1

2004 2006

1010

Pang, 2006

2

Education Commission, 1999, 2000a 1982Llewellyn, Hancock,

Kirst, & Roeloffs, 1982

EducationCommission, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1997

Education and Manpower Branch &Education Department, 1991

1998/99 2002/03 Education andManpower Bureau, 1998

Education Commission, 2000b

Curriculum Development Council, 2000, 2001

Peter M. SengeSenge

Senge

Pang & Cheung, 2004

3

Lassey, 1998

Pang, 2003aSergiovanni’s 1987

Marsick & Watkins, 1996

Louis & Kruse, 1998

Senge

S e n g e 1 9 9 0

Senge

Senge et al., 2000

4

1. personal mastery

2. mental models

3. shared vision

4. team learning

5. systems thinking

Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith 1994, p. 6

5Getzels-Guba

Getzels-GubaGetzels & Guba,

1957 Getzels-Guba

Getzels & Guba, 1957

Getzels-Guba 1957

6

Swieringa & Wierdsma1992

Senge

Senge 1990

Senge

Advisory Committee onTeacher Education and Qualifications, 2003

7

8Morgan, 1986, p. 109

Argyris & Schön 1978

Senge 1990

9

Senge 1990

Pang, 2003b; Pang,MacBeath, & McGlynn, 2004

101 Senge

Education Department, 20022

1. 10 102. Senge

2004 9 1 2006 8 3110 10

890

SchoolOrganizational Learning Questionnaire

78

Sengeprincipal component analysis

oblique rotation 78

1147

8 PM1P M 3

MM1 MM3S V 1 S V 3

T L 2ST3 1 2

3

Alphas

1 4.33 0.59 890 0.69 5

PM1

3 4.13 0.81 890 0.81 5

PM3

1 4.52 0.51 890 0.75 6

MM1

3 3.83 0.88 890 0.87 6

MM3

1 3.81 0.96 890 0.83 4

SV1

3 4.26 0.80 890 0.90 6

SV3

2 4.30 0.68 890 0.85 7

TL2

3 3.96 0.81 890 0.92 10

ST3

12 PM1 0.690.70

0.29 0.97

Eigen 1

PM1 PM3 MM1 MM3 SV1 SV3

Senge

PM1MM1 SV1 PM3 MM3SV3 TL2

S T 3

LISREL one-factor congeneric model

regression coefficients Jöreskog & Sörbom,1 9 8 9 l e a r n i n gcapacity 0.29 0.97

