Organizational Learning in Innovation Schools

  • Nancy Law
  • Allan Yuen
  • Robert Fox


In Chap. 6, our aim was to gain some idea of the kinds of school-level characteristics that are most conducive to the implementation and integration of ICT-related pedagogical innovations. We found statistically significant associations between some of these characteristics and dimensions of innovativeness, indicating that contextual (ecological) factors influence the outcomes of innovation processes. However, pedagogical innovations also bring changes to the school ecology, and so can be viewed as processes that stimulate learning across the school as an organization. In this chapter, we look at how the innovation schools were nurturing innovative practices and thereby fostering (sustaining) themselves as learning organizations – as places where everybody in the organization learns and contributes to that learning. More particularly, we looked at whether and how the innovations differed in terms of the nature and focus of the organizational learning involved, as well as the mechanisms through which the organizational learning was being propagated.


Professional Development Organizational Learning Innovative Practice Pedagogical Innovation Learning Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Cash, J. I., & McLeod, P. L. (1985). Managing the introduction of information systems technology in strategically dependent companies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 1(4), 5–23.Google Scholar
  3. Crainer, S. (1998). Key management ideas (3rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. EMB (Education and Manpower Bureau HKSAR). (1998). Information technology for learning in a new era: Five-year strategy 1998/99 to 2002/03. Hong Kong. Retrieved from
  5. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, A. L. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Goodman, J. (1994). External change agents and grassroots school reform: Reflections from the field. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9(2), 113–135.Google Scholar
  9. Hannan, A., English, S., & Silver, H. (1999). Why innovate? Some preliminary findings from a research project on “Innovations in teaching and learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hendricks-Lee, M. S., Soled, S. W., & Yinger, R. J. (1995). Focus on research sustaining reform through teacher learning. Language Arts, 72(4), 288–292.Google Scholar
  11. Hill, P., & Crévola, C. (2003). Organizational learning. In B. Davis & J. West-Burnham (Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management (pp. 394–403). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  12. Johnston, C., & Caldwell, B. (2001). Leadership and organisational learning in the quest for world class schools. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karsten, S., Voncken, E., & Voorthuis, M. (2000). Dutch primary schools and concept of the learning organization. The Learning Organization, 7(3), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larsson, P., Löwstedt, J., & Shani, A. B. (2001). IT and the learning organization: Exploring the myths of change. Organizational Development Journal, 19(1), 73–91.Google Scholar
  15. Leskes, A., Grogan, W. R., Canham, R. P., & O’Brien, J. (2003). Designing institutional change. Liberal Education, 89(1), 32–41.Google Scholar
  16. Lorange, P. (1996). A business school as a learning organization. The Learning Organization, 3(5), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Owston, R. D. (2003). School context, sustainability and transferability of innovation. In R. B. Kozma (Ed.), Technology, innovation and educational change: A global perspective (pp. 125–161). Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  19. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  20. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  21. Senge, P., & Käufer, K. H. (2000). Communities of leaders or no leadership at all. In S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Management 21C (pp. 186–204). London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Taylor, P. G. (1998). Institutional change in uncertain times: Lone ranging is not enough. Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (Eds.). (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria: ASTD.Google Scholar
  24. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 1–5.Google Scholar
  25. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations