 

.v “I .

“3x? .
. ‘ 34%»... , . ‘
. . V . h
n. L
a», ...

h 1:. ‘nnuz
3.5, an ... ..
. ’
Ha
., ,
Ln; a?
. ~"v.~

u.

run-n. .
$5.
2 ”E

5, m

.3. V
. p t.
#3 I . .ﬂ ﬂu
4 . z. .i
. .v. i.
.A» ‘

. ﬂ
,,

..
m»? n V ‘
. {004$er .
«We. ‘ Lw.
. .1

w
r: .
Y La.

VI
«.4 ,
E ...
.......vv...
...

I...
11.9., x a

$32. .

1+”...
R9: ..
. $.14
11.. C

. T
1.!
1.213?
t‘ til]
Fa,
v‘I V‘ l
“ﬁscrrﬂo...
1 anufx
H!

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

STRATEGIES FOR CREATING A MORE WING-CENTERED

ORGANIZATION: A CIIVIMUNITY COLLEGE PERSPECTIVE

presented by

Roberta C. Bostick Teahen

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Higher , Adult , and
Life long Education

WW ”7%xfm/

bﬂor professor

Ph ' D ' degree in

 

 

Date November 28, 2000

 

MS U i: an Afﬁrmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

  
    
    

  

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlverslty

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

o 7 2005

 

6/01 c./ClRC/DntoDue.p65p.15

 

A i

STRATEGIES FOR CREATING A MORE LEARN INC—CENTERED
ORGANIZATION: A COMMUNITY COLLEGE PERSPECTIVE

By

Roberta C. Bostick Teahen

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

2000

ABSTRACT
STRATEGIES FOR CREATING A MORE LEARNING-CENTERED
ORGANIZATION: A COMMUNITY COLLEGE PERSPECTIVE
By
Roberta C. Bostick Teahen
The Problem

This study examines the strategies used by leaders in one leading community
college to create a more learning-centered college. Findings are interpreted from an
organizational development perspective, with particular emphasis on the theories of
organizational learning. The research question guiding the research is:

What are the strategies being used by leaders in a community college
to create a more learning-centered college, and how are the strategies
similar to or diﬂerentﬁom the premises of organizational learning?

In answering the question, a number of subquestions are addressed, including descriptions
of models in use, the organization’s learning proﬁle, barriers faced, and beliefs about
learning-centered colleges.
Methods Used

Four data collection methods were utilized: Interviews, observations, documents’
review, and an organizational learning inventory. The review of college documents, such
as mission and vision, the catalog, planning documents, professional development plans,
and others provided background about the college. Interviews with individuals most

directly involved with leading the learning-centered initiative were the most important data

source. Observations were utilized to gain a sense of the culture and the style in operation

in the college, while the Building Organizational Learning Capacity inventory enriched the
description of the college’s learning processes.
mm ﬁndings
Eight major strategies were found to be in use in the college for creating a more
learning-centered organization. Together the eight strategies constitute a framework from
which the learning-centered journey of Case College is moving forward. The eight
strategies are: 1) Collaboration, 2) Broad-based Engagement, 3) Focus, 4) Resources, 5)
Professional Development, 6) Results Orientation, 7) Leadership, and 8) Trust/Respect.
Much evidence was found to support the perspective that the factors which
facilitate organizational learning are evident in the strategies for creating a more leaming-
centered college. The following conclusions are offered:

1. Becoming a more learning-centered college relies heavily on process, in
addition to a focus on content.

2. Becoming more learning-centered is a major change process and will take
considerable time.

3. An empowering, humane environment is an important dimension in becoming
more leaming-centered.

4. Individuals’ commitment to learning is a critical ingredient in a change process
designed to create a more learning-centered organization.

5. Clarity of the goals and measures of the achievement are important.
6. Organizational learning concepts and premises may contribute to creating a

more learning-centered college.

Copyright by
ROBERTA C. BOSTICK TEAHEN

2000

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my parents, Earl M. Bostick (1913-1994)
and R. Catherine McPhillips Bostick,
who created a home environment where learning was valued,
nothing was impossible,

and support was always forthcoming.

and to my daughters,
Elizabeth C. Teahen and Rebecca M. Teahen,
for whom I hope their father and I
have provided the same encouragement.
We trust in their ability to do whatever they want, “to climb every mountain,”

and to believe that nothing is impossible.

 

-L -43“

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals contributed greatly to my ability to complete this work. First
among those I am indebted to is my husband, James Michael Teahen III, who was patient
and supportive through ﬁve years of travel, study, and inattention to the home ﬁont.

My advisor, Dr. Kathryn Moore, was responsive, encouraging, and challenging
throughout. She caused me to think in new ways and to stretch in new directions. Her
mentorship is valued. The other committee members, Drs. Marilyn Amey, Douglas
Campbell, and John Dirkx, have also contributed to my scholarly growth.

Lots of friends and colleagues were very important in this journey. Among the
most important in providing their support in many ways, often coaching and reﬂecting,
were James Folkening, of the Michigan Department of Career Development; and Karen
Howie, Susan DeCamillis, and Kari Kahler, all of Northwestern Michigan College. I owe
a special thank you to Rochelle Hammontree of the Mark and Helen Osterhn Library at
Northwestern Michigan College for her continuous support of my needs for library
resources. Without her help it would have been a far more challenging task to complete
this research.

Finally, I am grateful to the individuals at the research college who shared their
time and their ideas with me. They made the selection of their college a perfect choice

because of the insights they have about their work.

:8- A};

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1 - THE CHALLENGE TO BECOME A MORE LEARNING—CENTERED
COLLEGE

Introduction .................................................. 1
Research Context .............................................. 1
/Problem Statement ............................................. 4
/Research Question ............................................ 5
Conceptual Framework ......................................... 6
Individual, Group, and Organizational Learning Relationships ............ 8
The Tension .................................................. 11
/Signiﬁcance of the Problem ...................................... 16
Deﬁnition of Terms ............................................ 16
Strategies ............................................... 17
Learning-centered college ................................... 18
Organizational learning ..................................... 20
Community college leaders .................................. 22
Change ................................................. 22
Premises ................................................ 24
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study ...................... 25
Researcher’s Interest ....................................... 26

CHAPTER 2 - VIEWS FROM THE LITERATURE

The Tension .................................................. 28
Introduction to the Literature Review .............................. 31
The Development of Community Colleges ........................... 33

The Community College Model ............................... 34

Organizational Structure .................................... 37
Learning Paradigm ............................................. 39
Learning/Learner-Centered Colleges ............................... 43
Organizational Learning ......................................... 45

A View of Organizational Learning and the Learning-Centered College . 57

Education Research on Organizational Learning .................. 60
Learning Organizations ......................................... 61
Action Learning ............................................... 66
Congruence and Theories of Action ................................ 68
Leadership Roles .............................................. 69
Teams and Team Learning ....................................... 73
Collaboration ................................................. 75

vii

Non-Learning Responses ........................................ 78

Change .................................................. 78
Innovation .................................................. 83
The Essential Tension .......................................... 84
CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH STUDY

, Conceptual Framework ......................................... 86
/Research Questions ............................................ 86
Design ...................................................... 87
Selection of the Case ........................................... 91
Description of the Case ......................................... 93
Vanguard College Selection ..................................... 94
Interview Participants .......................................... 95
Interview Process .............................................. 99
Case Proﬁle for Potential Case-to-Case Transfer ...................... 99

Research Components and Data Collection Procedures ................. 100

Documents Review .......................... ' .............. 101

Interviews ............................................... 102

Observations ............................................. 103

Survey Instrument ......................................... 106

Contributions of Data to Research Questions ......................... 108

Role of the Researcher .......................................... 109

Conﬁdentiality Considerations .................................... 109

Analysis of the Data ............................................ 112

Analysis-in—the Field Strategies ............................... 113

Technology Resources ...................................... 1 14

The Research Schedule ......................................... 115

Reﬂective Opportunity .......................................... 116

CHAPTER 4 - THE LEARNING-CENTERED JOURNEY

The Situation in Higher Education ................................. 117

The Situation at Case College .................................... 118

The Governing Board ...................................... 118

The President ............................................ 1 19

The Organizational Structure ................................ 119

The Committee and Council Structure .......................... 120

Staﬁing Levels ........................................... 122

Economic Position ......................................... 122

Student Demographics ..................................... 123

College Mission ........................................... 124

Core Learning Outcomes .................................... 126

Values .................................................. 128

viii

A Learning-Centered Journey ..................................... 128

The Findings ................................................. 134
a. Meaning of a Learning-Centered Institution ................... 134
b. Strategies Reported to be in Use ............................ 140
The Institution’s Strategies ............................. 140
Strategies in Use ..................................... 142
Strategy 1: Collaboration .............................. 143
Strategy 2: Broad-based Engagement ..................... 150
Strategy 3: Focus .................................... 158
Strategy 4: Resources ................................. 163
Strategy 5: Professional Development .................... 163
Strategy 6: Results Orientation .......................... 167
Personal Contributions ................................ 168
What Should Be Done ................................. 170
Inferred Strategies .................................... 175
Strategy 7: Leadership ................................ 175
Strategy 8: Trust/Respect .............................. 180
CHAPTER 5 - MODELS IN USE
Models in Use ................................................ 185
Barriers .................................................. 195
Case College’s Learning Proﬁle ................................... 198
Learning Orientations ...................................... 201
Facilitating Factors ........................................ 207
Analysis of Instrument for Use in Community Colleges ................. 211
Perspectives on Culture ......................................... 214
Strategies’ Relationship to Organizational Learning .................... 216
How Strategies Relate ...................................... 217
Summary .................................................... 225
CHAPTER 6 - CREATING MEANING FROM THE FINDINGS
The Research Problem .......................................... 226
Summary of Findings ........................................... 226
What It Means ................................................ 229
Conclusions .................................................. 236
Contributions to the Literature .................................... 239
Recommendations for Future Research ............................. 241
A Closing Perspective .......................................... 244
APPENDICES

A Comparative Descriptions of the Learning Perspectives and
Authors’ Primary Foci ...................................... 247

ozzrwe~mommeow

Questions] Sources of Data Matrix ................................. 252

Organizational Learning Inventory Description ........................ 253
Research Abstract for College .................................... 254
Consent Form ................................................ 255
Interview Guide - Phase 1 ....................................... 257
Interview Guide - Phase 2 ....................................... 262
Documents List (partial) ......................................... 266
Theorists .................................................. 27]
Letter to College .............................................. 272
Learning Theories ............................................. 273
Learning Orientations - Excel Spreadsheets .......................... 278
Facilitating Factors - Excel Spreadsheets ............................ 285
SPSS Analyses ................................................ 296
Organizational Learning Model ................................... 303
REFERENCES .................................................. 304

Table 1

Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10

Table 11

LIST OF TABLES
Factors Commonly Considered in the Literatures of Learning
Organizations, Organizational Learning, and Learning-Centered Colleges
Learning Orientations in DiBella/Nevis Organizational Learning Model
Descriptions of Interviewees
Research Schedule ‘ ,
Coding. Scheme for Quotation References
Summary of Reported Learning Orientations
Highest Facilitating Factors
Lowest Facilitating Factors
Learning Scope and Knowledge Source

Dissemination Mode and Knowledge Reserve

Relationship between Strategy and Facilitating Factors

xi

Chapter 1: The Challenge to Become a More Learning-Centered College
Introduction

Th1emands for change in higher education are accelerating. Expanding use of
technology, increasing competition, ﬁnancial pressures, calls for greater accountability,
and changing societal expectations are among the key factors impacting higher education
as it enters the next century. Colleges are challenged to demonstrate that their learning
missions are being achieved. This study sggksgo understand the strategies used by r K
community college leaders to promote more learning-centered institutions and how these 3 ‘10:; '3
strategies relate to concepts and theories associated with organizational learning. The
study was conducted in one community college, and the sources of information include
interviews, college documents, observations, and an organizational learning inventory.

Research Context

Prominent in contemporary higher education literature is the concept of a learning
paradigm (Barr, 1995; Barr & Tagg, 1995; Boggs, 1995) which argues that a college’s
emphasis should be shifted from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning. Barr and
Tagg argue that the college

.takes responsibility for learning. The point of saying that colleges are to produge

learning—not provide, not support, not encourage--is to say, unmistakably, thath

are responsible for the degree to which students learn. The Learning Paradigm shifts

what the institution takes responsibility for: from quality instruction (lecturing,

talking) to student learning. (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 15)

The learning paradigm literature has set the stage for an emerging community

college approach to creating a learning paradigm which has become known as a learning

college or a learning-centered college.

The concept of a learning college (O’Banion, 1997, 1998) is a natural extension of
the learning paradigm The learning college literature primarily focuses its attention on
aspects of college structure or systems, such as organization design, scheduling, services,
and on students as customers. The literature oﬁ’ers minimal guidance on strategies which
will enable community colleges to make the desired transitions to become more learning-
centered organizations.

In November 1998, the Alliance for Community College Innovation (ACCI), an
afﬁliate of the League for Innovation, conducted a survey of chief executive ofﬁcers. Of
the 243 who responded to the survey (40 percent of the membership), 94 percent reported
that they “have undertaken an initiative to become a more learning-centered community
college” (Alliance for Community College Innovation, 1998, p. 1). Clearly the learning
college theme is both acknowledged and acted upon by community college leaders.

Among the demands community colleges are confronting is the need for them to
demonstrate what and how they are contributing to students’ learning. Essentially,
colleges are being asked to both identify what the intended learning outcomes are and to
report on the extent to which these outcomes have been achieved. Among the questions
being asked are: “Is college helping students? Is it increasing what they know and can
do?” (Banta, 1993, p. 359). O’Banion notes that “the learning college places learning ﬁrst
and provides educational experiences for learners anyway, anyplace, anytime” (O’Baniorr,
1995-6, p. 22).

Little is known about how college leaders are going about creating more learning-

centered colleges. Of the reports that have emerged to date, there are varying foci for

college eﬂ’orts, including realigning the organization chart, review of performance or
evaluation systems, implementation of Quality1 processes, creation of one-stop student
service centers, offering more ﬂexible schedules, and emphases on professional
development (Howser, 1997; Ponitz, 1997; O’Banion, 1997; Kelly, 1998; Wells, 1999).
Colleges purporting to be on this journey toward learning-centeredness present little
evidence to document that the outcomes intended will be realized or that the organization
may be ﬁrndamentally or positively changed as a result of the process.

What is suggested is that “the measure of whether or not community colleges have
been successful in becoming more learning-centered can be gauged by embedding two
questions in the culture of the institution: Does this action improve and expand learning?
and How do we know this action improves and expands learning?" (O’Banion, cited by
Wells, 1999, p. l). Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio, is one of the nation’s
leaders in espousing a more learning-centered philosophy. An executive from this college
elaborates on their strategies:

At Sinclair we believe that to become a learning college, our mission, curriculum,

professional development, compensation system, institutional eﬁ’ectiveness process,

and organizational structure must be aligned with learning college principles. We
feel we can demonstrate signiﬁcant progress toward becoming a learning college as
well as toward our commitment to create substantive change in individual learners,

including ourselves. (Wells, 1999, p. 1)

Although Sinclair’s deﬁnition of a learning college is consistent with other writers, Sinclair

 

1

When the management philosophy of Total Quality Management or Continuous Quality
Improvement is referenced in this manuscript, the term Quality, with a capital Q, will be
utilized; this convention is consistent with the literature about Quality. The use of the
term quality (lower-case q) will represent the general concept of quality as an inherent
characteristic or a degree of excellence.

r’" .

l j a r ’~ .\ "A - v
' ( ‘ I \ ‘ k t .
‘ I
'. 'v ‘ r,
- ‘— 7
. l
r l
‘ f ‘7. K L A I
' I
_,.
‘ ,.
a ‘ If

leaders appear to have taken a broader view of what it means to be a learning college.

Sinclair’s conceptualization also aligns with some concepts of organizational learning (‘1 l

Jog Jinx 'D‘A'Qc VHO,“

l
Different writers envision the journey as either transformational or evolutionary. Although
describing the anticipated result to be transformational, Sinclair also describes the process
as evolutionary.
v5 J 2n
Some writers cont d that in order for major institutional transformation to occur,
the “entire formal organization will have to “dis-organize” and selfedestruct” (Peters, T.,
in Boyett & Boyett, 1998, p. 304) or become “discontinuous with what has gone before”
(Nevis, Lancourt, & Vassallo, 1996, p. 4). If becoming more learning-centered requires
changes of great magnitude, as many suggest, then enormous organizational capacity for
change must either exist or be created.
Problem Statement
Therefiga need to understand more about how étrategjesfor becoming learning
’2‘ " N
centered ”eiﬁ’am by leaders and how their conceptualizations relate to‘organizational
leamingtheories. The dilemma posed is that there are signiﬁcant forces driving colleges

to be more learning centered. Because the thrust to become more learning-centered

 

institutions is a camp... .12 . .2, 106611? . L , there is little information about how
colleges may best achieve this goal. At the same time, there is a relatively well developed
literature about organizational learning and related constructs. These may be useful in

informing strategy for becoming more learning centered. Yet, with research published to

 

”—-

date, linking these two concepts has not occurred.

Much of the impetus for change rs being driven by extemal bodies, such as business

ii

leaders, legislatures, and accrediting associations. In some states, college funding is being
tied to performance. Regardless of the source or the nature of the questioning, an
expectation that colleges will focus on learners’ needs, learning, and/or learning outcomes
has resulted. In response, many colleges are pursuing paths for becoming more learning-
centered. Indeed, the pursuit for becoming more learning-centered is itselfa change
initiative, one of many which college leaders could choose.

At the same time, organizational learning has been demonstrated to be an important
strategy for change in other organizational contexts. Considering the strategies in use by
leaders in community colleges from the lens of organizational learning may provide
important insights.

Research estion

The primary question to guide this research is:

What are the strategies being used by leaders in a community college to

create a more learning-centered college, and how are the strategies similar to

or ailierentﬁom the premises of various contemporary theories of

organizational learning?

In exploring this question, a number of subquestions, which follow, will be examined:

a. What do leader: mean xhen they talk or think about their college becoming a
more learning-cent 'tution?

b. What strategies do the leader saythey are using to help the college become more
leamichentered? " /

c. What models do the leadersCathhey use and/or appear to use in crafting,
describing, and/or implementing their strategies for creating more learning-centered
colleges? '

d. What barriers do leaders ﬁrEethand in the way of becoming a more learning-
eentered college? K . "

e. What is this organization’s learning proﬁle (as reported by leader-informants’

responses to the Organizational Transitions learning inventory), and how similar are

the perceptions of individual leaders concerning the organization’s learning proﬁle?

Answering these questions should both aid in understanding the strategies employed
by the case college as well as inform inquiry about linking the ideas of becoming more
learning-centered institutions with concepts of organizational learning. This particular
conceptual framework is chosen to assess its potential value in informing strategy
development. Ifalignment between the strategies and organizational learning is tight, it is
possible that the organizational learning literature could provide an hnportant-pers—pﬂ\
for leaders who are crafting strategy for creating more leaming-centered colleges.

Conceptual Framework

An organization’s capability to maximize its performance or achieve its objectives is
highly dependent upon individuals’ collective use of knowledge and experience and their
ability to be adept learners (DiBells and Nevis, 1998; Argyris, 1992). Although
designated leaders are important, they are not the only actors who contribute to the
success or failure of the organization (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). A complete
understanding of the organizational learning capacity of a college, therefore, would require
not only understanding the leaders’ strategies but also understanding the actions of others
in the organization. Nevertheless, leaders’ ideas and strategies are important, even critical,
to the organization’s performance.

Although diﬂ’erent writers approach theories of organizational learning from

different views, there is a common set of factors generally considered to be important in

organizational learning. These factors and the major theorists associated with each are

6

"

discussed in Chapter 2 and summarized in the Appendices. Factors generally considered
important in enhancing organizational learning are the following (oﬂ’ered in random order
and abstracted from diverse resources):

1. Involved and/or thinking leadership that contributes to learning development

2. Collaborative approaches, which may include eﬁ’ective use of teams

3. Clear and shared mission, vision, goals, values, and purposes

4. Attention to organizational processes

M H5

5. Divish communication and meaningful conversations

6. Attention to ways of thinking, including consideration of mental models and

paradigms

7. Emphasis upon enhancing capability of the organization, in addition to the skills

of individuals ’

8. A bias for action (using the terminology of Peters and Waterman, 1992) and

comfort with change

9. A systems perspective (although this terminology is much less common in

organizational learning than in the literature of the learning organization)

10. Encouragement of inquiry

11. Consideration of culture and climate
Additionally, occasional references are made to spirit, community, measurement, barriers,
and commitment, although these themes are less common in the organizational learning
and learning organization literatures. Although this study seeks to examine organizational

learning, it is diﬂ'rcult, if not impossible, to separate the intertwined literatures of the

learning organization and organizational learning. Consequently, throughout there will be
references to both, particularly when the authors cited write about both concepts.

Not all organizational learning is positive; in some instances negative behaviors are
reinforced. In “productive” organizational learning, improvements in performance result,
or values and criteria are redeﬁned, and/or the organization enhances its capability for

further learning (Argyris & Schon, 1996, p. 20).

Individual, Group, and Organizational Learning Relationships

 

Individual and organizational learning are interdependent concepts. Without
individual learning, organizational learning is impossible. Translating individual learning
into organizational learning is particularly challenging in an academic environment where
there are often multiple constituencies. Robert Shoenberg comments, “Increasingly, all
sorts of institutions are coming to resemble Clark Kerr’s deﬁnition of the modern
“multiversity” as “a series of individual faculty entrepreneurs held together by a common
grievance over parking.” He notes that the university (and, by inference, the community
college) is “not one community but several” (Shoenberg, 1992, p. 4).

The meanings of the concepts of individual, group, and organizational learning are
explored more in Chapter 2, but some summary points are made here, as the relationship
among them is vital to understanding the dilemma existing in many community colleges.
Among the few major theorists in the organizational learning ﬁeld, the works of Argyris,
DiBella and Nevis, Schein, and Senge are prominent in framing the study. The individuals
who have written most about this topic are ChrishArgyris of the Harvard Business School

and Donald Schon ﬁom the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of

.—_,

Management. Argyris contends that most people are not effective learners. He writes,
What’s more, those members of the organization that many assume to be the best at
learning are, in fact, not very good at it. I am talking about the well-educated, high-
powered, high-commitment professionals who occupy the leadership positions in the
modern corporation. (Argyris,1992, p. 84)

In talking about CEOs in his research, he observed, “They were under the illusion that

they could learn, when in reality they just kept running around the same track" (Argyris,

1977, p. 121). In essence, Argyris’s argument may be better summarized as an assertion

that leaders are not doing the right kind of individual learning that will lead to creating

learning organizations or learning systems.

The same learning dilemma may exist in higher education organizations, as they are
generally described as slow to change, a description that could indicate slowness to learn.
A common description of change is that it results from learning. Learning is thought by
many to be a precondition for productive change. An untested, yet seemingly reasonable,
explanation of the slowness of collegiate organizations to change is that they are slow to
learn, at least from an organizational perspective. Possible tests of this inference might
include an examination of how learning about new teaching strategies is incorporated into
classroom practices or how technology advances inﬂuence the teaching/learning process.

Other factors could also cause a “slowness to learn.” Included among possrble
causal factors are management, bureaucracies, values, culture, unions, and many others.
Writing about universities who need to transform themselves, Moore writes, “Despite the
fact that universities create, preserve, and diienﬁﬂeannﬁnégey are remarkany

unlearned about their own operations” (Moore, 1998, p. 165).

 

A

a II'

In describing the dilemma in corporations, Argyris asserts that the problem is how
leadership deﬁnes learning and creates environments. He believes that leaders and learners
need to look inward, to reﬂect, and to identify ways in which they contribute to the
organization’s problems. The importance of inquiry and challenging assumptions become
dominant themes in most organizational learning theories.

Relative newcomers to organizational learning theory are Anthony DiBella and
Edwin Nevis (1998), whose approach builds on others’ work but is more pragmatic,
consistent with the movement of organizational theorists to link their work to practice.
They conclude, “As ﬁrms and organizations create the conditions for learning, there is an
emerging need for tools that measure, diagnose, or assess learning capability” (p. 201).

A problem that exists in many organizations is how to translate individual learning
productively into advancing the organization’s purposes. It is this translation from the
individual to the organization that remains elusive for most leaders and learners. Effective
organizational learning must build upon meaningful individual learning.

Accepted understanding of the term organizational learning takes as a given that it is
the individuals of the organization who do the acting (Argyris, 1992, p. 391). Individual
learning is generally described as “a process by which individuals gain new knowledge and
insights and thereby modify their behavior and actions” (Stata in Starkey, 1996, p. 318).
Although organizational learning is dependent upon individual learning, individual learning
does not always contribute to organizational learning or performance improvements.

Organizational learning differs ﬁ'om individual learning in several respects. Stata

(1996) enumerates the diﬁ‘erences as follows:

10

First, organizational learning occurs through shared insights, knowledge, and mental
models. Thus organizations can learn only as fast as the slowest link learns. . . .
Second, learning builds on past knowledge and experience - that is, on memory.
Organizational memory depends on institutional mechanisms (e. g. policies,
strategies, and explicit models) used to retain knowledge. . . The challenge, then, is
to discover new management tools and methods to accelerate organizational
learning, build consensus for change, and facilitate the change process. (Stata, in
Starkey, 1996, p. 319)

Ifthe challenge is to discover tools for accelerating organizational learning, even if
few have identiﬁed this as a challenge, then the challenge is particularly problematic in an
academic institution because of the difﬁculty associated with building consensus for
change.

ﬁlming

If learning-centeredness is a proclaimed goal for colleges, how are leaders working
to bring it about? Although principles of learning and speciﬁcally organizational learning
may be well known to community college leaders, the depth of this understanding is
unknown and likely varies signiﬁcantly among individuals and from college to college.
Moreover, the ability to bring about organizational change, by any strategy, has thwarted
leaders of all types in all types of organizations. An open question is how transformation
to become a college that is more focused on student learning can occur. The required
ﬁrndarnental changes in institutional focus and practices suggest a need for a change
approach that itself builds on learning.

In The Essential Tension, a collection of essays by scientists, Thomas Kuhn writes in

a chapter of the same title,

I shall therefore suggest below that something like “convergent thinking” is just as
essential to scientiﬁc advance as is divergent. Since these two modes of thought are

11

D

{‘a

inevitably in conﬂict, it will follow that the ability to support a tension that can

occasionally become almost unbearable is one of the prime requisites for the very

best sort of scientiﬁc research. (Kuhn, 1977, p. 226, reprinted from 1959)

A conversation with most community college leaders today will suggest that the tension
between where they are and where they believe they need to be, the “performance gap”
(DiBella, 1997; Barr, 1995), may be almost unbearable. There are areas of convergence,
frequently supporting the status quo, and areas of divergence, such as appropriate / \
responses to technology and markets. For an organization to become more leaming-
centered, some degree of convergence of ideas among those who must make it so must
support this direction. Many writers observe that there must be alignment of resources
and systems behind “the main thing,” whatever that thing may be for a given organization
(Labovitz & Rosansky, 1998, p. 5). For many community colleges, that main thing is
learning or becoming more learning-centered (Ponitz, 1997).

This-need for convergence is often framed as alignment, shared purposes, or shared
vision. Cook observes that “the most critical issue facing any organization--corporate,
political, religious, educational--is the alignment of individual interests with the interests of \J
the organization” (Coolg 1990, p. 31). Labovitz notes that “alignment gives you the

\,
power to create an organizational culture of shared purpose” (Labovitz, 1998, p. xiii). In
the absence of some sense of shared purpose, or a common vision, it is unlikely that
signiﬁcant gains toward becoming more learning-centered institutions will be realized. An
extensive literature documents the importance of a shared vision for organizational success
in achieving major goals (Senge, 1990; Tichy & Devanna,1986; Kouzes & Posner, 1988).

At the same time, if divergence from accepted traditions and ways of thinking

12

remains unexplored, major gains are unlikely, according to those who advocate for major
transformations (Dolence & Norris, 1995; Alfred & Carter, 1999; Nevis, Lancourt, &
Vassallo, 1996). Another of the many paradoxes abounding in modern organizations is
the need to establish a balance between convergence and divergence, or as Alfred and
Carter describe it for community colleges,
A balance must be struck between continuity—building an unassailable niche through
managing the present—and change—creating the ﬁrture through constant innovation
(Blanchard and Waghom, cited in Alfred & Carter, 1999, p. 7). . . a contradictory
college (is) one that is capable of managing tradition while simultaneously creating
rg‘r;volutionary change and learning from both experiences. (Alfred & Carter, 1999, p.
The concept of the contradictory college is frequently linked to community colleges.
Leaders in colleges continually struggle with balancing access and excellence, liberal arts
and career emphases, external pressures and internal structures. Alﬁed and Carter are
adding another contradiction to the long list that already exists by suggesting that colleges
must also manage tradition, assure the current practices, while pursuing innovation,
reaching for a new future. Using the theme of Kuhn, the requisite condition for a
“scientiﬁc” advance exists. There is a tension among many elements, and there is both
convergence and divergence in most colleges. The themes of paradox and tension are
introduced by many observers of higher education and organizational scenes. Cameron
found “the presence of paradox to be synonymous with the presence of effectiveness in
organizations faced with turbulence, change, and complexity,” (Cameron, l986,cited in

Cameron & Whetten, 1996, p. 273) so there is considerable evidence to suggest that

tension may be a useful condition for organizational change.

Senge describes a natural tension that exists resulting from the gap between where
we want to be and where we are, “our current reality” (Senge, 1996, p. 291). Certainly
the balance between becoming more learning centered and utilizing learning strategies for
organizational change is yet another possible higher education paradox. If the leaders are
striving to advance a more learning-centered agenda, it would appear to some observers
that if learning strategies are not among those being utilized that this would be
paradoxical. Many would expect learning to be a strategy for creating a more learning-
centered college.

While the need for adaptation and change in community colleges is thought by many
to be critical (Alﬁ'ed, 1984; Alfred & Carter, 1999; O’Banion, 1997), the knowledge base
from current research on governance, leadership, and learning, coupled with the prevailing
culture, lead many to question the ability of community colleges to make the required
changes (McClermey, 1998) or leave us lacking critical information for making the
changes.

Many writers have identiﬁed the problems in achieving educational change. Some
note that a lack of information about the change and educational practice is elusive
(Peterson, McCarthey, and Elmore, 1996). Others contend that the barriers are reﬂected
by teacher isolation, lack of time, and the complexity of teaching (Lashway, 1998).
Others believe it is because of lack of focus and following each new fad. Still others,
particularly politicians, wonder about the complacency among public education staffs.

In 1984, Alfred described this dilemma poignantly: There is a “growing inability of

faculty and staff to respond to pressures for change due to calciﬁcation of the decision

14

process in an aging and complex organization. To the experienced community college
observer, it is clear that two-year colleges are rapidly approaching a watershed" (Alfred,
1984, p. 2). The loss of the stable state described by Schon in 1971, or the approach
toward a watershed in 1984, were both penned in a period that any practitioners of the
time would report as tame by comparison with today’s environment. The state is even
less stable, and the watershed appears like a cavernous ravine to many community college
leaders.

A small proportion of the higher education research concerns community colleges.
Few studies address the characteristics of organizational responses to the forces
challenging fundamental missions and processes. Most of the higher education research is
focused on governance, ﬁnances, assessment, accreditation and standards, and changing
faculty roles (ERIC, 1996). The role of leaders (typically presidents or instructional
deans) comprises a signiﬁcant research base, but these studies ﬁ'equently describe the
characteristics of successful leaders of the past or present (Biggerstaﬁ‘, 1990). Many
believe that current images not only serve to preclude a new vision of leaders (Amey and
Twombly, 1992) and leadership (Bensirnon and Neumann, 1993) but also impede colleges’
conceiving new ways of thinking or being (Vaill, 1996) which may be more productive for
the future. Focusing on governance, commonly interpreted structurally (faculty senates,
cabinets, Boards of Trustees, and other entities), or on leaders overlooks many of the
complexities of the organization, including its systems, its change strategies, its structure,

its capabilities, or its individual and organizational learning processes.

15

Srgmﬁcance of the Problem

With rising internal and external concerns, an understanding of the community
college’s capacity for change and renewal should be of vital interest to community college
leaders. Colleges must demonstrate that “the institution can continue to accomplish its
purposes and strengthen its educational effectiveness” (NCA, 1997, Criterion 4, p. 52) to
meet not only the requirements of accrediting bodies but also the expectations of the
public. As colleges seek to transform themselves, to become more learning-centered, or
to pursue other agendas, new ways of thinking about learning and the organization are
important.

A major goal of this research is to heighten awareness of the strategies which
leaders use to contribute to becoming a more learning-centered community college. The
current dilemma is that as the demand for change has accelerated, the strategies leaders
employ to achieve the desired results may not have kept pace with the needs of the
organization. If

12mm

Following are terms which form the foundation for conducting the research. Each
deﬁnition has been crafted by the researcher from extensive reading in the areas pertinent
to this research study. Each is consistent with widely accepted understanding of the
terms, except where noted. The deﬁnitions may appear similar to other writers’

deﬁnitions because the meanings for most have become universally used.

Strategjd ies )

Strategies are the actions and approaches planned by and/or implemented by
individuals or groups to achieve desired outcomes.

The addition of the term “approaches” to the deﬁnition enables one to consider other
views from which strategies may be implemented. Examples may include a commitment
to maintaining self-esteem, listening to divergent voices, building on the best of what is,
and other “approaches” which may not be reﬂected in a strategic plan. In some
organizations, approaches such as these examples may be identiﬁed as guiding principles.
Inherent in principles is the concept of theories of action, the “beliefs and values . . . stated
in the form of propositions about eﬁ‘ectiveness” (Argyris, 1992, p. 152) that people use to
guide their behavior. Included in theories of action are both espoused theories, “the set of
beliefs and values people hold about how to manage their lives,” and theories-in-use
(Argyris, 1990 and 1992), the actual rules governing behavior, the rules one would
observe when trying to make sense of another’s behavior (Argyris, 1992, p. 89).

The operant theories within individuals and in organizations inﬂuence the approaches
taken to achieve objectives. An additional way to think about strategy is as it is described
by Marquardt, “Strategy relates to the action plans, methodologies, tactics, and steps that
are employed to reach a company's vision and goals. In a learning organization, these are
strategies that optimize the learning acquired, transferred, and utilized in all company
actions and operations" (Marquardt, 1996, p. 25). The term strategy, as used in this
research, is broader than a goal, an objective, or a task, all of which are terms used in the

planning literature. In this research, the term strategy is meant to be conceptualized as a

noun, a concept that guides planning and actions.

Learning-Centered College

A learning-centered college is one where signiﬁcant institutional resources,

processes, and change and improvement strategies are focused on enhancing

the learning and the learning environment for students, staﬂ: and community.

It is a college that focuses on creating higher-level learning outcomes for all

learners.

Terry O’Banion deﬁned the learning college in this way, "The learning college places
learning ﬁrst and provides educational experiences for learners anyway, anyplace,
anytime" (O'Banion, 1995-96, p. 22 cited in O’Banion, 1997, p. 47). He then offers a
series of guiding principles which speak to the importance of creating substantive change
in individual learners, engaging learners as ﬁrll partners in the learning process, offering as
many options for learning as possible, assisting learners to form and participate in
collaborative learning activities, deﬁning the roles of learning facilitators by the needs of
the learners, and suggesting that the learning college and its learning facilitators succeed
only when improved and expanded learning can be documented for its learners (O’Banion,
1997, p. 47).

Both O’Banion and other subsequent writers tend to use the terms learning-centered
college and learning college interchangeably. Although both learner-centered and
learning-centered terminology are common, I prefer the term “learning-centered” college
for the following reasons:

1. It parallels the learning college terminology. O’Banion writes that the learning
and learner emphases are diﬂ‘erent and that learning-centeredness is characterized by

“learning contracts, behavioral objectives, competency-based education, learning

18

outcomes, skills standards and performance-based ﬁrnding” (O’Banion, 1998, p. 4).

2. The concept of a learner-centered college closely aligns with the Quality
literature of “customer-focus” (Omachonu & Ross, 1994). Although the use of Quality
standards and processes is continuing to expand, particularly with the recent decision of
some accrediting associations to accept Quality-based approaches to self-assessment, it is
still anathema to many academics. George Boggs (1999) notes that he frequently hears
‘Voices of hostility from members of the teaching faculty.” Too many equate “customer”
and “learner” and dispute the relevance of using a business model (O’Banion, 1998, p. 4),
which diminishes the potential for serious dialogue.

3. The use of the term learning suggests a more comprehensive view of those who
comprise the organization, rather than just focusing on the actions that are taken on behalf
of traditional learners, the students. One goal of becoming more learning-centered is to
create an environment for enhanced learning for all, traditional students and the staﬂ‘ of the
organization. Because learning thrives in a continuous cycle, it should be considered a
means or process and not an end. Creating a place where learning prevails (individual and
organizational) is believed to be superior positioning to meet future challenges. It is this
view of becoming learning-centered that is the subject of this research.

It is important to note that the focus of O’Banion and others who discuss the
learning college is primarily on the learners commonly described as students. The general
goal is not only enhanced learning outcomes but enhanced learning processes, such as
scheduling and services, which arguably are intended to lead to more desirable student

learning outcomes.

19

Orgw' 'onal Learning

Organizational learning is a process by which individuals of the organization

develop individual and group expertise which contributes to the enhanced

capacity of the organization to achieve its purposes through collaboration

and sharing of lmawledge and experience.

This deﬁnition emerges from the deﬁnitions of many organizational learning
theorists, including Stata, DiBella and Nevis, and Miles and Randolph, who deﬁne it in
these ways: (1) “Organizational learning entails new insights and modiﬁed behavior. But
it differs from individual learning in several respects. First, organizational learning occurs
through shared insights, knowledge, and mental models” (Stata, 1996, p. 318). (2) “We
deﬁne organizational learning as the capacity or processes within an organization to
maintain or improve performance based on experience” (DiBella & Nevis, p. 28). (3)
Miles and Randolph (1981), drawing on Simon’s (1991) work, deﬁne organizational
learning as individuals’ insights reﬂected “in the structural elements and outcomes of the
organization itself’ (p. 50, cited in Cook & Yanow, 1996, p. 433).

Organizational learning may be operationalized in a college in any number of ways.
One example is offered to provide a distinction between individual and organizational
learning. Ifthree diﬁerent faculty members attend different technology conferences, each
has probably learned. If, when they return to campus, they share their newly gained
insights with each other and others in the organization, the second stage of organizational
learning - sharing - has occurred. When the three and others who gained expertise from
the others’ experiences launch an online degree program utilizing the shared knowledge

they gained from their individual and group learning, organizational learning has

20

happened. Organizational learning is evident because a change occurred, a new online
degree program. Basic operating premises were challenged; a determination was made
that not all degree programs need to be offered through traditional delivery methods. If
the individuals had returned to their daily operating routines, without sharing and without
implementing, neither group nor organizational learning would have occurred. The fact
that they shared, gained from each other’s experience, and took the shared knowledge to
another level is evidence of organizational learning.

Some may raise the question of whether attributing learning capacity to
organizations is anthropomorphizing. Although the concept of organizational learning
philosophies may ascribe human characteristics to a non-human, it may also be a matter of
how one conceives organizations. Modern writers describe organizations in many ways
that ascribe human-like characteristics. The behaviors, actions, nature, and cultures of
organizations are examined throughout the management and organizational literatures.
Morgan describes different perspectives of organizations by metaphors: as machines,
organisms, brains, cultures, political systems, psychic prisons, ﬂux and transformation, and
instruments of domination. Morgan introduces the term “irnaginization” to break away
ﬁom a mechanistic view of organizations.

He observes that ‘ﬁive organize as we imaginize; and it is always possible to
imaginize in many different ways” (Morgan, 19, p. 343). One view of organizations
would be to see them as inanimate; another is to see them as “living.” I choose to view
organizations as living because of the life that they contain (emanating ﬁom the individuals

who populate them) and the synergies they create as they adapt to changes. If one

21

imagines them as living, one can also imagine them learning.

Communig College Leaders

Community college leaders are those assigned or who have chosen to accept
responsibility for implementing strategic directions of the college.

Most identiﬁed as leaders for this research would be members of the president’s
cabinet and would represent functions indicated by the following representative titles:
Dean of Faculty, Dean or Vice President of Instruction, and Dean or Vice President of
Student Services. Others may be acknowledged or elected leaders, such as the chair of
the faculty senate; chair of strategic planning; chair of the curriculum committee; chair of
quality improvement; or other pertinent titles. Others may simply be viewed as the
campus elders, the individuals who enjoy high levels of respect and possess great power
but who may have no oﬁcial role. The key people will vary from one campus to another
but would include individuals expected to be knowledgeable of the college’s processes to
become a more learning-centered institution and have responsibilities (oﬁcial or
unoﬁicial) for realizing the vision.

Lang:

Change is becoming or believing something differentﬁom what presently
exists or is believed, reﬂecting the view that not all change is observable.

Change is one of the themes that dominates both the education and business
literatures. There are many theories of how change occurs. The literature review is
primarily restricted to understanding the change which results from learning rather than
outlining particular change strategies, since organizational learning is the conceptual

framework of this research. This research is designed to study a particular type of change

22

strategy, the change to create a more learning-centered college. Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary (1997) deﬁnes change in these ways: “to make diﬂ‘erent in some
particular,” and “to give a diﬂ‘erent position, course, or direction to” (p. 190). Despite the
broad treatment of the change topic in organizational literature, few deﬁnitions of the
word exist for that context.

Describing organizational change, rather than just change, Elsner cites Senge who
writes that change is “fast forwarding organizational evolution” (Elsner citing Senge in
O’Banion, 1997, p. 179). This distinction may be important, since it suggests a process
that moves more rapidly as a consequence of interventions but also could be interpreted to
mean that this is a direction the organization would evolve toward more gradually. It is
not likely that all evolution would necessarily move in the direction of particular change

efforts.