13

PM1

PM3

PM1 PM3 MM1 MM3 SV1 SV3 TL2 ST3 LC

PM1 1

PM3 0.29 1

MM1 0.68 0.33 1

MM3 0.33 0.81 0.40 1

SV1 0.36 0.64 0.42 0.67 1

SV3 0.32 0.76 0.38 0.81 0.64 1

TL2 0.32 0.78 0.40 0.80 0.56 0.77 1

ST3 0.31 0.84 0.37 0.88 0.70 0.85 0.79 1

LC 0.36 0.88 0.42 0.94 0.76 0.88 0.89 0.97 1

1. 0.1 2 - t a i l e d

n = 890

2. PM1 PM3

MM1 MM3

SV1 SV3

TL2 ST3

LC

14

MM1

MM3

SV1

SV3

TL2

15

ST3

20

Z - Z -0 1

learning capacity indices

20

76

7

20

17

1.PM1 PM3

2.MM3

MM3MM3

MM3

3. SV1SV3

4. TL2

5. ST3

Chincot ta 1992

PM1

PM3

MM

1M

M3

SV1

SV3

TL2

ST3

LC

19

Senge 1990

Zemke,1999, p. 44

Lam, 2001, p. 213

20

Senge 1990

ST3 0.364 TL2 0.271

Beta

PM1 0.000

PM3 0.047

MM1 0.000

MM3 0.159

SV1 0.103

SV3 0.056

TL2 0.271

ST3 0.364

1. 0.001 2-tailed

n = 890

2. PM1 PM3

MM1 MM3

S V 1

SV3 TL2

ST3

21MM3 0.159 SV1 0.103 SV3 0.056 PM3

0.047 PM1 0.000 MM1 0.000

Braham 1996Leithwood 1998

10 10

P M 1MM1

10

10

10

10

PM

14

.34

0.6

04

.32

0.5

80

.58

0.5

61

PM

34

.35

0.7

33

.94

0.8

27

.82

0.0

00*

MM

14

.53

0.5

34

.52

0.5

00

.15

0.8

81

MM

34

.01

0.8

63

.66

0.8

65

.95

0.0

00*

SV1

3.9

20

.92

3.7

10

.98

3.3

20.0

01*

SV3

4.4

40

.76

4.1

00

.81

6.4

30.0

00*

TL2

4.4

70

.64

4.1

50

.68

7.0

80.0

00*

ST3

4.1

40

.76

3.8

00

.81

6.4

90.0

00*

LC4

.21

0.6

93

.89

0.7

36

.83

0.0

00*

42

.1—

46

.9—

*0

.05

2-t

aile

dn =

89

0

T-

231042.1 10 46.9

21

Lam & Pang, 2003

Pang & Lam, 2000Pang & Cheung,

2004Bollen, 1996

24 Gamage & Pang, 2003

Senge

1.

2. Senge 1990

3.

4.

25

Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications.(2003). Towards a learning profession: The teachercompetencies framework and the continuing professionaldevelopment of teachers. Hong Kong: Government LogisticsDepartment.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theoryof action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bollen, R. (1996). School effectiveness and school improvement:The intellectual and policy context. In D. Reynolds, R. Bollen,B. Creemers, D. Hopkins, L. Stoll, & N. Lagerweij (Eds.),Making good schools: Linking school effectiveness and schoolimprovement (pp. 1–20). London; New York: Routledge.

Braham, B. J. (1996). Creating a learning organisation. London:Kogan Page.

Chincotta, D. M. (1992). Education Commission report no. 5 andthe organization of teachers: A strategy of limitedprofessionalism. New Horizons, 33, 56–62.

Curriculum Development Council. (2000). Learning to learn: Theway forward in curriculum development (Consultationdocument). Hong Kong: Government Printer.

26Curriculum Development Council. (2001). Learning to learn:

Life-long learning and whole-person development. HongKong: Government Printer.

Education and Manpower Branch & Education Department. (1991).The school management initiative: Setting the framework forquality in Hong Kong schools. Hong Kong: GovernmentPrinter.

Education and Manpower Bureau. (1998). Information technologyfor learning in a new era: Five-year strategy 1998/99 to2002/03. Hong Kong: Printing Department.

Education Commission. (1984). Education Commission reportno. 1. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Education Commission. (1986). Education Commission reportno. 2. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Education Commission. (1988). Education Commission reportno. 3: The structure of tertiary education and the future ofprivate schools. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Education Commission. (1990). Education Commission reportno. 4: The curriculum and behavioural problems in schools.Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Education Commission. (1992). Education Commission reportno. 5: The teaching profession. Hong Kong: GovernmentPrinter.

Education Commission (1996). Education Commission reportno. 6: Enhancing language proficiency — A comprehensivestrategy. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Education Commission. (1997). Education Commission reportno. 7: Quality school education. Hong Kong: GovernmentPrinter.

Education Commission. (1999). Review of the education system— Framework for education reform: Learning for life(Consultation document). Hong Kong: Printing Department.

27Education Commission. (2000a). Review of the education system

— Reform proposals (Consultation document). Hong Kong:Printing Department.

Education Commission. (2000b). Learning for life, learning throughlife: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong.Hong Kong: Printing Department.

Education Department. (2002). Performance indicators for HongKong schools (Part I and II). Hong Kong: Printing Department.

