global learning school transformation. OECD countries made a promise and some have taken more aggressive steps to reform their nationwide school using the Integrated Model of SLO. Therefore, we believe that many educational researchers, policy makers and practitioners across the globe will welcome this new paradigm of school improvement and innovation for sustainability in the complex, uncertain and constantly changing world. 

    Having reviewed the research of applying integrated model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) in Wales, Greece, Romania, Latvia and China, we found that contextual differences among the schools are important and critically affects the applicability of the model. There are profound positive impacts of the model in many European schools but China’s context seems to dissuade the applicability. The difference obviously reveals the hierarchical system and highly socio-cultural norms like China may draw another attention for a modified model of SLO. Since there are limited researches to validate the integrated model of SLO, conceptualized by Kools & Stoll (2016) in other high cultural setting countries like Middle-East- where Muslim culture and region dominated (Metcalfe & Mimouni, 2011), some countries in Africa- where socio-political aspects and other norms influenced on the leadership and management (Walumbwa, Avolio & Aryee, 2011) and East Asia (Kovačević, & Hallinger, 2019; Hallinger & Bryant, 2013; Hallinger, 1998 ), it is still debatable to confirm the findings in China by Tan(2020), where it was a desk review not a research in real school setting, whether the model can be applied in high socio-cultural setting. Therefore, we would like to recommend more aggressive research to test the applicabilities of the integrated model of SLO in other countries, particularly those in the highly cultural school contexts like in East Asia, Africa, Middle-EAST. 

Conclusion

    Schools of the future should foster creativity, innovation and adaptive competencies to prepare students for uncertain, complex and constantly changing society. Learning organization (LO) model rooted from the seminal work of Peter (1990) through his book “The Art and Practice of Learning Organization”, where arises the Fifth Discipline model for testing in many fields, including education. The Fifth Discipline (Peter, 1990) was under several critiques due to its unstructured, lacking of measurement and generalization (Zhang, 2023; Pensieri, 2019; Caldwell, 2012; Babak Alavi& McCormick, 2004). Alternatively, the Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaires (DLOQ) theorized by Watkins & Marsick(1997) to offer a structured tool for measuring LO and its impacts on organizational performance. The DLOQ was well-researched in the Business field and education to validate its constructs and to measure changes in organization performances. DLOQ may lack popularity among educational researchers who need a model of their own LO for school. The integrated model of school as learning organization was conceptualized from the DLOQ by Kools & Stoll (2016) to clarify the details where DLOQ may lack in their structures. 

    Having reviewed several researches in European school contexts like Wales, Greece, Romania and Latvia the integrated model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) has more positive impacts on school performance and staff satisfaction. Despite some impediments to hinder the implementation, researchers still confirmed the applicability of this model in European school context, particularly Wales. However, in the China context, the model was argued to modify to meet the high cultural and social norms of China. China’s schools were argued to be more hierarchical and have high social norms (Hallinger, 2003). The implication is contrasting practices between Western’s flat structure and China’s hierarchical structure. The SLO model is a new paradigm for flat school structure which narrows the gap between high level leader and low-level staff. How can a school promote team learning if there is no enabling environment for dialogue and discussion. Hierarchical structure will raise a barrier high for team learning. According to Peter (1990), a team needs to learn deep inside to shape a team mental model to achieve a shared vision. Given the lack of an enabling environment for the team to learn, a team cannot learn deep inside and the team leader cannot inspire a mental model for the school’s shared vision. Therefore, the integrated model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) may struggle to generalize in the hierarchical school context. However, it will be a crucial decision to change or to risk being obsolete. If the impact of school transformation is less compelling, the SLO model may not be adopted in many high cultural settings like China, Cambodia, Lao and Vietnam… Further research should be conducted to generalize the applicability of the SLO model in schools with high cultural settings, mostly in the East Asia region, where social norm, hierarchical structure and power distance are exerted in schools (Walker, Hallinger & Qian, 2007; Hallinger, 1998). Since there are always impediments when implementing the model, more research is needed to confirm the crucial impediments in advancing the SLO model. We also recommend further research to create a systemic framework that binds both system level and school level together to uphold the successful school transformation process to learning organization. More evidence of the integrated model of SLO (Kools & Stoll, 2016) to impact on school performance and effectiveness, namely knowledge performance of staff and students' learning outcomes are importantly needed to convince the policy makers and other educational practitioners to apply the new model in their schools.