 

Even in the Bﬂard Business Review on Ch_a_ng§, no deﬁnition is provided. Many
examples of change strategies, successes, and failures are offered. The authors observe
that “Managers groping about for a more fundamental shift in their organizations’
capabilities must realize that change programs treat symptoms, not underlying conditions.
These companies do not need to improve themselves; they need to reinvent themselves”
(Goss, Pascale, & Athos, 1991, p. 85). Argyris would argue that the reason change does
not happen is because of the defensive routines that are operational in organizations.
Other views of change will be addressed brieﬂy in Chapter 2.

Although not all change needs to be dramatic, the evidence suggests that the shift

toward a more learning-centered college may reﬂect a need for reinvention. Change can

23

exist at many different levels for many different issues. Although this study addresses the
change toward becoming a more learning-centered college, there are likely to be some
general characteristics of change which will aid in our understanding of this particular
change topic. Organizational learning may serve as a way to consider underlying
conditions, not just symptoms.

m

Premises are fundamental assumptions or beliefs about a particular topic that
are accepted as “givens ” in a particular context.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary deﬁnes a premise in this way:

n. 1 a) a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument

or inference; lb) something assumed or taken for granted: presupposition; 2)

matters previously stated (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth

edition, 199 7, p. 920)

In the context of this research, the premises will include both the theories or
strategies which will be used to analyze the case and those which underlie leaders’ theories
or actions. Findings will be interpreted through premises or contemporary theories of
organizational learning and related constructs. Depending upon the particular model,
concepts of organizational learning span many organizational processes: leadership,
operations, communications, technology, and more. Although researchers may challenge
the premises of organizational learning, for example, it is not the purpose of this research
to assess the literature of organizational learning. Rather, the presently accepted
principles will simply be used to understand the strategies. If the premises are

subsequently rejected, the interpretations of this research would also necessarily need to

be reviewed.

24

Delimitations and Limitations of the Studv

The study is limited to members of the leadership group in one community college.
The concept of generalizability of this study through case-to-case transfer will be explored
in Chapter 3. The particular informants preclude an ability to generalize the ﬁndings to
other organizational actors, such as other faculty or professional staﬁ‘ in the organization.
This study has restricted its consideration to a leadership group, who most writers
acknowledge are key players. Consequently, the resulting descriptions can only apply to
those whose views were heard. “Where you stand aﬁ‘ects what you see," according to
authors Cameron and Whetten (Cameron & Whetten, 1996, p. 277). We will see what the
identiﬁed leaders see, and what they see may be quite diﬁ‘erent from what another group in
the same organization at the same time may see.

It is also possible that the experience of this one college’s leadership is substantially
different from other colleges’ experiences. The description and analyses may apply only to
the perspectives gained from this group of individuals during the research period. A
detailed description of the case should enable others to determine whether they could
apply the ﬁndings.

Additionally, because context plays a critical role in analyzing any situation, and
because contexts change regularly, another researcher may ﬁnd another set of models,
premises, and/or strategies in evidence among the same participants at another time. It is
possrble that a replication of this study in the same college, either with a similar group or a
different one, could produce diﬁ‘erent results.

Perhaps the most signiﬁcant limitation of the study is that it will not examine the

25

 

 

 

actualization of organizational learning or of the learning-centered college. The view will
be conﬁned to the views espoused by the informants and interpreted by the researcher. It
is well documented in the literature that espoused theories do not always match theories-
in-use. Further, whether the theories in use, even if espoused, are effective in creating the
desired changes is a major consideration for those who would replicate the strategies. It is
beyond the scope of this research to either conﬁrm the theories-in-use or evaluate the
impacts.

Finally, the complex nature of the organizational learning literature is another
limiting factor. The literatures of the learning organization and of organizational learning
are overlapping, yet some attempt to make distinctions between the two. More often,
writers treat the terms synonymously. Complicating the research question further is the
nature of the change strategy that is being investigated, the notion of creating a more
learning-centered college. Although the literature of the learning-centered college is
generally separate from the previous two, there are also several overlapping
characteristics. Some authors introduce the concepts of a learning organization when
explaining a learning-centered college. Although care has been exercised in attempting to
distinguish among these closely related concepts, the fact that the literature is so
overiapping precludes any ability to adequately differentiate. As these concepts are
studied more, a clearer picture should emerge.

Researcher’s Interest
My interest in the topic of organizational learning in a community college stems ﬁ'om

multiple interests and experiences. Over many years of working in one community

26

college, I have had the opportunity to observe a number of leadership “teams” and change
strategies. I have frequently been a member of task forces and leadership groups
commissioned to initiate signiﬁcant organizational change. Although varying levels of
success have been achieved, it is clear that most of the changes are either short-lived or
not as transforming as planned. Consequently, with each new strategic plan or
adnrinistrative change, changes are often undone and new initiatives are only partially
realized. One must wonder how much greater the capacity and performance might be if
the organization had more consistently moved in strategic directions and whether learning
capacity has been adequately developed to meet ﬁrture challenges. Every individual
engaged in college leadership should be asking this question.

Organizations exist to fulﬁll one or more purposes. In business, the purpose is often
very clear. In higher education, the purposes are oﬁen less clear, but they are even more
important. As among the most skillﬁrl knowledge acquirers and generators, professional
educators have the potential to become among the most effective at achieving any goals to
which they are committed. Whether they will is still an open question. For me,
organizational learning presents one important hope for building the capacity we need to

fulﬁll the missions we share.

27

Chapter 2 - Views from the Literature
In fact, I would argue that the rate at which individuals and organizations
learn may become the only sustainable competitive advantage, especially
in knowledge-intensive industries. " (Stata, 1996, p. 318)
M3121!

Fundamental challenges face colleges as they strive to become more leaming-
centered. As outlined in Chapter 1, major changes must occur if community colleges are
to achieve the ideal espoused by a learning-centered philosophy. Yet, few educational
reform efforts have resulted in major changes to the core activities of the institution
(Elmore, 1996; Alfred & Carter, 1999). Amey reports that some community college
writers “agree that the primary leadership task for community college presidents during
the maturity phase is to establish a basis upon which organizational renewal can occur”
(Amey, 1992, p. 140). The literature is extensive in documenting the need for change and
most hold leaders accountable for the required changes.

This chapter will provide additional insight to the types of changes writers envision
for more learning-centered organizations and set the stage for a study that will explore
how community college leaders are conceiving the change process. Although many
authors observe that change is greatly inﬂuenced by the actions of leaders, others believe it
results ﬁ'om grass-roots activities while still others argue for a new view of leadership,
where “leadership is what leaders and followers do together for the collective good.
Leaders operate in a shared-power environment with followers” (Brungardt, 1998, p. 7).
Regardless of which view one holds, most recognize that the change process is not easy

and is frequently thwarted. The need for substantive change and the diﬁiculty of achieving

28

change create tension in colleges.

My perspective is that it is a combination of the behaviors of the many actors of the
organization, in concert with the actions of leaders, that predisposes an organization to its
prospects for change. A major assumption underlying this research is that organizational
learning is a strategy that can be implemented for promoting positive change. A major
theme in today’s organizational literature suggests that the extent of organizational
learning evidenced within a group is a major predictor of its capacity for change. This is
one of the many places where the literature confuses as much as it explains, because not
only is organizational learning conceived as a source of change—indeed even a
precondition for—but it may also be the target of change, as individuals attempt to
inﬂuence (change) the organization’s learning so that other changes can proceed. This
conundrum is one of many perplexing aspects of the intertwined literatures of the learning
genre. Just as communicators are urged to understand their audience before crafting a
message, so should organizational leaders understand the organization before developing
strategies. Understanding the organization suggests a need to understand how the
organization learns.

Many community college leaders are “crafting strategy” for becoming more leaming-
centered organizations. Rather than a rational, objective process, Mintzberg describes
strategy as a craft. Mintzberg observes that strategy reﬂects

involvement, a feeling of intimacy and harmony with the materials at hand,

developed through long experience and commitment. Formulation and

implementation merge into a ﬂuid process of learning through which creative
strategies evolve. (Mintzberg, 1994, p. 110)

29

Some who study strategy characterize it mechanistically, but Mintzberg’s
characterization suits the perspective of this study because it relates strategy to a process
of learning. Mintzberg’s descriptors convey a feeling similar to the views of Donald
Schon who writes about professionals’ development of reﬂective practice (Schon, 1983).
Strategies and practice are the essence of leaders’ actions in their respective roles, and
these concepts are closely associated with learning in a variety of forms. Many who have
analyzed business organizations have identiﬁed characteristics of organizational learning,
but no studies have been identiﬁed that seek to understand this dynamic in a community
college context.

The characteristics of a college are substantially different ﬁ'om those of a business
enterprise, and leaders enjoy very different roles, so it is unknown whether tenets of
organizational learning can be applied effectively in a higher education context. The goal
to become more learning-centered suggests that learning would be a ﬁrndamental strategy
for transformation, yet there is little evidence to suggest that organizational learning
strategies are being used. Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest that organizational
learning is not a major strategy, because there is simply no published evidence concerning
this question. Although there is an extensive literature on professional development
programs for staﬁ‘, staﬂ’ development and organizational learning are very diﬁ‘erent
concepts. In the absence of research about the application of organizational learning
principles in a higher education context, we are unable to intelligently speculate
concerning its ultimate potential for enhancing organizational capacity or creating more

effective organizations. The reader should note that this construct additionally uses

30

organizational learning as both means and ends, as we talk about applying organizational
learning principles and its potential for enhancing organizational capacity, concepts that
speak to means or methods by which change may be realized. The end is suggested by
reference to the promotion of organizational learning. The conundrum addressed above,
that organizational learning may be both the source and the target, continues to
complicate. Before we will know how to craft interventions to promote organizational
learning, we must ﬁrst understand how leaders are going about the change process and the
organization’s learning proﬁle.

Introduction to Literature Review

This literature review will establish the framework for the research study. It will
begin by analyzing current community college contexts and the imperatives for change
toward becoming more learning centered. Next the concepts of a learning paradigm and a
learning-centered college will be introduced. The narrative will then outline the premises
of the closely related literatures of the learning organization and organizational learning
and contrast them to the learning-centered college literature. This reﬂective, relative
relationship among these literatures may be one explanation of why achieving a learning
culture within an organization is so diﬁcult. The concepts lack some distinctive focus.

A review of the types of learning that may be integral to an organizational learning
perspective will also be provided. An assumption underlying my rationale is that
organizational learning is an eﬁ‘ective change strategy, a belief that is well supported in the
business literature. Although the assumption is that organizational learning is an effective

change strategy, it is acknowledged that little evidence exists to support this assumption in

31

a collegiate environment. Nevertheless, it is believed that change occurs as a result of
learning.

Leaders’ strategies will be examined from the conceptual framework of
organizational learning, a stream of the organizational development literature.
Organizational learning is more closely aligned with the business change and management
literature than with traditional higher education writing. The organizational learning
literature is more likely to result from the work of scholars while the writings about the
learning organization are more frequently offered by business practitioners. These two
concepts are intertwined throughout the literature; in some scholars’ works the terms are
used almost interchangeably. Others distinguish between these concepts in ways
signiﬁcant to this research problem.

To understand the complex phenomena of a community college and create a
reasonable response to the research question requires that the study draw ﬁom several
literature streams, including theories of learning, organizational learning, the learning
organization, leadership, teamwork, collaboration, culture, and community colleges. The
goal to become a more “learning-centered college” will require ﬁrndamental new ways of
thinking about the organization, its purposes, its reward structures, its culture, and more.
It will require signiﬁcant learning. Fundamental or transformative changes are not
achieved utilizing the knowledge from a single lens or discipline; it will require multiple
perspectives and novel approaches. Likewise, understanding the change and learning
process in a community college must also draw from multiple disciplines.

The learning-centered college, the learning college, and the learning paradigm

32

A

literature emerge ﬁ'om the higher education change literature. The learning college
literature is almost exclusively used in the context of community colleges. In contrast, the
organizational learning and learning organization literatures emerge from the
organizational development literature and are closely aligned with business change
literature. Although a few writers are linking the two broad ﬁelds (organizational
learning/learning organization and learning college/leaming—centered college/learning
paradigm), there are differences between them, which will be explained later.

The ﬁnal sections in the literature review will provide synopses of teams, leadership,
action learning, collaboration, change, and innovation. Although a comprehensive review
of the learning and change literature could extend for hundreds of pages, it is important to
place organizational learning in the broader context of learning to understand how
“learning” is understood in this study as well as how it contributes to organizational
dynamics and individual behaviors. Appendix K includes a summary of types of learning.

The Development of Comqu Colleges

Some trace community colleges’ roots to the late 18005 with the 1862 and 1890
passages of the Morrill Acts which established land-grant institutions, the ﬁrst national
efforts to extend opportunities for higher education beyond its traditional borders (AACC,
1999). The philosophies represented by the land-grant institutions, particularly access, are
largely carried out by many community colleges today.

In 1922, at the second meeting of the American Association of Junior Colleges, an
organization which continues today as the American Association of Community Colleges

(AACC), the following deﬁnition of a junior college was adopted: “The junior college is

33

 

an institution offering two years of instruction of strictly collegiate grade” (Bogue, 1950,
p. xvii, cited in Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p. 4). This deﬁnition was revised in 1925.

The junior college may, and is likely to, develop a diﬁ’erent type of curriculum suited

to the larger and ever-changing civic, social, religious, and vocational needs of the

entire community in which the college is located. (Bogue, 1950, p. xvii, cited in

Cohen & Brawer, 1996, p.4)

Community colleges have developed in varying directions, generally aligning with
the “ever-changing . . . needs of their communities” (Bogue, 1950, p. xvii, cited in Cohen
& Brawer, 1996, p.4). Although referred to by different names, the following generally
reﬂect the purposes of community colleges: developmental education, transfer education,
career education, community services, business and industry training, cultural
programming, and student support services (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Cohen, 1994).

The Qommggty’ College Model

Evolving at a time when Taylorism, scientiﬁc management, and industrial automation
and their inherent emphases upon efﬁciencies were prominent, a mass-production
mentality emerged within many community colleges. A glance at a policies manual in
many community colleges, at least until recent years, will provide evidence of the rules-
irrtensive nature of educational organizations. Although considered more agile than many
segments of higher education, community colleges’ ability to change is of growing
concern to many (Alfred, 1984; Carter & Alfred, 1996; Moskus, 1999).

Community colleges, like other segments of public higher education, could be

classiﬁed as “professional bureaucracies.” In describing these, Bolrnan and Deal write that

“professional bureaucracies are ﬂat, decentralized structures; control is provided mainly by

34

the professional indoctrination of their members” (Bolman & Deal, 1991, p. 88). They
insulate “key players,” primarily faculty or other professional staff, from interference,
which results in diﬁiculties coordinating and assuring quality control. In describing the
result of this model, the authors write,

Professional bureaucracies often respond slowly to changes in the environment.

Multiple waves of reforms and reformers have tried with little success over several

decades to reform and restructure public schools. . . the autonomy and adaptability

of the professional make it very hard for the organization to make systematic
changes. Professional bureaucracies rarely succeed when they try to standardize the
performance of those in the operating core. (Mintzberg, 1979, cited in Bolrnan and

Deal, 1991, p. 88)

As professional bureaucracies, strategies that are perceived by the professionals as
attempts to standardize or further bureaucratize will be met with great resistance.

Faculty generally consider that they work in a collegial culture, but the meaning of
collegial has different meanings. Bergquist writes that the collegial “culture encourages
diversity of perspective and relative autonomy of work” (Bergquist, 1992, p. 17).
Another perspective on collegiality is an environment that is ﬁiendly, supportive,
encouraging, and sharing.

A collegial style is likely to be more compatible with the tenets of organizational
learning, yet no deﬁnition of style is likely to adequately describe the dynamic complexity
of collegiate organizations. In one study of public school restructuring (Peterson,
McCarthey, and Elmore, 1996), collegial style was thought to contribute to a number of
positive characteristics considered to be important in enhancing a learning culture. This

belief could similarly exist in a higher education context; namely, that learning is more

likely to occur in a collegial environment. This study reported,

35

Lakeview staff members had come to believe that it was essential to provide a

supportive, collegial environment because it would promote risk-taking and personal

growth for both students and teachers. Teachers' self-esteem, nurtured by a

supportive school setting, would then result in the provision of a safe environment

where students could take risks in their own learning. (Peterson et al., 1996, p. 28)

Faculty, staﬁ‘, administrators, and students in organizations may hold diﬁ‘ering views
of the college organization. This paradox may exist because the lens ﬁom which each
views the organization is different. These different points of view must be reconciled by
organizations, since they challenge the organization’s ability to develop shared vision,
common goals, and the shared beliefs important for becoming more learning-centered.
The business literature on alignment would support this view, as authors contend that all
systems and the culture of the organization must be focused on “the main thing” (Labovitz
and Rosansky, 1998).

Jerry Moskus, president of Lane Community College, a League for Innovation
member, describes the phenomena of differing views with the metaphor of eagles and
moles, where eagles (administrators) may have a broader view but lack the indepth
understanding of internal functions, which are also vitally important for the organization.
He argues for the value of each in the organization and suggests that what we need are
burrowing eagles and soaring moles (Moskus, 1999, p.2). Moskus believes that learning
is the value around which leaders can engender others’ commitment. Consequently,
becoming a more learning-centered college has great potential to gain consensus.

Bureaucratic characteristics run counter to the prevailing view of a learning-centered

institution or a place where organizational learning is rich. Ifthe change toward a

learning-centered institution is to be achieved, community colleges must move beyond

36

their bureaucratic origins and exhibit characteristics more closely aligned with the collegial
style and with the characteristics of a learning organization. Describing the learning
organization, Marquardt observes: “This rich adaptable culture creates integrated
relationships and enhances learning by encouraging values such as teamwork, self-
management, empowerment, and sharing. It is the opposite of a closed, rigid, bureaucratic
architecture” (Marquardt, 1996, p. 24).
The calls for change in higher education, well documented throughout the higher
education literature, demand a break from the traditional. At the same time, the strategies
employed to achieve these ends may not result in moving the organization toward its
desired ends. Many faculty believe that the current emphases on accountability,
assessment, and standards will in fact reinforce the bureaucratic foundations of the
enterprise.
Transformation of the colleges will take more than cultivating a different style.
Many authors contend that what is needed is nothing short of a paradigm shift - a
fundamental shift in philosophy as contrasted with a piecemeal approach to change.
Strategies will need to be more effective than historic eﬁ‘orts have realized.
W

Two who study community colleges extensively, Richard Alfred and Patricia Carter,
observe that restructuring eﬁ'orts in most colleges have been superﬁcial, keeping the
prevailing structure in place while changing a few titles (Alﬁ'ed & Carter, 1999).
Structure is reported to inﬂuence strategy. Most who write about change address some

aspect of structure as important to consider (Beer et a1, 1990). Given that structure

37

inﬂuences strategy and that change is difﬁcult to achieve, it would be reasonable to
conclude that changing the organization structure could result in positive strategic
outcomes. Yet, structures rarely change. Elmore, summarizing other writers, observes,
“A continual dilemma in research on school change is that, although schools are constantly
engaging in activities designed to effect change in response to external pressures, they
seldom change their essential patterns of organization” (Elmore, 1991). He contends that
the reward structures preclude having change reach the core processes of the organization
(Elmore, 1996) and offers suggestions for how large-scale change that inﬂuences schools’
core missions could be implemented. Among his suggestions is one that talks about
structure in a way diﬁ‘erent from the typical restructuring literature. He suggests that
opportunities for interactions must be created, such as smaller units within larger
organizations, and he oﬁ‘ers this view,
Certain types of structures are more likely than others to intensify and focus norms
of good practice-organizations in which face-to-face relationships dominate
impersonal, bureaucratic ones; organizations in which people routinely interact
around common problems of practice; and organizations that focus on the results of
their work for students rather than on the working conditions of professionals.
(Elmore, 1996, p. 320)
This view of the school that would move educational reforms toward scale is consistent
with some of the identiﬁed characteristics of organizations that are adept at learning. One
theme that permeates the organizational learning literature is the need for open

communications, and Elrnore’s view also reinforces the importance of focusing on the

core mission of the school, “the results of their work for students” (Elmore, 1996, p. 320).

38

Learning Paradigm

The literature about a learning orientation in education is extensive, and it takes
many forms, including learning paradigms, learning-centered colleges, and learning
colleges. The education literature also introduces learning climate, learning culture,
learning environment, and even learning revolution. The meanings of these many terms
overlap both in the literature and in the common understandings among higher education
practitioners. Only those few central to this research will be reviewed.

Although the learning paradigm, including the use of the term paradigm, seems to be
a fairly recent phenomena, its roots can be traced back to the last turn of a century with an
1899 book by John Dewey called The School and Society. In this book, Dewey suggests
that the center of gravity in education shift back to the child and his/her “natural impulses
to conversation, to inquiry, to construction, and to expression” (Cremin, 1961, cited in
Elmore, 1996, p. 303). Dewey’s work also introduced the concept of individualizing
instruction to meet learner needs. Dewey’s views are highly consistent with the concepts
of the learning paradigm.

There are only subtle diﬁ‘erences in the concepts of a learning paradigm, a learning-
centered college, or a learning college, as they are explained in the literature. In general,
the ﬁrst, a learning paradigm, could be considered a point of view, a philosophy, or a way
of viewing the world. The second, a learning-centered college, is descriptive of the
preferred overall practice of the organization, even if this practice is diﬁicult to discern.
Based on what has (or has not) been written about colleges’ progress, the expression of

Michael Hammer seems pertinent: ”Slogans and speeches do not a learning organization

39

make. Explicit policies and processes do” (Hammer, 1997). A learning college projects a
picture of having achieved the preferred practice of learner- or learning-centeredness. Not
one of these terms exactly captures the process of becoming, which the theories of
organizational learning presume to do.

The learning-paradigm literature stems most prominently from an article by Robert
Barr and John Tagg published in Me magazine in November/December 1995. These
authors contrast the current instruction paradigm with the learning paradigm in this way,
“We now see that our mission is not instruction but rather that of producing learning with
every student by whatever means work best” (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 13).

Barr and Tagg also make a case for organizational learning, although they do not
name it this. They suggest that “. . . the Learning Paradigm envisions the institution itself
as a learner—over time, it continuously learns how to produce more learning with each
graduating class, each entering student” (Barr & Tagg, 1995, p. 14). It is important to
note, however, that even the organization’s learning is framed ﬁ'om the view of what it can
contribute to each student learner. The learning paradigm focuses little attention on the
needs of the staff of the organization and their collective work except to the extent that
these are translated into learning gains for students.

The authors note that reform efforts have failed over the years because of a
piecemeal approach to issues from within the Instruction Paradigm and with a governance
structure which precludes a fundamentally different way of thinking. Barr and Tagg
approach the organizational learning perspective again in their observation that institutions

exhibit the behaviors described by Argyris in espousing one theory while practicing

40

another (espoused theories vs. theories-in-use).

The need for a vision, as expressed in change strategies and in becoming a learning
organization, is also considered to be important in a higher education context. Not only
do Barr and Tagg offer this view, but the importance of mission and vision is supported by
others who write about learning- or learner-centered colleges:

Lacking such a vision, we've witnessed reformers advocate many of the new

paradigm's elements over the years, only to see few of them widely adopted. The

reason is that they have been applied piecemeal within the structures of a dominant

paradigm that rejects or distorts them. (Barr and Tagg,]995, p. 14)

The authors note that it is the lack of vision and the prevailing paradigm that have
precluded widespread adoption of some of the learning paradigrn’s elements. They do not
use the terminology of the learning organization literature, such as a systems perspective,
but the notation concerning a piecemeal approach suggests this.

Barr and Tagg note the importance of placing the learner at the center of the
learning process and establishing the learner as a constructor of his/her knowledge,
another description that suggests both a systems view and a constructivist philosophy.
Once more, the authors stop short of introducing any of the business literature to explain
their theories. It is not clear whether this was because of their lack of familiarity with
them, the concern that educators would not receive them well, or whether space simply
precluded their inclusion. However, it is striking that the business literature which has
terms for much of what Barr, Tagg, and Boggs write about is conspicuously absent from

the articles while the themes are central. The overriding theme of the popular Barr and

Tagg article is a focus on achieving ever higher learning outcomes for traditional learners,

41

the students.

Describing his view of the learning paradigm, George Boggs, former president of
Palomar College, the home institution of Barr and Tagg, and currently the executive
director of the American Association of Community Colleges, writes that “students are
more in control of their own learning, oﬁen learning from peers in small groups.
Information is more widely available” (Boggs, 1999). Boggs’ image of the learning
paradigm, in this article written a few years later, is also highly focused on students and
does not speak of the learning of others in the organization. He believes that the focus of
the learning paradigm is primarily at the institutional (or organizational) level, rather than
the individual faculty level. He contends that it was the difﬁculties encountered by
teaching faculty to implement new ideas that led to the emergence of this paradigm. In
elaborating his views, he explains that everyone in the organization is responsible for
student learning and that employees’ roles must not be limited to their traditional
descriptions.

He fails to pick up on the theme introduced by Barr and Tagg, that shifting to a
learning paradigm requires a fundamental structural and/or philosophical shiﬁ. He does
note that “faculty members will be essential in the transformation of colleges and
universities to become more learning centered (emphasis added)” (Boggs, 1999, p. 3).
Despite the fact that the publication from which this abstract is drawn is primarily targeted
toward faculty, it is still disappointing that the author has not more adequately addressed
the transformation to which he refers, if he believes that the learning paradigm is more

about institutional-level changes than faculty changes. He only approaches this

42

institutional level by addressing the particular role of the faculty “to take the lead in
identifying learning outcomes for students and developing ways to ensure that graduates
achieve those outcomes” (Boggs, 1999). Boggs adds no additional insights to how the
learning paradigm will be achieved but does support Barr and Tagg by placing the learner
at the center of the paradigm.
LeamingZLearner-Centered College_s

Complimenting this view of the learning paradigm are the 1995-1998 writings of
Terry O’Banion, who appears to have coined the terms “learning college” and “learning
revolution.” O’Banion has published several monographs and articles plus a book entitled
A Leerning College for the 21" Century. O’Banion describes a learning college primarily
by offering six key principles that guide learning colleges:

- The learning college creates substantive change in individual learners.

- The learning college engages learners as ﬁrll partners in the learning process, with

learners assuming primary responsibility for their own choices.

0 The learning college creates and offers as many options for learning as possible.

- The learning college assists learners to form and participate in collaborative

learning activities.

a The learning college deﬁnes the roles of learning facilitators by the needs of the

learners.

- The learning college and its learning facilitators succeed only when improved and

expanded learning can be documented for its learners. (O’Banion, 1997, p. 47)

O’Banion focuses less on how the organization needs to change than on its
orientation toward students. He builds some of his rationale for the shift to a learning
college on the 1993 work of the Wingspread Group, The American Imperative. This

report calls for “redesign of our learning systems” and offers this advice about the

implications of this imperative: “Putting learning at the heart of the academic enterprise

43

will mean overhauling the conceptual, procedural, curricular, and other architecture of
postsecondary education on most campuses” (Wingspread Group, 1993, p. 14). The
Wingspread Group’s report encourages not only a paradigm shift, but also refers to
structural issues.

O’Banion writes that “this new wave of reform is not tweaking a system to ﬁx a few
broken parts; it is a fundamental overhaul, destruction of much that is traditional and
construction of much that is new” (O’Banion, 1997, p. xiv). Although one of O’Banion’s
guiding principles concerns the role of learning facilitators, he provides minimal guidance
concerning how this might be achieved.

The learning-college mandate suggests a need for ﬁrndamental rethinking and new
ways of behaving, consistent with generative learning theories. Although O’Banion and
other writers (Perelman, 1992; McClenney, 1998; Dolence & Norris, 1995) offer this
challenge, they do little to explore or exanrine the ways in which colleges are attempting to
achieve the desired ends. Several years into the “revolution,” it seems timely to examine
the strategies of leaders for effecting the desired changes.

Most of O’Banion’s principles appear related most directly to the learning of those
traditionally deﬁned as students in the college. O’Banion’s principles hint at changes in
the roles of learning facilitators, but they do not speciﬁcally address the staff‘s needs for
learning and even more critically their need for collaborative learning, for teamwork, and
for “crafting strategy.”

In summary, those who are writing about learner- and learning-centered colleges or

learning colleges are highly consistent in their messages. They place the learner at the

44

center of the universe (the college) as the person most important in the learning process.
They encourage collaboration and communication among faculty members and
administrators as well as among students. They note the importance of leadership and
suggest new roles for faculty members. They emphasize the importance of mission focus,
a vision, and/or values. They highlight process, with some mentioning the value of
continuous quality improvement as a strategy. They promote individualizing more,
through breaking the barriers of time, role, place, and other structural characteristics that
hamper the college’s ability to serve individuals. And importantly, all note that to become
thus will require major changes from the status quo. At the same time, there are many
gaps. Little is known about the strategies for becoming more learning-centered
organizations. Although much emphasis is placed on becoming more learning-centered in
many colleges, little is known about the conceptual frameworks from which these change
processes are being executed. We turn next to the process of learning in the organization,
the central theme of this inquiry.
Organizational Learning

Life is too complex and eﬂective action too contextual. Real learning - the

development of new capabilities - occurs over time, in a continuous cycle of

theoretical action and practical conceptualization . . . The impatient quest for

improvements all too often results in superﬁcial changes that leave deeper

problems untouched Herein lies a core leadership paradox: Action is

critical, but the action we need can spring only from a reﬂective territory that

includes not only cognition but body, emotions, and spirit as well. moﬁnan

and Senge, 1993, p. 7)
Taking a spiritual view of organizational learning and the learning organization, Koﬁnan

and Senge remind readers that rather than changing only in response to outside forces, the

45

‘Vvellspring of real learning is aspiration, imagination, and experimentation" (Koﬁnan and
Senge, 1993, p. 9).

Other writers take a more pragmatic view of organizational learning. This section
will describe the views of some prominent writers concerning organizational learning. In
an article describing DiBella and associates’ views, the authors write, “We deﬁne
organizational learning as the capacity or processes within an organization to maintain or
improve performance based on experience. Learning is a systems-level phenomenon
because it stays within the organization, even if individuals change” (Nevis, DiBella, &
Gould, 1997).

Although a working deﬁnition of organizational learning is provided in Chapter 1,
this deﬁnition adds a perspective useful for thinking about organizational learning in a
college context. The emphases upon capacity, processes, performance, experience,
phenomena, systems, and individuals create an encompassing view of the concept of
organizational learning. At a time when large numbers of public educators are expected to
retire in the next several years, the organization’s capacity for sustaining its vitality “even
if individuals change” is a critical consideration for leaders.

The literatures about organizational learning and the learning organization are
intertwined. Most who write about one also oﬁ‘er observations on the other. In some
writers’ worlg there is a shifting from an explanation of one to the other within the same
paragraph, which makes distinguishing which is being referenced diﬁcult to discern. Many
of the writers fail to adequately distinguish between the two concepts. One of the clearest

distinctions between organizational learning and the learning organization is oﬁ‘ered by

46

Marquardt:

It is important to note the difference between the terms learning organization and

organizational learning. In discussing learning organizations, we are focusing on

the what, and describing the systems, principles, and characteristic of organizations
that learn and produce as a collective entity. Organizational learning, on the other
hand, refers to how organizational learning occurs, i.e. the skills and processes of
building and utilizing knowledge. Organizational learning as such is just one

dimension or element of a learning organization. (Marquardt, 1996, p. 19)
Although clarifying his view of the relationship of these two terms, it is one inconsistent
with my interpretation of the literature. Rather than a subset of the learning organization,
one element as Marquardt refers to it, I see organizational learning as the broader term
that personiﬁes the meaning of a learning organization. Organizational learning is the
continuing process of becoming something different, including a journey toward a learning
organization, as well as a process for achieving other agendas. In my view, the learning
organization is just one of many possible outcomes of organizational learning.

DiBella and Nevis also write that these two concepts are often used
interchangeably, “because organizational learning applies to several levels of analysis:
individuals learn, teams learn, and companies learn” (DiBella & Nevis, p. 7).

The distinction that is utilized in this research is that the learning organization is
about the product, and organizational learning is about process. Some writers contend
that the learning organization is an ideal state which may never be achieved. Certainly it is
possrble that a learning-centered college may also not be achieved.

This research is more concerned with the journey, the process of organizational

learning, than the destination, the learning organization or the learning-centered college.

The inquiry begins by focusing on the strategies being used to move toward the

47

destination of a more learning-centered college. This process perspective may arise from a
personal belief in continuous quality improvement processes in general and the belief that
continued viability of individuals and organizations will be dependent upon being in a
continuing growth mode. The “permanent white water” (Vaill, 1996) of our times has
reinforced the need for more adaptive, more capable organizations. Consequently, the
concept of organizational learning is gaining immense interest among business leaders and
academicians. The following passage summarizes this imperative:

(There is a). . .need to adapt to changing environments, draw lessons from past

successes and failures, detect and correct the errors of the past, anticipate and

respond to impending threats, conduct experiments, engage in continuing innovation,
build and realize images of a desirable ﬁrture. There is virtual consensus that we are
all subject to a "learning imperative," and in the academic as well as the practical
world, organizational learning has become an idea in good currency. (Argyris &

Schon, 1996, p. xvii)

Organizational learning is an idea “in good currency,” and learning imperatives abound,
from the Student Learning Imperative of the American College Personnel Association
(ACPA) to The Amm'can Imperative challenges of the Vlfrngspread Group.

In contrast with the relatively recent literature about learning-centered colleges, the
organizational learning literature is well established. The ﬁrst references identiﬁed are
from the early 19703 and evolve from the work of Chris Argyris, who is noted for his
extensive work in this area . A forerunner to the organizational literature is the action
learning research of Reg Revans, which will be introduced later. The focus of the
organizational learning literature is substantially diﬁ‘erent ﬁ'om the learning-centered

college literature. Rather than focusing on the development of individual learners,

organizational learning focuses on the organization’s process of developing collective

48

capacity. Various authors characterize it as identifying and correcting errors,
conceptualizing new ways of acting, and/or increasing organizational performance on
measures that matter to the organization. The organizational learning literature is
concerned with understanding how individuals’ actions contribute to enhanced
organizational performance.

Argyris notes that few organizations have changed, despite multiple change
programs. The literature is united in the perspective that “the more effective organizations
are at learning the more likely they will be at being innovative or knowing the limits of
their innovation” (Argyris, 1992, p. 1). Some contend that unless organizations become
skillful at learning, their very survival is at risk. Marquardt says that the concept of
survival of the ﬁttest is being replaced by an urgency concerning the “survival of the
ﬁttest-to-learn” (Marquardt, 1996, p. 1).

Although the literature of organizational learning has a different focus than the
learning-centered college literature, the themes or characteristics are very similar. The
same characteristics are also found within the learning organization literature. All three
streams address the characteristics of leadership and roles of leaders; teams or
collaboration; mission, vision, and values; stakeholders and customers; processes; total
quality management or continuous quality improvement; decision-making; organizational
structure (from diﬁ‘erent views); communications and conversation; paradigms and mental
models; capability or capacity; change; systems thinking; culture and climate; and
measurement. Cutting broadly across the three literature bases are the themes of

leadership, communications and conversation; paradigms or mental models; systems

49

thinking; and culture or climate. The other characteristics are offered by some authors or
in only two of the three categories.

Two tables in the Appendices provide more detail concerning the particular views of
contemporary theorists in the areas of organizational learning, the learning organization,
and the learning-centered college. A review of these will demonstrate how conﬁrsed the
literatures are, since there are many overlapping dimensions; many writers address two of
these three general conceptual areas. The following table is provided to summarize the
topics that are commonly addressed as important in gaining an understanding of the three
major learning perspectives reviewed in this research.

Table 1: Factors Commonly Considered in the Literatures of Learning
Ogggnizations, Organizational Learning, and LearniniCentered Colleges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mission, Vision, and Values Leadership

Stakeholders and Customers Culture

Processes Roles of Leaders

Total Quality Management or Decision Making/Problem Solving
Continuous Quality Improvement Teams

Teams Collaboration

Organizational Structure Communications and Conversation
Paradigms, Perspectives, or Capacity or Capability

Mental Models

Change Systems Thinking or Systems View
Measurement Barriers

Alignment Community

Commitment Spirit/Reﬂection

Inquin

 

 

 

Table 1 should demonstrate how broadly these literatures range and how overlapping they

50

are with other organizational literature streams. Gaining a clear focus of one without
another is a research challenge. Separating these from the literatures, such as teamwork,
change, leadership, and systems, is impossible.

The learning cycle underlies the DiBella and Nevis model. Building on the work of
George Huber (1991), the authors “conceive of organizational learning as a series of three
processes: Knowledge Creation or Acquisition, Knowledge Dissemination, and
Knowledge Use (DiBella & Nevis, 1998, p. 28). By using the learning cycle as the
foundation, the authors set up the model of learning as a continuous process, similar to
continuous quality improvement processes. DiBella and Nevis propose methods for
determining an organization’s learning style. The descriptors comprising a learning style
are called learning orientations; they are non-evaluative, continuum-based descriptors.

Learning orientations. . . are the values and practices that reﬂect where learning

takes place and the nature of what is learned. These orientations form a pattern that

deﬁnes a given organization’s “learning style.” (Nevis, DiBella, and Gould, 1997, p.

5)

The seven deﬁned learning orientations are:

Table 2: Learning Orientations in DiBella/Nevis Organizational Learning Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orientation Approach (Continuum)
LO-l Knowledge Source Internal to External
LO-2 Content-Process Focus Content to Process
LO-3 Knowledge Reserve Personal to Public
LO-4 Dissemination Mode Formal to Informal
LO-S Learning Scope Incremental to Transformative
LO-6 Value—Chain Focus Design-Make to Market-Deliver
LO-7 Learning Focus Individual to Group

 

Source: DiBella and Nevis, 1998, p. 41

51

In this sense, learning orientations are descriptive factors that help us to understand
without making value judgments (Nevis, DiBella, & Gould, 1997). The learning
orientation factors are expressed along a continuum, which provides a relative
understanding of how the organization compares across dimensions, between units, or in
comparison to deﬁned ideals. With this information, leaders can initiate other actions to
shift the organizational learning style toward one more compatible with a changing
context. Although a style is neither good nor bad, it could be more or less appropriate or
effective in particular environments. Understanding the organizational context and the
demands placed upon the organization will continue to be an important challenge for
leaders.

“With an understanding of learning style, leaders can assess whether the style
appropriately suits the environmental conditions. If it is determined that one or more
orientations need to shift along the continuum, this knowledge could assist leaders to plan
strategies for shifting the style - a far easier challenge than shifting a culture. Many writers
espouse the view that cultures must change; changing learning styles may be less
challenging. Ultimately, shifting the learning orientations may result in changes in the
culture.

DiBella and Nevis’s research base includes primarily Fortune-type companies, such
as Motorola, Fiat Auto, Exxon Chemical, Paciﬁc Bell, etc. The fact that there is a
research base, and not just individuals’ opinions which much of the current learning
organization literature reﬂects, is a distinct advantage. The DiBella and Nevis model has

been applied in a health care context, but to date it has not been utilized in higher

52

education.

Many academicians resist the application of business models to collegiate settings.
In some cases, the concerns are well founded, such as the times when decisions are only
ﬁnancial bottom-line deliberations when the mission and the decisions facing a college may
be more complex. A bottom-line orientation in business may make perfect sense, because
businesses are in business to make a proﬁt. The scenario in higher education is less
explicit. This research should represent an early attempt to explore use of organizational
learning theories for analyzing higher education change strategies.

The DiBella and Nevis, Marquardt, and Senge views of organizational learning have
several overlapping dimensions. Most authors view organizational learning as a process
that should lead to improved performance and that should enhance the capacity of the
organization. Closely aligned with the work of Senge and DiBella/Nevis is research
conducted within companies by company insiders. One is Ray Stata of Analog Devices.
Another, Arie DeGeus of Shell Oil, a widely published organizational learning proponent,
participated in the New Management Style Project at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology where discussions of planning and learning occurred. Stata writes: “In an
even broader context, as I come to understand this concept more fully, I see
organizational learning as the principal process by which management innovation occurs”
(Stata, 1996, p. 318).

Stata attributes the potential for innovation to organizational learning and expresses
concern about the slowing rate of innovation. He recognizes the need for all to be learners

and observes that “organizations can learn only as fast as the slowest link learns. Change

53

is blocked unless all of the major decision makers learn together, come to share beliefs and
goals, and are committed to take the actions necessary for change” (Stata, 1996, p. 318).
Ifthe beneﬁts of organizational learning hold true for higher education, then innovation,
such as that designed to become more learning-centered colleges, will be more feasible if
organizational learning is enhanced.

Conceiving of organizations that learn is a diﬁicult concept. As structural rather
than human entities, organizations lack the capacity to learn in the traditional sense. When
individuals’ learning is used collectively for the organization, a higher level of learning
should be evidenced. In distinguishing among the different levels of learning, Marquardt
offers the following deﬁnitions:

Individual learning refers to the change of skills, insights, knowledge, attitudes, and
values acquired by a person through self-study, technology-based instruction,
insight, and observation.

Group or team learning alludes to the increase in knowledge, skills, and competency
which is accomplished by and within groups.

Organization learning represents the enhanced intellectual and productive capability
gained through corporatewide comnritrnent and opportunity for continuous
improvement. It differs ﬁom individual and group/team learning in two basic
respects. First, organizational learning occurs through the shared insights,
knowledge and mental models of members of the organization. Second,
organizational learning builds on past knowledge and experience--that is, on
organizational memory which depends on institutional mechanisms (e.g., policies,
strategies, and explicit models) used to retain knowledge. (Marquardt, 1996, p. 22)

Understanding these diﬁ‘erences is important in analyzing an organization’s learning
patterns. If shared insights do not exist, organizational learning does not exist. The major
distinction that can be made between group and organizational learning is the breadth or

scope of engagement. In general, organizational learning addresses the entire

54

organization, whereas group learning may be evident among a small number of individuals
within a unit. At the same time, some would describe organizational learning as
characteristic of a unit of an organization, such as the marketing department, rather than
expecting that it must extend to the corporate entity. My view is that a great number of
examples of individual learning will be evident in most, if not all, colleges; several
examples of group or team learning may be evident in many colleges; but few cases of
extensive organization or organizational learning will be apparent in community college
settings. Getting to scale with innovations of any type has been immensely difﬁcult to
achieve in collegiate contexts, and one possible explanation for this lag may be the lack of
proﬁciency with organizational learning.