Gamage, D. T., & Pang, N. S. K. (2003). Leadership andmanagement in education: Developing essential skills andcompetencies. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and theadministrative process. School Review, 65, 423–441.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to theprogram and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.

Lam, Y. L. J. (2001). Toward reconceptualizing organizationallearning: A multidimensional interpretation. InternationalJournal of Educational Management, 15(5), 212–219.

Lam, Y. L. J., & Pang, N. S. K. (2003). The relative effects ofenvironmental, internal and contextual factors on organizationallearning: The case of Hong Kong schools under reform.The Learning Organization: An International Journal, 10(2),83–97.

Lassey, P. (1998). Developing a learning organization. London:Kogan Page.

Leithwood, K. (1998). Team learning processes. In K. Leithwood& K. S. Louis (Eds.), Organizational learning in schools(pp. 203–218). Lisse, the Netherlands; Exton, PA: Swets andZeitlinger.

Llewellyn, J., Hancock, G., Kirst, M., & Roeloffs, K. (1982).A perspective on education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:Government Printer.

28Louis, K. S., & Kruse, S. D. (1998). Creating community in reform:

Images of organizational learning in inner-city schools.In K. Leithwood & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Organizational learningin schools (pp. 17–46). Lisse, the Netherlands; Exton, PA:Swets and Zeitlinger.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1996). Adult educators and thechallenge of the learning organization. Adult Learning, 7(4),18–20.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills: Sage.Pang, N. S. K. (2003a). Binding forces and teachers’ school life:

A recursive model. School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement, 14(3), 293–320.

Pang, N. S. K. (2003b). Initiating organizational change throughschool self-evaluation. International Journal of Knowledge,Culture and Change Management, 3, 245–256.

Pang, N. S. K. (Ed.). (2006). Globalization: Educational research,change and reform. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute ofEducational Research; The Chinese University Press.

Pang, N. S. K., & Cheung, M. (2004). The learning capacity ofprimary schools in Hong Kong. In J. C. K. Lee, L. N. K. Lo, &A. Walker (Eds.), Partnership and change: Toward schooldevelopment (pp. 269–294). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Instituteof Educational Research and The Chinese University Press.

Pang, N. S. K., & Lam, J. Y. L. (2000). How can schools tackle thechallenges from the reform proposals? (Education PolicyStudies Series No. 35) [in Chinese]. Hong Kong: Faculty ofEducation and Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research,The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Pang, N. S. K., MacBeath, J., & McGlynn, A. (2004). Self-evaluationand school development (School Education Reform SeriesNo. 19). Hong Kong: Faculty of Education and Hong Kong

29Institute of Educational Research, The Chinese University ofHong Kong.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice ofthe learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J.(1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools forbuilding a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B.,Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifthdiscipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone whocares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1987). The theoretical basis for cultural leadership.In L. T. Sheive & M. B. Schoenheit (Eds.), Leadership:Examining the elusive (pp. 116–127). Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. (1992). Becoming a learningorganization: Beyond the learning curve. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Zemke, R. (1999). Why organizations still aren’t learning. Training,36(9), 40–49.

30Transforming Schools into Learning Organizations

Nicholas Sun-Keung PANG

Abstract

In order to survive in an ever-changing environment, Hong Kongschools are required to transform themselves into learningorganizations. With the sponsorship of Quality Education Fund, theschool development and research project “Transforming Schoolsinto Learning Organizations” aims to help principals and teachersacquire the skills and techniques in the five disciplines oforganizational learning, and transform their schools into learningorganizations. When schools become learning organizations, theyare more able to: (1) shift their paradigms in daily managerial andteaching practice; (2) initiate organizational changes for continuousdevelopment; (3) cope with the challenges created by recenteducational reforms; and (4) provide quality education for theirstudents and quality services for stakeholders concerned. A total of10 primary schools and 10 secondary schools have taken part inthis school development project from September 2004 to August2006. This article reports the research findings of an investigationinto the organizational learning capacity of these schools.