Distinguishing among individual, group, and organizational learning is difﬁcult. At
the same time, because the organizational learning depends upon individual learning, we
must also attend to this level in our analyses. Argyris writes,

Organizations do not perform the actions that produce the learning. It is individuals

acting as agents of organizations who produce the behavior that leads to learning.

Organizations can create conditions that may signiﬁcantly inﬂuence what individuals

ﬂame as the problem, design as a solution, and produce as action to solve a problem.

Individuals, on the other hand, may also bring biases and constraints to the learning

situation that are relatively independent of the organization's requirements. (Argyris,

1992, p. 8)

The interdependence among individual, group, and organizational learning is tight.

Some authors (Dent, Goldberg, & Galloway, 1999) contend that the place to begin

the change process is not with the individuals but rather with the structure, the roles and

responsibilities of the actors and the environment within which they ﬁrnction. It is

important to note that structure in this instance does not equate to the hierarchy of

55

organizational structure but rather suggests concerns of culture and role expectations.
Much of the change in higher education has focused on realigning the boxes on the
organization chart rather than viewing structure as a concept that focuses on relationships
and context. The argument that change is a systems phenomena is important as we
consider organizational learning as a concept. Organizational learning is not about just
individuals or about leaders; it is about the interactions among several factors of the
organization. These factors are identiﬁed by many but are explicitly listed in the
DiBella/Nevis model. Most writers recognize the importance of the individual in the
equation, but not as the problem but rather as an organic component of the system.
Senge’s view, however, is not focused on ﬁxing the individual but rather on
examining the interactions between the individual and the organization. His mention of
“reciprocal commitments” and a “special spirit” convey a different feeling than one that
suggests ﬁxing the individual, or dealing with “resistance to change,” as some change
writers suggest.
Here, I am most interested in the connections between personal learning and
organizational learning, in the reciprocal commitments between individual and
organization, and in the special spirit of an enterprise made up of learners. (Senge,
1990, p.8)
In his writings, Senge expands on the notion of individual learning and contends that for
organizations to grow, they must develop the ability to create, a process that he refers to
as generative learning. This and other related terms are introduced later in this chapter.

A few authors are challenging the appropriateness of seeking to enhance

organizational learning for purposes of organizational productivity and wonder whether

56

this is yet another form of manipulation of workers that fails to consider the workers’
needs (Dirkx, 1999). Writers are also raising concerns about the need to cultivate spirit in
the workplace (Scherer, 1993) and the need for reﬂective practitioners (Schon, 1983;
Dirkx, 1999). Although there are important questions to be asked in this realm, my
perspective is that organizational learning, although not value-neutral, is a critical
component in organizational development.

One point of view is that what is good for the organization in the long term will be
good for the workers. Organizational learning can be considered instrumental, but the
viability and vitality of the organization present the best prospects for assuring that
workers have the opportunity to engage in meaningful work and develop holistically. The
organization has responsibility for the whole, while generally the individual has the primary
responsibility for the development of self.

A View of Organizational Learning and the Learning-Centered College

My view of a learning-centered college is more closely aligned with an
organizational learning perspective than with the current learning-college literature. As
knowledge of organizational learning expands, to which this research is partially designed
to contribute, we should expect an increasingly enlightened perspective of the learning
college to emerge.

In my vision of a learning-centered college, there would be evidence of the
following:

- Energy and enthusiasm toward learning and innovation among many of the
constituents, well beyond just the top leadership level;

57

Shared understandings and commitments about organizational priorities and
directions (vision and mission);

Lavish communications, including active use of e—mail and/or listservs, internal and
external; informative in-house newsletters; vital websites with in-house documents
and ongoing dialogue; regular group meetings;

Active, cross-ﬁrnctional teams, with good performance track records;

Many professional development activities and opportunities, both on- and off-
carnpus, with follow-up conversations with participants;

Social/professional relationships among diverse groups, individuals from different
functional areas who have lunch together, travel to conferences together, talk to
each other routinely on and/or off campus;

People having ﬁrn and generally projecting a positive outlook and a can-do attitude;

People working hard, because they share a passion, care, and are personally
committed to the institutional purposes;

Culture of supportiveness and encouragement; there is both ﬁnancial and emotional
support for new ventures;

Trust: a belief, in general, of the good intentions of others at all levels in all areas;
Respect: a willingness to acknowledge and consider seriously the expertise of others;

Openness: a willingness to admit failures, seek input, reconsider assumptions, change
directions or views, etc.;

A passion for learning: evidence that the individuals of the organization are in a
continuous learning mode and that this learning goes beyond narrow disciplinary
interests;

Lots of engagement of the official leadership with the unofﬁcial followership; we will
see leaders mixing with the “troops” regularly on central agenda items, particularly
the learning mission of the organization;

Useful and used information resources: Data is readily accessible, regularly used to
make decisions, and widely understood;

Evidence of leadership in the organization, as demonstrated by being among the ﬁrst

58

   

to move in some new directions in contrast with being the last to jump in (a culture
of innovators or early adopters vs. laggards (Rogers, 1995));

0 Broad-based understanding of important educational issues; in the community
college these would include developmental instruction, access, performance
indicators, assessment, technology use in instruction, alternative learning strategies,
and other similar topics;

0 Conﬁdence that the vision and major directions (goals) would continue even with
change in some or all of the top leadership

These views are not what the learning-centered college literature currently espouses,
although some items are central and others are at least peripherally noted. These views do
align well with the organizational learning literature. It is this perspective that leads me to
suggest that the learning-centered college will exhibit many of the characteristics of
organizational learning.

In summary, the organizational learning literature is about process. The divergence
in the literature emerges primarily from the determination of critical aspects of what
contributes to organizational learning. Most believe that organizational learning results in
enhancing capacity. Some believe it must begin by developing individuals (Covey, 1989);
others believe it must focus on systems (Senge, 1990; DiBella and Nevis, 1998). Some
writers (Marquardt, 1996) take very global approaches, broad enough to encompass
everything in the organization (technology, people, knowledge, etc.) while others (DiBella
& Nevis, 1998) are more speciﬁc about the particular factors which inﬂuence
organizational learning. Each recognizes the critical role of individuals in the process, but
the role individuals play varies in diﬂ‘erent authors’ interpretations.

The ﬁrst place to look to develop organizational learning capability is by analyzing

59

where a college is. From this analysis, a gap analysis can emerge, and leaders can then
focus change strategies on the factors considered most important to particular change
directions.
ﬂugation Research on Organizational Learning
No studies of organizational learning in a college context have been identiﬁed, but a
recent article in Educational Administration Quarterly by authors Scribner, Cockrell,
Cockrell, and Valentine reports on an investigation into school improvement processes in
nrral middle schools. The authors conclude that four organizational factors inﬂuence the
development of professional community: principal leadership, organizational history,
organizational priorities, and organization of teacher work. They report that “the ﬁndings
further suggest that double-loop learning is invaluable to sustain professional community.”
Although the authors were investigating how to create professional community through
organizational learning, they identify issues relevant to the creation of learning-centered
colleges. They write:
Transforming typically intransigent school cultures into communities where learning
is continuous, reﬂective, and focused on improving student outcomes will require
change beyond ﬁrst-order restructuring (Cuban, 1983). . . Through these
organizational learning processes, schools (a) routinely examine and question values
that guide organizational actions (Rait, 1995); (b) generate new insights and
knowledge (Hedberg, 1981; Huber, 1991); (c) improve organizational memory
through interpreting and sharing information (Argyris & Schon, 1978); and (d) build
capacity for effective use and dissemination of knowledge (Argyris & Schon, 1978).
(Scribner, J., Cockrell, K., Cockrell, D., and Valentine, J., 1999, p. 131)
The premises they suggest for organizational learning are consistent with other authors

who suggest the importance of gaining and sharing knowledge, of challenging basic

assumptions, of being open, and building capacity for using information.

60

Another study links the concepts of organizational learning and teacher
empowerment. As a result of research in 24 site-based management schools, the authors
conclude that the “strength of these schools can be understood through their capacity for
organizational learning” (Marks and Lewis, 1999, p. 708). They view teacher
empowerment as a critical dimension of organizational learning in a school setting but note
that there is little research on organizational learning but a considerable amount about
empowerment. Their work attempts to relate these two concepts.

Learning Organizations

A learning organization is a place where people are continually discovering

how they create their reality. And how they can change it. (Senge, 1990, p.

13)

More common in the lexicon of business and of education than the term
organizational learning is the term “Learning Organization.” This term became popular
with the 1990 publication of The Fiﬁh Discipline - The Art & Practice of The Learning
Organization by Peter Senge, even though he was not the ﬁrst to use this term. His book
was followed by a great number of articles and books in the years since 1990. Senge’s
deﬁnition was presented in Chapter 1. This deﬁnition emphasizes capacity-building, and it
also emphasizes the learning process by referring to people learning how to learn together.

In contrast, Marquardt observes that “a learning organization is a streamlined, ﬂat,
boundary-less structure that maximizes contact, information ﬂow, local responsibility, and
collaboration within and outside the organization (Marquardt, 1996, p. 25). Although

their general views of the learning organization are similar, in deﬁning it, Marquardt takes

both a more structural and instrumental view of the learning organization. Marquardt

61

adds,

A learning organization, systematically deﬁned, is an organization which learns

powerﬂrlly and collectively and is continually transforming itself to better collect,

manage, and use knowledge for corporate success. It empowers people within and

outside the company to learn as they work. (Marquardt, 1996, p. 19)

Marquardt’s description of the learning organization is an apt description for
organizational learning. It expresses the need for collecting, managing, and using
knowledge; this cycle is consistent with the DiBella/Nevis model of acquiring, sharing, and
using knowledge. Marquardt, although he writes of the learning organization, is
describing the process rather than the product. In an undated (thought to be about 1992
since sources are as recent as 1991) “Introduction to the Classic Paperback” of Theog in
M55, Argyris and Schon observe that the learning organization has become a “banner
for reform,” just as a learning-centered college or a learning college has become the
reform call in community colleges.

Senge introduces types of learning and the importance of some types for the
survival of the organization, a view shared by many whose work is cited here as well as
more generally in contemporary higher education and business literature. Senge’s book
emphasizes the importance of individual learning as a prerequisite to organizational
learning, a view shared by other authors.

In describing the learning organization, Senge identiﬁes ﬁve disciplines: personal
mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. Each of these

themes is similar to many of the organizational learning theories. Personal mastery relates

to individual learning. Senge writes that “personal mastery is the discipline of continually

62

clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing
patience, and of seeing reality objectively. As such, it is a cornerstone of the learning
organization—the learning organization’s spiritual foundation” (Senge, 1990, p. 7).

The second discipline, mental models, includes our beliefs and assumptions which
stem largely from our learning styles and our experiences. Most of the organizational
learning literature (DiBella and Nevis, 1998; Nevis et al, 1997; Argyris,l999; and Keidel,
1995) emphasizes the irnportance of paradigms, perspectives, or mental models as critical
to understanding and advancing organizational learning.

Shared vision, the third discipline, must exist before the learning in an organization
will achieve the intended outcomes. The goal of change efforts in many colleges is to
become more learning centered; for this to happen will require that the vision be shared
well beyond the top leadership team.

Team learning is the fourth discipline. Senge writes that the discipline of team
learning starts with “dialogue,” the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions
and enter into a genuine “thinking together” (Senge, 1990, p. 10). Note that team learning
is distinguished from teamwork. However, team learning could also be considered a form
of either group or organizational learning.

A major theme in the organizational learning literature is the importance of
communication and conversation, of sharing information, of having trust. Team learning
is much like a prototype of organizational learning. Marquardt also deﬁnes team learning:
“Group or team learning alludes to the increase in knowledge, skills, and competency

which is accomplished by and within groups" (Marquardt, 1996, p. 22).

63

Systems thinking, the ﬁfth discipline, requires consideration of the whole rather than
the parts and understanding the interrelationships among parts. “Systems thinking is a
conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has been developed. . . to
make the full patterns clearer, and to help us see how to change them effectively” (Senge,
1990,p.7)

An article by Calvert and associates published in Training and Development reports
on focus groups’ beliefs about a learning organization. Participants describe the learning
organization as one “that excels at advanced, systematic, collective learning,” whereas
organizational learning refers to methods of collective learning. They write that “this
distinction in meaning suggests three useful, if debatable, conclusions:

- All organizations learn. (In other words, they use organizational learning

methods.)

- All organizations learn at different levels of proﬁciency and at different paces.

- To become a "learning organization," an organization must ﬁnd ways to make

learning more intentional and more systemic. (Calvert G., Mobley, S., and Marshall,

L., 1994, p. 40)

The focus group participants agreed on many criteria for learning organizations. These
descriptions of the learning organization and the linkages to organizational learning are
consistent with others who write about the importance of free and open dialogue about
things that matter. Calvert and colleagues’ reference to talking about learning is
consistent with the inquiry focus of organizational learning and of action learning, as
described later.

The American Society for Training and Development has published a framework

reviewing a variety of instruments which are available to assess learning organizations and

64

organizational learning. In describing the ﬁamework, Gephart and colleagues offer this
view,

A learning organization is an organization that has an enhanced capacity to learn,

adapt, and change. It's an organization in which learning processes are analyzed,

monitored, developed, managed, and aligned with improvement and innovation
goals. Its vision, strategy, leaders, values, structures, systems, processes, and
practices all work to foster people’s learning and development and to accelerate

systems level learning. (Gephart, Marsick, VanBuren, and Spiro, 1996, p.36)
Gephart and colleagues reﬂect much of the current learning, change, and systems literature
with their inclusion of multiple components in their view of the learning organization.
Striking about the assessment framework and the accompanying review of several
instruments available for evaluating learning organizations is the extensive overlap
between the concepts of organizational learning and the learning organization. Their
deﬁnition of the learning organization could as easily be descriptive of organizational
learning. Most survey developers, perhaps because of the desire to make the instrument
more useful to a larger audience, have ﬁrrther blurred the distinctions between the two
concepts.

In reviewing a matrix of 20 available tools for assessing learning organizations,
Redding lists the content areas covered by each. Many consider individual, team, and
organizational learning, but several have organizational learning as their primary emphasis.
The identiﬁed content areas reﬂected in the 20 tools are: vision and strategy; leadership
and management; culture; structure; systems/processes; communications and information

systems; performance management and support systems; technology; and change

management. Of the nine content areas, culture is reported to be the primary emphasis

65

area for the DiBella/Nevis/Gould tool. There is a high degree of consistency among
various assessors’ views of the key content areas for a learning organization, as most
instruments reviewed include most of the nine. There are highly consistent views of the
learning organization, and each deﬁnition further reinforces the importance of the process
of becoming a learning organization.

Koﬁnan and Senge summarize the feel of change in a learning organization, where
there is both security and a letting go.

Learning organizations are both more generative and more adaptive than traditional

organizations. Because of their commitment, openness, and ability to deal with

complexity, people ﬁnd security not in stability but in the dynamic equilibrium

between holding on and letting go--holding on and letting go of beliefs, assumptions,

and certainties. What they know takes a second place to what they can learn, and

simplistic answers are always less important than penetrating questions. (Kofrnan &

Senge, 1993, p. 17)
The tension theme that runs throughout organizations and individuals is characterized here
as having qualities of holding on and letting go, which creating new ways of being will
require. The learning organization is presented as a dynamic place. Yet, to achieve this
“what,” there is a need to consider the “how,” which organizational learning represents.

amen—ﬁling

Although it was Senge’s work that popularized the notion of a learning organization,
many writers attribute the historical development of the concept of a learning organization
to Reg Revans who was engaged early (19505) in action research to create business
environments that created a forum for employees to learn from each other. His work was

a forerunner to the concept of learning communities and learning organizations, but the

process he describes is clearly about organizational learning. When management schools

66

of the time in England were unable to incorporate his views into their different paradigms,
Revans moved to Belgium where he conducted his research over a 10-year period.

Revans is most noted for the development of action learning. In describing action
learning, Revans observes that individuals “learn to do it better by the very act of thinking
of how they do it” (Revans, 1980, p. 7) and that rather than all new learning, the
employees’ learning “consisted more in reorganizing this experience than in acquiring fresh
facts or principles from outsiders” (Revans, 1980, p. 28). He explains that programs of
action learning are continuously changing, that “systems that do not, or cannot change, do
not, or cannot learn" (Revans, 1980, p. 42). Revans believes that every organization can
become a learning system. Although action learning builds on experience, Revans also
distinguishes between action learning and “leaming-by-doing.” Instead, he describes it as
“learning to leam-by-doing with and from others who are also learning to learn-by-doing”
(Revans, 1980, p. 288). Neither the terminology of the learning organization nor that of
organizational learning is ever mentioned, but the characteristics of action learning are
inherent in most descriptions of both of these concepts.

The action learning terminology persists, as some authors use it to explain how
learning organizations develop. Marquardt describes the concept as “Action
learning/action reﬂection learning” and suggests that it “involves reﬂecting on real
problems using the formula of L (learning) = P (existing or programmed knowledge) + Q
(questioning insight)” (Marquardt, 1996, p. 23). The concept of inquiry is important in
the views of many theorists, including Revans, Marquardt; Calvert, et al; and the

Wingspread Group, which bases a major proportion of its report on the many questions

67

that colleges must address in seeking to meet The American Imperative by addressing the
identiﬁed ﬁrndamental issues “common to all colleges and universities: taking values
seriously, putting student learning ﬁrst, and creating a nation of learners” (W ingspread
Group, 1993, p. 7).

Several writers are beginning to address the question of the role of leadership,
including Ellinger, whose research substantiates the need for managers to develop new
skills as learning facilitators and coaches, responsibilities that are more than just a subset
of their traditional management roles. This research supports Senge’s contentions that
“The Leaders’ New Work” (Senge, 1996) is to facilitate learning.

Included as Appendices A and I are tables which identify various theorists with the
concepts they elaborate upon in their views of organizational learning, the learning-
centered college, and/or the learning organization. This chapter is designed to provide
some perspective on the views, but the tables do not provide detail about these, largely
because there is a considerable amount of congruence. For example, if an author
addresses leadership, the perspective is generally that leadership is important and that
leaders need to play active roles. Ifthe topic is measurement, then authors generally agree
that it is important to identify what it is important to measure and to do so consistently.
The confusion addressed throughout this chapter is not so much that there are differences
in perceptions of what the components represent but rather that the many characteristics
are jumbled within the three major literature streams.

Congr_uence and Theories of Action

Another framework which has been developed extensively is the concept of

68

congruence between espoused theory and theory-in-use; that is, that one’s behavior ﬁts his
espoused theory of action (Argyris and Schon, 1974). Because this research will analyze
the strategies of leaders rather than the eﬂ‘ects of these strategies, it is possible that what
leaders espouse may not match the actions or desired results. The congruence, or
alignment, between what one believes and one practices is a major paradox of
organizational and personal life. This dilemma is not unique to education, and is
personiﬁed by the story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes,” a situation where ‘Vve praise it
loudly in public and ask ourselves privately why we can’t see it” (Argyris, 1998, p. 99).
Subsequent studies will need to assess congruence.

The next section shifts to examination of additional concepts that inform
organizational learning. Although this research is not about leadership, it does seek to
proﬁle leaders’ behaviors in a given setting. To develop this proﬁle requires consideration
of principles or expectations of leadership. Most literature concerning any of the learning
perspectives addresses the important role of leaders or leadership in the creation of
learning environments.

Leadership Roles

What is clear is that the increasingly fast-moving and competitive
environment we will face in the twenty-ﬁrst century demands more leadership
ﬁom more people to make enterprises prosper. Without that leadership,
organizations stagnate, lose their way, and eventually suﬂer the
consequences. (Kotter, 1999, p. 2)
Inseparable from the strategies employed by leaders are their characteristics,
behaviors, management philosophies, learning styles, or what Kotter refers to as their

“substance.” Most of the studies of community college leadership have focused on the

69

characteristics and behaviors of leaders (Biggerstaff, 1990). An increasing number of
writers are expressing concerns about the “hero” model of leadership and suggest that
leadership cannot be examined in isolation but rather must be reviewed contextually and
contemporaneously. Amey and Twombly observe that “the consequences of images that
no longer ﬁt can hamper the eﬂ’ectiveness of an institution" (Amey and Twombly, 1992, p.
126). Still others are writing about the need for paying more attention to creating learning
at all levels or “learningful teams,”

The team is empowered to accomplish its purposes and facilitates itself throughout

the process, including the clariﬁcation of and dialogue concerning important or

essential questions; identiﬁcation and testing of assumptions; and the development,
implementation, and evaluation of goals, strategies, and outcomes. (Corcoran,

Duncan, Irwin-Robinson, Pontz, Ruterbusch, Teahen, and Wirnbish, 1996)

Many authors recommend signiﬁcant changes in management education to
acknowledge the changing role for leadership. Senge describes the critical roles of leaders
of learning organizations as designers, teachers, and stewards.

Leadership in learning organizations center on subtler and ultimately more important

work. In a learning organization, leaders' roles differ dramatically ﬁ'om that of the

charismatic decision maker. Leaders are designers, teachers, and stewards. These
roles require new skills: the ability to build shared vision, to bring to the surface and
challenge prevailing mental models, and to foster more systemic patterns of thinking.

In short, leaders in learning organizations are responsible for building organizations

where people are continually expanding their capabilities to shape their ﬁrture--that

is, leaders are responsible for learning. (Senge, 1996, 290-91)

These roles are very diﬁ’erent ﬁ'om the classic roles of managers: planning, organizing,
leading, and controlling (Schoderbek, Cosier, and Aplin, 1991, p. 20). In an era when
management did all the thinking, the bureaucratic age, it is possible that the organization

could be eﬂ’ective with just the top thinking. Today’s organizations in uncertain

70

environments require thinking (one of the outcomes of learning) at all levels. Senge
writes,
If anything, the need for understanding how organizations learn and accelerating that
learning is greater today than ever before. The old days when Henry Ford, Alfred
Sloan, or Tom Watson learned for the organization are gone. (Senge, 1996, p.
289)
The imperative for leaders to operate differently is inherent in the move toward a more
learning-centered organization and for maximizing organizational learning. This research
will take some steps toward investigating the process by which leaders facilitate learning.
Another view of leadership is offered by Bensimon and Neumann, who introduce the
need for leaders to create meaning as a way of generating leadership:
Leadership requires skill in the creation of meaning that is authentic to oneself and to
one's community. It also requires the uncovering of meaning that is already
embedded in others' minds, helping them to see what they already know, believe, and
value, and encourage them to make new meaning. In this way, leadership generates
leadership. (Bensimon and Neumann, p. xv)
Henry Mintzberg argues that strategy is an 'emergent phenomenon' and that “the key is not
getting the right strategy but fostering strategic thinking” (Mintzberg, cited in Senge,
1996, p. 294). Thinking is often believed to be an outcome of effective learning. If
strategic thinking would be the outcome of organizational learning, there is good reason to
believe that more effective organizations could result.
Senge argues that we need to build “communities of commitment” and reports that
he is coming to “believe that "leaders" are people who are genuinely committed to deep

change in themselves and in their organizations. They lead through developing new skills,

capabilities, and understandings. And they come from many places in an organization"

71

(Senge in Gephart et al, p. 36). Further, he notes that “at least half the companies we
know of that have made signiﬁcant strides in developing internal learning capabilities and
infrastructures have had little or no executive leadership. And we have seen no examples
of signiﬁcant progress made without leadership from local line managers" (Senge, in
Gephart et al, p. 37). The need for learning and leading at all levels is reinforced.

These ﬁndings suggest that engagement of local leaders, which may be represented
by mid- and department-level management in the collegiate setting, will be an essential
ingredient to achieve organizational learning. This also supports the view of Beer and
others who in a 1990 Marci Business Review article about change report that top-down
change eﬂ’orts are rarely successful. The particular strategies leaders will employ will
likely reﬂect the change philosophies they hold.

Many authors speak to the importance of alignment between goals and roles, an
additionally informative concept and one that presents a problem in the collegiate context.
The lack of focus and clarity about institutional missions and purposes as a confounding
factor in organizational learning in colleges was described earlier.

“Involved leadership” is the term DiBella and Nevis use to describe the role of
leaders in facilitating organizational learning. The authors note that strong leadership is
more likely to be evident at the knowledge acquisition stage, and that it “sends a clear
message about what is important to learn” (DiBella & Nevis, 1998, p. 77). Where leaders
often fail is by a lack of adequate involvement in knowledge dissemination and utilization,
stages 2 and 3 of the learning cycle. They see an active role for leaders at all stages of the

organization’s learning: “In short, at any level of an organization it makes a huge

72

difference if those in leadership positions can demonstrate that they have learned what
they want others to learn" (DiBella and Nevis, 1998, p. 77).

This view of leaders is consistent with the commonly held belief that modeling is a
powerﬁrl learning methodology, and it also supports the organizational learning
literature’s emphasis on collaboration. Rather than telling others what they should know
(or learn), leaders are expected to demonstrate their personal engagement in the learning.

TeamL and Team Learning

In short, advocates believe that a team-centered managerial approach

enhances the capacity of organizations to master new knowledge and to use it

effectively to improve innovation, problem solving, and productivity.

Bensimon & Neumann, 1993, p. ix)

Although much of what is being written about leadership and teams could be
described as “thought papers,” an increasing amount of research is being conducted about
teams. In explaining that writers concerned with the human mind note that we can only
comprehend so much, Bensimon and Neumann have noted the signiﬁcance of this in
thinking about building teams. The authors conducted 70 interviews of members of
presidential leadership teams in 15 different institutions. From this comprehensive study
they surfaced a view of thinking teams as teams that bring diverse capacities to the team’s
work. Their general argument is that teams are most eﬂ’ective when the individuals in
them ﬁrlﬁll a variety of important tasks for the team, which requires that individuals bring
different perspectives and skills. They argue for the value of thinking diversity within

teams:

We diﬂ’er not only in our viewpoints, values, and thinking modes but also in our
limitations. Thus, what one person lacks another may possess, and what that person

73

misses yet another may have. If only we could combine the minds of several people

into one . . . Even then we might not gain firll understanding of the turbulent,

complex reality before us, but we would certainly cover more ground than we can

cover working alone. (Bensimon and Neumann, 1993, p. 1)

Their individual research, cited in this work, shows that few presidents are able to view
their institutions ﬁom multiple lenses or to draw from a wide range of strategies to
address change. These shortcomings are important reasons for moving organizations
toward the development of effective teams. In describing team thinking, the authors write,

Team thinking assumes that individuals see the world differently, that they process

information differently, that they make sense of life in organizations (and outside

them) differently. It also requires team members to develop their own unique

thinking capacities and to exercise them openly, actively, and ﬁeely. (p. 56)

The concept of thinking teams offers an additional way to analyze strategies or actions of
the leadership team to be interviewed for this research. “Thinking teams” reﬂect some of
the attributes of team learning described by Senge. Senge believes teams need to utilize
dialogue, suspend assumptions, and “enter into genuine ‘thinking together’” (Senge, 1990,
p. 10).

Although he acknowledges the importance of individual learning, “at some level,”
Senge places the greatest importance on team learning. He describes three critical
dimensions for team learning: the need to think insightﬁrlly about complex issues; the
need for innovative coordinated action; and the roles of team members on other teams of
the organization. Senge’s discipline of team learning lends perspective to understanding
organizational learning. Bensimon and Neumann’s research informs understanding of a

team’s performance capacity.

As individuals, leaders and team members bring their own learning styles to every

74

experience.

A summary of current learning theories, including the deﬁnitions of adaptive,
generative, maintenance, experiential, and other types of learning is included as Appendix
K.

Collaboition

A concept closely related to teamwork is collaboration. Much of the literature
concerning collaboration elaborates on methods for working between organizations rather
than within them. Prominent in the literature on collaboration is a book by Hank Rubin,
Collaboration Skills for Educators pnd Nonproﬁt Lepders (Rubin, 1998). Rubin provides
both a model of collaboration and guidance for effective collaboration. Although his work
also speaks extensively to the collaboration required between public entities, he also
provides guidance for internal activities. In a foreword to the book, Paul Houston writes
that collaboration starts with ‘annting, in a sincere way, to work together” (Houston in
Rubin, 1998, p. xix).

Rubin observes that the public knows when collaboration exists and when it does
not. He refers to the “it” as “respect, humility, trustworthiness, interpersonal and
organizational skills, credibility, and focused self-discipline that enable a regular person or
a public leader to build and sustain the relationships that are necessary to get a job done in
public” (p. 1). Collaboration is deﬁned as “a purposeful relationship in which all parties
strategically choose to cooperate in order to accomplish a shared outcome” (p. xvii). He
states that “relationship management is what a collaborative leader does: It is the

purposeful exercise of behavior, communication, and organizational resources to aﬂ’ect the

75

perspective, beliefs, and behaviors of another person (Rubin, 1998, p. xvii). He refers to
collaboration as “democracy’s mandate.”

Rubin offers a 12-step process for building collaboration:

Step 1: Figure out what you really want to achieve.

Step 2: Identify the outcomes you are targeting and the turnkey decision makers
who must be inﬂuenced in order to accomplish your desired outcomes.

Step 3: Identify the hill range of essential stakeholders and recruit a strategic core of
them into the collaboration.

Step 4: Frame the issue so as to (a) solidify the connection of partners’ self-interests
with the mission and operation of the collaboration . . and (b) be able to tell the rest
of the world just what it is the collaboration is (or will be) doing.

Step 5: Select the collaboration’s leaders, formalize role, and develop ground rules
of the operation of the collaboration (including method and frequency of internal
communications).

Step 6: Develop an action plan for the collaboration that creatively and eﬁciently
maximizes the contributions of each collaborative partner to the collaboration.

Step 7: The action plan should begin by targeting successes around either the most
urgent or the least controversial elements or goals and should incrementally build
upon successes toward greater and more complex achievements.

Step 8: Efﬁciently and effectively implement the action plan.

Step 9: Build the essential bond between collaborative partners, create an internal
environment of trust, loyalty, and high professionalism early on so that, later on,
partners will be willing to make the compromises demanded in the context of
collaborative decision-making.

Step 10: Celebrate the collaboration’s successes with internal recognitions so as to
strengthen the bond and raise the ﬂoor beneath the capacity and vision of the
collaboration; and with external publicity so as to build momentum around the
mission and success of the collaboration.

Step 11: Find creative and effective ways to routinely measure, adjust, and reinforce
the bonds between collaborative partners in the collaboration.

76

Step 12: Revisit the mission of the collaboration, especially at signiﬁcant
benchmarks or when changes in external conditions affect the collaboration. Be
ﬂexible enough to explore the pros and cons of all the options you may have,
including; (a) Modifying the mission and/or operating ground mles, (b) Retaining
them intact, (c) Expanding or redirecting the mission or ((1) Taking a vacation or
disbanding. (Rubin, 1998, pp.36-3 8)

Drawing on the work of Max DePree in Leadership Jazz, Rubin likens the
collaborative leader to the jazz musicians, ‘tho master the basis of their own instruments,
practice with their group, and learn the strengths and weaknesses of their musical partners,
all so that they might improvise together” (Rubin, 1998, p. 40).

He offers other perspectives on leaders of the collaborative organization. He writes:

Because of the synergy of their diverse dimensions, effective collaborative leaders

stand out as visionaries, challenging thinkers, and people with whom others like to

associate. Arrogance, insensitivity, self-aggrandizement, and the like are barriers to
collaboration; people don’t want to roll up their sleeves to join in and work along

side any of these characteristics. (Rubin, 1998, p. 39)

At the very foundation of eﬂ’ective collaborative leadership (and of nearly any type

of leadership, for that matter) is the interpersonal skill and empathy needed to make

and sustain strong linkages between people. The tools begin with a built-in radar
that detects the personal self-interests people bring into a relationship, that deduces
each person’s level of commitment to the relationship, and that observes and
interprets the relevant psychosocial rhythms and styles of the individual. Effective
leaders, in any context, understand the character, needs, work styles, capacities, and

self interests of the people they work with. (Rubin, 1998, p. 41)

He advises leaders to build collaboratives of diverse constituencies but of those who
can be trusted, which often results ﬁ'om relationships that have already been built.

A more critical perspective of collaboration is offered by Barott and Raybould.

They argue that the move toward collaboration in schools is inherently in conﬂict with the

basic tenets of the organization. They contend that the school is built upon an ideology of

professional discretion, and that this strengthens the school’s boundaries against outside

77

inﬂuence. They see the move toward collaboration in a school culture being at the cost of
professional discretion. They warn about the danger of changing schools and suggest that
we “not waste our time and energy on hopeless solutions to unresolvable difﬁculties”
(Barott and Raybould in Pounder, 1998, p. 40).

Regardless of whether one accepts Rubin’s positive view or Barott and Raybould’s
critical perspective, collaboration is a term that is pervasive in education and group
discourse. In considering collaboration, readers should take into account the role of
leaders, the goals of collaboration, and other factors.

Non-Learning Responses
Some authors describe non-learning responses, or behaviors. These include:

Presumption: It involves trusting that the world will not change and that successﬁil
actions can therefore be repeated eﬁ‘ectively.

Non-Consideration: People may not respond to a potential learning experience for a
variety of reasons. They may be too busy to think about it, they may be fearful of the
outcome, or they may be in no position to understand the situation.
Rejection: Some people have an experience but reject the possibility that they could
learn from it. . . Anyone who looks at the world and says they will not allow any of
their opinions or attitudes to be changed regardless, because they are sure they are
right, is in this situation. (Jarvis et al.,1998, p. 51)
Some non-learning behaviors may be in evidence at one time or another in most groups.
Non-learning behaviors will impact organizational learning. Recognition of these
nonlearning responses should provide additional insights to strategy for astute leaders.
Change

Because creating a more learning-centered organization is fundamentally a change

process, this literature review would be incomplete without some acknowledgment of the

78

change literature. The change literature is extensive, and no effort is made here to
represent a comprehensive view of the literature. The analysis of this research study’s
particular change strategy, the creation of a more learning-centered organization, will be
conducted from the perspective of organizational learning. The following is intended to
provide a broad-brush perspective of the general change literature, so that the reader may
place organizational learning into this broader picture.

Most prominent in the change literature are perspectives emerging from Kurt Lewin,
whose work has resulted in widespread acceptance of a view of change that contends that
changes move through three stages: ‘ﬁrnfreezing, introducing the new values and behavior,
and then refreezing” (Argyris, 1992, p. 10). Argyris observes, “Essentially, most of these
models assume that unﬁ'eezing is produced by showing that actions lead to unintended
inconsistencies (i.e., the impact is not what is intended). They also assume that human
beings abhor such inconsistency, and hence, seek to learn new actions and values so that
they do not repeat such errors. Finally, practice or experimentation with the new actions
is assumed to lead to attitude and value change, as well as behavioral change” (Argyris,
1992, p. 10). His explanation suggests that once individuals are uncomfortable with the
results they are getting, they will experiment with new behaviors. When the new
behaviors appear to be yielding better results, the new behaviors are “frozen” or
incorporated into the repertoire of the individual(s).

Among the gaps that Argyris observes regarding the model is the apparent belief that
“individuals had the skills to learn the new behavior, or at least the skills to learn the new

skills” (Argyris, 1992, p. 10). In his view, individuals may lack the skills to achieve the

79

desired change. It is this gap in the change model that Argyris’s work partially addresses,
by suggesting how individuals may enhance organizational learning through improvement
of their own learning processes. At this juncture, the change and organizational learning
literatures are closely related.

Rather than a view of change being limited by individuals’ ability to change, such as
Argyris suggests, Dent and colleagues offer an alternative perspective. They report that
they ﬁnd few or no instances of employees resisting change. More often, the obstacle is in
the organization's structure or in a "performance-appraisal system (that) makes people
choose between the new vision and their own self-interes " (Dent & Goldberg, 1999, p.
64). Reporting on a study of change by authors Porras and Robertson (1983), Dent and
Goldberg observe that fewer than 40 percent of the change efforts produced positive
change in the dependent variable of interest, but lay responsibility for failed change efforts
not at the feet of individuals but rather ﬂawed beliefs about change. They contend that the
oral tradition about change is wrong, and that people persist in the view that people resist
change. Dent and colleagues acknowledge that people may “resist loss of status, loss of
pay, or loss of comfort, but these are not the same as resisting change (Dent et al 1999, p.
26).

A writer highly recognized for her work in organizations on the subjects of change
and innovation is Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Her seminal work, The Change Masters,
published in 1983, is still a business classic. This is her deﬁnition of change: “Change
involves the crystallization of new action possibilities (new policies, new behaviors, new

patterns, new methodologies, new products, or new market ideas) based on

80

reconceptualized patterns in the organization” (Kanter, 1983, p. 279). She places much of
the responsibility for change at the feet of corporate leaders, observing that they
sometimes “lirmble their part in the change process—by failing to design and construct the
new ‘platform’ to support the innovation (Kanter, 1983, p. 278). She notes that “if the
overall climate for innovation does not exist throughout the whole organization—a
readiness to readjust in response to the changes that use of the innovation will require—it is
highly unlikely that even the best ideas will reach the economic mainstream” (Kanter,
1983, p. 279). Kanter links the ideas of change and innovation throughout her work. She
offers views of how change may occur, with this explanation,

It is important to remember that organizations change by a variety of methods, not

all of them viewed as desirable by the people involved. The innovations

implemented by entrepreneurial managers by participative methods or those designed
and carried out by employee teams may reﬂect more constructive and productive
methods of change, but they do not exhaust the possibilities, nor are they even

typical in organizations with a high degree of segmentation and segrnentalism. . . .

(the) ways that segmented organizations introduce change (are): top-down

announcements, rigidly controlled formal mechanisms, and the use of outsiders for

whom some of the rules are suspended. Changes may also be brought by internal
political actions: for example, a “coup d ’etat, . . or a mass movement, in which
grass-roots groups of activists mobilize to protest organizational policies or actions.

(Kanter, 1983, p. 280)

In this passage, she makes two important points signiﬁcant to this research study.
First, she contends that participative methods of change or those designed and carried out
by employee teams will be more constructive and productive. Second, she notes that there
are other methods, but her descriptions of these are clearly less attractive, as she described

them in less desirable ways, as protests or rebellions. She demonstrates a clear preference

for a more participative change strategy, which most of the subsequent change literature

81

would strongly support.

A ﬁnal view to be presented from the Kanter change writings is this one, which links
innovation and change to the meanings people make,

Innovation and change, I am suggesting, are bound up with the meanings attached to

events and the action possibilities that ﬂow from those meanings. But that very

recognition—of the symbolic, conceptual, cultural side of change—makes it more
difﬁcult to see change as a mechanical process and extract the “formula” for

producing it. (Kanter, 1983, p. 281)

In explaining this, she refers to the work of Karl Weick and contends that leaders in
organizations do not respond to the pressures of the environment but instead they respond
to their perceptions of that environment. They selectively deﬁne certain things as
important and act upon those. Her beliefs that change is not a mechanical process and that
we cannot extract a formula for effectively achieving change are important. Kanter would
argue that change is context dependent, that it relies heavily upon what leaders perceive to
be important, and its success will be dependent upon their effectiveness in creating a
climate for change.

Most writers agree that change is difﬁcult to achieve. Many believe that change
must go through three stages, which are identiﬁed above with interpretations of Lewin’s
work. Others contend that with the pace of change, there is no longer a freezing stage,
but that organizations must be in constant motion. Others question whether we have
useful understandings of change processes. This research will not analyze change per se,

but it does examine a particular change process in a particular setting, and in effect reports

on a change process that a particular set of leaders have selected as important to act upon.

82

Innovation
The ﬁnal concept to be introduced in this chapter is innovation. Throughout the
organizational learning and related literatures, fears about the inability of organizations to
innovate are offered as rationale for developing this capability. The most popular author
regarding innovation is Everett Rogers who has published four editions of Diffusion of
Innovations. In essence, Rogers concludes that in any innovation, there will be some
people who are classiﬁed as innovators. The other groups he identiﬁes, in the order they
will adopt an innovation, are: early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.
Rogers suggests that there are differences among the groups and reports that “innovators
have more favorable attitudes toward new ideas and so less resistance to change must be
overcome by communication messages about innovations” (Rogers, 1995, p. 201). He
continues,
Innovators may also have shorter innovation-decision periods because (1) they use
more technically accurate sources and channels about innovations, such as direct
contact with scientists, and (2) they place higher credibility in these sources than the
average individual. Innovators may also possess a type of mental ability that better
enables them to cope with uncertainty and to deal with abstractions. An innovator
must be able to conceptualize relatively abstract information about innovations and
apply this new information to his or her own situation. Later adopters can observe
the results of innovations by earlier adopters and may not require this type of mental
ability. (Rogers, 1995, p. 201)
Most change processes are designed to result in innovations, since innovation is deﬁned as
accepting anything that is different. Consequently, becoming a more learning-centered
organization could be viewed as a process of innovation. Therefore, it is also reasonable

to conclude that there will be different rates of adoption. The quotation above that

identiﬁes the likely characteristics of innovators suggests that these are the people who

83

may also be more active in their learning, since reference is made to their connections with
resources and the credibility they extend to these resources. Here the innovation literature
closely aligns with the learning literature.

The innovation literature is also extensive, and well beyond the scope of what is
intended to be reﬂected here. The topic is introduced because it is so closely related to
efforts to create change, or innovation, within the organization.

The Essential Ten_sj9_r_1

How am I to show him what it would be like to wear my spectacles when he

has alreaay learned to look at everything I cart point to through his own?

(Kuhn, 197 7, p. 269)

Just as scientiﬁc development depends in part on a “process of non-incremental or
revolutionary change (Kuhn, 1977, p. xvii),” the occurrences that do not ﬁt desired ways
of performing will require "putting on a diﬂ’erent kind of thinking-cap" to “transform the
order” (Kuhn, 1977, p. xvii). There are many reasons to believe that the strategies in use
in even the most enlightened organizations will not suﬁciently contribute to transforming
the order. We lack knowledge of whether the premises identiﬁed as contributory to
enhanced organizational capacities in business are relevant in an academic environment.
We also lack knowledge of the extent to which leaders practice learning behaviors or how
their personal learning aﬂ’ects their strategy formulation. There are serious gaps in the
literature at a time when we need to become “ﬁttest-to-learn” and increasingly agile in a
world of accelerating dynamic complexity.

Although this research focuses on the strategies of leaders to create more learning-

centered colleges, other factors must be examined to ultimately make sense of the system.

84

The deﬁning characteristic of a system is that it cannot be understood as a

function of its isolated components. First, the behavior of the system doesn't

depend on what each part is doing but on how each part is interacting with the

rest. . . how we deﬁne the parts is fundamentally a matter of perspective and

purpose, not intrinsic in the nature of the "real thing" we are looking at.

(Koﬁnan and Senge, 1993)

Although many may know what they want to achieve with becoming more learning-
centered colleges, we know little about how to become so. It is possible that the espoused
theories and the theories-in-use to become more learning-centered colleges are
incongruent.

It is the creative leaps, the ﬂexibility, and the unity made possible by them

that leads to excellence. . . the presence of creative tension arising from

paradoxical attributes helps foster organizational effectiveness. (Cameron,

1986, p. 549, cited in Cameron & Whetten, 1996, p. 273)
It is possible that organizational learning may contribute to organizational effectiveness.
The research will reveal some tension. It also ﬁnds some paradox. Tension and paradox,
according to some authors, may foster organizational effectiveness. Understanding a
college’s transformation journey toward becoming more learning-centered requires that
we address important questions about organizational strategies for change. This research

will attempt to address these questions, through the voices of respondents and with the

lens of organizational learning.

85

Chapter 3 - Design of the Research Study
Concgptual Framework
This study will be framed from the perspective of organizational learning theories.
The research is designed to reveal how the leaders in a community college think about the
strategies they are using to assist that college to become more learning-centered. The
community college leaders’ strategies will be compared with concepts of organizational

learning, and similarities and/or diﬂ‘erences will be identiﬁed. This study, with its ,focr'is.on

 

Ge N z, . . w-
understanding the meanings infowants have for their work, is appropriately qualitative.

V'- -‘ urn—ﬁg.»-

Research Questions

The primary question to guide this research is:
What we the strategies being used by leaders in a community college to
create a more learning-centered college, and how are the strategies similar to
or drjferentﬁom the premises of organizational learning?

In exploring this question, a number of subquestions, which follow, will be examined:
a. What do leaders mean when they talk or think about their college becoming a
more learning-centered institution?
b. What strategies do the leaders say they are using to help the college become more
learning-centered?
c. What models do the leaders say they use and/or appear to use in crafting,
describing, and/or implementing their strategies for creating more learning-centered
colleges?
d. What barriers do leaders perceive stand in the way of becoming a more learning-

centered college?

86

e. What is this organization’s learning proﬁle (as reported by leader-informants’

responses to the Organizational Transitions learning inventory), and how similar are

the perceptions of individual leaders concerning the organization’s learning proﬁle?
Disign

The case study method will be employed, where a bounded phenomena, such as an
event or process, is to be studied. In this case, the phenomena is the process or strategies
of formulating and implementing change strategies for becoming a more learning-centered
college. In distinguishing what constitutes a case, Robert Stake summarizes,

The case is a speciﬁc. Even more, the case is a functioning speciﬁc. The case, in the

words of Louis Smith (1978), is a “bounded system.” In the social sciences and

human services, it has working parts, it probably is purposive, even having a self. It
is an integrated system. The parts do not have to be working well, the purposes may
be irrational, but it is a system. Its behavior is patterned. Consistency and
sequentialness are prominent . . . But the boundedness and the behavior patterns of
the system are key factors in understanding the case. (Stake, 1988, in Denzin &

Lincoln, 1994, p. 236)

This personiﬁcation of the case or a system as a “self” gives life to what others may see as
otherwise inanimate objects, much as the conceptualization of an organization’s having a
capacity for learning is used in this problem.

Different types of case study purposes are reviewed by Stake. The types include
intrinsic and instrumental. An intrinsic case study has as its purpose the understanding of
a situation because it is of keen interest to the observer. Although the researcher has a
keen interest in the topic of the case, lending some intrinsic purpose, it is the second

purpose which drives this research. As a researcher who has worked in a variety of roles

within a community college over a 30-year period, and as a graduate of a community

87

college, I have a deep personal interest in this sector of higher education. My overriding
purpose is in conducting an instrumental case stuay. Stake writes,

In what we may call instrumental case study, a particular case is examined to provide

insight into an issue or reﬁnement of theory. The case is of secondary interest; it

plays a supportive role, facilitating our understanding of something else . . . The
choice of case is made because it is expected to advance our understanding of that

interest. (Stake, 1994)

My goal is that we will gain greater understanding of one of the most pervasive
change strategies underway in America’s community colleges. Understanding this case
and future cases may help “provide insight” or reﬁne a theory about how this change
process may be achieved. This goal is not inconsistent with Firestone’s perspective of
case-to-case transfer, where the situation of one context can be applied to another by
readers. He writes that “to generalize to a theory is to provide evidence that supports (but
does not deﬁnitively prove) that theory” (Firestone, 1993, p. 17). There are theories of
organizational learning. In part, this research is attempting to see if the strategies
identiﬁed in the setting are related to these theories.

Becoming a more learning-centered college is of vital interest to many college
leaders. Achieving this goal is a major dilemma to many community college leaders. One
goal of this research is that the ﬁndings will be useﬁrl to others who will translate the
ﬁndings into positive action to create colleges more adept at becoming more learning-
centered. This study is designed to both advance the researcher’s understanding of
strategies for becoming more learning-centered colleges and to understand these strategies

in the context of organizational learning. Readers of the ﬁndings may discover ways they

can apply what was learned here to other situations.

88

Seven presentation styles for cases are described. These include: realistic,
impressionistic, confessional, critical, formal, literary, and jointly told The realistic,
impressionistic, and jointly told styles most accurately describe the approach used to
present the ﬁndings. The style is realistic, in that it tells about the case as it was found. It
is impressionistic in that some themes assumed a greater role than others. Finally, it is
jointly told, because in identifying the strategies and their relationships to the
organizational learning literature, the voices of respondents were used. Most reports at
the community college level are without the voices of many key stakeholders, but are
instead often told in the voice of the president of the college. Because this study reports
the voices of some other college stakeholders, some new perspectives will emerge. Stake
offers this observation,

Even though committed to empathy and multiple realities, it is the researcher who

decides what is the case’s own story, or at least what of the case’s own story he or

she will report. . . . Less will be reported than was learned. Even though the
competent researcher will be guided by what the case may indicate is most
important, . . . what is necessary for an understanding of the case will be decided by
the researcher. It may be the case’s own story, but it is the researcher’s dressing of

the case’s own story. (Stake in Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 240)

The voices of the researcher and the informants blend in the telling of this story, but
what is ultimately included was a judgment made by the researcher. There was much more
to report about this case than the report of ﬁndings will allow. The researcher has made
every effort to select what is most important. Other stories still could be told from the
ﬁndings.

Reports of learning organizations in business have contexts so different that their

stories are not directly applicable to a community college. Yet it is in the private business

89

sector where most of the research about organizational learning and learning organizations
has been conducted. Although a learning-centered college has many comparable attributes
to the business models, such as an emphasis on customers’ needs and a desire for
continuous improvement, analyses of these processes in a higher education context is very
limited. Even more limited is the application of organizational learning premises to the
processes of an academic organization.

As in most “professional bureaucracies,” community college leaders’ potential to
signiﬁcantly inﬂuence organizational directions is seriously limited. Further, many in
leadership roles come from the academic disciplines and have spent most of their life in
academic settings. They have few of the tools of analysis and organizational design that
may more commonly be found among business professionals. Moreover, the
organizational learning model described as effective in business may have limited utility in
the higher education context because of our different structures, reward systems, and
purposes. There are enough major differences, such as the organization of work,
development of shared vision or purposes, and relationships among groups (such as
faculty and administration) to suggest that we may ﬁnd very different patterns in a
community college than researchers have discovered in business. The individuals in each
context create the meaning.

Stocks of knowledge are always essentially incomplete, open-ended. Meaning

requires the interpretive application of a category to the concrete particulars of a

situation . . . Accordingly, social phenomenology rests on the tenet that social

interaction constructs as much as conveys meaning. (Holstein & Gubrium, 1994, in

Denzin & Lincoln, p. 263)

The voices of informants will be essential in constructing the meaning within the

90

case. It is their words - or meanings - that create the everyday reality of the institution as
they experience it. Drath and Palus write,

Making sense is the process of arranging our understanding of experience so that we

can know what has happened and what is happening, and so that we can predict

what will happen; it is constructing knowledge of ourself and the world. (Drath &

Palus, 1994, p. 2)
The meanings I make will also reﬂect my interpretations. Every effort has been made to
triangulate the data to assure its correspondence with the jointly held reality so that
another researcher conducting the same research in this setting would be likely to discover
similar ﬁndings. Even if a pair of researchers engaged in a simultaneous, parallel process,
however, we could expect that the results may be somewhat different because of the
diﬂ‘erent experiences each brings to every endeavor.

Selection of the Cape

Because a large proportion of the nation’s community colleges report initiatives to
become more learning-centered (ACCI, 1998, p. 1), many colleges were potential case
colleges. However, a limited number have made this commitment visible in the national
arena. Three criteria were used in selecting the case college. The ﬁrst of the three was
the frequency with which individuals from the college were listed as presenters at major
national community college meetings, such as the League for Innovation’s Innovations
conference and the annual meeting of the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC). A second criterion was the availability of publications written by employees of

the college. A third was the researcher’s assessment of whether the prospective case

might yield information pertinent to the conceptual base of the research: organizational

91

learning.

The task of selecting a case college was two-pronged. First, several individuals
knowledgeable of community colleges, such as Patricia Carter of the Community College
Consortium; Dr. Norena Badway from the Community College Research Center at the
University of California - Berkeley; Dr. Marilyn Amey of Michigan State University; and
Dr. Terry O’Banion of the League for Innovation, were asked for suggestions. In total,
seven community college experts were asked this question and some supplied two or three
names. Two colleges surfaced two times on the list, all others were named only once. In
total, 12 college names were suggested.

Simultaneously, I continued reading and monitoring conference presentations and
adding my own ideas to the list. Finally the list was narrowed to two prospects. Of the
two, one had been recommended by those consulted; the other had not. The ﬁnal two had
each presented extensively on their learning-centered eﬂ‘orts. Each had senior-level
leaders who had published concerning the learning-centered agenda. Each also, it was
learned after the case was selected, had been invited to be one of twelve Vanguard
Colleges by the League for Innovation.

Although the college selected was not on the list of recommendations provided by
the community college experts, it was selected as a result of my having attended two
diﬂ’erent presentations by leaders from the college, at two diﬂ’erent conferences, in
addition to reading about the college’s efforts to become more learning-centered in
national publications. It appeared that the approach being taken by this college would

lend valuable insights to the focus of this research. This was the only college I observed

92

that in its presentations had speciﬁcally addressed the subject of organizational learning
and offered other models that were guiding their efforts.
Description of the Case

A description of the college is offered for two major purposes. First, as others
consider whether the ﬁndings of this research may apply in other settings, they will
understand the similarities and differences between this and other colleges. Second, there
are many characteristics that, although not unique to this college, are also not common.
Throughout the study, the college will be referred to as Case College. Case College is a
large, public, multi-campus, urban community college. The college was established in
1967 . It operates as a single college with one college president. There are four full-
service campuses and two centers, including a centrally located corporate ofﬁce where
some classes are held and a technology training facility. The college also offers courses at
many other locations throughout its two-county service area in high schools, businesses,
and community centers. The ﬁrst campus was established in 1971 and the second opened
in 1974. In 1987, a third campus location was established and construction occurred in
1997. The last campus opened inl998. Construction continues on many of the
campuses. Most of the campuses are located on large sites which provide space for
continuing growth. The college holds 391 acres and has 82 buildings (24 are permanent).
The physical plant is valued in excess of $190 million.

Case College enrolls more than 52,000 students in credit and non-credit programs;
38,000 of these are credit students. The college enrollments have increased by 15 percent

since 1991, while the state community college system enrollments have declined by 3.5

93

percent. The college is located in a dynamic population growth area in a state that is also
growing. It is among the nation’s leaders in the production of associate degrees having
conferred over 51,000 associate degrees by 1998-99. The number of degrees granted has
increased by 64.91 percent since 1991, while the state community college system average
increase is 10.17 percent (College Fact Book,1998-99, and presentation handout, 2000).

The population of the region exceeds 900,000, and it is projected to grow by 30
percent by 2008. Thirteen hundred new adult residents arrive weekly, and employment is
projected to increase by 27 percent by 2008. Diversity is also expected to increase
(presentation handout, 2000).

Vanguard College Selection

Case College was one 94 applicants nationally to be recognized as a Vanguard
College, one on the leading edge of becoming a learning college. It was among the 12
selected for participation in this three-year project that will serve as an “exceptional
laboratory for testing out innovations to help community colleges across Canada and the
US. to become more learning-centered institutions” (League for Innovation, 2000).
Vanguard Colleges will focus their efforts on ﬁve objectives: culture, under-prepared
students, faculty/ staff development, learning outcomes, and technology. Case College has
added economic development to the list, but they have rephrased it “Learning Works.”
Technology has been renamed “learning support systems.” In describing the Vanguard
project, League staﬂ‘ write:

The purpose of the Learning College Project is to assist community colleges in the

United States and Canada to become more learning centered by creating a network
of 10 Vanguard Colleges strongly committed to the Learning College concept,

94

whose efforts can serve as a basis for model programs and best practices. (League
for Innovation, 2000) (Ed Note: Subsequently 12 colleges were selected.)

This commitment to becoming more learning centered means

a signiﬁcant dedication to changing the traditional architecture of education. The

Learning College Project will provide opportunities for inter-college collaboration to

help community colleges ﬁrlﬁll this commitment. (League for Innovation, 2000)

IntervievLParticipapLs

Prior to the ﬁrst visit and after receiving conﬁrmation that the college would serve as
a research site, the president was asked to provide the names of 8-12 individuals who
should be interviewed. At ﬁrst the list was only six names, and a subsequent call resulted
in the addition of four more, for a total of 10 individuals recommended by the college.
Included in the group were the President and three vice presidents: planning and
educational services; resource development and governmental relations; and curriculum
development, teaching, and learning. The vice president of ﬁnance was not included on
the interview group and the research did not evolve in a way that this additional
interviewee appeared critical to the research. Financial statements were included among
the documents reviewed. Also on the list were a campus provost (much like a campus
president in some organizational models), a department head, a professional development
administrator, and three faculty leaders from the liberal arts and sciences disciplines. The
absence of occupational educators is notable, but the predominance of the transfer goal of
students and the particular emphasis of the learning-centered agenda explain this

phenomena.

Interviews were conducted in two phases, the middle week of May and the ﬁnal

95

week of June, 2000. In the ﬁrst phase of interviews, all ten individuals participated but
one of the interviews had to be conducted by telephone subsequent to the visit because of
a family emergency. The same list of questions was used and an audio tape was produced.

During the second phase of interviews, the researcher invited two additional
participants which brought the total of ofﬁcial interviewees to 12. The researcher also met
informally with a few others who are not cited in these ﬁndings. The two formal additions
completed consent forms but were not asked to complete the organizational learning
inventory which will be described in another section. Added to the initial group were a
provost from a major campus that had no representation on the original list of
interviewees and the institutional researcher. These two individuals were added as a result
of ideas that surfaced during the ﬁrst phase of interviews.

The ﬁndings of this research are interpreted from the interviews conducted with 12
individuals, in addition to the review of documents and researcher observations and
interpretations resulting from attendance at campus meetings and informal conversations.
Primary use will be made of the data collected from the 21 interviews, nine with
individuals who were interviewed twice. The president’s schedule precluded his
availability on the return visit, but he agreed to make himself available for a telephone
interview. Because of the magnitude of the data already collected and the consistency in
the ﬁndings, coupled with the facts that the president is relatively new to the college and is
very busy in his ﬁrst year, this second interview was not initiated.

The 12 individuals are demographically diverse. Six are male; six are female. Two

of the women are minorities, one an Aﬁican-American and the other Hispanic. Notably,

96

both ethnic minorities described a high level of engagement with their respective cultural
groups in the community and play signiﬁcant roles within the college in representing these
interests. Most had been faculty at one time, either within the college or in other settings.
Their disciplinary backgrounds were also diverse, with individuals having come from
math, the humanities, English, physical education, business, management, psychology,
government, and chemistry. This diversity of disciplinary perspective should be a strength
in the organization as different views are expressed. The literature described in Chapter 2
notes the importance of having diverse perspectives for the creation of effective teams.
Most had progressed from other positions within the college. Most had been at the
college many years, ranging from 10 to 31 years for most of the interviewees. Two
individuals in key leadership positions were very new to the college, the president who had
been there only ﬁve months and a vice-president for curriculum, teaching and learning
who had been with the college two years. This individual had announced her planned
retirement by the time of the second interview. The following provides a summary
perspective of the interviewees.

Table 3 Descriptions of Interviewees

 

 

 

Current Role Experience Education and Years with Case
(Chronological) Demographic College
Information
Faculty Member High school teacher PhD. 11 years
Other community college Male/Caucasian
teacher in same state
University education adjunct
Central Office High school teacher“, BA/MA 31 years
Administrator professor in case college Male/Caucasian
Campus administrator

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Campus-based Adjunct Faculty Masters’ Degree 21 years
Administrator Regular faculty Female
Ethnic minority
Central Ofﬁce Associate director of state Master’s degree 15 years
Administrator council in another state Female/Caucasian
Grant maker.
Faculty Member High school teaching Bachelor’s and 6 years
Community college teaching Master’s degree
Female/Caucasian
Campus-based High school teacher BA and MA 11 years
Administrator Student services professional Female/Caucasian
Central Ofﬁce Community college teacher in Master’s and Doctorate 2 years
Administrator another state; college in education.
administrator Female/Caucasian
Central Oﬂice Teacher, campus administrator Bachelors, Masters’, and 7 months
Administrator PhD. in curriculum and
instruction.
Male/Caucasian
Campus-based Case college faculty and Male/Caucasian 31 years
administrator administrator
Faculty Student Services and campus Masters 30 years
administration. Male/Caucasian
Campus-based Private sector, Masters degree 16 years
Administrator Adjunct at Case College; Female/Ethnic Minority
Professor, campus
administrator.
Campus-based Faculty; administrator Masters 28 years
Administrator Male/Caucasian

 

One central oﬂice administrator appeared to be especially well informed about much

of the literature supporting the learning-centered agenda, especially the topics of planning

and change. He was adept at sharing how the college’s actions aligned with a variety of

models, particularly business models. He reports to be an avid reader; and he cited a large

number of authors whose work he uses and his omce displayed an array of books.

Many interviewees pointed to him and another central ofﬁce administrator as the

98

 

brains and the drive behind the learning-centered initiative. Although the ﬁrst document
about the learning-centered initiative in 1996 was presented by the president of the time, it
is reported to have been written by these two college leaders.

Interview Process

Almost all of the interviews were conducted in the offices of the informants.
Meetings were attended and interviews conducted at ﬁve different college sites. A series
of interview questions, which are included in the Appendices, were utilized for each
interview. The questions were open-ended and were directly related to the overall
research question, subquestions, and emerging themes. Some follow-up questions were
incorporated in the second interviews of speciﬁc individuals, to gain greater understanding
of topics raised in phase one. Most interviews were one hour. Some were as long as 1-
1/2 to 1-3/4 hours. Several meetings were also observed, where many informants were
typically present. Consequently, the interviewed individuals were observed in other
settings and the learning—centered initiative was a topic of discussion in several of these
meetings.

All interviews were tape recorded. In addition, the researcher took many notes of
key items. There was generally some time between interviews, up to 30-60 minutes,
depending upon travel time. This time was often used to make notes of overall
impressions of themes heard. Sections of the hand-written notes were asterisked for later
review. After returning home, full-text transcripts of the interviews were produced.

Case Proﬁle for Potential Case-to-Case Transfer

 

This “thick” (Firestone, 1993) case description is provided for the use of readers

99

who may choose to see whether the facts of this case ﬁt their own or other situations of
interest. In an article about generalizability and the qualitative paradigm, Firestone
observes that it is not uncommon or inappropriate to utilize analytic generalization and
case-to-case transfer in qualitative research. To assure that the reader can use the
ﬁndings, Firestone writes,
While transfer of ﬁndings from one case study to another is done by the reader, the
researcher has an obligation to provide a rich, detailed, thick description of the case.
This is because the researcher's theories about the conditions that affect the
applicability of study conclusions are less important than those of the reader. One
cannot know the situations in which readers are likely to consider applying study
ﬁndings. Therefore one must describe a broad range of background features,
aspects of the processes studied, and outcomes so readers have enough information
to assess the match between the situation studied and their own, especially since
their situations might be quite different. As readers recognize essential similarities to
cases of interest to them, they establish the basis for naturalistic generalization.
(Firestone, 1993, p. 18)
Firestone further observes that utilizing precedents, such as this case could represent for
readers, should be based on four criteria: material facts, appropriateness, the reason for
the decision, and the generality of the decision. The documents and the documentation
should provide the information needed to provide readers with the possibility for case-to-
case transfer. This opportunity for transfer increases the potential for this research to
make a contribution to inform practice.
Re ch C n ts d Data Coll 'on Pr es
Four components comprise the study, although they were not implemented in
discrete phases. The ﬁrst component is a review of the college’s documents that deﬁne or

describe the mission, vision, values, plans (including strategies) and other writings which

contribute to understanding the organization’s efforts to become more learning-centered.

100

 

A second component is on-campus interviews of key members of the learning-centered
initiative team, including chief academic, student affairs, and other learning officers,
including the President; campus administrators; and faculty. Third, meetings where
informants play their roles were observed. These included meetings of the Executive
Council, the President’s Council, the Learning-Centered Initiative Team, and the College-
Level Achievement Initiative. Fourth is a survey exploring individuals’ assessment of
organizational learning. The survey, “Building Organizational Learning Capacity-
Learning Inventory and Strategies Workbook” (copyright 1998) is described as an
assessment guide for understanding organizations as learning systems. More detail on
each of the research components follows.
Documents Review

Case College actively communicates with various publics. Consequently, a large
number of documents were available for the researcher’s review. Documents were
gathered ﬁom campus informants and public areas. Among the documents are internal
studies of eﬂ‘orts to become more learning-centered, developmental education reports,
correspondence from the president, results of studies the college has participated in with
other colleges, budgets, curriculum guides, strategic plans, teaching and learning plan,
course syllabi, professional development materials, catalogs, schedules, published articles,
web page documents, and more. Over 500 pages of materials were reviewed.

These diverse documents, from the individually produced to the professionally
published, provide strong and consistent evidence of the types of information being

gathered by the college and the types of use made of this data. They also serve as

101

evidence of the importance placed on capturing and communicating key information.
Appendix H includes a partial list of the documents reviewed.
Interviews

Interviews were scheduled with the individuals who have some responsibility(ies) for
a more learning-centered college development and those with direct learning
responsibilities who are members of the president’s council. The interviewees were
described earlier. Interviews ranged from 45 to 90 minutes, with most averaging 55-60
minutes. There were two rounds of interviews, with the second round commencing
approximately six weeks after the ﬁrst.

The second stage of interviews was designed to check the understandings gained in
the ﬁrst stage and to gather additional information about unclear points or emerging
themes. Two interviewees were added at this time, and one from the ﬁrst phase was not
interviewed a second time. Subsequent telephone calls and e-mail correspondence was
used to ﬁrrther conﬁrm or gather information.

Both sets of interviews were semi-structured, with the same questions being asked
of most interviewees, except as other issues arose and follow-up questions were asked.
Interviews were relatively formal but also ﬁiendly. The researcher believes good rapport
was established between the interviewee and the researcher. All interviews were audio
taped, with the permission of the informant. At the end of some interviews, after the tape
was turned oﬂ’, informants were asked if there were additional comments they wanted to
make. No one offered any. During one second-phase interview, the interviewee asked

that the tape be turned off as she explained some organizational dynamics that she believed

102

inﬂuenced the learning-centered agenda. This information is not included in the research
ﬁndings.

An interview guide was established for each round of interviews. Additional
questions to be asked of particular informants were added to the lists of questions. The
questions were developed by the researcher and were designed to relate to the research
question or one or more of the subquestions to be answered by this research.

Round 1 interview questions began with knowledge and demographic information
but moved toward questions asking informants to describe activities and experiences with
strategies to move the college toward becoming a more learning-centered organization.
Informants were probed concerning opinions, beliefs, feelings, philosophies, and
assumptions as they relate to the change strategies, the meaning of a learning-centered
college, and organizational learning. Questions were designed to provoke the reﬂective
thinking of informants rather than eliciting “company-line” or textbook responses. Refer
to Appendices F and G for sample interview guides. A full-text transcript was produced
following the interviews.

W

Observations were a minor data collection technique. Observations took place in
formal and informal ways during the two visits to the campus. Casual observations
occurred while walking between buildings on the campus, in the corridors, in cafeterias,
and in outdoor convening areas on each campus. More formal observations occurred as a
result of participation in meetings of the President’s Council, the Executive Council, the

Board of Trustees, the Learning-Centered Initiative Team, and the College-Level

103

Achievement Initiative. In the meetings, extensive notes were taken, but audiotaping did
not occur since not all participants had signed consent forms and the likelihood of getting
an audible tape in these group settings was unlikely. The researcher noted exact
quotations, summations, and observable characteristics, such as apparent interest levels,
engagement, activities of participants, and group dynamics. Organizational learning is
reﬂected in process through factors such as sources of information, openness, sharing, and
other factors. Strategies, philosophies, and tenets of organizational learning are not easily
observable. For example, according to DiBella, evidence of organizational curiosity is:
“We are receptive to unanticipated events and use them to learn.” Although inquiry may
get at a perspective on this statement, it is not one easily seen as one watches individuals
at work.

I was on the campus three days during phase one and ﬁve days during phase two, for
a total of eight full days on site and 12 days in the community. Several meetings were
observed, including those of executive staﬂ’, the learning-centered implementation team, a
special research group studying developmental education, and the board of trustees
meeting. Because there was some space between meetings, considerable time was spent
“hanging out” on the campus. Most lunches and some breakfasts took place in diﬂ’erent
campus cafeterias. From these multiple observations, which included many more
individuals than the selected interviewees, the researcher gained some feel for the campus
culture and style.

The campus appears to be a ﬁiendly place. When asked for directions, individuals

approached were always helpﬁrl. Students were observed to be communicating regularly

104

on the campus and in campus facilities. Oﬁices appeared busy, with many individuals
around, but there was a sense that some individuals were far busier than others. Office
personnel sometimes appeared to be engaged in more personal conversations than
productive work. These conversations may contribute to the ﬁiendly atmosphere of the
campus, but they also conveyed a less professional style than is observed in some other
settings. This behavior was more characteristic of the campus ofﬁces than of the central
administrative offices. It is also important to note that the college was in the summer
session, probably a less-busy time of year.

In staff meetings, the atmosphere was informal. Considerable conversation took
place, and it seemed that individuals knew each other well. Time was allowed for
conversation and the agendas were quite unstructured. In contrast with meetings I have
observed in other community colleges, the style could be described as informal and even
laid back. However, this lack of strict agendas may also contribute to the comradery in
evidence at the college. Sometimes too much structure mitigates against building personal
relationships. These observations of informality and a personal approach are consistent
with later ﬁndings of the organizational learning inventory.

Throughout the process, I exchanged several e-mail communications with
interviewees as interview times were established, materials were requested, and other
business transacted. Inﬂuencing an early view of the campus was their prompt response to
requests for interviews. The President’s executive assistant provided a list with contact
information, including e-mail addresses. The ﬁrst requests for interviews were sent by e-

mail late one evening. By noon the next day, more than half had already responded.

105

Within 12 hours, all except one had responded and provided options for interview times.
This promptness regarding requests for interviews and documents continued to be
characteristic of the respondents throughout the process.

The fact that the college’s new president provided the list may have inﬂuenced this
responsiveness, but this was a refreshing quality. In other venues, it is necessary to
communicate via e—mail to establish meeting times, gather feedback on topics, etc. It is
not my experience that so many would be so timely. In other work of equal or potentially
greater consequence, e. g. accreditation visits, representatives are far less timely in their
responses. This punctuality greatly facilitated the schedule-development and report-
writing process. Within a few days of issuing a request, a complete agenda could be
established. Although the on-campus observations revealed a laid-back style, especially on
the campuses, the responsiveness of all suggests a campus culture that values prompt
communications.

The high level of initiatives, the grth of the college, the energy exhibited by
leaders, and more dispel any potential concern about a laid-back or half-hearted effort in
execution of the college’s agenda. Their meetings appear to serve a need for
communication in a non-threatening, collegial manner, a factor noted in their values.
m

At the ﬁrst interview in phase 1, informants were asked to complete an
organizational learning proﬁle, an instrument called Building Organizational Learning
Capability - Learning Inventory and Strategies Workbook developed by Organizational

Transitions, the ﬁrm of author Anthony DiBella. DiBella granted permission in writing for

106

reproduction of this survey which is forthcoming in a second book which will be published
by Jossey-Bass. His most recent survey was used, which has a 1998 copyright date.
Interviewees were asked to complete the surveys while the researcher was still on campus,
and a few did. Others were unable to do so, but either a business card or an addressed
envelope was left with each individual to facilitate their return of the instruments. All ten
initial interviewees completed and returned the form.

This survey form asks participants to rate their organization on the factors included
in the DiBella and Nevis model of learning orientations and facilitating factors. The
factors identiﬁed by DiBella and Nevis are relevant in most theories of organizational
learning.

Respondents are asked to provide examples that reﬂected their responses to the
force-pair choices. Some questions require some extrapolation to relate to education,
such as the question relating to ‘Value-chain focus (LO-6).” However, with the demand-
driven economy and the competitive pressures organizations are experiencing in higher
education today, a focus on Value-chain” may not be far from where many will be in the
foreseeable future. In providing interviewees with the form, the researcher explained that
the form had been developed for business use.

An initial consideration regarding use of the form was to revise some of the
questions to make them more education ﬁiendly, but this path was not taken for the
following reasons. First, a changed questionnaire would be untested in other settings.
Second, colleges are increasingly business-like in their approaches to strategy. Third,

determination of the utility of this published instrument is one potentially valuable

107

byproduct of the research. The top leadership is likely to be more conversant with the
terminology of customers, markets, and service. Ifthis tool were to be used with faculty
at large, it may not effectively serve the intended purposes because of their different points
of View. Prior to utilizing the tool in the case college, the instrument was tested with
another group of administrators in an attempt to assess the utility of the tool for upper-
level administrators in community colleges.

Some potential bias may be built into the questions. Using one example, there may
be different meanings applied to the terms “innovate” and “emulate.” Because one of the
choices may seem more attractive, respondents may choose one even if the other may be
a more accurate representation. Interviewing which followed the completion of the
instrument and the requested written examples helped to assess the degree to which each
dimension exists. Individuals’ answers to the survey questions informed second-phase
interview question development.

Contributions of the Data to Research Qpestions

Each of the components in the research design contributed to answering the primary
and secondary research questions. The survey instrument was most informative in
interpreting the organization’s learning proﬁle and enriching the description of the
organization’s processes. The interviews and observations provided insight to questions
about other models that are employed in the organization, the leaders’ understanding of
the meaning of a learning-centered college, and others. All of the research questions are
reported and interpreted from the collective data; they cannot be answered by a single

informant.

108

Appendix B is a table that demonstrates how each data source contributed to each of
the research questions. The primary source is noted with a P in the box, while other
contributing sources are denoted with Xs.

Role of th_e Researcher

Throughout the research, I maintained a research role with the organization rather
than becoming a participant-observer. The topic appeared to be of interest to all
informants, and there was no shortage of conversation between the researcher and the
informants. The learning-centered college topic is at the forefront of most community
college agendas, as it was in this college, so participants were eager to share.

My research roles included interviewer, observer, analyzer, reﬂector, writer, and
sense maker. In the sensemaking role, I bring my own experiences to understanding the
case. I also brought a point of view, which may have inﬂuenced the interpretation but
should not diminish the ﬁndings. This point of view includes fundamental values, such as
beliefs about the importance of inclusion, sharing, and recognizing as dimensions of
organizational life. Every attempt has been made to separate these views from what was
observed and interpreted from the observations and inquiry. Chapter 2 sets out the
frameworks from within which the analysis and interpretation emerged.

Conﬁdentialig Considerations

Each individual and the college’s identity is protected to avoid conﬁdentiality
concerns. This section will ﬁrst address college concerns and then individual concerns
regarding conﬁdentiality.

Securing the required access and cooperation required a certain level of disclosure.

109

Key stakeholders affirmed their willingness to have the research conducted and agreed to
participate. The researcher attended several meetings and was introduced as doing
research about learning—centered colleges. Therefore, the case is not likely to remain
completely anonymous, since there will be many individuals who will know of the
research, and many knew who else was being interviewed. The informants are not
anonymous in the setting. A single-page summary of the planned research study, its
purpose, and the primary research question and major subsidiary questions was provided
to participants (reference Appendix D).

At no time will the identity of the case college or any individual be named by the
researcher in a public forum, such as a conference presentation or article. Nor will the
name of the college or identity of any individual be included in any ofﬁcial or public
documents without the written permission of the chief executive ofﬁcer or the aﬂ‘ected
individual, as appropriate. The location, name, and explicit demographic characteristics of
the college and the identity of each individual will be only generically described in
published descriptions.

Because informal communication channels in organizations are often active, it is
expected that many will know of the research. It is not possible to guarantee that another
person will not disclose the identity of the college. The ﬁndings of the study are not
expected to be sumciently controversial to cause college stakeholders grave concerns if
the college is identiﬁed, nor are they expected to be so provocative that someone would
go to great lengths to identify the college.

The ﬁndings should prove valuable for the institution, as it continues its learning

110

journey. Gaining additional insight to the internal organization and the leaders’ strategies
in the light of organizational learning should be one important beneﬁt the college can
expect from participation. A tenet of organizational learning is that we learn from our
experiences. The questions and subsequent ﬁndings are expected to provoke leaders to
think more about their strategies and learning processes.

Efforts have been made to protect individual identities in the documentation of the
ﬁndings, except in the case of a board member whose remarks were made in a public open
meeting under the sunshine laws of the state. Some names are known to the researcher’s
committee, but in this context the names would only be used to verify the research. The
report of ﬁndings has been crafted to avoid the potential for any person to be individually
identiﬁed with any items that could be considered risky. In some cases, the source is
openly identiﬁed by position, not by name, because of the public nature of the item and the
signiﬁcance in the study. Individuals are categorized by general classiﬁcation type, with
code references linked to each individual. Informants were invited to participate by e-mail
messages. The consent form which was presented to each interviewee explained the
conﬁdentiality considerations and was signed by each person and the researcher. Copies
were provided to each interviewee. The consent form is Appendix E.

It is primarily the behavior of the whole that forms the substance of the reported
ﬁndings, but it is difﬁcult to envision this without particular examples of individual actors.
Organizations, it is argued in this manuscript, are entities capable of learning; at the same
time, they are comprised of individuals. Each individual actor, if one believes in systems

thinking, impacts the organism (the organization). Among the foundations of

111

organizational learning are trust, openness, and a willingness to critically self-examine.
Analvsis of the Dela
The information sources were analyzed utilizing a form of the pattern theory of
Neuman (1991) which is explained in Creswell’s book, Resegch Deggp. In explaining
pattern theory, Neuman writes,

Like causal theory, it contains an interconnected set of concepts and

relationships, but it does not require causal statements. Instead, pattern theory

uses metaphor or analogies so that relationship “makes sense.” Pattern

theories are systems of ideas that inform. (Neuman, 1991, p. 38, cited in

Creswell, 1994, p. 94)

Patterns and themes did emerge. These themes are utilized throughout the report of
ﬁndings to answer the major research question and the subquestions. The picture
emerging from the answers to the research question, the strategies in use for becoming
more learning-centered, are juxtapositioned against established theories of organizational
learning to further inform the ﬁndings. There is an interconnected set of concepts and
relationships, although the researcher has not applied a metaphor or analogy to the data
since the ﬁndings are easily understood.

The word-processing software’s copy-and-paste ﬁrnction was used extensively to
develop a series of subdocuments. The categories of these subdocuments were
determined from both the research questions and subquestions and other emerging areas
of interest. In total, 21 additional documents were prepared with the exact narrative from
individuals concerning the topic of interest. Ifthe topic was a critical one, such as the

meaning of a learning-centered college, the researcher mined the information until each

respondent’s view of the topic was found. One method for doing this was to perform

112

word and phrase searches through the transcripts. In other cases, it was necessary to read
for meaning of the informants. Many of the subdocuments have commentary included
from each of the interviewees. The subdocuments include the following: barriers,
collaboration meaning and models, culture, decision-making, focus, learning journey,
learning-centered meaning, measures, models, most important strategy, philosophy,
personal contributions, personal learning, resources, strategies, systems perspective, the
ideal, trust-respect, underprepared students, use of learning, and what to do.

Each of these subdocuments was then analyzed for common themes. Once a
perspective was gained from re-reading the subdocument, the researcher wrote the overall
view of the topic and incorporated representative quotations. As other themes were
revealed, the researcher perused the data looking for comments concerning these topics,
such as leadership.

In ﬁnalizing the major strategies, careful attention was paid to both the frequency
and emphasis of responses. The number of times that a strategy surfaced in interviews
was an important factor. The fact that some identiﬁed strategies as the most important
was another factor considered in weighting the responses. Distinctions sometimes needed
to be made concerning whether an idea ﬁt best with one category or another.
Analysis-in-the Field Strategies

Harnmersley and Atkinson recommend an analysis-in-the-ﬁeld mode but also suggest
that beginning researchers reserve most of their analysis until most or all of the data are
available. The authors’ chapter on data analysis suggests many ways in which analysis can

become an ongoing part of the data collection. Because of the need to build relationships

113

to theories, identify patterns and themes, and continually refocus the questioning, efforts
were made to use “analysis-in-the-ﬁeld” strategies. Although a beginning academic
researcher, the researcher has considerable experience with site visits as a NCA
consultant-evaluator and team chair and an occupational programs consultant. Emerging
themes were identiﬁed throughout the interviews and extracted from notes at the end of
each day on site.
Technology Resources

The computer was a helpful tool in both the data collection and the analysis
processes. The search, copy-and-paste, and other features of word-processing software
were helpﬁrl. EndNote bibliographic software was used to record notes concerning the
literature reviewed, and several new entries were made following the research as the
analysis phase began. The researcher has consulted more than 800 sources and has entered
each in EndNote; many references include extensive notes. These records were invaluable
in tying the research ﬁndings to the literature, drawing relationships between these ﬁndings
and other research, and ﬁnding appropriate citations. In particular, the search feature of
EndNote has been immensely helpful in ﬁnding references on particular themes, such as
strategy, leadership, trust, and others. It was also valuable in completing the literature
review.

SPSS Software was also utilized to analyze some quantitative parts of the survey
form. Excel spreadsheets were also used in creating matrices of some of the survey form
data and generating means, ﬁequencies, etc. All of these tools were essential to developing

the report of ﬁndings and performing the analysis of the data.

114

The Research Schedule
Following is an approximate tirneline for completion of the dissertation research. In
total, the research took almost two years, with the greatest time spent upfront in preparing
a literature review and clarifying the research question.

Table 4 Research Schedule

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activity Start Date Complete
Date
Do literature reading and notetaking 2/99 11/00
Submit proposal to committee 2/00
Dissertation committee meeting 2/00
Seek UCRIHS approval 3/00 3/00
Gain access to research subjects and sites 4/00
Conduct pilot test of instrumart and some interview questions 4/00
Review documents of case site 4/00 11/00
Conduct ﬁrst round of interviews and observations 5/6/00 5/10/00
Produce rormd 1 interview transcripts and summary notes 5/15/00 6/10/00
Conduct round 2 interviews and observations 6/25/00 6/ 3 0/00
Produce transcripts and integrate information with round 1 07/10/00 08/20/00
Conduct sequel research activities 8/00 11/00
Analyze documents, transcripts, and ﬁndings and do prelim. 07/00 9/00
draft
Revise and Resubmit Dissertation 10/23/00 11/6/00
Participate in Oral Defense 11/28/00
Prepare Dissertation for Final Printing 11/29/00 12/ 13/00
Write Article(s) and Submit for Publication 1/15/01 6/01

 

 

With the experience gained from this research experience, I believe that the early proposal

115

develr

1
need fr
rarely 1
organir
increas
W eick,
own rhj
partici p
(Schon,
0f Case

ﬁndings

development stages could be signiﬁcantly shortened.
Reﬂective Opportunity

With the pace of change, many community college leaders would tell you that the
need for immediate action often precludes adequate time or space for reﬂection. There is
rarely time for “processing” of viewpoints and meaning making in dynamic and active
organizations. A desirable by-product of this research would be to assist informants to
increase their “reﬂective observation (Kolb) and to “make sense” (Drath and Palus, 1994;
Weick, 1995) as they respond to questions, complete the survey instruments, analyze their
own thinking, and/or react to ﬁndings. The study may provide an opportunity for
participants to become more “reﬂective practitioners,” as described by Donald Schon
(Schon, 1997). Because the topic of this research is a central theme in the daily activities
of Case College, interviewees are expected to take the time to think about the research

ﬁndings.

116

Chapter 4 - The Learning-Centered Journey
The Situation in Higher Education

Higher education was negligibly impacted by the spate of reports in the early 1980s
documenting concerns about public education, particularly K-12 education. A Nation at
M (1983) and National Education Goals were followed by a series of journal articles
and books lamenting the state of American education (National Commission on Excellence
in Education. 1983; Perelman, 1992). Calls began in earnest in the 19905 for a reform of
higher education (Wingspread Group, 1993; Alfred, 1993; Rowley, Lujan, & Dolence,
1997). Accountability measures were increasingly being introduced in state legislatures
and accrediting bodies. It was also the mid 19905 when Terry O’Banion ﬁrst began to
write about a learning college.

Community colleges have been national leaders in applying information technology,

developing collaborative learning models, and incorporating assessment and

outcome measures--all for the purpose of improving their primary function of

teaching. (O’Banion, 1995, 23-4)
O’Banion’s advice to community colleges included suggestions to “develop their own
language to reﬂect a new focus on learning rather than on instruction and teaching,”

” “

“develop deﬁnitions and frameworks for a desired learning paradigm, realign current
structures to accommodate collaboration and teamwork within the college community,”
and “involve all institutional stakeholders in the change process” (O’Banion, 1995, p. 27).

It was in this educational context that the learning-centered initiative at Case College

began.

117

The Situation at Case College

Case College’s context is important in understanding the research ﬁndings. The
following sections describe structures and processes. To introduce this section, the view
of the college’s external accreditation team is offered. In the 1993 report of the
reafﬁrmation committee of the regional accreditation association, the authors wrote that

(The college) has a robust and mature set of processes and procedures for planning

and evaluation to achieve institutional effectiveness. The Comprehensive

Development Plan (CDP)—with eight strategic goals and accompanying subgoals,

objectives and implementation steps and tasks and a variety of evaluation procedures

to measure outcomes related to each goal—is in place. General outcomes are
included in the purpose statements, and speciﬁc outcomes are included under
guarantees and competencies for graduates in the catalog. (Accreditation Review

Team, 1993)

The goals in this plan predate the emphasis which emerged in 1996 to become a
more learning-centered college. The following sections will describe components of the
organizational structure, college demographics, and organizing principles.

The GoverningBoa_r_d

The college is governed by an eight-member Board of Trustees which is appointed
by the governor of the state, approved by at least four members of the State Board of
Education, and conﬁrmed by the Senate. The college’s board has responsibilities for
setting policy, appointing the president, and remaining informed about the college’s
ﬁnancial position. Board members serve in staggered four-year terms. They represent the
two counties of the service district in proportion to the population of the counties. The

Board exercised their responsibility to appoint a president within the last year. The

process was described by many interviewees as very open and learning-centered. Several

118

commented not only on the enthusiasm they had for the selection but also expressed their
appreciation for the open selection process. Reports are that the campus was strongly
aligned behind the selected president, but there was some split at the Board prior to the
ﬁnal selection.
The President

The president, by state law, has the authority to be “the executive ofﬁcer and
corporate secretary of the board of trustees as well as the chief administrative ofﬁcer of
the community college, and all components of the institution and all aspects of its
operation are responsible to the board of trustees through the president (Self-Study, 1991-
93).” The former president served from 1984 until 1999, 15 years. The current president
began with the college in 2000 and had been at the college only ﬁve months at the time the
research was conducted.
The Organizational Structure

The 1993 accreditation review team described the college’s organizational structure
as a “modiﬁed ﬂat matrix structure built on ﬁve vice presidents with college-wide
functional responsibilities, three of whom also have site-speciﬁc responsibilities as campus
provosts” (Accreditation Review Team, 1993). The team noted that some have concerns
about this model that was established in 1990 and recommended that the structure
continue to be reviewed. Concerns included clarity of reporting relationships and abilities
for diverse voices to be heard. The model provided for college-wide leadership and
decentralization of responsibility. By 1999, the structure had changed minimally with

some realignment of vice presidents and a reduction in the number ﬁom ﬁve to four.

119

Campus provosts became the primary leaders of their campuses and report directly to the
President and serve on the Executive and President’s Councils.
The Committee and Council Structure

College-wide leadership and academic decision-making are provided most directly
by the following groups:

Executive Council: This group is chaired by the Vice President for Planning and
Educational Services, one of two individuals who also co-chairs the current Learning-
Centered Initiative Team. Membership includes all of the vice presidents and the ﬁve
campus provosts. This group generally meets monthly.

President’s Council: The president’s council is an expanded executive council.
Others reporting directly to the president, such as the public relations director and the
college’s legal counsel, are members of the President’s Council. This group also meets
monthly, often on the same afternoons as the morning meetings of the Executive Council.
This group is beginning to meet more frequently with the current college president, and
several off-site retreats for team development had occurred and more were planned.

Curriculum Committee: The Curriculum Committee is chaired by the Provost of
one of the campuses. The Vice President for Teaching, Curriculum, and Learning has
been a member of the group, but her responsibilities did not include a signiﬁcant
relationship with the curriculum committee. With the rewriting of the job description for
the Vice President’s position that became vacant after the research began, the individual
Who will serve in this role will coordinate the curriculum committee. To date, the

curticulum committee does not appear to have played a signiﬁcant role in the learning-

120

centered initiative.

The College Level Achievement Initiative: This group is comprised of four
subgroups with members from each of the three major campuses. There are reading, ESL,
writing, and math teams. The work is coordinated by the Project Director for two United
States Department of Education (U SDOE) grants, two activity directors, two activity
coordinators, and two administrative assistants. A total of 68 faculty and professional
staff serve on the committees Including the leadership for the initiative, a total of 74
individuals are involved directly in the activities of this group. Their primary focus is the
development of learning outcomes, goals, strategies, assessments, and learning activities in
the foundation areas of reading, writing, and math. These learning developments are
synchronized with the college-wide outcomes described later.

The Learning-Centered Initiative Leadership Team. This group was established in
1996 to support the college’s efforts to become more learning-centered. It is co-chaired
by a faculty member and a vice president. There are presently 15 members, including ﬁve
faculty, nine administrators, and one board member. Representatives from each of the
college campuses and one of the centers are members of this team. The membership
continues to evolve as new members are expected to be added as the college takes on
greater efforts toward learning-centeredness. According to one of the co-chairs, “the
charge has been to recommend strategies, design and coordinate the various collaborative
processes used to develop the various strategies, facilitate the decision-making processes
to achieve consensus, and recommend ways to institutionalize strategies once sufficiently

developed. The new charge will be to oversee the design and implementation of the

121

strategic goals, budget planning processes, and evaluation of outcomes” (COl, e-mail
correspondence, August 27, 2000). Most current members participated in a June 2000
week-long seminar associated with the Vanguard College designation. The team reports
to the president.
S Levels

More than 2,100 were employed by the college in 1998-99; 312 of the employees
were regular faculty. Seventy-six percent of the faculty have master’s degrees and 17
percent have earned doctorates. The faculty is not unionized, a factor which may allow it
some additional role ﬂexibility that some other institutions do not enjoy. During the same
year, there were 1,176 part-time employees; many of these are faculty. There are 36
administrators, a number that is low when compared with many other large, urban
institutions.
Economic Position

Case College enjoys a comfortable economic position having managed its ﬁnances
carefully throughout its history. Among the reasons given for the comfortable ﬁnancial
position are the grth it has experienced, its success with earning grants, and its care to
minimize long-term debt. It is also the fastest-growing community college in the state. In
1998-99, the college had an operating budget of over $93 million. The greatest source of
funding is ﬁ'om the state, which provided $48 million of the total in 1998-99. Tuition and
fees generated an additional $25.4 million, and federal and state grants represented $8.1
million.

An area of challenge identiﬁed by the college leadership is the fact that this college

122

receives per-student ﬁrnding at a level considerably below the state average. Its square
feet of building space places it in the bottom three of more than 29 community college in
the square feet of space available per ﬁrll-time equated student (F TE).

Student Demoggaphics

In 1998-99, the average age of students was 24.8. In the continuing education
programs, the average age was 38.6. Sixty-two percent of the students were Caucasian;
17 percent Hispanic; 12 percent Aﬁican-American; and 7 percent were Asian/Paciﬁc
Islanders. Case College enrolls a higher proportion of minorities than do either of the
neighboring four-year colleges, but it enrolls a lower percentage than the public schools of
the county. In fall of 1999 Case College reported that its ethnic enrolhnents total 39
percent while the primary feeder high schools in the county enroll 54 percent who are
ethnically diverse. Staff project that ﬁom a level of 65 percent Caucasian in 1995 that the
college will enroll 55.7 percent Caucasians in 2003, while the Hispanic enrollment is
projected to increase to 21.6 percent from its 19 percent level in 1999. Aﬁican American
enrollments in 1995 were 12 percent, in 1999 13.6 percent, and are projected to be 15.3
percent by 2003 (presentation handout, 2000).

Thirty-four percent of the students were full—time and 66 percent were part-time
according to a 1998-99 Fact Book. Day students comprised 73 percent and evening
enrollments accounted for 27 percent. The greatest proportion of students, 33 percent,
completed high school in the original base county of the college. Seven percent of the
enrollees completed high school in a recently annexed service county, and 6 percent

completed high school in a neighboring county. An additional 21 percent graduated from

123

high school in other parts of the state and 26 percent completed out of state. However,
current student residences are noted as 68 percent base county, and only 5 percent out of
state. This distinction is noted in part because of the evidence it lends to the perspective
of a changing community and consequently a changing community college. Most
community college enrollees in other states have completed their high school educations in
schools close to the community college. The backgrounds students bring to Case College
are more varied than many community colleges would experience.

The college has a mandated requirement for students who test low on their incoming
placement assessments to enroll in a College Preparatory Class. From 1996-97 through
1999-00, 84-86 percent of the students were required to take at least one college
preparatory class. Math presented the greatest problem for students, with between 77 and
81 percent of the students being required to take a preparatory math course in each of
these four years.
2113mm

The college’s mission includes the following components:

- being a creative leader and partner in its region

- making available a variety of services to support students’ academic and personal
development

- commitment to an open-door, comprehensive postsecondary education (Catalog,
2000)

The primary mission of public community colleges in the state is to respond to
community needs for postsecondary academic and vocational education. Community

colleges of the state grant certiﬁcates and the Associate in Arts, Science, and Applied

124

Science degrees. Unlike many colleges, this college has a lengthy mission statement,
consisting of several paragraphs. Many consultants or observers would question whether
a mission should instead be a more concise statement that individuals could readily recite.
The nrission statement should specify clearly the business the organization is in and who it
serves; this one does that, but it is doubtﬁrl if most college personnel would be able to
articulate much about what is contained within it. Revisiting the mission statement is one
area leaders intend to address soon.

Consistent with other comprehensive community colleges, Case College offers the
following:

0 a two-year program for students preparing to transfer to upper-division college
work

- college-preparation courses for students requiring academic assistance
- technical and continuing education programs for area industry

- student services to assist students in assessing and achieving their goals through
academic, career, and personal decision making

The college’s historic emphasis has been oriented toward transfer education,
reﬂecting a continuation of its early roots as a junior college. Staff reported that 80
percent of their students plan to transfer, and about 80 percent of these transfer to a local
university. This reported emphasis represents a higher proportion with a transfer goal
than is the norm in community colleges. The preponderance of shared goal intent may
make it easier for the college to focus on some key areas than would be possible if
students’ goals were more disparate.

The college has included economic development among its current areas of focus,

125

but the economic development emphasis is restricted to some narrow areas, another fact
that distinguishes this college from many others. Many community colleges have assumed
a major role in economic development and offer a broad array of training opportunities.
The state community college system has “strengthen community college involvement in
workforce development education” at the top of its 1999 policy goals. Several colleges
have non-credit enrollments that are more than double their credit enrollments, which is
not the proﬁle of Case College.

This college has not elected to concentrate on what some would call community
education or enrichment courses, non-credit offerings designed to serve a broad-based
audience. Many colleges offer programs in the areas of personal enrichment, gardening,
cooking, crafts, college for kids, senior academies, and similar programs. This college has
also not chosen to be a major player in adult education (high school completion), although
it does support a comprehensive developmental program.

Core Learning Outcomes

Like most community colleges, in part because of increasing emphasis on assessment
among regional accreditation associations, this college has deﬁned core learning
competencies which guide curriculum development, delivery, and assessment. Their
approach to core learning appears unique and forms an important foundation for their
eﬂ’orts to become more learning-centered. Instead of the typical list of 6-10 general
education learning outcomes, in complete statements, such as “students will demonstrate
the ability to think critically using the theories of their major discipline,” Case College has

identiﬁed four single-word learning outcomes that guide their work: Think, Value,

126

Communicate, and Act. Each of the four words is supported by additional narrative that
explains what one must do to demonstrate these outcomes and how and where learners
should demonstrate it. The core competencies are deﬁned as follows:

Think. Think clearly, critically, and creatively; Analyze, synthesize, integrate, and
evaluate in many domains of human inquiry.

Communicate: Communicate with different audiences using varied means.

Value: Make reasoned value judgments and responsible commitments.

Act: Act purposefully, reﬂectively, and responsibly (Catalog, 1999-2000).
Additional narrative for the communicate goal is offered here as an example of the detail
that supports each core learning outcome.

To communicate, what must you do?

a.) Identify your own strengths and need for improvement as communicator

b.) Employ methods of communication appropriate to your audience and purpose

c.) Evaluate the effectiveness of your own and others’ communication.

How and where must you communicate?

- by speaking, listening, reading and writing

- verbally, non-verbally, and visually

- with honesty and civility

- in different disciplines and settings. (Catalog, 1999-2000)

This unique, concise approach has resulted in broad-based recognition of the desired
learning outcomes. All individuals interviewed used the four (Think, Value,
Communicate, and Act) in their explanations of the college’s efforts to become more
learning-centered. This concise statement of outcomes represents a signiﬁcant contrast to
the lengthy mission statement. In research conducted by Case College at a workshop in

the summer of 2000, 98 percent of the 84 in attendance were able to recite the four core

competencies (Pre-Post assessments of professional development workshop, 2000).

127

There is a distinct advantage in having clarity about the learning outcomes, as will be
discussed later in the report of ﬁndings.
31%
The college also articulates its values in public documents, such as its self-study and
the college catalog. The values are:
- We value each student as a unique individual by supporting student success, high
academic and personal standards, civic responsibility, and a lifelong quest for

excellence.

- We value the importance of critical thinking, reading, writing, and computational
skills in all programs as a necessary component of lifelong learning.

- We value a communicative and friendly collegiate environment, with faculty and
staﬂ’ who support a caring and professional relationships with our students and
community.

- We value the educational and interpersonal contributions to the College that people
from all ethnic and cultural backgrounds bring us.

- We value our ability to quickly and eﬂ’ectively respond to community needs
through effective public/private partnerships (Catalog, 1999-2000).

Case College has a well-documented mission and values. The college is similar to
many large comprehensive community colleges, but it appears to have a higher proportion
of students with transfer as their goal, minimal emphasis on community education and
economic development, a lean administrative structure, a larger proportion of its students
enrolled in credit programs, and a lower proportion of minority enrollment than many
other urban institutions. The ethnic proﬁle is changing, however.

A Learnin -Centered Journey

The purpose of this research was to examine the strategies being implemented by

128

leaders in one community college for becoming a more learning-centered institution and to
interpret these from the lens of organizational learning. Before reporting on the strategies
identiﬁed and the researcher’s ﬁndings regarding the overarching research question, it is
important to proﬁle the learning-centered journey of Case College.

Although Case College leaders say their efforts predate O’Banion’s writings, in fact
they seem to be synchronized. The learning college momentum accelerated with the
publication of O’Banion’s 1997 book, A Learning College for the 21" Centugr, but several
articles preceded this seminal work.

During 1995 the college participated in a series of roundtables as one of 26 colleges
involved in a major research project concerning leadership and institutional
transformation. This college was one of only two community colleges within the group of
higher education institutions. For its projects in 1996 and 1999, Case College focused on
“Becoming a Learning-Centered College: Improving Learning by Transforming Core
College Processes.”

Suggested readings for the research project, which has published three monographs,
included many on re-engineering, culture, and leadership. Several recommended articles
were from the W. Among the recommended resources were
writings by Birnbaum, Schein, Mintzberg, Kotter, Drucker, and Guskin. Some of these
authors are included in Chapter 2's review of the literature. Many of these resources are
more aligned with the business literature than with traditional higher education writings.
Some directly and indirectly address organizational learning, such as the reference to

Schein’s “How Can Organizations Learn Faster? The Challenge of Entering the Green

129

Room” (1993). It appears that some of these writings inﬂuenced Case College leaders,
although these authors are not the ones most cited by the leaders when models in use was
the subject of exploration.
The conclusion of the ﬁnal monograph in the series of three resulting from a national
research study concerning change in higher education is this:
Knowing where the institution began and where it is at a later point in time are
crucial to advancing a change agenda and to acquiring the learning necessary to
change and change again. Learning cannot occur without the feedback provided by
evidence. But because evidence is difﬁcult to collect and decipher and because the
relationships between actions and outcomes are ambiguous, the act of intentionally
collecting evidence does not ensure accurate learning. (American Council on
Education, 1999)
The researchers not only make the case for analyzing where an institution was and is
moving but also note the importance of evidence in generating learning. In an epilogue,
the authors of the monograph observe that only one-third of the institutions were still
working on the same change initiative four years later. They comment:
Their experiences also reveal how ﬂuid, and often how idiosyncratic, the change
process is. Each campus had its own rhythm, often characterized by steady and slow
progress punctuated by bursts of activity. Campuses frequently had to turn their
attention to crises, or to pressing issues that they could never have anticipated just a
few months earlier. No journey of change followed a predictable course, which
highlights how profoundly human is the undertaking of institutional change.
(American Council on Education, 1999)
Case College is among the third of institutions that are still focusing on their initial
projects, and its commitment to these has become greater. It has also experienced
leadership turnover in two of the few top executive-level positions, the president and the

vice president for curriculum, teaching, and learning. This “constancy of purpose” is a

topic that will be explored later.

130

In April 1996, the former president of Case College issued a paper called “Shaping
Our Future.” In this document, reportedly strongly inﬂuenced or even written by two
executive leaders of the college, the president proclaimed that “my vision centers on
focusing (Case College) as a learning-centered institution and on our working together as
a community of learners.” He wrote, “I will be asking you to share in shaping that vision
by deﬁning what it will mean to be a learning-centered college.” He reiterated the
challenges the college faces, such as technology and ﬁnances. He cited the strengths,
including outstanding state and national reputations, success in student services, learning
resources, instruction, and high transfer rates. He acknowledged that “our faculty are
continually learning to solve new problems and to address old problems in new ways” and
stated, “I respect faculty as the core strength of (Case College), and I respect the support
all of the rest of the staff give to our educational program. He noted the increasing
diversity, having moved from 9 percent minority when he began in 1984 to 35 percent in
1996. He observed that “a commitment to scholarship is alive and well at (Case College)”
(President, 1996).

He cited as strengths the college’s mission and values statements and their emphases
on education leadership, valuing each student as a unique individual, high academic and
personal standards, and a lifelong quest for excellence. He shared his beliefs about the
ﬁrture of this college:

I believe (Case College) must continue to strive to be both a community of learners

that comprise a student-centered and a gaming-centered institution, examining and

improving upon our core processes of curriculum and instruction, developmental
advising, and life and workplace preparation. (President, 1996)

131

He answered the question of how this might happen by describing the need for faculty and
staﬂ’ to be perceived as role models, by encouraging professional development and
collaborative learning, investigating new delivery systems, emphasizing personal caring,
and focusing upon retention. He calls for the college to undertake certain projects,
including support for faculty in making changes in general education, maximizing student
learning, empowering department chairs to be leaders and managers, and funding
innovation. The proposed list of projects includes 16 items, including several concerning
firnding, governance, and technology. He concludes by saying that all projects must meet
two criteria:

Criterion 1: All college projects must support our commitment to be a learning-
centered institution.

Criterion 2: All projects must contribute to strengthening one or more of the three
core processes identiﬁed by the participants in the . . . Roundtables conducted in the
Fall of 1995, those being curriculum and instruction, developmental advising, and
life and workplace preparation. (President, 1996, p. 9)
In describing Criterion 1, he noted that students must not only learn rigorous content but
also to learn how to learn. He asked that faculty and staff likewise be engaged in learning,
“modeling for students the characteristics of competent learners.” After elaborating on
some of the processes to attend to, including educational planning for students, he
suggested that “as a result, we would be recognized as the ﬁnest institution of our type in
the country.” In closing he wrote,
The cumulative efforts of the . . . faculty, support and career staff, and
administration must be directed toward our goals, or we will not achieve them, and
we will ﬁnd ourselves wearing the yoke of mediocrity. The talent and intellect in

place at this college is more than capable of meeting the challenges of the years
ahead. The Board of Trustees is equally committed to excellence, and statewide

132

surveys show strong support from our community. Indeed, support is stronger than

ever before because those in our community are realizing that, in many cases, the

community college is the key to their own future. . . (Case College’s) faculty and
staff are in a position to redeﬁne what is possible in higher education, and as
president, I am committed to supporting you in setting high academic goals and in

achieving them. . .I am convinced that more than ever before, we can become a

community of learners who collaborate to achieve unprecedented successes.

(President, 1996, p. 11)

The learning-centered initiative was launched with this document. The promised
roundtables were held, and individuals from throughout the college began to deﬁne what
they meant by a learning-centered institution. They also began to document general
education learning outcomes. Over the years hundreds of college employees have
participated in discussion groups concerning a number of learning-related topics.
Hundreds have also participated in professional development opportunities, many of which
have been explicitly designed to support the learning-centered initiative. Many of the
themes from the president’s white paper still resurface as the agenda for becoming more
learning-centered plays out: sharing, collaboration, excellence, transformation, and high
academic goals.

A Learning-Centered Initiative Team was formed and members from campus
administration, the central ofﬁce, faculty, and special grant project staff were invited to
participate. The team hosted roundtables and conversation groups. They conducted
workshops. They collaborated on securing grants. They published materials. They

changed the focus of professional development at Case College, through their control of

signiﬁcant resources dedicated to change efforts.

133

Findings Concerning the Research Questions

In the following sections, the questions framing this research will be presented along
with the ﬁndings for each. Chapter 6 will explore the implications of these ﬁndings. The
overarching research question is this one:

What are the strategies being used by leaders in a community college to

create a more learning-centered college, and how are the strategies similar to

or dijferentﬁom the premises of organizational leaning?

Before reporting on this question, the responses to each of the subquestions will ﬁrst be
examined. Each contributes to answering the larger question. Findings of subquestions a.
through c. follow.

Meaning of a Learning-Centered Institution

Subquestion a is: “What do leaders mean when they talk or think about their college
becoming a more learning-centered institution? ” The following paragraphs will describe
the ﬁndings regarding this subquestion.

Case College interviewees share highly consistent views of what they mean by a
learning-centered institution. This consistency is likely the result of what appear to be
broad-based conversations surrounding the topic coupled with extensive documentation of
what the college means by a more learning-centered institution. Acknowledging that
terminology has diﬂ’erent meanings, the college has published a document that provides
deﬁnitions for many of the learning terms important to their dialogues. Deﬁnitions for
learning-centered college, higher education, assessment, performance-based learning,
critical thinking, and other terms are included in a handy pocket-size, spiral booklet which

is in its second edition. In introducing it, the authors wrote,

134

This little book is meant to foster discussions around teaching and learning.
Language has power over how we view and frame our actions, and the chief beneﬁt
of a reference guide is to establish a shared vocabulary so that we can communicate
our meanings to each other more clearly . . . the understandings of the deﬁnitions are
evolving and will be reﬁned through practice and dialogue. This tool is intended to
support and enhance college-wide discussion of learning and the scholarship of
teaching. (Case College, 2000)
With this widely disseminated Learning-Centered Reference Guide. the many written
perspectives available in the college about the learning-centered initiative, and the
extensive opportunities offered for professional development, it is not surprising that the
understandings of a learning-centered institution would be well aligned. The idea has also
become a part of campus discourse and employment applications ask candidates to
provide a “written statement describing his/her concept of a learning-centered institution”
(Employment Application Process, revised 1/00). Many of the learning-centered writings
are also available on the college’s webpage, and a special CD was produced for a national
conference presentation in 2000. This CD holds many of the documents concerning
strategy, curriculum models, assessment, and more. The Case College Reference Guide
offers O’Banion’s deﬁnition of a learning-centered institution:
More than semantic change, becoming learning-centered is a major philosophical
shift for higher education. Student learning is the goal placed above all else at the
college; it is the end to which all efforts are conducted. Two key questions are
posed:
1. How will (activity in question) improve and expand student learning?
2. How will we know it has?
The implications are vast for assessment of learning, design of instruction,
formulation of policy, and conduct of college business. (O’Banion, 1997 cited by
College, 2000)
The two O’Banion questions were noted in two staff oﬂices taped to the computer

monitor, as a constant reminder about the work that should be engaged. Case College

135

respondents go further, however, than the O’Banion deﬁnition. The O’Banion focus on
learning and measuring foretells a theme in the college’s strategies. In an internal
document utilized in staff development activities, the authors share this vision of a
Learning-Centered College:

More than a semantic difference, this change of perspective and expectation shifts
the focus from what is offered, taught or covered in a given class or program to
what students learn and can do as a result of their involvement. It also implies a
shared responsibility for learning and a ﬂuidity in teacher/learner roles. The shift is
truly transformational because it requires a re-thinking of assumptions and practices,
including:

- application of current research ﬁndings in learning theory and design;

- recognition of the global nature of our future and the present-day diversity of our
local community;

- adaptation to the ever-increasing quantity of available information and speed of
communication;

- integration of learning technologies;

- accommodation to 21"-century societal needs for skilled and ﬂexible workers who
can think critically and creatively; adapt to change; communicate effectively (within
and across cultures); work in teams; and continue to learn new concepts and new
skills;

- consideration of the overall relevance and unity of a curriculum anchored in
development of core competencies. . .

. . . members of a learning-centered institution have a sense of ownership in and
commitment to a common purpose, shared values, and the quality and outcomes of
particular tasks. Together they create a vital, dynamic community that generates and
attracts excellence. (Case College, 1999)

As will be discovered in the passages that give the informants’ interpretations, there
is a high degree of consistency within their responses with these tenets. Having
documented and disseminated the learning-centered college meaning surely contributes to
this congruence.

Throughout the report of ﬁndings, a coding scheme will be utilized for identifying

sources of quotations. The following table lists the type of position and the code assigned.

136

A campus-based administrator refers to a person whose ofﬁce is on one of the campuses.

However, in some instances these individuals also have college-wide responsibilities.

Table 5 Coding Scheme for Quotation References

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewee Position Identifier
1 Faculty Fl
2 Faculty F2
3 Central Ofﬁce Executive CO]
4 Central Office Executive C02
5 Campus-based Administrator CBAl
6 Campus-based Administrator CBA2
7 Campus-based Administrator CBA3
8 Faculty F3
9 Campus Based Administrator CBA4
10 Central Ofﬁce Executive CO3
11 Central Office Executive CO4
12 Campus-Based Administrator CBA5
Summary 3 faculty
4 central ofﬁce administrators
5 campus-based administrators

 

Note: Numbers following codes in quotations indieate whether the quotation is ﬁ'orn the ﬁrst (1) phase of
interviews or the second (2) interview phase. Two individuals were interviewed in only the second phase;
the number 2 is assigned to their interview.

More detail concerning each of the participants in the study is provided in Chapter 3.

Experience at Case College of interviewees ranges from 5 months to more than 31 years.

Most have more than 10 years of experience in the college. Each of the faculty

interviewees represents a general education discipline, a reasonable situation since the

focus of college eﬂ’orts for becoming more learning-centered resides in the general

137

 

education domain.

The commitment to a common purpose and outcomes surfaces repeatedly in the
interviews as characteristics of a learning-centered college. In the ﬁrst-phase interviews,
the following additional explanations of what a learning-centered college means were
oﬁ’ered by interviewees:

The bottom line is what students learn—nothing matters that doesn’t contribute to
that. And how much something matters is how much it contributes to that. (F 1-1)

Here the interviewee addresses students’ learning and the importance of contributing to
that learning.

It is an institution wherein the whole, the staff, whether it be administrative, faculty,
take part in the learning process. (CBA3-1)

This interviewee notes that the staff of the organization must also be engaged in learning.
Everything we do here and every dollar we spend can be questioned in terms of what
it does to support learning. And more importantly, that we have some measure that
indicates that learning is improving, and that learning is occurring—or set of
measures. It means that we are more than processors of students for a living. It
means that we’re actually adding to people’s lives in meaningful ways, helping build
the community, really build the community. (C02-1)

This view suggests that resources be dedicated according to how it supports learning. The

next one addresses focus and outcomes, introducing the concept of measurement or

outcomes documentation.
It means that we are focused on student learning, we are focused on the outcomes,
we’re outcome based. . . we want evidence of learning. And it does take the focus,
from a faculty member’s perspective. . . off of what I do to what they learn. (F 3-1)
And the next person suggests that it refers to staff as much as to students and is part of the

evolving culture.

138

For me, it involves the whole institution, so it’s not just something for our students.
It means that all of us are engaged in learning, ourselves, and in improving and
expanding learning for others; . . . So it’s a very active, dynamic, evolving culture
that’s sensitive to change but doesn’t just do change for change’s sake. . .So it’s a
place where we are all learners, I believe. Some folks, I think, at the college still see
it as something that we do for our students; it’s a setting that we create for the
students, but they haven’t made the connection yet that it’s also for us. (CBA4-1)

And this informant speaks of deliberateness and systematic approaches, in addition to

emphasizing outcomes.

It means that the organizing principle of the institution is a systematic, deliberate
measure of what students learn and how well they learn it, rather than what kinds of
inputs and processes that we employ in the teaching and curriculum development.
(CBA4- 1)

The ﬁnal exarnple provided addresses a philosophy of learning which seemed to be widely

shared, that anyone can learn, given the right conditions.

I think the real hope that the learning-centered initiative brings is that we might
exceed the limits of a teacher-centered model and the results that we’re able to
achieve. A teacher-centered model disempowers students and treats them as
products rather than collaborative worker. It excuses them from responsibility but at
the same time blames them for the results. And it demonstrably achieves less result
than we can afford to achieve. . . And what it means to me is subjecting virtually
every process, every signiﬁcant decision, and a lot of insigniﬁcant ones . . . to the
test of what does this contribute to learning. Learning centered has to be based on .

. . a set of assumptions. The ﬁrst is that nearly anyone can learn nearly anything
under the right conditions. (CO4-1)

Utilizing these voices, Case College leaders, when they speak of a more learning-

centered college, believe that the focus should be on the learning of students in particular,

but also incorporate staff learning. They believe that resource allocations must be directed

toward learning goals, and that determinations concerning allocations should be made

according to how the investments will contribute to students’ learning. They also note

that evidence of learning much be presented, with strong acknowledgment of the

139

importance of measurement of learning outcomes and creating an environment that
respects individual differences.

Although most stayed close to O’Banion’s vision of the student learner, several
interviewees also incorporated staﬂ’ learning as an integral component of their
understanding of a learning-centered college. Rather than the somewhat customer-
oriented approach of O’Banion, about schedules or delivery; or of Barr & Tagg
concerning the teaching role; Case College leaders are looking signiﬁcantly at student
learning outcomes as their lens for a learning-centered college.

_Str_ategies Reported to Be In Use

The next subquestion, b, is “What strategies do the leaders say they are using to help
the college become more learning-centered? ” Interview questions regarding strategies
were directed at three levels: the institution’s strategies, interviewees’ individual efforts,
and what individuals believed needed to be done. A projection of what needs to be done
provides important evidence for what we may expect in the next stage of strategy
development. The ﬁndings will be presented in this order.

The Institution’s Strategies

Although the college has comparatively sophisticated planning and institutional
research efforts, the speciﬁc strategies for becoming more learning-centered appear
unclear. To date, many of the efforts have been integral to other agendas, especially
grant-funded projects. Each interviewee could speak about things that were happening,
but no one offered a clear perspective on a strategic plan for becoming a more learning-

centered college. This is not to suggest that a shared purpose and focus do not exist, a

140

point which will be addressed in more detail, but rather that the plans for achieving a more
learning-centered institution are not presently well developed. Many admitted this, and it
is clear that there is a major thrust toward developing a strategic plan, in part because of
the college’s recent selection as a Vanguard College.

This apparent lack of a plan may be attributable to the fact that the president, who is
expected to be a key, high-level leader in the effort, had been at the college only ﬁve
months at the time the research was conducted. He is not only expected to inﬂuence the
strategies dramatically but has already made known, through multiple vehicles, his intent
to play a key leadership role in advancing this agenda. One interviewee observed, (The
president) “has been pretty clear about saying he doesn’t really have a plan yet” (F 1-1).
Many note that the former president was less engaged in the learning-centered agenda, and
this president has been there too short a time to have plans in place.

The lack of a clear plan, however, may itself be a form of strategy, when one
considers the culture of this organization. Several observed that this is not a place where
someone can develop a plan and then attempt to get others to buy in. Stakeholders expect
to be involved in developing plans. There was no sense that a top-down initiative would
succeed here, any more than it does in other organizations. One interviewee framed it this
way,

One of the things about the learning-centered initiative is that you don’t plan ten

steps out, you plan two or three steps out, because if you have a long-range plan,

then what it looks like to people is that you do have a long-range plan and you’re
trying to manipulate them. The other part of it is, based upon my reading, that you

need to be ﬂexible enough to make adjustments as you go along. (COl-l)

The 1996 address from the last president laid out a number of projects and he suggested

141

that he would involve the campus in setting the plans. Large numbers did participate, and
initiatives ensued. Many describe these as somewhat peripheral, noting that the
innovations were on the ﬁinges and had not substantially changed the way the college
goes about its business. In some ways, the plans were driven by some external inﬂuences,
as campus resource developers secured ﬁrnds to support speciﬁc projects. The well-
established strategic planning process had resulted in the identiﬁcation of some goals,
which included Strategic Goal 2: Quality Faculty & Staff and Strategic Goal 3:
Developmental Processes (presentation handout, 1999). Yet, there is an absence of a
comprehensive plan.

Strategies In Use

The strategies reported to be in use will be presented in two sections. The ﬁrst six
are those that were speciﬁcally identiﬁed by at least a few interviewees as being in
operation or planned at Case College. The ﬁnal two are those the researcher has
abstracted ﬁom the interviews, documents, and observations but which were not
speciﬁcally identiﬁed by interviewees as strategies. However, the themes permeated the
interviews. In Chapter 1, the use of the word strategy for this research was deﬁned. The
deﬁnition is repeated here:

Strategies are the actions atd approaches planned by and/or implemented by
individuals or groups to achieve desired outcomes.

The use of “approaches” in this deﬁnition enables consideration of philosophical,
conceptual, or cultural views inﬂuencing how strategies may be implemented. Merriam-

Webster’s Collggiate Digp’ongy provides many deﬁnitions of strategy, many of which

142

emanate from military use. Here are examples:

1: The science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and

military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support . . .2b.

The art of devising or employing plans or strategems toward a goal; 3: an adaptation

or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or

appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success. (Merriam-

Webster, 1997, p. 1162)

Possible deﬁnitions of strategem are these:

la: an artiﬁce or trick in war for deceiving and outwitting the enemy; b: a cleverly

contrived trick or scheme for gaining an end and 2: skill in ruses or trickery.

(Merriam-Websters, 1997, p. 1162)

Although each of the deﬁnitions of strategem indicates a conniving approach, the use of
the word strategem for achieving a goal also suggests that using strategy as a word to
describe what may also appear to be a quality as much as a speciﬁc action is an acceptable
use. The qualities were not deemed to be tricks, however. A better representation would
be establishing a psychological set.

Citing a Harvard Business School Study, Omachonu and Ross (1994) describe
“corporate strategy as the pattern of decisions in a company that (1) determines, shapes,
and reveals its objectives, purposes, or goals; and (2) produces the principal policies and
plans for achieving these goals” (p. 61). In this view, the strategies which follow would
not necessarily appear as actions but may more appropriately be viewed as nouns, as
deﬁned in Chapter 1. For each of the strategies, an inferred deﬁnition will be provided to
indicate how the term is understood in the context of this research.

S t 1: Col] oration

Of the several major strategies addressed by interviewees, none was more cited than

143

collaboration. Collaboration is the ﬁrst major strategy identiﬁed to be in use at Case
College. Collaboration is considered to be a decision-making process where key
stakeholders are involved and have inﬂuence in the process. Inherent in this deﬁnition is
an expectation that there will be some shared learning, as individuals work together to
reach decisions. One example of collaboration at Case College is a learning-centered
leadership team, which was described in Chapter 3. This group is charged with
responsibility for advancing the learning-centered agenda. Other examples include the
multiple focus groups which have been held, the curriculum writing teams which have
been chartered, the professional development planning that is in evidence, and the project
teams that have been chartered.

Because the learning-centered agenda is becoming more important to the college’s
actions, more members are being added to the LCI team. Additional provosts have been
added, and more faculty members will be added. The new charge will be to oversee the
design and implementation of the strategic goals, budget planning processes, and
evaluation of outcomes. The president is expected to chair the group, a change from the
historic co-chair model of a faculty member and a senior central ofﬁce administrator. An
evaluator of the above-referenced national research project, during a 1999 site visit, also
wrote about collaboration:

(Case College) has been careﬁrl to create a consistent rhetoric . . .. “Learning-
centered initiative,” “collaboration,” “core competencies” . . . are the common coin
of campus discourse. . . .Embodied in no document, the college’s having taught
itselfa genuinely collaborative approach to making key . . . decisions has been its

greatest accomplishment. (Outside Consultant, 1999)

Every interviewee spoke of collaboration as a strategy for the organization, not only

144

for this agenda but as a way of making decisions or behaving in daily work. Almost every
signiﬁcant learning-related document uses the term “collaboration.” As interviewees
described collaboration, they took one of two paths. Either they described it much like
shared governance, that faculty would be involved in decisions that affected their roles, or
like a classroom learning strategy of collaboration, even group work. Closely tied to this
interpretation was the concept of active learning. Each of these views will be explored
separately. Collaboration, because of its pervasiveness in the institutional culture, is
considered by most to be the way the learning-centered agenda will be advanced. Just as
the national project consultant who evaluated the college in 1999 observed, this researcher
was unable to ﬁnd any document that espoused the collaboration philosophy, yet its
presence was pervasive. With so much of the college’s philosophy well documented by
many writers and scholars of the college, this gap is surprising. It is possible that this is
yet another example of not being too deﬁnitive about plans. One interviewee describes the
importance of collaboration:

So collaboration to deﬁne what we want to do and how we’re going to do it is the
bottom line most important strategy. (C02-1)

In giving examples of collaboration, many interviewees essentially described what
others may call shared governance. The term shared governance was not used by any of
the interviewees. In 1966 the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the
American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges (AGB) issued a Statement on Government of Colleges ard

Universities which said,

145

The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum,
subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects
of student life which relate to the educational process. (AAUP, ACE, and AGB,
1966)
Amey (1992) notes that it was 1972 when Richard Richardson, Clyde Blocker, and Louis
Bender offered an alternative to what had heretofore been an autocratic style of
leadership, a “model of shared governance, with ideals of participation” (Amey, 1992,
p. 143). The concepts of shared governance are not new, but its implementation in some
colleges has been slow. In 1995, Robert Barr noted that shared governance is more
characteristic of the learning paradigm than the instructional paradigm, where roles reﬂect
line governance. Case College’s move toward “collaboration” in the 19905 reﬂects a shift
in their paradigm. Most interviewees described a college that was more autocratic in prior
years.

Case College arrived at their collaborative model as the result of some trigger
events. Interviewees described instances in which the administration had proclaimed a
decision, either to outsource an educational service, mandate a course for students,
eliminate the purchase of particular computer systems, or change the schedules of
custodial personnel. The faculty leadership, with support from others in the college,
challenged these decisions. In each case, the original decision was overturned.
Ultimately, leaders of the time in administrative ranks and the faculty decided that conﬂict
was not a way to advance the college’s agenda and decided to begin to work together

toward their shared goals. A particularly confrontational event concerned how the college

would handle its developmental education offerings. The results of a meeting were

146

described in this way,

That was a really incredible meeting; department chairs and faculty and untenured
faculty and administrators really wore their hearts on their sleeves and were brave
enough in a room full of people to voice what they really believed in. And we ended
up saying we can do this better, there’s no reason to sell these students out, they are
the huge majority of our students. (CBA4-1)

This interviewee continues:

I do think that on all levels we encourage collaborative decision making and that’s
different, that’s new. In my lifetime at the college, that’s a real evolution. And I’ve
witnessed at some pivotal meetings that we’ve had, where you can come away
saying, wow, you know, ﬁve years ago that wouldn’t have been the result, that
wouldn’t have happened. (CBA4-1)

The literature review introduces some relevant theories regarding collaboration.
During the second phase of interviews, the researcher asked each person what they meant
when they spoke of collaboration. A variety of views were offered, but most were
compatible with others and all lead to the deﬁnition presented at the beginning at this
section. Here are some examples,

It means that you have people from varying degrees of authority--or let’s say, not in
authority in terms of organization, but in terms of knowledge. You have people with
varying levels of knowledge working on a common project and you pay equal
attention, or nearly equal attention to people’s input, whether they’re recognized as
an authority in that area or not. I would say, to me, that’s the essence of
collaboration. In other words, you draw on the strength and knowledge that you
have to approach the problem or the project that you’re working on, and folks’
opinions are pretty much recognized as worth something and the result may be quite
different than the solution or the outcome of any individual that was brought into the
system. You may end up with a quite diﬂ'erent product than anyone had in mind
when they came together to work in collaboration. (CBAl-l)

This ﬁrst example notes that individuals’ expertise is used as well as that opinions are
respected. This informant’s view is that the ﬁnal product is diﬂ‘erent from what would

otherwise have been the result. The next person also notes that not only is the result

147

different, but it is better. The institutionalization of this decision-making process is also
noted.

At ﬁrst, we started off thinking that it was a necessary evil we were going to have to
do; have to work with the enemy because it’s better to do that than to ﬁght with the
enemy. And then when we realized how good it was for both sides, now we look
for ways to basically use each other to get what the institution needs. To where
now, I’m serious, for some of us, it’s second nature. (F 2-2)

This person eschews the hierarchy that prevails in some organizations.

Collaboration in an organization means rather than decisions being formulated
by someone in power and then being declared and carried out in executive
fashion by layers of hierarchical dorninions, you formulate together as peers
policy and curriculum, and work together in a process that gives all those
involved a genuine voice. It requires all those involved to genuinely listen and
to make some common decisions that everyone in the process has a stake in

(F 1-2)
And this person not only speaks of having voice but also of learning, being open-minded,
while the next introduces the concept of teamwork.

Collaboration with broad numbers of people has been the best way for us to come to
agreement and consensus on the major, overarching themes and directions. . . It
means that all parties impacted by decisions have a voice in developing solutions.
Have a voice ﬁrst in deﬁning the problem and secondly in deﬁning solutions and
making choices in decisions. It means early and constant communication among all
those parties. It means being learning centered. It means that in the collaborative
process, you’re going to learn things because you’re presuming you don’t know
everything you need to know as one party in the collaboration when you come to the
table. So it presumes that you don’t enter it believing I’ve got the solution, I’m
going to con these other people into buying my solution. Which I have seen people
pass that off to be collaboration, right? It means that you really come in open
minded. It means that you value what other people bring to the table. (C02-2)

When I think about collaboration, I think in terms of teamwork and coming together
as a whole group and working out whatever plans or goals or objectives or solutions
to things. I think, to me it’s kind of a way of communicating, ﬁnding out if you’re
on the same path and you’re able to do that teamwork and work it out together. In
the classroom, it’s like group work. The students are coming together, you’re
getting to know each other, you’re getting to respect the differences. But at the

148

same time, you’re coming to some consensus of whatever you’re doing. (CBA3 -2)

When some speak of collaboration, the examples they provide are more aligned with
collaborative learning in the classroom. This perspective did not emanate from only
faculty members. In describing a learning model of collaboration, these two views were

offered,

So being learning-centered is learning collaboratively and hopefully speeding up the
learning process. (COl-l)

And I think that’s the result of our applying to organizational learning, in this case,
what we know about effective learning in the classroom. That is, it’s important to
do it collaboratively, it’s important to structure any kind of meeting so that there’s
active involvement. . . it means to me that the people with the stake in the process
are the ones working together to move it ahead. So in the classroom setting,
collaboration means students primarily working in peer groups around some
signiﬁcant learning task, and they must employ the knowledge and think in the ways
that the discipline or the learning task requires, that they have to work together in
order to achieve some learning outcome or complete some task. And in working
together, they engage with each other, they actively interact with the knowledge
context, and do some what it is that we do in the discipline. (F 1-1)
It is these as well as the previous voices concerning collaboration that broaden this
decision-making process to one that also includes a learning focus. Regardless of the
description, collaboration is foremost in the minds of interviewees as the way things have
happened and will continue to at Case College. Experiences over several years have
convinced both the faculty and the administration that decision-making must be joint. This
has led to some new ways of reaching consensus before making decisions and has caused
some discomfort for some, as players seek to do their work in new ways. It is important

to note that consensus is an implied part of many Case College informants’ views of

collaboration. However, consensus and collaboration are different concepts in the minds

149

of most observers. With no signiﬁcant exception, administrators and faculty members
interviewed feel that current processes contribute to better decision-making.
One interviewee talked about a particularly important decision process that resulted
ﬁnally in broad-based acceptance of an important curriculum matter:
But, not one person sent us anything in the mail, called us, e—mailed us . . .the reason
was. . .it was done. We had collaborated and collaborated and collaborated and
everybody had bought in to it. So now, . . .people say, we have created it. . .The
fellow in the boat never bores a hole in it. It was ours. It wasn’t a committee; it
wasn’t administrators; we did this collaboratively. (F 2-1)
This served as evidence to him and others that the collaborative process works. The
collaborative model should also allow the process to assure that the focus chosen or the
path taken is the right one. It is explained by a faculty member in this way:
What is the use of running if you are on the wrong road? . . .emphasize ‘everything
isn’t a crisis, and everything doesn’t have to be decided tomorrow’ we need to work
through and come up with something we can all come up with, so let’s (not) run if
we are on the wrong road, let’s make sure we are on the right road before we start
picking up the pace. (F 2-1)
There are many examples of how collaboration works at Case College. But before it
begins, care is taken to assure that the right topics are being collaborated about.
Strate 2: Broa -based En ement
Collaboration does not necessarily lead to broad-based engagement. Collaboration
could be exclusive rather than inclusive. This is not the case at Case College. Broad-
based engagement is deﬁned as involving a wide range of individuals, from various
organizational levels and with different backgrounds, in important college activities. It

reﬂects a culture of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. Generally this broad-based

engagement refers to opportunities for input, involvement, and knowing at Case College.

150

It also relates to the collaboration strategy in that many of these individuals are also
involved in college decision-making. Faculty, board members, maintenance staﬁ’, board
members, and adjunct faculty, among others, are involved with the college’s learning-
centered initiatives in many ways.

The recent change in the composition of the task force reﬂects this second major
strategy. The college has been strategic in its efforts to engage a broad cross-section of
the campus in the learning-centered conversations. Many opportunities are provided for
all college stakeholders to provide input to the process, engage in dialogue, and participate
in activities, such as roundtables and professional development activities. The college
takes particular pride in this fact, with several noting that for a series of recent
roundtables, a broad cross-section of campus employees participated. All college staff
were invited. Because faculty are critical in the conversations about learning, the
participation in the fall 1999 roundtables was limited to assure that at least halfattending
each session were faculty members. Although more than 200 participated in one of eight
diﬂ’erent forums, participation still had to be limited to honor this commitment. This is not
the ﬁrst time college-wide forums have been held, nor is it planned as the last.

Broad-based engagement is reﬂected in many ways. All with campus e-mail
accounts receive regular announcements of events that are forthcoming. Although not all
adjuncts are presently on the system, efforts are being made to add them. Major
communications, such as announcements of professional development opportunities, are
also placed in staﬁ' mailboxes, so that every employee of the college has the opportunity to

learn about most events. The President has disseminated messages through e-mail to

151

everyone emphasizing the learning-centered agenda. Many major communications are
also available on the college’s website and accessible to any in the world with access to
the Internet. Some are only on the intranet, which has more limited internal access.
Professional development materials are also maintained on an intranet. Information
sharing is rich.

Forums and roundtables are held where individuals are facilitated in discussions of
topics pertinent to the agenda, such as exploring ways to implement the core curriculum.
Professional development activities align with the learning-centered focus and intensive
opportunities exist for in-depth engagement in acquiring skills essential in the learning-
centered agenda, such as critical thinking inﬁrsion and assessment of learning outcomes.
Hundreds of faculty and staff have participated in activities designed to advance the
learning-centered agenda.

Examples are a Faculty Academy that is offered for all new faculty; project teams
focused on developing curriculum in critical areas (core subjects); federal Title III and V
grants that are focused on instructional improvement, and incorporate much professional
development; and a summer institute that works on building competence among faculty in
the use of the core competencies and conducting assessment. Despite all of this, because
of the large number of individuals who work on multiple campuses, the engagement has
still not reached as far into the organization as the leaders would prefer.

Board members are also involved. One of the board members, an Aﬁican-American
female attorney, attended the week-long Vanguard seminar and reported to the ﬁll] board

at their regular meeting in June 1999. In introducing the subject at the June 2000 board

152

meeting, the president said that the experience had been “team learning work.” In her
report, the board member said that the learning-centered college initiative is a “key
component of where the future will be.” She explained that the initiative “places learning
ﬁrst in every program, policy, and process.” It is different from other activities, she noted,
because there are two critical questions to ask: “Does this action improve and expand
learning?, and 2) How do we know this action improves and expands learning?”

The board member explained the ﬁve objectives that the Case College team of 16
had adopted for the year: Organizational culture, staff recruitment and development,
learning outcomes, underprepared students, and learning works (workforce development).
She also took this public opportunity (with approximately 45 in the audience, including
media) to compliment the new president by saying that he had an “amazing ability to
synthesize a variety of ideas and create a ﬁamework” and that he “showed tremendous
leadership.” She reported that this college was one of only two among the 12 colleges
present that included a board member in the team. She challenged her board peers to
“become learning leaders.” She asked that they “look outside the box,” then stated that it
is “critical that the board be there to support.” She concluded with “We have identiﬁed
the next steps and deﬁned the next level. We think this is a start. . . Clearly we are way
ahead, but we also have a ways to go. It’s exciting.”

The board member’s report was greeted by fellow board members with receptivity
and some questions. This board meeting was an eventful one in other ways. It was at this
meeting that the president explained how budgets would be developed in the future and

presented the ﬁrst budget that identiﬁed speciﬁc learning objectives with budget priorities.

153

A cover memo explaining this priority-setting process was distributed to all on campus e-
mail the sarne day and is available on the college’s website. It was also the meeting at
which salary increases were decided. The president’s mid-year evaluation was also a
subject of the board’s attention, and the announcement was made that at the President’s
explicit request, there would be no increase in his pay. Another female, Caucasian board
member was leaving the board after this meeting. She was presented with gifts,
testimonials, and applause.

In her statement, she told the audience that ‘you just touch so many lives. I just love
this college. I just love (the president). You sort of grow to love people. . . It was all
done with some wonderfully fun people. This college is just set to do wonderful things.”
Based on the enthusiastic presentation about the learning-centered initiative by a board
member and the commitment in evidence at the college to the learning-centered initiative,
board members are likely to become more involved.

That broad-based engagement is a distinct strategy is clear. How diﬂicult it is is also
clear, as noted by informants. Case College respondents have not voiced concerns about
conﬂict with the agenda but rather with the difﬁculty of engaging the large numbers who
comprise the college. The college still has not adequately engaged students nor all groups
on the campus. Speaking to the concern that the learning-centered agenda is still
concentrated in a few who are directly involved, three said,

The circle of faculty who are directly involved are passionate in their commitment in

this (and) are advanced in their reﬂection and own change process. It’s a good-sized

core of people, but it’s still only a core of people. (CO4-1)

I think we’re going in the right direction, I do think that some of the upper-level

154

administrators that you talk to probably think we’re ﬁrrther along than we really are.
I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing, because you have to have vision, you have
to have high expectations, and you also have to be realistic. So I think we’re going
in the right direction; we have a lot of work to do. (F3-1)

I think there’s still a sense that it’s kind of an elitist--I’m not sure that’s the exact
word I want, it sounds a little bit too negative, but you always see the same people
working on the committees and kind of representing the issues and, in part, it’s
because we call for volunteers, and very often the same people come forward. It’s
like in any organization, you have your volunteers and you have your others who
will sit back. I think it’s more critical here that we reach more people. I think
technology is allowing us to do that a lot more. Ifyou use technology in the right
way, you can help people feel that they have a voice all along, they can shoot back a
response to something that’s ﬂoated, and they don’t have to go to a meeting,
necessarily. Some people who agree or disagree on a particular thing can have that
exchange publicly and other people can chime in. So I’m hoping that we’ll learn to
use our electronic communication in ways that will engage more people more
regularly; not just major round table events, and then nothing for 16 months or
whatever. So I think communication is a big one. How do we reach more people?
(CBA4-1)

Because some have not been involved, there is a concern expressed by some that the

college needs to step back to assure engagement of more partners - more faculty, staff,

students, and community members. This view was expressed in this way by an

administrator who has been less active in the agenda,

So we really need to step back and make sure that everybody is ﬁrlly on board,
philosophically in tune with the learning centered idea, buys it, owns it, and then has
responsibility for executing the goals and objectives of learning centeredness on the
campus. (CBA1-2)

Those interviewed recognize that the learning-centered agenda is not as advanced as

they would prefer after ﬁve years of effort. The passion about becoming more learning-

centered is concentrated among relatively few, when one considers the size of the

institution. Some are talking about using what is known from the literature about learning

to bring others along, rather than using tools of management or other disciplines. Some

155

are making connections between this agenda and the term organizational learning, but this
number is very small. Because of the nature of academic institutions, there is some
potential risk of future conﬂict as individuals resist the organizational agenda. That
tension was not revealed in these meetings.

In attempting to assess this question, I asked each individual to tell me what
percentage s/he believed were committed to the learning-centered initiative. Almost every
person ﬁrst clariﬁed the question. They wanted to know whether their response should
speciﬁcally respond to the “initiative,” or to the principles and values underlying it. When
both answers were given, as many did, it was clear that informants believed that the
initiative may be supported by less than 25 percent while the principles they believed to be
supported by 80-95 percent of the regular faculty. This potential evidence of shared
values is impressive.

In a meeting with the president, when talking about the momentum for change, a
comment was made about John Naisbitt’s (Naisbitt, 1984) belief that it takes at least 25
percent to be on board with an idea before a transformation will occur. Naisbitt does not
claim that a transformation will occur, only that it is possible that one could occur with
this percentage of engagement. The president disputed Naisbitt’s claim for an academic
organization.

I think it takes a lot more. In a business culture that is hierarchical and power-driven

you may only need a handful of change agents. In a community organization like

this where power really is widely distributed, you need a lot more. You need 70

percent of the people, maybe. You need a high number of people; they don’t all

need to be pioneers, but they need to be conversant with where it is you want to go,

and at least supportive if not active ground breakers. So, moving this from what has
been a center of innovation largely ﬁrnded by grants and largely led by change agents

156

outside of the normal governance and meeting patterns of the college, back to the
center of the college, more campus focus deeper in the decision-making processes of
the college with front-line leadership behind it, chairs in particular. (President, 2000)
A particular area of concern in getting the required broad-based engagement is the
adjunct faculty, where turnover is high. Many made mention of this concern; one
participant noted,
Fifty-ﬁve percent of our course sections are taught by ﬁrll-time faculty, and forty-
ﬁve by adjunct faculty. So what that means is that you have some continuity with
your adjunct faculty, but you don’t have the level of continuity that you need in
order to see substantive change occur. And we’re addressing that (CBA2-2).
Adjunct faculty have been invited to most events, and they are encouraged to participate
in the off-term professional development workshops, where participants are paid a stipend.
A large number have participated in each of the years, along with many regional high
school teachers.2
Results from engagement have been encouraging for leaders in that individuals are
prepared to seek ways to contribute to the learning-centered agenda. One of the
roundtable’s facilitators said,
And I have to say, my experiences on those round tables, I was so impressed with
the people that came and how they were able to express how they ﬁt into a learning-
centered institution. They really brought more to the table; they didn’t need me to
tell them how their role ﬁt in it, they were able to really see it in themselves. (F 3-1)

A few acknowledged the need for more student engagement. At this time, no major

efforts have been directed toward engaging students in the campus conversations. With

 

2

The college invites high school teachers to participate in professional development
activities, with goals of having better prepared students arrive at the college, building
community partnerships, and expanding the community of learners.

157

the broad-based support among leaders for an expanded base of participants in the
learning-centered initiative, there are indications that ﬁrture strategies will expand the
concept of broad-based engagement. The president’s address to the graduating class of
2000 suggests this.

Strategy 3: Focus

This emphasis on broad-based engagement leads to a third overriding strategy:
Focus. Focus is deﬁned in this research as limiting attention in goal setting to the few,
most important, items that will contribute most to advancement of the learning-centered
agenda. Case College attempts to focus attention and energies on the important few as
opposed to the trivial many, although some still expressed limited concern about the
number of initiatives and the busy-ness of the college. Only a few strategic initiatives are
identiﬁed, and organizational efforts have been directed toward achieving these.
Important to this selection of target areas is that they be important goals. They say,

We have learned to focus on some key things because we can’t do everything at

once. You know, sometimes it feels like we are, but we learn to focus in on some

key things and not feel like we have to do everything at once. (C02-1)

So even though the themes will change, next summer we’ll do something else, the

core competencies will always be there, and everything they (referring to faculty

participants) do will always be expected to connect to one of them. (F 3-1)

You have to say, look guys, you should all be able to see now that if we do a little

bit of everything, we’ve not done anything well. And I think what we’re going to

have to do is choose a different game plan. Because the opportunity costs, the

distraction factor of all that other stuﬂ‘ is much heavier than people realize. And that

makes us nimble enough to pick something, maybe even two or three things; no

more than that, and say we’re going to do something audacious and important in this

area and if we do, then our capacity to do more audacious, important things will
grow. (CO4-1)

158

Although no one speciﬁcally cited writers who talk about focus, with one possible
exception noted in the models section of this chapter, the respondents were clearly
addressing what some business writers speak about as alignment. Authors Labovitz and
Rosansky write,

In the end, all of these elements must be centered on the ultimate objective of the

business. We call this objective the main thing. The main thing for the organization

as a whole must be a common and unifying concept to which every unit can
contribute. Each department and team must be able to see a direct relationship
between what it does and this overarching goal. The main thing must be clear, easy
to understand, consistent with the strategy of the organization, and actionable by

every group and individuals? (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1998, p. 40-44)

In the opening address to the college assembly in August 2000, the president said “I have
a ﬁiend who likes to say, “‘the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.’ For
(Case College), the main thing is LEARNING.”

The respondents have the main thing clear. What they have less clearly deﬁned is
the alignment that the authors suggest must also be present. The authors say, “Like
magnetism, alignment is a force. It coalesces and focuses an organization and moves it
forwar ” (Labovitz & Rosansky, 1998, p. 6). Case College’s Learning-Centered Initiative
is focused on their main thing, learning.

Strategy 4: Resources

Resources are another of the strategies in use to achieve a more learning-centered
organization. A resources strategy is deﬁned as assuring that adequate ﬁnancial and other
valued items can be brought forth to support strategic directions. For Case College,

resources are primarily reﬂected in ﬁnancial resources, which enable the college to pay

stipends, allocate release time, purchase professional development materials, sponsor

159

conference participation and on-campus workshops, and firnd other activities which take
money. Several grants have been secured and special incentives have been offered to
encourage participation and to advance the agenda.

This college has an impressive record of attracting grant money, and much of it is
ﬁom competitive sources. The president reported that the grants oﬁce has an 85 percent
success rate. Reporting on the grants secured is a regular part of board agendas, and the
Board’s warmth toward the lead grant oﬂicial is noticeable. A board member asked that
the grants report be removed from the consent agenda at the June 2000 meeting, because
she was always so excited to hear about the good things happening.

The grants report for June 2000 noted that by the end of May, 47 proposals had
been submitted, and 22 had been acted upon for a total of almost $2.5 million. For those
that were acted upon, the funding rate was 85 percent. Six grants were presented for the
board’s review in June. The six new requests totaled about $1 million. The college has
had multiple grants ﬁ'om many major sources: NSF, FIPSE, Title III, Title V, USDOE,
and others. Millions are added to the budget annually ﬁom grant sources (refer to
Chapter 3 for college budget information).

No one complained of a lack of resources. In fact, the view of those interviewed
was that if an idea had proven itself, once a grant was gone, the institution would pick up
the program. In addition, one remarked that good ideas attract resources. Although not a
rich college, resources were not viewed by the interviewees to be a limiting factor and are
considered to be an essential part of the strategy for becoming more learning-centered.

Every person spoke of some of the special ﬁrnding that had been made available to

160

support the learning-centered agenda.

One important way that focus can be maintained is through allocation of resources in
support of the goals. The new president has been explicit about his intent to align
resources with strategic priorities. In a communication sent to everyone on the e-mail
system, the president said,

Finally, this is our most powerful question: “How does this

decision/process/habit/custom align with our commitment to being learning

centered? It has to be taken as seriously by administration as by faculty. It is as
powerful for buildings and grounds as it is for learning resources. So we will be
using this question to measure all of our efforts, beginning with the budget. . .You
will see a number of initiatives in this budget, and even more in subsequent years
when there is more time to collaborate at length, that are directed at the Learning

Centered commitment of (the college). (President, 2000)

The president’s message was mentioned by several in the interviews. Everyone recognizes
that decision-making processes are changing and that the agenda will be driven with
institutional resources. Most are encouraged; some seem apprehensive, especially if they
have had major budget control. The president’s move to orient the budget toward
strategic initiatives is one obvious attempt at alignment. One faculty member explains,

There is a key line in there; he said, . .folks we are going to target the budget and

funding in future years to the strategies of being learning centered. In essence, he

said, ‘you folks out there who have been sitting on the side lines and not

participating, we are going forward with this project and we want you involved. . . .

So you better get on board folks and better give us your input;. . .When you say you

are going to drive the ﬁnances of this institution by this initiative . . . that is a

commitment. (F 2-2)

In his e-mail message and at the June board meeting, the president reinforced this

commitment by calling attention to several new items in the budget, including:

- 23 new faculty positions

161

- new support staﬂ‘ positions focusing on student learning
- substantial funding of the learning-centered initiative

' faculty/staﬂ’ diversity initiative

- support to student advising projects

- expansion of tutoring services

Subsequently a national community college publication reported on this increase in faculty,

since the trend in many community colleges has been to decrease the number of full-time

faculty; the proportion of part-time versus full-time faculty has become a national higher

education issue. In advancing his agenda the president wrote,

Several of these items are funds without ﬁrlly realized plans; rather we have
earmarked funding for plans yet to be developed with input from faculty and staff in
areas such as the Learning Centered Initiative, the Diversity Initiative, and others.
This will enable signiﬁcant collaboration in spite of the close time constraints we’ve
had to manage this year. . . I want to signal to you now how serious I am about
opening up the college’s resource allocation, about directing our resources toward
our goals, and about leading on the basis of principles. This process has been very
new and challenging even to the senior management team. I look forward in the
coming year to extending the opportunity and challenge much deeper into the
college. (President, 2000)

In this communication, he acknowledges that plans are not well developed but also

reinforces his commitment to involving people in a collaborative process. Other colleges

may not enjoy the luxury that this college has with the comparatively extensive resources

available to support strategic initiatives. This particular aspect of the situation may make

replication of Case College strategies far more difﬁcult in an organization where there are

fewer investment dollars available. Becoming a more learning-centered college, as

practiced at Case College, is not a ﬁne proposition.

162

Strategy 5: Professional Development

 

Professional development was cited and observed as a ﬁfth strategy for becoming
more learning-centered. Although only one person speciﬁcally named this as a strategy,
the most important strategy, in response to the strategy question, each interviewee talked
about the importance of development in various ways. Professional development is
generally deﬁned as planned activities for learning that are made available to college staff.
Professional development may include on-campus or off-campus activities. In general the
term relates to planned group activities, but it could also encompass individual learning
from self-study.

The college has a rich array of professional development opportunities available for
faculty and staﬂ’. These range from extensive participation in state and national
conferences to support for release time, extra stipends for special assignments, and
intensive workshops. Many of the nation’s leaders in teaching, learning, assessment,
critical thinking, and other learning topics have been on the campus more than once to
conduct workshops in recent years.

Among those who have presented on the campus are Thomas Angelo; Terry
O’Banion, League for Innovation; Stephen Broolcﬁeld, University of St. Thomas,
Minnesota; Arthur Chickering, George Mason University; Robert Diamond, Syracuse
University; James Anderson, North Carolina State; Don Farmer, King’s College; John
Gardner, University of South Carolina; Susan Frost, Emory University; Craig Nelson,
Indiana University; Claire Weinstein, University of Texas - Austin; John Roueche,

University of Texas - Austin; and Jane Frederick and Debra Chomicka, Alvemo College.

163

This list represents less than half of those identiﬁed by the college as those who have
been on the campus recently as consultants. Acquainting individuals with the current
thinking in higher education permeates the daily life at Case College. Reading lists are
shared. Discussion groups are hosted. Important conversations are had. Several
mentioned that many opportunities exist for them to attend conferences.

In describing the value of the consultants, one of the learning-centered leaders said,

We’ve brought in just a number of noted people that are addressing these issues as

consultants to the college. We fortunately had been able to use grant ﬁrnds for the

most part to do that. (C02-1)
One who listed faculty development as the most important strategy said,

The major strategy has been faculty development. And that has been a bottom up

kind of a thing rather than a top down kind of a thing. Really, we identiﬁed what we

thought were the competencies that faculty in the 21 st century should have. And
those competencies centered on knowledge of and ability to do something about the
increasing diversity of our students. (CBA2-2)

Interviewees expressed a rising interest in improving their services to minorities.
This concern is likely at the foreﬁont of their thinking because achievement rates for these
groups have been lower, area high schools have now become a majority minority, and
federal grant resources have been garnered to support initiatives to improve success
among minority groups. At the same time, when staff spoke of diversity, they were not
always speaking of historically deﬁned minority groups. They talked of students whose
family backgrounds are not supportive of education, of conﬂicted life situations, of
learning disabilities, and of learning differences. Case College personnel broadly deﬁne

diverse students.

More than one person made the link between using what is known about how

164

learning occurs and learning theories to advance the learning-centered agenda. The
college’s approach to professional development is both formal and informal. This faculty

member offers his view,

I don’t know, so much of it happens kind of by accident. You know. . .you create
the conditions, you create an atmosphere, explain to people what you’re doing and
why you’re doing it, and then you give them a challenge, it’s almost like the
classroom, it’s just more complicated and it’s more difﬁcult to shape because it’s not
just one person or a small group of people, it’s wider. But it’s also, as I say, well,
how are we going to get faculty to do this? I’m going to say, we’re going to teach
them the same way we teach students. How do you get people to do things? Well,
we’ll show how it’s linked to what they care about, you give them incentives, you
put them together with like-minded people and you kind of help them feel good
about each other, and then you just watch it cook. I mean, that’s what we do for a
living, we just don’t think of doing it with our colleagues in the same way and we
need to. I’ve been saying that from the beginning. IfI’m a good teacher, then I can
make this happen with my colleagues with a different purpose. (F 1-1)

Each interviewee was asked to describe his/her own learning processes. Each was
able to identify many different ways in which they extend their learning. The learning
described was both solo and group. Here is one person’s description,

I have to be pretty broad in general in what I do because of the nature of my work. I

have to be able to work across the college in all areas so a lot of review of the

literature, reading. . . I try to stay very current with what’s being reported in 1h_e

Chronicle of Highﬁ Education. And then we have developed reading lists here at

the college, the bibliographies that we sort of refer to and jointly develop as we work

on these projects, and try to stay up with that. So it’s a combination of looking for
literature, learning from other colleagues, and listening to what faculty’s own
experience here is telling us, and that’s been real important. (C02-1)
Several bibliographies were shared by interviewees. In addition to writing about their own
learning and experiences with improving the learning process for students, there is

considerable evidence of consulting the literature as a foundation for their work.

Individuals talk excitedly about their learning experiences, both individual and shared,

165

\Vrth what we called faculty leaders who were volunteers that came to us ﬁ'om
different disciplines. . . it was really like a post-graduate seminar in learning theory
and teaching practices that was wonderﬁrlly deep and broad and engaging, a real
intellectual opportunity, I think. (CBA4-1)

The learning encompasses reviews of literature, attending presentations, meeting

participation, and peers.

So attending presentations and seeing something of their work has certainly
informed our work. The literature reviews, of course, gives us the experience of
other colleges and learning in that way. And then learning from our folks internally.
I’ve learned a lot about process by working as a member of the LCI team, and I
guess more than anyone else, I’ve learned from (peer). Because he and I have sort
of been the people that have taken it upon ourselves to try to ﬁgure out how to
make all this come together and work. It seemed to ﬁt both of our jobs and we both
had a real strong interest in it. So (peer) tends to be the one who will go off and
read the entire book; ﬁnd it, read the whole thing, and then he’ll say to me, ‘you
know, (peer), I think this really has relevance, why don’t you read these few
chapters and tell me what you think and then we’ll talk about it.” So (peer) and I
tend to be a team in that respect. His skill seems to be, in part, ﬁnding that which is
relevant and sifting through it, and then my skill will tend to be ﬁguring out how to
make that meaningful to other people. (C02-1)

I do try to attend conferences, and keep up with the trends that are going on at other
institutions. I do a lot of reading from journals; I like keeping in contact with people
from other universities. . . The chair academy has proven to be a good thing for me, .
. . . There is so much you learn about leadership. . . I do those kinds of things, but
as I told you earlier, I’m kind of a little perched bird here, allowing everybody else to
go. . .I try to keep abreast on things . . .I like being on teams like the learning-
centered initiative. I learn from all the experts, like (peer) and (peer), all the smart
people. I like listening to what they do and how they go about. (CBA3-1)

Every person talked about both individual and group learning. Several named others in

their group from whom they learned, in addition to extensive use of the literature and
conference participation. Continuous education is a distinguishing characteristic of
organizational learning. Peterson found in 1996 that “changing teachers' practice is

primarily a problem of learning, not a problem of organization” (Peterson, 1996). The

166

literature presented in Chapter 2 would suggest that to become a more learning-centered
organization, a learning emphasis will be important. Professional development
programming is one possible strategy for increasing learning. Case College has begun to
move toward more active models of professional development, utilizing practice,
experience, and projects. This approach aligns well with emerging theories and
philosophies about learning. At the same time, the learning as “means” as well as an “end”
dilemma, posed in Chapter 2, is reﬂected here. Professional development is very
widespread and quite well focused on the learning-centered agenda at Case College.

Smuggy 6: Results Orientation

The sixth strategy is Results Orientation. A results orientation means that an
important indicator of success will be based upon a determination of whether the desired
results have been achieved. Implicit in this description is a need for measuring. This
particular strategy is one that balances some of the process aspects of strategies at Case
College. This strategy refers more to content than to process. Repeatedly individuals
spoke about learning gains, graduation rate improvements, key indicators, and other
measurable dimensions of learning. Although few identiﬁed this speciﬁcally as a strategy
of the institution, almost all spoke of measuring or assessing outcomes in some way. Each
interviewee believes that evidence is important to determining whether the goal to become
more learning-centered has been achieved. Here are examples of what interviewees have
to say about their focus on results,

I think another strategy that’s important, of course, is having institutional indicators

that are measurable. We do have a set of performance indicators for the college that
we’ve selected, and we have longitudinal data that we can base our projections of

167

change on and that we can then of course compare our actual results to. So I think
having the strategy of measuring and being very focused on measurement is critical.
Otherwise, we’re just talking and you never know for sure whether anything really
changed. (C02-1)

I have other visions in terms of what it could be. What we have thought about is

that large percentages, instead of 30 percent, 60 percent of our students could

complete their goals. (CO 1 -1)

I think the real hope that the learning-centered initiative brings is that we might

exceed the limits of a teacher-centered model and the results that we’re able to

achieve. . Maybe it’s a good investment to spend a halfmillion dollars cutting class

size in developmental writing in half, but only if it gets the results that we’re after. .

.So it’s like managing any other innovation, you have a plan, you work the plan, you

measure the results, you tweak the plan, or you bale out. (CO4-1)

One institution . . they were focused on assessment and we were focused on

outcomes which we consider the higher level. So they were measuring a lot of

individual things and individual programs and courses and so on. And we were sort

of looking at our idea of learning outcomes as much broader than that. (COl-2)
Again and again, whether faculty or administrator, there was talk of producing evidence,
measuring results, and improving the outcomes.

Personal Contributions

In a related strategy question, each interviewee was asked to describe his/her
particular contributions to the learning-centered agenda. Many spoke of their role on the
learning-centered team, their roles as faculty development planners, or as organizational
leaders. Some saw their role as motivating others to pursue the goal of becoming more
learning-centered, including celebrating achievements. One used the term “cheerleader.”
Another spoke of being a “coach.” As with the strategies for becoming more learning-

centered, there was not a pat answer for the role that each person would play in

contributing to the learning-centered agenda. Following are representative responses:

168

He says that we must build our budgets and do everything that we do around a set of
principles, and that the key one is being learning centered. For me in my position in
the college, it’s kind of a discipline to ﬂame my own work in that way and then as I
work with others, help them to do the same. So, I feel like I’m right in the fray, and
that’s exciting. It’s also ﬁnstrating sometimes because of some of the things that we
talked about in terms of resistance to change. (CBA4-1)

I have remained very active in leading that team, helping to document what we were
learning, interpret it to external audiences, and ﬁgure out strategies to keep the
change process rolling at the institution.(COZ-l)

My big thing is motivating faculty to help us create this institution in the fashion that
we want it to be. I do promotional things for them, certiﬁcates, and lunches, and
dessert parties, and say they’re the best faculty. (CBA3-1)

I’m being the coach here; I’m focused on taking us to the next steps. And we’re
worldng right now with our new president to sort of ﬁgure out how we’re going to
use the Vanguard Learning Project. (COl-l)

I’ve stepped forward to lead working groups, several diﬂ’erent times, core
competency round tables just last-or they were actually called learning-centered
round tables--the last instance of that. So I see it as my responsibility to facilitate
discussion and creative critical thought around these issues and to engage people
widely. And I’m able to do that partly because of my effort, my visible effort, in
faculty governance. (F 1-1)

We work as a team increasingly, so as we become more learning centered, (we are)
drawing upon each other’s strengths. I’m always involved in . .the role of helping to
summarize, interpret, make clear to another audience something that we’re
developing.(C02-l)

It’s my job to reinforce them everywhere I can, to call attention to them, to make
sure that question is being asked in every important discussion. You do that by
engaging in intellectual discourse yourself. People pay a lot of attention to what
(leaders) care to engage. (CO4-1)

Each interviewee acknowledged some leadership responsibility as well as a role in moving

others along, whether through rewards, coaching, or cheerleading. Everyone saw their

personal contribution as one among many - a shared role. Each had a part to play at the

same time as there was a common view of who the major leaders of the effort were.

169

What Should Be Done

Each participant was invited to explain what they believe needs to happen for the
learning-centered agenda to be realized. Suggestions included focusing on faculty
development as key, including advising; increasing the number of advisors to reduce the
ratio of advisees to advisors; conducting more roundtables on speciﬁc topics; providing
background information in advance; mainstreaming the ideas; and signiﬁcantly engaging

department chairs. Here are examples of what respondents had to say in response to this
query:

Over the next year, eight months, six months, ten months, we’re going to have
probably three or four college-wide forums and invite everybody who wants to come
to talk about it . . . What we’re talking about is taking the college-wide forum and
providing them with some background information and some data about whatever
that topic is, and then having a day of activities. We have found that it’s better if it’s
structured to some extent. But we’re hoping to get a lot of ideas out and try to
focus in on some speciﬁc priorities or strategies that we want to focus on within
those broad parameters that I mentioned, of things like faculty and staﬂ’ vitality,
student success and preparation, and workforce development. (COl-l)

I don’t think we do a good job of orienting administrators or career staﬂ’ into the
learning-centered nature of the institution. So we’re going to put a good bit of focus
on that. We’re going to look at ways to reward professional development . . .In
fact, now I think another next step that we really talked about in Scottsdale is, I
think, there’s going to be a greater focus on moving from the conceptual level
college wide to the implementation level at the campus level. So, it will not surprise
me if in the not too distant ﬁrture we don’t start designating some campus teams that
are going to bring the core competencies and a lot of other things closer to the
people, closer to the folks in the classrooms and all of that. And I think that’s the
natural progression of moving this out of a few peoples’ hands. (F 2-2)

And I thought, oh my gosh, somebody ﬁnally gets it because if you don’t work
through the department chairs you’re not going to get to the faculty; it’s that simple.
So I’m hoping that what that means is more and more bigger decisions and including
budgeting decisions will be made at departmental levels, which is, I think, where they
should be made. With, of course, the steering and the guidance and the approval of
the upper-level administration. (F3 -2)

170

Well, I would expect them to have a plan, some kind of strategic plan for how they
were going to implement, if you will, the learning-centered initiative, in whatever
form that takes. Whether it’s assessing the core competencies or measuring
whatever particular student outcomes they were looking for in that department. But
I would expect them to have goals and have action plans to meet those goals. And
then everything else that happens in the day-to-day workings of the department
would then be in support, or would be part of that action plan. . . .(Talking about the
importance of engaging department chairs) The next thing that was going to come
out of my mouth is providing professional development. I don’t necessarily mean
that they have to get up there and do these presentations and everything, but making
sure their faculty members a.) knOw about opportunities at the college, because in
my role I talk to faculty all the time that didn’t know about this or didn’t know about
that. And whether that’s their own fault for not reading their e-mail or whatever, I
don’t know. But I know most faculty read everything their department chairs send
them. Making sure they know about opportunities and if there don’t seem to be
opportunities for their faculty for whatever reason, b.) trying to seek some out. (F 3-

1)
These responses can be viewed as continuing the broad-based engagement and continuing
the emphasis on professional development that have already been identiﬁed as halhnarks of
their efforts. Despite the fact that there was no shortage of ideas of what needs to be
done, there were still concerns about how much could be done or how the process would
play out, as reﬂected by the following,

We came to an accommodation to where the administration has learned to slow
down and the faculty has learned to speed up its processes to where we can meet
their deadlines and they can collaborate with us. I am sensing now more from the
faculty than the administration the need by some pe0ple to speed things up. We need
to move faster, we need to involve the adjuncts, we need to bring people who have
not been involved in the initiative so far to bring them in. I have even heard people
say we have to mandate this and require folks to do that. . . We have not made it go
too fast. My biggest fear right now is that we are not going to stay on that kind of
steady course, that we are going to feel this need , OK now that most folks are on
board . . . now we just need to force it down everybody’s throat, and charge ahead
and go back to the same autocratic ways. I fear it coming from the faculty more than
the administration because I am picking up faculty saying, ‘you know I am doing this
and my neighbor next door is doing it, but, those three people down the hall aren’t
doing it yet, and by God they ought to be doing that’. I think that is the danger that
we have right now; it is a very, very big danger. (F 2-1)

171

This faculty member was the only one to acknowledge a potential for conﬂict if the
emphasis becomes more insistent and individuals begin to feel that they must do their
work in particular ways. In wondering about the challenges that may lie ahead, and in
response to a question about what other colleges may need to do, one participant
observed :
I don’t think it’s any accident that the two best known colleges in the United States
of America for being learning centered, e.g., Alvemo and King’s College, are both
Roman Catholic institutions, where there is a culture of--I wouldn’t call it
authoritarianism, but a healthy respect for leadership. I think they’re capable of
being led. So the ﬁrst thing I would say that you need to do is to try to get a reading
on the culture of your college. What kind of place are you (CBA2-2)?
It is an encouraging sign that all interviewees had ideas for what needs to happen, since
the culture of this organization provides opportunities for engagement and for leadership
at all levels. Those interviewed were not waiting for someone to tell them what needed to
be done. All seemed genuinely committed to assisting with the efforts. Ideas suggested
included offering more faculty and staff development, a focus on the ﬁrst several courses
of most students’ programs; hosting focus groups or forums around particular topics and
inviting any who want to participate to do so; “beeﬁng up” advising; developing a plan
with goals, objectives, and measures; and continuing the collaborative approach.
Overall, the emphasis was a learning theme, even an active learning approach.
Although the ideas for what to do next are somewhat different, they run in similar veins.
They are also focused on the same “main thing”—the improvement of learning. Ideas

concern making sure learning happens more effectively in more classrooms, utilizing the

curriculum core as the centering device. Here are examples of the views expressed on the

172

topic of what the college needs to do next.

There’s always one more method and one more thing that you can try to enrich your
class. So that group suddenly needs more enriching activities, more professional
development. We need to continue professional development for other faculty, not
that we don’t have good teachers and not that there are not good things happening
in the classroom, but for the very best to happen in everybody’s classroom then all
faculty have to be exposed to the research, to the development of their syllabi, to
make those changes happen. (CO3-1)

We could come up with a curriculum plan that probably would meet the needs of
most of our students, and that is if we identiﬁed a half dozen foundation courses that
most students take and got some consensus with the department chairs and provosts
and faculty on each campus, that the students in these classes will master these
competencies, and if those became the gateway to other courses. It can be done, we
could draw out a plan on the board that would be easy enough, but you would have
to have a much greater degree of buy in. (CBA2-2)

One of the things we’re talking about is how we as a leadership team can be a

learning community ourselves. How we can read more together, be more reﬂective,

to actually embody the core competencies . . . So that’s also something I think a

professional goal that all of us are going to have to work toward is to become more

learning centered in our own professional lives and as teams (C02-1).

Although this ﬁnal quote could strike readers as an assessment that the top
leadership team is not a learning community, like all learning, it is a matter of degree. This
same group of leaders talks about learning from each other, discussing the literature,
garnering resources to support initiatives, and implementing learning plans. They may
very well be a more advanced community of learners than most, but they yearn for more.
The rapid pace of their work enviromnent, not unlike the experience of many other
community college leaders, may preclude realization of a learning ideal.

The idea of targeting the essential few courses is one the college is taking action on
presently. At a meeting of the Executive Council, a group of individuals, most of whom

are participants in this research, presented their ideas for improving the “front door.”

173

Several courses, mostly developmental, that serve the majority of the college’s students in
the ﬁrst months have been targeted for signiﬁcant attention. The group’s belief is that if
they can positively impact these courses the results throughout the college will be
improved and more students will achieve their goals. The idea was well supported with
research and creative thinking and was greeted with enthusiasm by members of the
Executive Council. Resources will be provided to implement the plan.

The administrative group expressed a desire to take on even more classes with this
initiative, but later leaders of the idea expressed doubts about whether this would be a
proper strategy. They prefer to take on the challenge incrementally to assure its success
rather than to risk taking on the entire elephant in one bite and not achieving the intended
results. The implementation group’s assessment would suggest a more incremental than
transformational approach, utilizing the terminology of the learning proﬁle which will be
explained later. The executive council’s goal was to attempt transformation.

Although this is a very large college, it is described by most and observed by me to
be administratively very lean. The elephant metaphor is an apt one for this college, since
the “front door” team has proposed taking on this elephant “one bite at a time.” With six
different locations, hundreds of faculty, and a small team of irnplementers dedicated thus
far to the effort, it does not appear possible to take on more at this time. The advance
team wants to assure success of the effort. Even if additional human resources were
dedicated, there appears to be skepticism about whether this would be the path to take.
The proposers prefer an incremental approach. At the same time, many of the

interviewees also recognize that they must move more of the learning-centered agenda to

174

the larger college. The scope of the efforts and the size of the college present challenges
in implementation.

Inferred Strategies

The last two strategies are inferred from the interviews, observations, and
documents’ reviews rather than being explicitly identiﬁed by the informants. Just as
models may be mental or structural, so may strategies be concrete or qualitative. Some
strategies are less deﬁned actions than they are ways of behaving. The two additional
strategies are leadership and trust/respect.

Strategy 7: Leadership

There is eagerness to embrace the vision, yet there is also some tension between the
old and new. Leadership is identiﬁed as an inferred strategy. Leadership, in this ﬁnding,
refers to the individuals who do or will assume responsibility for aspects of the learning-
centered initiative. Some have ofﬁcial responsibility; others have unofﬁcial roles with the
initiative. At the present time, this leadership is primarily exercised by three vice
presidents, the president, professional staff, some administrators, and a limited number of
faculty. Going forward, there is an expectation that more department heads and provosts
will be engaged. Leadership has brought Case College to this place on the journey, and its
continued expansion is designed to continue the journey.

The introduction of a new president is both warmly embraced and anxiously awaited.
The college enjoys an excellent track record, yet there is enthusiasm that the next stage
will yield even greater results, because of the strong leadership anticipated from the new

president and the strategies which have already been set in motion.

175

Leadership, especially key executive and administrative staff and several faculty, was
apparent. No respondents named leadership as a strategy for becoming more learning-
centered, yet indirectly leadership was alluded to as interviewees described activities
supporting the learning-centered agenda. Leadership development is noted as a strategy,
as plans exist for moving the thrust of the learning-centered agenda to the campus level.
Yet the college did not get to this place without some signiﬁcant leadership. Although
many did not give the former president much of the credit for meaningfully engaging
stakeholders, they do credit him with having allowed talented people to implement their
plans.

Because of the lean administrative structure and the fact that most executive staff
share a common ofﬁce area, many opportunities exist for joint planning. Strategic plans
have been developed and implemented. At the same time, to date, much of the leadership
has been centrally orchestrated rather than emerging from the grassroots. Effective
leadership is evident. Events such as the many professional development options do not
just happen; they are planned. Hundreds do not show up for conversations without plans
having been made to engage the college community broadly. Grants had been secured to
support learning-centered agendas. An application for becoming a Vanguard College had
been submitted. Faculty play key roles in the learning-centered task force and other
decision-making. Data provided indicate that the college is successﬁrl in improving
retention, improving student performance, increasing graduation rates, and engaging
faculty and staﬂ’ in meaningful activities. Leaders facilitate campus conversations.

Many spoke about leadership issues in response to various questions, citing

176

inconsistency, lack of involvement of some, and lack of knowledge of others. However,
all thought the leaders at all levels were important. Most acknowledge that to date the
leadership has been strongest at the corporate level. This is a college where leadership is
playing signiﬁcant roles. Areas for future attention in the area of leadership were
identiﬁed to be at the campus level. Both provosts and department chairs are seen to be
important next leaders of the efforts to become more learning centered.

(Referring to department heads) . . they need to be recognized as the instructional
leaders, and they need to act as instructional leaders and they need to take that
responsibility on. Whatever structure might need to change to do that, of course,
you have to have good key people in those roles who know what it means to be an
instructional leader, but you also need whatever institutional structure changes need
to take place. . . You know, whatever needs to take place, I think they’re the key.
I’ve heard statements that, well, if the faculty don’t buy in, it’s not going to happen.
Ifthe department chairs don’t buy in, it’s deﬁnitely not going to happen because it’s
never going to get down there. (F 3-1)

Most acknowledged that the campus leaders’ (provosts and department chairs) roles are
overburdened with administrative tasks, but most also want them to become learning
leaders on the campuses. Based on the overwhelming belief among interviewees that the
campus is the next frontier for advancing the learning-centered agenda, the roles of
campus leaders are sure to be redeﬁned in the next months.

But those are all changing. Ifthey’re going to lead on the strategic initiatives deep
in the college, then they’re going to have to emerge as much stronger leaders rather
than just managers . . .One of the issues here is that our provosts have largely been
managers, not leaders. Campus provosts are hired for and trained for, and
reinforced for good management; solve problems at your level, don’t let them get
downtown. But not for ideas. . . .(need) to help them get reoriented to say, you
know what, every month when we talk it’s going to be about mostly what are you
doing to help us achieve the big goals; that’s what really matters. . . we have a lot of
development to do with the chairs. That is, to change the culture in which they’ve
worked, the expectations to which they’ve responded, the tools that they have to
bring to bear on their work, both soft and hard tools, and probably some things

177

about the organization itself to give them the opportunity to lead rather than chasing
their tails on administrivia. (CO4-1)

Concurrent with this belief that leadership must move to the campuses, there is
concern about institutionalization. Much of the effort in the learning-centered agenda has
resulted from multiple, speciﬁc grant-funded activities. Most recognize that this was very
beneﬁcial in moving this college forward, to a place where Case College staﬂ’ interviewed
believe they are ﬁrrthest ahead in the nation in many ways, but to the detriment of not
having the agenda be viewed as a “core process” of the college. This will be one area for
attention as the next strategies are developed.

The following excerpts provide evidence of the forthcoming changes. In his
message to the assembly at the opening conference in August, 2000, the president shared
these views:

In hundreds of conversations, e-mails, and documents, catalogued in dozens of

cryptic legal pads, I have tried to listen, learn and discern the heart of the college.

This process will continue, at some level or another, indeﬁnitely. . . I believe the

best leaders give voice to and nurture an authentic vision that comes from deep in

the organization. When the vision has these deep roots, it also has the power to
leverage real movement in the organization, renewed commitment to arduous efforts
on behalf of the vision, and the capacity to persist through the obstacles we may

encounter along the way. . .

I believe the transformation of (Case College) into an authentic learning-centered

college has the potential to deliver all of these results in time. We are preparing to

adopt a new strategic plan. The plan will contain six major goals, all of them an

elaboration of the learning paradigm. (President, 2000).

The six goals are identiﬁed as: Learning First, Start Right, Learning Leaders,
Learning by Design. Learning Support Systems, and Learning Works. He concludes with

this request,

178

. . .if this little summary of the point on the horizon to which I believe we can sail has

excited you in any way, then get an oar in the water. We need everyone pulling in

the same direction for a journey this signiﬁcant (President, August, 2000).

This address had not been delivered by the time the initial draft of this research was
written. It was discovered in October during a visit to the college’s home page as the
second draft was being prepared. The address summarizes a new set of goals framed
around the learning-centered agenda. It afﬁrms each of the seven strategies identiﬁed thus
far in the research: collaboration, broad-based engagement, focus, resources, professional
development, results orientation, and leadership. It does much to lend credence to the
eighth strategy of trust and respect.

Among the informants, there is a strong belief that the new president is going to
dramatically change things for the better. Many say they have already learned a great deal
from him. Others appear somewhat anxious about what the changes mean for them.
Several noted that they were reading the models the president espouses: principle-centered
leadership and servant leadership. The excitement about their new leader and the learning-
centered and collaborative process utilized to select him permeate the group of leaders
interviewed for this research. They are looking for him to become the learning leader.

Our new president . . .is going to be leading college-wide teams, and we are looking

at ways to engage the institution to mainstream what we have been doing and what

we have been developing throughout the institution, so everybody knows what it is

and the way in which we’re talking about doing that is to involve the provosts. . .

.And we want to sort of develop a model that we haven’t developed yet where we

sort of talk about the directions of where we want to go and they will probably be

similar to what the Vanguard Project is focusing on, but not exactly because we
want to use our terminology and components of our initiatives that are underway.

So I believe that (the president) is going to focus on doing some college-wide

forums. . .So, our new president, I believe, is going to take the learning-centered
initiative and make it a focal point for his leadership of the college. And the

179

challenge is mainstreaming it, so that people understand that this is important, and
it’s not the ﬂavor‘of-the-month, you know, management strategy. (COl-l)

I also think we are in a little bit of a transition at (Case College) because we have a
new president who has been in place for only 100 days. . . I think he is a fantastic
person. Great individual, and I think he will be just great for us. (CBA-S)
And now we have a president who understands it and is committed to it, which I
know we need to be patient. But the prospect is--his declared intention is that
people, department chairs, will come to him and say, this is what we want to do, and
the money will go there, based on what you want to do with it (F 1-1).
That the president, top leadership, needs to play a key role in change agendas is widely
supported in the literature. Almost every writer about learning-centered colleges,
organizational learning, and change efforts in general highlight the importance of top
leaders’ engagement. In a collegiate environment, this leadership role takes on a more
scholarly expectation, as described by the past president of Sinclair Community College,
To encourage positive change, the college president needs to be a scholar of the
process, read widely about the issues, develop an internal and external network of
experts on the topic of learning, and be a part of the college's learning tearn--only
then will the project move forward. This is not a "jump in, jump out" exercise for
the president. (Ponitz, 1997)
That Case College’s president recognizes the importance of this role is another of many
encouraging signs. He has already demonstrated considerable leadership with having
articulated goals that are all learning-centered, asking the college stakeholders to look for
the evidence, inviting their input, and hearing their voices. There is no question at this
time about what the priorities are.
Strategy 8: Tmst/Respect
The last identiﬁable strategy is trust. What is happening at Case College would not

be happening unless there were trust and respect among the participants. Trust and

180

respect have different meanings, but they are related constructs, as interpreted in this
research. Trust suggests that individuals believe that others have the best interests of the
college and its students in mind as they make decisions, even if how another may approach
a given challenge may be different. Respect suggests that people are treated with dignity
and that their opinions matter. These qualities were found to be evident, and their
presence allows the other seven to be more effective. There are differences in approaches
and some skepticism about styles, but there is a prevailing climate of trust and respect
among groups. It is important to note that there was not a speciﬁc trust question; these
responses came about as a consequence of other queries. Here are examples of what
participants have to say about trust,
IfI am a faculty member I need to respect the fact that administrators are human
beings who are trying to do the right thing. Administrators need to do the right thing
with regard to faculty. I think our big mistake is when we get into this us and them
foolishness to where we are the good guys and you are the bad guys and everything
we do is good and everything you do is bad. That is not true in life and why would it
be true here? (F2-l)
Implied in this person’s view of trust was that because some individuals were in one group
or another should not automatically paint them as “the bad guys.” This same faculty
member also talked about the golden rule, that he believed in treating others as he wished
to be treated. Many campuses have a sharp divide between administrators and faculty, but
I did not get this feeling ﬁom my conversations with Case College representatives. There
was no “bad-mouthing” of individuals in other roles, and there appeared to be genuine

interest in engaging people less commonly involved, such as support staff.

The learning process, and the decision-making process based upon that learning,
probably was occurring more rapidly. You did not have this distrust because you

181

have to have a certain level of trust and respect for individuals to make sure that
those things occur. (COl-l)

The ﬁrst thing to do is trust the people who work for you. Most people are

confused about that. They think the problem is to get a leader who is trustworthy,

but the real problem with leaders is not that people don’t trust them, it’s that they

don’t trust their people (CO4-1).
These two individuals address the importance of trust in a more rapidly changing
environment but add an additional dimension. Trust is a two-way street. Not only must
one be trustworthy, but one must be trusting. The trust issue is not always framed in this
way. There are often questions about trust - whether faculty trust administrators. In this
case, an administrator is saying, it starts with my trusting others.

As a result, I can pretty much drive 99 percent of them to do most anything, because

they know there’s nothing under the table here; I’m up front. The support factor is

what makes it run so smoothly because I’m always there. (CBA3-2)

It is hard to say where my sandbox ends and somebody else’s begins. And that’s a

level of comfort that we have with each other as team members and leaders. (C02-

1)
The last quotation talks about trust from another vantage point, that it enables one to
work in other areas comfortably, without the skepticism that sometimes accompanies a
person’s involvement in an area outside of his/her primary responsibilities. Each of these
individuals addresses the importance of trust in both organizational change and learning
development. They each describe a willingness to trust, and evidence of their expectation
that they should be trusted. The literature about the importance of trust in groups is
widespread. Critchley writes:

A properly functioning team is one in which: people care for each other; people are

open and truthﬁrl; there is a high level of trust; decisions are made by consensus;
there is a strong team commitment; . . . people really listen to ideas and to feelings;. .

182

. process issues (tasks and feelings) are dealt with. (Critchley, 1996, p. 335-6)
Many of these qualities of the effective team are evident at Case College: open-ness,
consensus decision-making, and listening. Both the interviews and the organizational
learning instrument reveal an openness. Individuals talk about trust. Edgar Schein, whose
work is introduced in Chapter 2, offers these views about trust:

Learning leaders must have faith in people and must believe that ultimately human

nature is basically good and in any case mutable. . .Notice that a ﬁrlly connected

network can only work if high trust exists among all the participants and that high
trust is partly a ﬁrnction of leader assumptions that people can be trusted and have

constructive intent. (Schein, 1992, p. 367)

The trust theme underlies much of what is happening and foretells what may be possible.
Elements of a culture include trust and respect, and these are evident, even though when
asked to comment on culture informants did not use these terms.

A select group were invited to participate, but there seemed to be lots of candor.
Mth the belief that an accurate portrayal was oﬁ’ered, it was signiﬁcant that there was
almost no criticism of individuals or their efforts. Quite the opposite existed. Although
there were many examples of how individuals perceived others’ views or actions, there
were no comments that suggested that another deserved less trust or respect. This trust
and respect for others are among the factors that enable the organization to be
collaborative.

Many who write about trust attach it to considerations of leadership. Case College
leaders recognize the importance of trust and ﬁnd it an important quality for achieving

their ends.

That trust is a quality as opposed to an action, per se, is a unique interpretation of

183

strategy. However, interviewees talk about trust as an enabler of their abilities to achieve
their goals. In the planning literature, as well as social science literature, there is
discussion of enabling objectives or enablers. Trust at Case College is an enabling
strategy. It is important in the college’s ability to achieve its goals. That one may
perceive that using trust is manipulative is a possible interpretation. My conclusion is that
trust is a useﬁrl strategy that is dependent on leaders’ trustworthiness. Trust can easily be
violated. In an environment with openness, broad-based engagement, and collaboration,
leaders and followers who are not trusting or trustworthy are sure to be seen for what they
are. There is a high degree of comfort among those interviewed that trust is a prevailing

quality, one which this research concludes is also a strategy.

184

Chapter 5 - Models in Use
The previous chapter described the shared meaning of a learning-centered college to
Case College informants. It also identiﬁed the eight strategies in use for creating a more
learning-centered college. This chapter will introduce the models in use among Case
College informants, identify the barriers, and describe the organization’s learning proﬁle,
according to one model of organizational learning.
Models in Use
Subquestion c. is “What models do the leaders say they use and/or appear to use in
crafting, describing, and/or implementing their strategies for creating more learning-
centered colleges?” Many different ways for thinking about models exist. One approach
is to consider “mental models,” “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even
pictures or images that inﬂuence how we understand the world and how we take action”
(Senge, 1990, p. 8) or “habits of thinking, mental models, and/or linguistic paradigms: the
shared cognitive ﬁ'ames that guide the perceptions, thought, and language used by the
members of a group and are taught to new members in the early socialization process
(Schein, 1979, as cited in Schein, 1992, p. 9).
Another way to think about models is structurally, in ways deﬁned by Mgniam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictiongy:
3. structural design
4. a pattern of something to be made
5. an example for imitation or emulation . . .
11. A description or analogy used to help visualize something that cannot be

directly observed . . .

Synonyms to model include example, pattern, exemplar, and ideal. Model applies to

185

something taken or proposed as worthy of imitation. Pattern suggests a clear and

detailed archetype or prototype. Exemplar suggests either a faultless example to be

emulated or a perfect typiﬁcation. Ideal implies the best possible exempliﬁcation

either in reality or in conception. (Merriam-Webster, 1997)

Each of these conceptions is useﬁrl in thinking about models that guide individuals’ work
in an organization. Especially in a knowledge business, neither models nor strategies are
necessarily observable. They may be either or both mental and structural. They may be
both concrete and ﬂuid. Such is what was found in eliciting ideas about models from the
participants in this research.

Before describing the models, this section’s contribution to the research will be
explained. Many leaders subscribe to various models which guide their behaviors.
Understanding the models guiding the strategy developers may aid our understanding of
both current strategies and future directions. Understanding these models also lends depth
to our understanding of the strategies, which in this research appear to stand out from the
other activities of the organization. Instead, as noted in a citation in the previous chapter,
strategies are actually a reﬂection of the philosophies guiding decision-making. Another
important reason for understanding the models was to see the extent to which leaders
charged with strategy development were engaged in their own learning development.
Understanding the models in use provides a richer perspective of the strategies identiﬁed
and provides another way to triangulate the ﬁndings.

Case College leaders build on the knowledge of others and collectively offer an

extensive list of authors whose work has inﬂuenced their thinking. Not only could those

interviewed cite the work, but they also indicated how the work was useful to them.

186

Models cited include these: Greenleaf’ s servant leadership and principle-centered
leadership; Kauﬁnan’s planning model; Bridges’ transitions model; Angelo & Cross’s
assessment model; O’Banion’s learning college model; Cross’s collaborative learning
Model; Kolb’s experiential learning model; and student success models not speciﬁcally
identiﬁed with any expert, but for which research references were oﬂ'ered. Every
interviewee drew on the literature, and some did so extensively. Administrators were
more likely to use business references while faculty were more likely to cite the education
literature. In addition to drawing on external experts, Case College leaders also report
extensive use of internal resources.

The new president has introduced the concept of primus inter paes, which comes
ﬁ'om Roman times (Greenleaf, 1977, p.61); it means ﬁrst among equals. The primus is the
person who is the biggest stakeholder in a particular issue. Greenleaf explains that “there
is still a ‘ﬁrst,” a leader, but that leader is not the chic .” Sometimes there will be multiple
stakeholders. A primus (or primuses) may not serve as the facilitator of the topic, but a
decision also will not be made over the objections of a primus. Those who have the most
at stake have the most to say. They also have responsibility for bringing intelligence to the
others regarding the issue. The primus inter pares concept is designed to be an alternative
to the boss/ subordinate relationship. The implementation of this model is still in early
stages. Although it likely will change the collaborative process in this organization, it is
too early to assess either the process or its impact.

The president has also brought another of Greenleaf’s teachings to Case College, the

principle of servant leadership. The servant leadership philosophy is said to have been

187

based in the 19605 on a Herman Hesse novel, Journey to the East. In explaining this
philosophy, Spears, writing in Reﬂections on Leadership. relates,

The central ﬁgure of the story is Leo, who accompanies the party as the servant and

who sustains them with his caring spirit. All goes well with the journey until one day

Leo disappears. The group quickly falls into disarray, and the journey is abandoned;

the group cannot manage without Leo. After many years of searching, the narrator

of the story stumbles upon Leo and is taken into the religious order that sponsored

the original journey. There, he discovers that Leo, whom he had known as a

servant, was in fact the head and guiding spirit of the order—a great and noble leader.

Greenleaf concluded that the central meaning of this story is that great leaders must

ﬁrst serve others, and that this simple fact is central to his or her greatness. True

leadership emerges ﬁom those whose primary motivation is a desire to help others.

(Spears, 1995, p. 3)

At this stage, it is only the president who espouses this philosophy. However, many
noted that they were reading Greenleaf 5 work, and the president has spoken explicitly
about building his senior leadership team, so a year ﬁ'om now the conversations may be
somewhat different.

Two senior leaders spoke of the planning and organizational elements model of
Roger Kaufman. This Florida State University professor offers an interesting planning
perspective. It is unlike those associated with some strategic planning experts in that it
steps outside the framework of the organization to take into account the larger good.
Kaufman writes that achieving sustained organizational success relies on two basic
elements,

1. A societal value-added “ﬁane of mind ” or paadigrn: Your perspective about

your organization, people, and our world; it is the “paradigm” you use to understand

reality.

2. Pragmatic atd basic tools. (Kauﬁnan, 2000)

188

Kauﬁnan continues:

The required frame of mind, your guiding paradigm, is simple, straightforward, and
sensible. It is to have a primary concern for adding value for external clients and
society. From this societal value-added frame, everything one uses, does, produces,

and delivers is linked to achieving positive societal results. (Kauﬂnan, 2000, p. xi)

His model has three guides or basic sets of tools: an organizational elements model,
a six-step problem-solving model, and six critical success factors. At the highest level on
the organizational elements model is outcomes, the “results and their consequences for
external clients and society.” The next lower level is outputs, “the results an organization
can or does deliver outside itself (Kauﬂnan, 2000, p. xiii). This emphasis on outcomes is
consistent with the ﬁnding that a results orientation drives strategy at Case College. It is
also not surprising since the two people in the college espousing this model are also seen
by many to have been the two strongest driving forces behind the learning-centered
agenda. The dominant leadership appears to be shifting with the arrival of the new
president.

Kauﬂnan’s problem-solving model is similar to others in the literature and includes
these steps: identify the problem, determine solution requirements and alternatives, select
solution(s), implement, and determine the effectiveness and efﬁciency. In addition to
describing this as a problem-solving model, Kauﬂnan also suggests that it can be used to
identify opportunities.

The Critical Success Factors he espouses are these,

1. Use new and wider boundaries for thinking, planning, doing, and
evaluating/continuously improving: move out of today’s comfort zones.

2. Diﬂ’erentiate between ends and means—focus on “What” before “How.”

189

3. Use all three levels of planning and results.

4. Prepare objectives—including ideal vision and mission objectives—that have
measures of how you will know when you have arrived.

5. Deﬁne “need” as a gap in results

6. Use an ideal vision as the underlying basis for planning.

I was not familiar with this model prior to conducting the research, even though I am
familiar with other planning models. There are aspects of the model that are highly
consistent with other business and strategic planning models. There are aspects, however,
that appear unique. The two Case College leaders with considerable authority for the
learning-centered initiative share enthusiasm for this model and say that it guides their
work.

Some interviewees also cited the work of Bridges as inﬂuencing their work. All
observed that they were in transition; some acknowledged that change is difﬁcult. Some
found comfort in Managipg Transitions with its down-to-earth approach to adapting to
any types of changes. In introducing how transitions apply to change situations, Bridges
writes,

Charge is situational: the new site, the new boss, the new team roles, the new

policy. Transition is the psychological process people go through to come to terms

with the new situation. Change is external, transition is internal. (Bridges, 1991)

Bridges notes that the greatest problem organizations face is not recognizing that to
change requires some letting go; people experience feelings of 1055. He describes the

neutral zone that follows as both a “dangerous and an opportune place” (Bridges, 1991 , p.

6). A series of exercises is provided for identifying who has what to lose, the steps to

190

moving to the other side, and similar activities. In summarizing how people in transition
view their position, he offers this,

But even the best-laid plans leave a troubling doubt in the minds of some people.

They don’t see their names on the wall chart. No one has told them how they ﬁt

into the new scheme of things. No one has given them any role to play in the

journey itself. The purpose, the picture, and the plan all omit something: a part for
them to play. Until that is provided, many people will feel left out and will ﬁnd it

difﬁcult to make a new beginning. (Bridges, 1991, p. 59)

The fact that two members of the top leadership team cited this resource as one that
guides their work is an encouraging sign. Attention is being paid to the emotional aspects
associated the change toward becoming a more learning-centered institution. The process
is more than a rational, planning activity, and the leaders have acknowledged this. On the
other hand, the person who most espoused this philosophy has subsequently left the
college.

Faculty and professional developers were more likely to cite Angelo and Cross,
O’Banion, Weinstein, student success models, or the collaboration advanced by Johnson,
Johnson, and Smith as they described their models. Angelo was ﬂesh in the minds of
some because of the emphasis on assessment and the fact that he was at the college for
workshops between the ﬁst and second interview periods and in each of the past two
years. Patricia Cross’s most recent monograph, W had also just
been received by several Case College staff, since the 2000 Innovations conference was
attended by many. This publication was ﬁrst distributed at this conference. Active

learning, with a particular emphasis upon collaborative learning, were major themes in the

learning-centered professional development efforts.

191

The Cross publication is speciﬁcally directed at the use of collaborative learning in
classroom settings. She develops a stream metaphor in explaining collaborative learning
and speaks to the convergence of these streams: belonging, career preparation, deep
learning, and diversity. Some connection to collaboration in a work environment can be
drawn. Cross writes,

. . .the Stream of Belonging ﬂows quite naturally into the river of collaborative

learning because collaborative learning provides an opportunity to share experiences

that matter with others engaged in similar activities. (Cross, 2000, p. 5)

This metaphor ﬁts Case College as there was great evidence revealed through both the
interviews and the organizational learning survey that demonstrates that individuals share
experiences and are engaged in shared purposes or “similar activities.” Regarding
diversity, Cross writes,

The Stream of Diversity is full and exciting, and it is a major contributor to the fast-

moving river of collaborative learning because it provides the challenge to think in

new ways and to gain practice in reconciling different perspectives. (Cross, 2000, p.

6)

Cross’s concepts relate well to collaboration and the emphasis upon hearing ﬂom
diverse voices at Case College. Evidence exists of thinking in new ways and of embracing
diversity. A major new theme, partially because it has federal ﬁrnds to support it, is
enhancing diversity awareness and appreciation. Examples are provided earlier of
reconciling different perspectives, such as the examples cited for developmental education,
computer purchases, and speed of change. Cross’s collaborative learning model addresses

the traditional student learner, but it also ﬁts for organizational actors. Case College

interviewees embrace both collaboration and collaborative learning models.

192

Another model in evidence at Case College comes from the business literature - the
BHAG, a “big hairy audacious goal.” BHAG is a term coined by authors Collins and
Porras in their book Built to Last. The writers describe it this way,

Visionary companies often use bold missions—or what we prefer to call BHAGs
(pronounced bee-hags, short for “Big Hairy Audacious Goals”)—as a powerful
mechanism to stimulate progress. . . . Like the moon mission, a true BHAG is clear
and compelling and serves as a unifying focal point of effort—often creating immense
team spirit. It has a clear ﬁnish line, so the organization can know when it has
achieved the goal; people like to shoot for ﬁnish lines. . . A BHAG engages
people~it reaches out and grabs them in the gut. It is tangible, energizing, highly
focused. People “get it” right away; it takes little or no explanation. (Collins and
Porras, 1994, p. 94-5)

Three interviewees referred to BHAGs. This emphasis is consistent with the attitude that
it is important to focus on important things, in this case, student success. One suggested
this,

And one of the BHAGs would be to double that graduation rate. Now, I think that’s
entirely doable; we know how to do that, we just have not organized ourselves to
make it happen. (C02-l)
This interviewee speaks of focus but some lack of alignment. In his August address to the
Assembly, the president lays out several other BHAGs in a series of “What Ifs,” some of
which follow,
What if:

0 (The college’s) core competencies-Think, Value, Act, and Communicate—were
demonstrated by every graduate of the college?

- Successful completion of each class taught at (the college) really meant mastery of
the learning outcomes?

- Completion/graduation rates of our prep students were as high as students who
required no remediation?

193

- These extraordinary success rates were no different for students from any socio-
economic background, language group, ethnicity, or nationality?

- The number and percent of graduates at (the college) doubled?

And, not incidentally, What If:

- (the college) was a model of a healthy work and learning community - a place

where work was nourishing, relationships were imbued with respect and mutuality,

personal and professional grth were habitually supported, leaders were servants,
action was nurtured by reﬂection, and every day included the potential for fun, even

joy, in our labor and legacy? (President, August, 2000)

The president has laid out a number of BHAGs. It is apparent that he believes in this
model as well. Other informants have also identiﬁed some clear BHAGs, even if they do
not label them in this way. Because they are all focused on ‘the main thing,” people
understand them, such as graduation rates, learning gains, and equitable achievement.
There is no explanation needed about what doubling the graduation rate, as one example,
means.

The Kolb model for experiential learning was also mentioned by several. There
appears to be a high level of understanding of the importance of recognizing individual
differences. One way in which this is acknowledged is by referring to the Kolb model and
suggesting that faculty should teach around the model in addressing the learning styles of
their students. Case College has also closely linked its general education learning
outcomes with this model, which makes for a tight connection between the two and is
likely to result in greater utilization of the Kolb model in this learning environment. The

recent presentation to the Executive Council by the team advocating the “front door”

project weaves the Kolb model and the college’s identiﬁed core competencies together in

194

an intriguing learning model.

A major institutional thrust for becoming more learning-centered rests with two
programs for advising and career and life planning. Although no speciﬁc reference was
made to particular external models for student success, a bibliography of resources that
guided this work was provided. Major investments are being made in engaging students
more actively in planning their ﬂrtures. A major launch of this initiative, accompanied by
extensive advertising support, was planned for the fall of 2000. Embracing the literature
that documents the importance of involving students, academic planning, career planning,
and support for goal achievement, Case College leaders have taken steps to implement
systems to enhance the college’s performance in these areas. This is an emerging strategy
of the college for becoming more learning-centered.

A large number of models are in evidence. Extensive reading is apparent. Sharing
seems common. Several external references guide Case College leaders.
B_am;e§

Subquestion d is “What barriers do leaders perceive stand in the way of becoming a
more learning-centered college?” Participants were asked to identify the barriers they saw
to becoming more learning-centered. It is a given that there will be obstacles to change
(Dolence & Norris, 1995; Alﬂed & Carter, 1999). Barriers identiﬁed were inertia,
bureaucracy, naysayers, large number of part-time faculty, or conversely, the lack of
suﬁcient full-time faculty, lack of space, communication among departments, from
campus to campus, lack of learning leadership ﬂom the campuses, fear, the preparedness

of students, challenge of mainstreaming, institutionalization, lack of knowledge about the

195

process of change, time, support from immediate supervisors, organizational structure,
lack of adequate evidence to make a convincing case for change, lack of time for
reﬂection, feelings of blame (that what’s being done is not right), distance between
campuses, insecurities about change, grth demands, training and retraining of staff, and
the pace of technology. There was no shortage of ideas about the many barriers to change
toward becoming a more learning-centered institution. It is notable that many were able
to identify more barriers than strategies. In talking about the barriers, however, some
suggested how efforts were proceeding to overcome some.

Many of the barriers noted above were named by just one person. The three most
frequently cited barriers were adjunct faculty, leadership, and communication. The
concern about adjunct faculty is focused on the need to keep them abreast of the learning-
centered agenda. There is high turnover among adjunct faculty, and these individuals are
generally not immersed in the developing culture of the organization. Leadership concerns
were focused primarily at the campus level. Some felt that because the leadership was
emerging ﬂom grants activities that it had not sufﬁciently inﬂuenced campus life, because
it appeared on the side and was not seen as an important role for department chairs or
provosts. Several believed more leadership needed to happen at the campus levels, and
they believed that at present it had a more central source. This centralization of the
agenda occurred naturally, since much of the learning-centered initiative has been funded
by outside grants that had their own staffs. However, most staff were on loan ﬂom the
campuses to the projects.

It is important to note here that although leadership was noted as one of the top

196

three barriers, this leadership “barrier” was directed exclusively toward some campus
leaders: provosts and department chairs. Perhaps because most interviewees were
members of a productive group since 1996, the Learning-Centered Initiative Team, their
shared belief is that leadership is strong within the team and at the central college level.

Communication is a major barrier, because of the large number of people to be
communicated with and the geographic dispersion of the campuses, along with
individuals’ choices to engage or not engage in opportunities. Communication would be
found to be a concern on most campuses, including much smaller ones.

The following quotations illustrate the barriers listed. The ﬁrst one addresses the
challenges of communications in this multi-campus college with a large number of adjunct
faculty, who comprise a major proportion of the individuals who interact with Case
College students. This interviewee addresses concems about getting regular staff more
involved as well as the dilemma posed by the large number of part-time personnel.

(Referring to a faculty member who raised questions in a task force meeting) But we

need to really listen carefully to those other voices because she has some wonderful

things to offer. So we’re struggling with some of that . . . What about the people
who haven’t stepped up, who do have something to oﬂ’er? How do we hear their
voices? If they’re making decisions not to attend, for whatever reason, the
opportunities that are offered, how then do we beneﬁt from what they do have to
say? . . . Because among the people who have stepped forward and who have
worked on this, we’ve learned a lot together. But because so many of our faculty
are adjunct and don’t really have the time very often, even if they do have the
inclination, and we’re not paying them for it--to come to these other things. . .And it

really represents a lot of the peOple who stand in ﬂont of our students and either
know or don’t know what our mission is really about. So that’s a concern. (CBA4-

1)
This individual likewise addresses communications as a problem, but this person notes that

an additional barrier is posed when “nay-sayers” bring initiatives to a halt. There is an

197

awareness at this college that there will always be people who do not support given

directions.

So barriers would be college-wide communication in a multi-campus setting; the
disconnect between the discussion and the development of the initiative. Another
barrier is the nay-sayers who can sometimes just bring things to a halt, and I think
one of the things that we’ve done on our learning-centered initiative is engage
people in the discussion, but not let the nay-sayers hold us up. And, in fact, some of
the nay-sayers have joined in and are now participating in the process. (COl-2)

Time. It takes time, and some people want more time, they think things are going
too slow, and some others think it should have happened already. So just different
time lines from different individuals can sometimes cause some problems, some
conﬂicts. And when you are trying something that’s new, there isn’t always a path
to follow. So you try things that don’t always work. And you have to have to be
prepared for that, so that if there are problems, and if there are failures, that you
don’t throw up your hands and give up. And if you’re prepared for that, it’s not that
much of a barrier. But if you have an institution or administrators that are not
prepared for that, then that can become a problem. (F 3-1)
Some improvements are already underway. The barriers faced are not unique to this
college nor this agenda. They are highly consistent with what is written about other
colleges’ change challenges. The problems are not structure, as one participant observed,
but rather the fabric of the organization. Flynn summarizes it this way,
Given the nature of our colleges--their history and tradition, their commitment to
shared governance and consensus building, and a substantial institutional culture that
seems to resist change - the impediments to organizational transformation in our
colleges are formidable. (Flynn, 1998, p. 5)

Barriers conﬂont every organization and most change efforts, and Case College is not an

exception to this rule.

Case College’s Learning Proﬁle
Subquestion e is “What is this organization’s learning proﬁle (as reported by leader-

informarrts’ responses to the Organizational Transitions learning inventory), and how

198

similar are the perceptions of individual leaders concerning the organization’s learning
proﬁle? A number of instruments exist for assessing the extent of organizational learning
in evidence or how far along an organization is on its journey toward becoming a learning
organization. Many organizational climate and culture instruments are also in use.

Recently, the League for Innovation produced an instrument for assessing learning-
centeredness in a college. The Case College team completed this instrument at their
week-long workshop, but the results were not available at the time of this research. The
data ﬂom the instruments is expected to be used in the League for Innovation’s research
concerning the 12 Vanguard Colleges which will be available in the ﬁrture. In addition to
identifying the strategies in use at this college, I had an interest in understanding whether
the college leaders’ strategies were related to organizational learning. Any of a number of
tools could have been used to gain additional perspective about learning at Case College.
The Organizational Transitions learning inventory was selected for this purpose. At the
end of this report of the ﬁndings from the instrument, a review of the tool’s utility and
value to the research will be offered.

Each of the ten initial interviewees was asked to complete the “Building
Organizational Learning Capability” learning inventory. All completed the form and Excel
spreadsheets were prepared for each question; means and standard deviations were
calculated for the overall summaries (ordinal data). Frequency tables were prepared for
the factors in the learning orientations pairs, since these response options constituted
nominal data. Crosstabs using SPSS software were performed on the facilitating factors

on the variables of gender and classiﬁcation (administrator or faculty). The spreadsheets

199

and the SPSS reports were used in analyzing the results. It is important to note that
individuals are self-reporting their perceptions of the college’s actions on the identiﬁed
questions. This is one place where espoused theories and theories-in-use could differ.
There is no attempt to compensate for this limitation.

Learning Orientations, as described in Chapter 2, reﬂect how learning takes place in
an organization. No style is considered better or worse, although some style
characteristics may be more or less productive in given organizations or at diﬂ’erent times.
As the summary information is presented below, an important caution is to remember that
the proﬁle was completed by only 10 individuals in an organization of more than 2000
employees. The ﬁndings cannot be generalized to the rest of the organization. However,
the group was comprised of various classiﬁcations: executive administrators, mid-level
administrators, and faculty. The high degree of consistency among the responses at
minimum represents considerable alignment within this leadership group.

Copies of the spreadsheets are included as an Appendix. To aid in understanding the
following narrative, a review of the design of the questions may be helpﬁrl. For each of
the seven learning orientations, there are four or ﬁve pairs of items where respondents
must select the choice they prefer (a forced-response item). Each of the items is a
descriptor that falls into one or another category. For each orientation, the categories are
diﬂ’erent. For Learning Orientation 1, the categories of responses are either internal or
external. Respondents may choose among the ﬁve pairs of items by selecting one in either
the internal or external column. For example, individuals are asked to choose among the

following options:

200

Pair 1:

(Internal) We value the knowledge we gain from our own experience.
(External) We value the knowledge created by others.

Pair 2:

(Internal) We encourage learning ﬁ'om our own actions and are likely to be an
innovator in the way we do things.

(External) We encourage learning ﬁ'om the actions of others and are likely to
emulate the work of others.

In addition, at the end of Learning Orientation 1, respondents are asked to provide
an overall average. The overall average should be derived from their individual
assessment of whether they had more responses in one column than the other. In the
example provided, they would choose whether they chose more or mostly internal or
external responses or whether they chose an even number (a rating of 3, on a scale of 1-5).
The narrative which follows examines each of the seven Learning Orientations. The
deﬁnitions provided at the beginning of each of the seven are taken directly from the
instrument, and are the deﬁnitions the informants should have read before responding.

Leaming Orientations

Learning Orientation 1 refers to Knowledge Source; the dimensions are internal and
external. Learning Orientation 1 is deﬁned as “Preference for developing knowledge
internally as compared to preference for acquiring knowledge developed externally.” The
mean of 1.9 (1 is mostly internal; 5 is mostly external) placed the composite view as being
“more internal” than external. The standard deviation on this question was .74. Strongest

agreement was registered with ‘er encourage learning from our own actions and are

201

likely to be an innovator in the way we do things,” and “we believe in being the ﬁrst to
develop a new product or technique,” with 8 of 10 respondents making these two
selections.

Learning Orientation 2 refers to the Content-Process Focus, with a range ﬁ'om 1 to
5, with 1 representing a more content focus and 5 representing a process focus. Learning
orientation 2 is deﬁned as “Emphasis on accumulation of knowledge about what
products/services are as compared to emphasis on accumulation of knowledge about how
those products/services are developed, delivered, or improved. Case College respondents’
mean is 3.5, with a standard deviation of .71. Case College respondents report that the
college is more process oriented than content focused. Respondents were more divided in
their responses to this question than on Learning Orientation 1, with 6 (of 10) selecting a
more process focus while three selected a content focus on most questions. (One
informant selected a point between 1 and 2.) The one more content-oriented response
that many selected was this one: “Individuals who create or deliver our products are
appreciated more than those who support them,” with six (of 10) selecting this option.
The other choices had a majority in the “process” column, with 6 (of 10) selecting three of
the remaining four pairs ﬂom the process choices.

Learning Orientation 3 proﬁles the Knowledge Reserve. Options are personal or
public. The deﬁnition is “Knowledge is possessed by individuals as compared to
knowledge that is publicly available.” Case College respondents’ mean is 2.7 for the
overall, representing a close-to-even response.” (1.0 is mostly personal; 2 is more

personal; 3 is even; 4 is more public; and 5 is mostly public). Eighty percent agreed with

202

‘yve talk to leaders and long-term members of our business unit to gather knowledge
about our history” (personal) and 7 (of 10) agreed with “When we need knowledge, we
turn to the person most expert in that domain” (personal). Seven agreed with “We make
every eﬂ’ort to document what we have learned, especially our methods and processes, so
that they can be easily passed on to others” (public). The group was most divided on the
question of whether ‘yve put little stock in legends or myths about our history” and “we
place great value on legends or myths about our history.” Comments on this question
suggest that Case College relies on both data and stories and that they utilize both internal
and external consultants and expertise.

Learning Orientation 4 addresses the Dissemination Mode. The deﬁnition is
“Knowledge is shared in formal, prescribed methods as compared to knowledge that is
shared through informal methods, such as role modeling and casual interaction.” Case
College respondents’ mean on this orientation is 3 .6, “more informal,” with a standard
deviation of 1.174 (1 is mostly formal; 2 is more formal; 3 is even; 4 is more informal; and
5 is mostly informal). The standard deviation on this item at 1.174 is larger than all except
one other. Strongest agreement was with the statement “When we solve a problem or
develop or provide a new service, we make formal announcements,” which is in the
choices column for formal dissemination mode. Eight (of 10) selected this response. The
greatest deviation was with a choice between these two: “When we add new members,
we share knowledge about our work through formal methods or written documentation,”
a choice made by 4, and “When we add new members, we share knowledge about our

work through informal or verbal methods,” selected by 5 informants. One person selected

203

an option between the two.

Learning Orientation 5 concerns Learning Scope. This orientation is deﬁned as
“Preference for knowledge related to the improvement of existing products, services or
capabilities as compared to preference for knowledge related to the development of new
ones.” The continuum ranges ﬂom incremental to transformative. Case College
representatives’ mean is 3.8 on this dimension, more transformational (3 is even and 4 is
“more transformational”). The fact that this rating is nearly equidistant between two
scores suggests that respondents view the college as only slightly more transformational
than incremental. The standard deviation on this item is 1.32. Nine agreed with the
statement “Even when things are going well, we think about change” (a transforrnative
description). Each of the other pairs had 6 or 7 of the respondents choosing the
transformational option. Consequently, although respondents selected only slightly more
transformational on the overall average, with a large majority they selected the
transforrnative option in every one of the pairs, suggesting a more transforrnative learning
orientation.

Learning Orientation 6 refers to Value-Chain Focus, a choice between “design and
make” functions versus “sales or service” activities. It is deﬁned as “Emphasize learning
investments in engineering or production activities (“design and make”) ﬁmctions versus
sales or service activities (“market and deliver”) functions.” This terminology is very
business-laden, but the answer choices could be related to an education context. Case
College respondents’ mean is 3.1, with some discrepancy among responses, a standard

deviation of 1.10. An overall rating of 3.1 places Case College in the “Even” descriptor

204

between focus on design/make versus market/deliver. Strongest agreement was registered
with “The quest for service to the customer outweighs everything,” with 9 selecting this
response. This is a “market/deliver” descriptor. Second highest agreement was “Other
ﬁrms are likely to want to benchmark with us in areas of the “design and make”
functions,” a design/make descriptor (6 responses). Respondents were almost equally
divided on the two other choices.

The ﬁnal Learning Orientation, number 7, is Learning Focus, a choice between
individual and group. It means the “Development of knowledge and skills pertaining to
individual performance as compared to the development of knowledge and skills
pertaining to group performance.” It is this one that had the greatest discrepancy. The
overall mean is 3.4, a descriptor of slightly more group oriented than individual oriented (3
= even; 4 = more group oriented). There is strong agreement among this group at Case
College that teams can achieve more than individuals. In this learning orientation, the
most “individual” oriented response of the pairs came on the choice between “When we
hire individuals, we are most interested in their ability to perform a speciﬁc function,” with
4 people making this choice, while 5 chose the group response of ‘then we hire
individuals, we are most interested in their ability to work well with others.”

In summary, the respondents report that Case College is a college that is generally
adept along both ends of the continua on many aspects of the learning proﬁle. Most of the
overall ratings were close to the “even” (3) rating. However, Case College exhibits the
following preferences: learns internally, is process-focused, more personal, informal,

transformational, and group oriented. It is about evenly attentive to “design and make,”

205

and “Market/Deliver.” Among these, the strongest learning orientation dimensions are the
internal knowledge source (LO-1, 1.1 points away ﬂom an even rating of 3); informal
dissemination mode (LO-4, .6 ﬂom even), transforrnative learning scope (LO-5, .5 away
ﬂom even), and slightly more process focus than content (LO-2, .5 away from even).
These ﬁndings are summarized in the following table.

Table 6 Summary of Reported Learning Orientations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Learning Orientation Rating Distance Descriptor
from Even

LO-l Knowledge Source 1.9 1.1 More Internal than External

LO-2 Content-Process 3 .5 .5 Slightly more Process Focus than

Focus Content

LO-3 Knowledge Reserve 2.7 .3 Slightly more Personal than
Public

LO-4 Dissemination Mode 3 .6 .6 More Informal than F ormal

LO-5 Learning Scope 3 .8 .8 Slightly more Transformational
than Incremental

LO-6 Value-Chain Focus 3.1 .1 Even between Design/Make and
Market/Deliver

LO-7 Learning Focus 3 .4 .4 Slightly more Group Oriented
than Individual

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coding: 1 = Mostly ﬁrst dimension; 2 = more ﬁrst dimension; 3 = even; 4 = more second
dimension; 5 = mostly second dimension.

This perspective of the learning orientations of Case College respondents is helpﬁrl
in enriching the description of the organization’s strategies. The learning orientations, as
self-reported, are generally consistent with the strategies identiﬁed. For example, one
strategy identiﬁed was professional development. As understood in this context,

professional development generally referred to group activities, a ﬁnding which is

206

consistent with the learning focus orientation results. The college leaders view themselves
as transformational, as they talk about their national leadership, and this instrument
identiﬁed this orientation. Although none of the orientations is particularly strong, in that
it received a strong “mostly” rating, it could be interpreted to suggest that this
organization is agile. Additional study would be required to make this determination. The
internal emphasis as the strongest orientation may stem directly ﬂom some unsatisfactory
experiences with some external consultants. Many spoke of learning from each other, and
the revelation in this learning orientation about knowledge source would reinforce that
view.
Facilitating Factors

In contrast with learning orientations, facilitating factors are considered better or
worse for promoting organizational learning. The higher the ranking, the more effective
the respondents consider the college to be on a given organizational learning dimension.
The scale for each facilitating factor ranges ﬂom 1 through 7, with the following
descriptors: 1-2, little evidence to support this factor; 3-5, some evidence to support this
factor; and 6-7, extensive evidence to support this factor. On the instrument, a box exists
for each number, with the descriptors below, so individuals would easily be able to make
relative choices among the various numbers, even though several have the same
descriptors. The facilitating factors will be analyzed next.

Facilitating factors are presented diﬂ’erent ﬂom learning orientations in the
instrument. In this section, informants are provided with a deﬁnition and several examples

of the factor. Then they are asked to place an X in the box that best describes their work-

207

group or organization. The boxes are labeled 1 through 7, with the following descriptors:

1-2 Little evidence to support this factor

3-5 Some evidence to support this factor

6-7 Extensive evidence to support this factor

For facilitating factor 1, Scanning Imperative, the following examples are provided:

0 We devote time and resources to study our business environment.

- We periodically ask clients and customers about their perception of our

performance.

- We devote time to the study of developing trends in our industry or profession.

- Staff in our unit maintain contact with customers, suppliers, competitors, and the

government in areas we do business.

- Information ﬂom the external environment provides opportunities for learning.

- Comparative studies of competitors or suppliers are used in setting standards.

(DiBella, Nevis, & Gould, 1998)

Facilitating Factor 1, Scanning Imperative, refers to gathering “information about
conditions and practices outside the unit; seeking out information about the external
environment.” Case College respondents report a mean of 6 on this factor, falling on the
lower end of the “extensive evidence to support this factor.” Standard deviation is .667.

Facilitating Factor 2 refers to Performance Gap, the “shared perception of gap
between current performance and desired performance.” The respondents’ mean is 5.6,
on the upper end of “some evidence to support this factor.”

Facilitating Factor 3 refers to a Concern for Measurement, which is deﬁned as
“considerable eﬂ’ort is spent deﬁning or measuring key factors. Discourse over metrics is
regarded as a learning activity.” Case College respondents’ mean is 5.9, on the very high
end of “some evidence.”

Facilitating Factor 4 is Organizational Curiosity, “curiosity about conditions and

practices; interest in creative ideas and new technologies; support for experimentation.”

208

Case College respondents’ mean is 5.8, registering on the upper end of “some evidence.”

Facilitating Factor 5 is Climate of Openness. This factor addresses “open
communications among organization members; problems, errors, or lessons are shared,
not hidden.” Case College respondents’ mean is 5.8 on this scale, the high end of “some
evidence to support this factor.”

Facilitating Factor 6 refers to Continuous Education. This is one of the two highest
rated facilitating factors at Case College, with a mean of 6.0 and a standard deviation of
.158. Continuous education is described as “commitment of quality resources for learning.
It is somewhat surprising that this factor was not rated even higher, because the
researcher’s observation is that extensive resources, both from the college and ﬂom
outside grant resources, have been dedicated to learning opportunities or resources.

Facilitating Factor 7 concerns Operational Variety. Operational variety refers to
valuing different methods, procedures, and competencies; appreciate diversity.” Case
College respondents’ mean is 5.3, one of the two lowest-rated items among the ten. The
standard deviation is 1.23.

Multiple Advocates is the descriptor for Facilitating Factor 8. It means “new ideas
and methods can be advanced by employees at all organizational levels. Multiple
advocates or champions exist.” The mean is 5.4, on the high end of “some evidence.”
This factor had the largest standard deviation of 1.506.

Facilitating Factor 9 is Involved Leadership. This factor resulted in a mean of 5.5
with a standard deviation of 1.179. This particular factor is expected to change in another

year, because there is a new president and efforts are underway to involve more leaders,

209

 

 

 

lit

ck

including the Board.

The ﬁnal factor, Systems Perspective, is number 10. Respondents’ mean is 5.3, with
a standard deviation of 1.25, placing it tied with one other factor for the lowest rating and
a higher standard deviation. Only facilitating factor 8 had more deviation among
respondents. The deﬁnition is “recognition of interdependence among organizational units
and groups; awareness of time delay between actions and their outcomes.” In phase 2
interviews, there was a question concerning systems perspective. Most had little
understanding of this term. This is not a particularly surprising ﬁnding, since the
terminology is far more common in business settings. In addition, none of the extensive
literature cited by informants included resources that addressed systems perspectives. The
closest would be Kaufman, with his organizational elements model, but no one speciﬁcally
commented on the systems nature of this model.

Tests of signiﬁcance were done on the facilitating factors to determine whether there
are any signiﬁcant differences among respondents on the variables of classiﬁcation type
and gender. There was no signiﬁcant difference found among any of the facilitating
factors except number 4, Organizational Curiosity. On this factor, there was a statistically
signiﬁcant diﬂ’erence between the responses of faculty and administrators. Faculty rate
Case College’s organizational curiosity lower than administrators do. Examples of
organizational curiosity provided in the instrument included these:

- We recognize and reward those who develop and try out new ideas, even when
their actions lead to unexpected or negative results.

- We always try to understand how things work.

210

a We are receptive to unanticipated events and use them to learn.

- Members of our unit continually inquire into innovative and creative ideas.

- Asking questions is highly valued.

- Experimentation is encouraged.

- We often engage in brainstorming exercises.

The fact that there is this discrepancy should become an area of inquiry for Case
College. Obviously administrators feel more positively about the amount of evidence that
exists to support questioning and experimentation than faculty believe to be evident.

Some faculty members did express the view that they were not conﬁdent how comfortable
classiﬁed staff may be in speaking out on issues. At the same time the fact that this is the
only factor on which there was variation is also signiﬁcant. There were no signiﬁcant
differences on any of the other factors on the basis of gender or position, the two factors
considered. There is great consistency in the views of this leadership group.

In summary, Case College has some or extensive evidence of all of the facilitating
factors contributing to organizational learning. Rated highest are their Scanning
Imperative (FF 1) and Continuous Education (FF 6); lowest are Operational Variety (FF 7)
and Systems Perspective (FF 10). The only signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erence was observed in the
factor of organizational curiosity GP 4) where administrators judged this quality to be
higher than faculty did. There is great congruence among respondents on almost all of the
factors.

Analysis of Instrument for Use in Commqu Colleges

One objective in using the instrument was to determine its utility in an analysis of a

211

college’s learning. Some feedback about the questionnaire was received ﬂom participants,
but there was no question in the interview process which addressed the survey form. The
ﬁndings in this section will be drawn almost exclusively from my perspective in analyzing
the instruments and the summary results. Several respondents took considerably more
time than others in completing the forms. When asked for examples of the evidence in
open-ended questions within the survey form, the three faculty, the president, and one vice
president took time to provide examples on many of the questions. The other ﬁve did not.
From this result, it would seem that administering the instrument within a group setting
where there was time to complete the entire questionnaire may be a better technique. The
authors suggest that it be used in this way. Some appear to have hurriedly completed the
form; with the busy-ness of the agenda of all of these individuals, this is not surprising.
Some noted that they had little time to dedicate to this activity. Nevertheless, because the
responses are highly synchronized with the interview responses, the instrument appears
reliable.

There would have been value in having the opportunity to discuss why individuals
responded as they did. This activity could serve as a useful learning activity in a future
setting. Some commented that some questions were hard for them to answer. One
member found the form inconsistent with her understandings of organizational learning,
although when questioned about this inconsistency, no speciﬁc observations were offered.
It is possible that the dichotomous nature of many of the questions, that one must answer
either one way or the other, was incompatible with this person’s response style. It is

acknowledged that this arbitrary forced response negates the potential for important

212

dialogue about how different settings may invoke different responses and other similar
conversations. Administration of the questionnaire in a group setting may provide
opportunities for exploring these ideas further.

For most questions, the means hovered around the middle - not on either extreme of
the dichotomous choices offered for most learning orientations. Most facilitating factors
were rated above the mid-point. The form did not seem to be discriminating for this
audience, but it would be useful to have similar data from groups less close to the front
lines of the learning-centered agenda.

Utilizing the Kauﬂnan planning model as one guide, this tool could be helpﬁrl in
identifying gaps between present and desired performance. It could also demonstrate
where perceptions vary most among different groups. Ten individuals was simply too
small a number in this college to draw many useful inferences. The tool was useful,
however, in verifying the researcher’s ﬁndings about sources of information, degree of
innovation, and consistency of views. By itself it would provide minimal insight; coupled
with the interviews and observations, it helped to triangulate some of the data. The
limitation of this being a self-report instrument must also be acknowledged. In a widely
read group, as Case College respondents are, there may be some responses that appeared
more right - better to espouse - than others did. Further, additional investigation into how
these ratings relate to those found in other settings, such as business and health care, could
lend additional perspective.

The survey sheds perspective on the interviewees’ perceptions of the college’s

learning orientations and learning strengths (the facilitating factors). This data is helpful in

213

gaining a perspective on this organization’s learning proﬁle and subsequently contrasting
its organizational learning with its strategies for becoming more learning-centered.
Knowing how the strategies in use align with characteristics of learning orientations and
facilitating factors adds some richness to the part of the research question that sought to
understand how the college’s strategies relate to organizational learning. The tool will be
far more useful when we can contrast the responses from this college with other higher
education institutions.

In an effort to see whether the responses ﬂom Case College would be unique, the
researcher invited another set of leaders in another community college to complete the
instrument. Although less analysis of the second group’s ﬁndings was conducted, it is
clear that Case College rates itself much more highly on most of the facilitating factors
than a small group of leaders in comparable positions in another college did. There are
signiﬁcant differences between the descriptions of the two colleges, however. The
learning orientations proﬁle of the two, based on these limited numbers of responses,
would appear quite different. Recommendations will be provided in Chapter 6 regarding
this topic.

Perspﬂives on Culture

The DiBella/Nevis and Schein models of organizational learning talk extensively
about culture, but culture is not a dominant theme at Case College. There is also little
coherent view of the culture. In fact, most describe the culture as multiple cultures. The
one common theme running through descriptions was a focus on learners.

Culture inﬂuences how organizational actors behave. That this college has made the

214

progress it has with the many complexities it faces is impressive. Larger organizations
typically have a more difﬁcult time engaging people, because of the sheer volume of
individuals. Case College has created an environment that allows it to make progress on
the learning-centered agenda. Recognizing that most models of organizational learning
address culture, the second round of interviews asked each respondent to describe the
college’s culture. Here are some examples of what they said.

(It is) Pluralistic. I mean that we’re not monolithic. There are lots of different
interests and vested interests and we bend over backwards to accommodate
everybody. We’ve not pushed people into a single mold. And it makes for a lower
incident of unhappiness, generally, but it also makes for extremely convoluted
policies. (CBA2-2)

We are more collaborative than we have been in the past. We are student centered,
we are very energetic, we like to try a lot of innovations. And that can be dangerous
because you can go in too many different directions. We have an environment
where a lot of ideas are encouraged, in the past they have not been supported
ﬁnancially so they tended to remain as innovations on the sidelines or in pockets and
not a part of the mainstream. And I’m hoping that now with us taking a new look at
culture, it will change in that regard. I think we have a culture where people like to
work, I think people ﬁnd it a ﬂiendly environment. (COl-2)

I think the culture at (Case College), probably there are several of them, but I think
the main culture of the college until very recently, has been a culture of belief in
helping students. Probably the best way to describe it is to say that we’ve had many,
many focus groups with students over the history of the college and what we hear
them say as far as not changing things is concerned, is small classes that relate their _
professional/personal relationship with faculty members, and the degree to which
faculty members help individual students and mentor them along. It’s unomcial
mentoring, but it’s a very, very close knit kind of helping students in the academic
environment. I think that’s our culture. (CBA1-2)

Well, the culture is one that I think very much values opportunity for everyone, and
values virtually everyone that darkens the doorstep having the capacity to move
ahead. So that’s always been a part of it. I think it is a very student-centered culture
and always has been. What I think has changed about that in recent years is the
dawning of an understanding that you could be student centered and not learning
centered. To date, historically, I think it’s been very student centered. Open, values

215

people, values the potential of all people, that’s still true. (C02-2)

Culture. Very much under change right now and I have noticed a big change over

the last few months since (the president) came on board. Even though there’s

always been a sense of collaboration, in the past it was, “administrators, let’s talk to

faculty and see what they think. (F 3-2)

There is so little consistency in the interpretations of the culture, and most observe
that it is in a state of transition. If we were to summarize the views of culture at Case
College, it would be that there are several cultures, that students are central, and that the
culture is in transition.

Culture is one of the six objectives in the factors for attention in the Vanguard
project, which means attention will increasingly be paid to culture in the next phase of the
college’s strategy implementation. Indirectly, people are already talking about culture as
they talk about becoming more learning-centered. At a later date, there could be a more
consistent view of culture in the organization.

W

The second part of the primary research question, how the strategies relate to the
premises of organizational learning, will be considered next. In answering this part, the
model of DiBella and Nevis, described in chapter 2 and reported on in previous sections,
will be utilized along with other theorists’ views of organizational learning.

The evidence presented in the two ﬁndings chapters, 4 and 5, concerning strategies
for becoming more learning-centered, barriers, and the organizational learning proﬁle, are

used to make this determination. Considerable evidence exists that relates the strategies of

the college for creating a more learning—centered college to the premises of organizational

216

learning. The strategies discovered at Case College for becoming a more learning-
centered college are the following:

Collaboration
Broad-based engagement
Focus

Resources

Professional Development
Results orientation
Leadership

Trust/Respect

“99‘5”?!“9’!‘

How Strategies Relate

Two approaches will be used to explore Case College strategies’ relationship to
organizational learning. One will be the DiBella/Nevis/Gould model, presented earlier. It
contains a learning cycle model, learning orientations, and facilitating factors. Data ﬂom
the organizational learning inventory will inform this section. A ﬁgure depicting the model
is in the Appendices.

A second approach will be to highlight some evidence that demonstrates how Case
College aligns with some anticipated qualities. In Chapter 6, as the ﬁndings are
interpreted, the ﬁndings will be used to explain how they may inform strategy
development in other organizations and set the stage for ﬁrture research.

Case College respondents overall reported extensive evidence to support each of the
ten Facilitating Factors of the DiBella/Nevis/Gould model. Although some factors were
slightly stronger than others, there was insigniﬁcant difference among the assessments of
respondents for all but one of the factors. It is important to remember that the individuals
surveyed are close to the learning-centered agenda; we cannot extrapolate these results to

others in the organization. Analyzing the responses of this group, it is apparent that the

217

strongest ratings were given to factors in the ﬁrst phase of the learning cycle, acquisition
of knowledge.

In this category, the higher responses of scanning imperative (FF 1), concern for
measurement (FF 3), and organizational curiosity (FF4) would be placed. Two of the
highest factors would be in the dissemination phase of the organizational learning cycle:
continuous education and climate of openness. None are in the segment of the model
relating to utilization of knowledge. This may be signiﬁcant. There is greater evidence of
the college’s ability to acquire knowledge than to utilize it. This ﬁts with the view
expressed by some that although they are skillful learners, educators are painﬁrlly slow to
change . . . or to learn.

In contrast, of the ﬁve lowest rated factors, two of the ﬁve are factors that should be
apparent in all phases of the learning cycle: systems perspective (FF 10) and involved
leadership (FF 9). Similarly, two other lower factors are operational variety (FF 7) and
multiple advocates (FF 8), both characteristics of the utilization of knowledge. Again, not
a lot can be made of these ﬁndings because of the slight differences in the averages.
However, if we were to survey a larger number of Case College individuals, some further
from the center of the learning-centered agenda, it is possible we would begin to see
greater spreads on these factors. Some summary data derived from the survey form

follows.

Table begins on next page.

218

Table 7 Highest Facilitating Factors

 

 

Phase of the Learning Cycle
Acquire Disseminate Utilize
Scanning Imperative (FF 1) 6.0 Continuous Education (FF6) 6.0

 

Concern for Measurement (FF 3) 5.9 Climate of Openness (FF 5) 5.8

 

 

 

Organizational Curiosity (FF4) 5.8

 

 

 

Table 8 shows the lowest-rated facilitating factors. Each is listed under the phase of the

learning cycle that it is associated with. Readers will note that lower ratings exist in the

factors most important in utilizing knowledge.

Table 8 Lowest Facilitating Factors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phase of the LearningCycle
Acquire Disseminate Utilize

Performance Gap (FF2) 5.6 Operational Variety
(FF7) 5.3
Multiple Advocates
(FF8) 5.4

Systems Perspective (FF 10) 5.3 Systems Perspective (FF 10) 5.3 Systems Perspective
(FF 10) 5.3

Involved Leadership (FF 9) 5.5 Involved Leadership (FF 9) 5.5 Involved Leadership
(FF 9) 5.5

 

 

Note that the last two entries, systems perspective and involved leadership, are two of the
three facilitating factors associated with all phases of the learning cycle. These are among
the lowest factors at Case College. It would seem that as factors important to all phases of

learning, Case College leaders would want to explore ways in which they could enhance

their performance on these factors.

219

The DiBella/Nevis/Gould model provides some additional guidance for interpreting
the results of the organizational learning inventory. By coupling learning orientations, it is
possible to categorize the college’s style. Again remember that the learning orientations
were not pronounced, with many hovering around the balanced or “even” descriptor. It is
impossible to determine whether the proﬁle revealed is well suited to their present strategies
since that question was beyond the scope of this research. To determine whether the
learning style is appropriate, we would need to understand what the college’s situation and
strategies may require. Nevertheless, we can at least catch a glimpse of how their proﬁle
would relate to one organizational learning model.

Utilizing a strategy suggested by DiBella, matrices are developed. When placing
knowledge source and learning scope on a matrix, the college’s learning style is
characterized by Innovation, a combination of internal knowledge source and
trarsformative leaning scope. Learning scope is either incremental or transforrnative, and
is represented on the left and right sides of the table, respectively. Learning source is either
internal or external. Internal is on the bottom row of the table, and external is on the top.

Table 9 Learning Scope and Knowledge Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

External External
Incremental Adaption Acquisition T ransformative
T rarsformative
Incremental Correction Innovation
Internal 1 Internal

220

When organizations learn from their own operations and use that knowledge
transforrnatively, they create product or process innovations (DiBella, 2000, p. 40).

Next we will consider the learning style as determined by dissemination mode and
knowledge reserve. Dissemination mode is either formal or informal. Formal is on the top
of the table, while informal is reﬂected by the two bottom boxes. Knowledge reserve is
either personal or public, and is shown on the left and right sides of the table, respectively.

Table 10 Dissemination Mode and Knowledge Reserve

 

 

 

 

 

 

Formal Formal
Authorized
Personal Expert Bureaucratic Public
Role Community of
Personal Modeling Practice Public
Informal Informal

DiBella explains that “when knowledge is seen in personal terms but disseminated in an

informal manner, then learning occurs through role modeling or social emulation.” Many

ﬁrms rely on specialized knowledge or skills that are intuitive or cannot be made explicit.
Sometimes that knowledge is retained by individual persons and can only be
disseminated directly from one person to another. Through mentoring relationships
or observation individuals learn from one another. The learning is not imposed but
acquired or shared through informal, often subconscious means. By doing as others
do, we learn from others in discrete ways. (DiBella, 2000, p. 41)

It is notable that some interviewees speciﬁcally referred to role modeling in their

interactions with peers. No one spoke of a community of practice, another model that may

be desirable in an education environment. A community of practice may be particularly

well suited to Case College, because DiBella observes that “Communities of practice’ is a

221

learning style that involves collective or collaborative learning in an informal manner”
(Wenger, 1996, cited in DiBella, 2000, p. 41).

Case College’s strategies for becoming more learning-centered relate well with
models of organizational learning. Participants reported a balanced learning style, with
minimal variation among the respondents and no outliers in the responses. The college
leaders report that they are middle-of-the-road on the continua associated with this model
of learning orientations. Further, they report substantial evidence exists to support each of
the ten facilitating factors. Of the strategies identiﬁed above and abstracted from the
interviews, the researcher would place each in the facilitating factor category indicated.

Table 11 - Relationship Between Strategy and Facilitating Factors

 

Strategy Factor

 

1. Collaboration FF3 Concern for Measurement

FF5 Climate of Openness (Disseminate)
FF8 Multiple Advocates (Utilize)

FF6 Continuous Education (Disseminate)

 

2. Broad-based engagement FF8 Multiple Advocates (Utilize)

 

3. Focus FFl Scanning Imperative (Acquire)
FF2 Performance Gap (Acquire)
FF3 Concern for Measurement (Acquire)

 

4. Resources FF2 Performance Gap

 

5. Professional Development FF6 Continuous Education (Disseminate)
FF4 Organizational curiosity (Acquire)

 

6. Results orientation FF3 Concern for Measurement (Acquire)

 

7. Leadership FF9 Involved Leadership (All)
FF4 Organizational Curiosity (Acquire)
FF 6 Continuous Education (Disseminate)

 

8.Trust/Respect FFS Climate of Openness (Disseminate)

 

 

 

 

This classiﬁcation can only be considered arbitrary. Certainly some factors ﬁt more

closely within some strategies than others. The researcher read through the examples for

222

each facilitating factor and made a determination concerning its relationship to identiﬁed
strategies. For instance, one example of a “concern for measurement” is “communicating
outcomes is an essential activity.” Therefore, this factor was listed with collaboration,
since sharing reports is a regular activity of the learning-centered task force. Additionally,
some strategies were classiﬁed with a particular facilitating factor because of the research
ﬁndings. For example, it was very evident that especially the learning-team leaders are
immersed in continuous education and are encouraging others to also be engaged.
Discussion groups and forums on various topics are held ﬂequently, and these are often
initiated by the top leadership team. Consequently, continuous education was listed as a
factor reﬂected in the leadership strategy.

Case College is not utilizing the full range of possible facilitating factors in its
apparent approaches to creating a more learning-centered institution. Increasing the
variety of factors drawn upon to develop the strategies for becoming more learning-
centered should be considered. Most of the factors being utilized are in the ﬁrst phase of
the learning cycle, acquiring knowledge. Few are in the “utilize” stage of the
organizational learning cycle. This dilemma of learning is not unlike that encountered by
individuals who often have an easier time acquiring knowledge than using it. This higher
level of learning for individuals is reﬂected by Bloom’s Tgonomy of Learning Objectives
(Bloom, 1956), with application being at a higher level than gaining knowledge.

None of the current strategies could easily be related to operational variety, a factor
associated with the utilization phase, nor system perspective, which is related to all of the

phases of the organizational learning cycle.

223

An understanding of systems was not in the discourse of Case College. When asked
about systems perspective, most were unable to provide a response. However, some were
able to describe the impact that systems have on the college’s ability to achieve its goals.

Here are some examples:

But then realizing the implications of, oh, that means we’re going to have to change
how we register students. That doesn’t just mean we’re going to change what we do
in the classroom. Or, oh, that means that we’re going to have to change what kind of
information we collect on students and student records. And, oh, that means that
we’re going to have to hire more tech support people because we’re going to be
using-- I think just realizing all--it’s like a root system, it just kind of spreads out, it
just continues on. And, also, knowing how to just deal with transformation. (F 3-1)

Either informants did not think a systems perspective existed or they were not sure what it

meant.
I’m not sure that we still have real systems in practice yet. (CBA4-1)

Well, I don’t know what a systems perspective is, but I do have a sense of the college
as a culture and an organization that lives. The needs of that organization have to be
acknowledged, so any time you want that to develop, you have to see the big picture.
And I also know the inertia of that organism is such that it can take attempts to
change it, absorb them and live on, essentially, unchanged. So I have to face the
possibility that that’s what I’m going to do, because I’m going to attempt to change
the organization, achieve some momentary localized effect, and the organization is
going to live on without really changing systematically. That’s what keeps me awake

at night. (Fl-2)

It says the only reason to tinker with the inputs and the process is if it makes a
difference on the outputs. So, I think that’s important. It also, obviously, invites you
to think in an integrative way and not to isolate things and to see that there’s more
than one causative factor in that the process view has been an important one for us in
order to see that, from a student perspective, often what we do with students, the
process resembles a badly spliced movie. And there’s jerky movements because
there’s something missing. And we don’t see it because we’re only in the ﬁrst two
minutes of the movie. And somebody else sits in the next three minutes, thinks their
three minutes is going just ﬁne. I thought my two minutes went well. What we don’t
see is that our two minutes and our three minute pieces don’t splice together. (C02-
2)

224

Although there was little understanding of the systems terminology, there was
understanding about how parts relate to other parts and how things work. The comments
from informants corroborate the ﬁndings of the instrument that systems perspective is less
well developed among Case College leaders.

The preceding information provides signiﬁcant perspective on Case College’s
strategies for becoming more learning-centered, as well as introducing a perspective on
how the leaders interview perceive their college’s learning style, the barriers encountered in
becoming a more learning-centered college, and more. The next chapter will summarize
the conclusions reached, interpretations made, and implications for practice that emerge
from these ﬁndings.

Summm

Eight strategies were identiﬁed as being used to support advancing the learning-
centered college initiative at Case College. Substantial evidence exists to suggest that these
strategies are closely aligned with premises of organizational learning. Many of the
strategies are also supportive of the description of a more learning-centered college, as

presented in Chapter 2.

225

Chapter 6 Creating Meaning from the Findings
The Reseafrch Problem

This study is about the strategies leaders in one community college say they are
using or were discovered to be in use to promote a more learning-centered institution and
how these strategies are or are not related to organizational learning. Little is known
about how college leaders are going about creating more learning-centered colleges. If
other colleges are to embark on the journey, as hundreds say they are, there will be a great
need to learn from the experience of the pioneers, or those in the vanguard. As noted
earlier, others’ experience must also be used cautiously, because each organization
presents a unique context. Further, the strategies discovered, largely resulting from the
reports of informants, may only reﬂect espoused theories rather than theories-in—use. This
study did not attempt to verify that the reported strategies were indeed the strategies in
use, although much evidence pointed to support for the strategies identiﬁed.

The primary question guiding this research was:

What we the strategies being used by leaders in a community college to

create a more leaning-centered college, and how we the strategies similar to

or diﬂ'erentﬁom the premises of orgarizational leaning?
In answering this question, a number of subquestions concerning the meaning of a
learning-centered institution, models in use, barriers, and the organization’s learning
proﬁle (as reported by leader-informants’ responses to the Organizational Transitions
learning inventory) were examined.

Summgy of Findings

Case College was selected because it was perceived to be committed to becoming a

226

more learning-centered college. This judgment was based on information available in the
literature and at national conference presentations, where Case College representatives
declared their “commitment to be a national leader” (handout, 2000). Individuals on the
campus have both published and presented on the topic of becoming more learning-
centered. Chapters 4 and 5 outline the result of the ﬁndings from review of documents,
observations, interviews, and administration of an organizational learning inventory.

Eight primary strategies were found to guide Case College leaders efforts to create a
more learning-centered college. Six of the eight were expressly identiﬁed by informants;
two were abstracted ﬂom the interviews but were not speciﬁcally named by interviewees.
Although the last two were not identiﬁed speciﬁcally by interviewees as strategies in
response to that query, the topics were addressed in a variety of ways by informants and
clearly emerged as items that were in play to assist the college to become a more learning-
centered institution. Together the eight strategies constitute a perspective of a ﬂamework
ﬂom which the learning-centered journey of Case College is moving forward. The eight
strategies are:

Collaboration
Broad-based engagement
Focus

Resources

Professional Development

Results orientation
Leadership

Trust/Respect

@NQVPP’NS‘

Evidence was presented ﬂom the interviews, utilizing the voices of interviewees, that

support these eight strategies. The eight are not mutually exclusive and are consequently

227

sometimes difﬁcult to separate. For example, it is leaders (at several levels) who have
either secured or allocated resources in support of professional development. In this
example, three of the eight strategies (leadership, resources, professional development) are
inter-related. It becomes even more complicated, however, when one considers that the
resources are allocated for the college’s particular focus on learning outcomes. Moreover,
the professional development strategy is conceived and delivered collaboratively and
engages a broad base of participants.

Taken further, it is probable that this example of resources being brought to support
an initiative ultimately encompasses all eight of the identiﬁed strategies. Where one
strategy ends and the other is in play is impossible to discern, but the mutually reinforcing
aspects of many strategies may indeed strengthen the processes. Evidence gathered in this
research also suggests that the strategies of Case College for becoming more learning-
centered are closely aligned with common understandings of organizational learning.

Case College respondents were consistent in explaining their view of a learning-
centered college. They focus on student core learning outcomes, individual diﬁerences,
and measurement. A college-adopted statement of the meaning of a learning-centered
college guides their work and reinforces it for others. Case College has adopted a vision
of a Learning-Centered College, parts of which follow,

More than a semantic difference, this change of perspective and expectation shifts

the focus from what is offered taught or covered in a given class or program to

what students lean ard can do as a result of their involvement. It also implies a

shared responsibility for learning and a ﬂuidity in teacher/learner roles. The shift is

truly transformational because it requires a re-thinking of assumptions and practices.

. . . members of a learning-centered institution have a sense of ownership in and
commitment to a common purpose, shared values, and the quality and outcomes of

228

particular tasks. Together they create a vital, dynamic community that generates and
attracts excellence. (Case College, 1999)

Case College personnel and many national community college leaders would name
this college as one appearing to have made more progress than many toward becoming a
more learning-centered institution. The college has a number of measures that support
this belief, including improved graduation rates, increased course retention, and higher
course completions. However, assessing their progress toward becoming more learning-
centered was not a focus of the research but was rather a criterion for case selection. The
research goal was to identify the strategies that a leading college is using to achieve its
goal of becoming more learning-centered. This research provides a glimpse into the world
of this college and provides insights about what others who plan to make the same journey
may wish to consider.

What It Means

The research was designed to identify the strategies either reported or observed to
be in use and relate these to premises of organizational learning. A perspective on how
these ﬁndings may be interpreted follows.

First, throughout this manuscript, acknowledgment has been made that what is
reported may vary ﬂom what would be found in practice. There is at least some evidence
to suggest that there is some gap in espoused and in-use theories. An example of one
discrepancy stems from the many models offered by participants as guiding their work, yet
these same models were not forthcoming in explanations of the strategies in use. The

theories reportedly guiding the activities of Case College leaders were not foremost in the

229

minds of interviewees. At the same time as models are reported to guide leaders’ work,
these same leaders failed to connect these models to their explanation of strategies they
were using. None of the strategies, however, contradicted reported models.

Second, an additional dimension of the espoused theories vs. theories-in-use paradox
is the fact that there were so many different models for thinking about becoming more
learning-centered from a variety of individuals. It is possible that the multiple models in
use only confuse the agenda and that Case College may be better served by adopting
fewer, more widely acknowledged models or theories for guiding their work. However, I
would also observe that another interpretation of this phenomena is that the many models
enable Case College leaders to bring perspective to their collaborative work. The multiple
models may actually inform a more agile organization while a more prescriptive, single-
model approach, may be too constraining.

Third, amazingly, collaboration, the strategy that was unanimously reported by
research participants, is a decision-making strategy for which no model was evident nor
could one be offered in response to inquiries regarding this tOpic. It is clear that the model
of collaboration at Case College is a home-grown approach. All believed it works, but
this is a group that has a great amount of experience in working together. Whether this
ill-deﬁned collaborative model will be equally intelligible to different levels of the
organization is an open question. I suspect that it is less well understood at other levels
and may even not surface as the number one way by which the learning-centered initiative
is being promoted if other groups were interviewed.

Fourth, teamwork is an emerging organizational phenomena, particularly in private-

230

sector organizations. Efforts are directed in many organizations, including colleges,
toward developing and chartering more effective teams. Many researchers are conducting
inquiry about teams. The team literature and discourse were notably absent at Case
College. This organization with multiple models for implementing agendas did not count
teams among the models in use. Observations of group meetings conﬁrmed this lack of a
strong contemporary model. Many team models establish more rigid meeting roles and
expectations about use of time, agendas, and more. Some proponents of team structure
would question the effectiveness of Case College meetings, because only minimal
structure is evident.

Critics of the potentially limiting structure of team models may wonder whether the
more ﬂee-wheeling approach to group deliberations is a strength at Case College.
Comradery and energy seemed high. Attendance was high. The lack of use of a more
rigid team model may in fact strengthen Case College processes.

Fifth, leadership was determined to be important at Case College, yet it was also an
area where informants were critical. Leadership at Case College is not conceptualized
around the hero model but rather appears like the “shared-power environment” described
by Rost.

Thus leadership is not the work of a single person; rather it can be explained and

deﬁned as a collaborative endeavor among group members. Therefore, the essence

of leadership is not the leader, but the relationship (Rost, 1993). Leaders operate in

a shared-power environment with followers. No longer does a single leader have all

the answers and the power to make substantial changes. Instead, we now live in a

world where many people participate in leadership, some as leaders and others as

followers. Only when we all work together can we bring about successful changes
for our mutual purposes. (Rost, cited in Brungardt, 1998, p. 7)

231

Brungardt and Rost’s models of leadership are highly consistent with Rubin’s
collaborative leader description, where the primary work is building relationships. Rather
than leadership as most writers envision it, of top administrators or designated faculty
representatives, Case College is looking for leaders at all levels. Although not a unique
interpretation, this decentralized leadership is a distinguishing characteristic of Case
College’s desired approach.

To date, leadership has clearly been concentrated in the hands of a few at Case
College. Individuals below the president had great autonomy to implement the agenda.
How the arrival of a strong single leader at the top, one who espouses pushing decision-
making to the lowest levels of the organization, will be received over the long term
remains an open question. When power has been centralized, a deﬁning characteristic of a
bureaucracy, there is often reluctance among leaders to relinquish power. Case College
will need to be cautious as it transitions to a more decentralized organization. To some
extent, the driving and restraining forces of centralization vs. decentralization may
engender the concerns expressed by Barott and Raybould, who contend that “more force
will lead to more resistance, which leads to more force, which leads to more resistance and
so on. In effect, both sides are caught in a battle over survival (Barott and Raybould,
1998, p. 33). The researcher saw no signs of an emerging conﬂict but only notes that
dramatic cultural changes may result in unintended consequences.

Sixth, of the several characteristics associated with organizational learning and the
learning organization, a systems perspective was most absent ﬂom the discourse of most

Case College representatives. Several interviewees were unable to respond to the

232

question asking them to comment on how they would relate the concept of a systems
perspective to the work of becoming more learning-centered. Most admitted no
knowledge of a systems perspective but felt that some of the central ofﬁce administrators
would know.

Many writers (Senge, Koﬂnan, DiBella & Nevis) argue that until organizational
leaders view the organization as a system, learning will be limited and organizational
success diminished. The DiBella and Nevis organizational learning cycle places systems
perspective and involved leadership as the two facilitating factors that are essential in all
phases of organizational learning - acquisition, dissemination, and utilization. Case
College has involved leadership but there is minimal awareness of a systems perspective.
Developing a systems perspective may present a learning opportunity for Case College.

Seventh, much of the organizational development literature acknowledges the
importance of the culture of the organization. A variety of responses were received for
descriptions of the culture; in sum, there is no common view of the culture of Case
College. The presence of multiple cultures within a college is not inconsistent with the
higher education landscape. Although this is not unusual in the academy, a clearer identity
of the prevailing culture may aid Case College leaders in identifying desired changes or
gaps between what is and what is desired. An investigation into culture is planned, since it
is one of the priority action areas for the Vanguard project. The highly visible
philosophies of the new president are likely to inﬂuence the organization’s culture, if we
accept the large base of organizational development literature that suggests that leaders

inﬂuence culture. A return visit to Case College could be expected to yield a more

233

consistent view of the college’s culture and cultural shifts underway, in part because of the
college’s emerging focus on this topic and because of the high-proﬁle role the president is
taking on cultural issues, such as stewardship, principle-centered leadership, and servant
leadership.

On the other hand, there is a potential danger in organizations to become so focused
on achieving common goals that divergent voices are silenced. At this time, this group of
informants reports a very open communication system. For many of the strategies to
continue to be viable, such as collaboration, leadership, and trust/respect, there must
continue to be an acceptance of divergence. The needs for both convergence and
divergence are essential to scientiﬁc breakthroughs, and by inference to organizational
innovation.

Eighth, ﬁnally but potentially most importantly, these strategies are not distinctively
related to becoming a more learning-centered organization. Many of the same strategies
could probably be found at this and other colleges for achieving other types of goals. So
why should we expect these to work here? I can only speculate on the answer.

Although these strategies may be applied to any change initiative, they are applied in
a particular way at Case College. This may be the deﬁning characteristic of Case College.
In addition to the “focus” strategy, where most attention is paid to the most important
items, each of the other strategies also reﬂects focus. In some organizations, professional
development, as one example, is eclectic. There will be an array of offerings on a variety
of topics designed to meet the interests of a diverse audience. In contrast, at Case

College, professional development is tightly coupled with the learning-centered agenda.

234

Further, resource gathering is very successful at Case College. However, resources
are being concentrated on the primary learning agenda, not a range of options. Some
colleges pursue grants in multiple directions, for intemationalizing, for workforce
development, for technology, and other initiatives. This is not to suggest that Case
College is not also pursuing diverse grants to support varied foci, but it appears that the
grants omce is focusing its eﬂ‘orts on bringing support to this particular learning-centered
agenda.

What these strategies may more accurately reﬂect are strategies for change. What
makes them unique, and arguably successﬁrl, with the limited evidence which was
examined to substantiate Case College’s claim to making progress on the learning-
centered agenda, is the way in which they are directed toward a common purpose, a
shared vision - a focus.

The strategies’ interactions as they support the learning-centered agenda also
suggest a rationale to explain why these work here as well as whether they could work
elsewhere. In combination, these strategies are exceedingly more powerful than any or a
few taken alone. An example was provided earlier of how all of the strategies could be
linked to a professional development activity, for example. It is probable that most or all
of the strategies come into play as activities are planned. This may be the power of Case
College’s approach.

There is not presently a typical strategic plan, with objectives and tactics. There is
instead a ﬂuidity to the approach to create a place that has not been to serve students the

college values. The shared meaning of a learning-centered college is just the tip of the

235

iceberg. The sharing of values, about service, about learning, about respect, and other
qualities runs deep among this leadership team. These shared values undergird the
strategies as they are executed. Getting to this level of understanding with any group is a
challenge. Case College has been successful in this regard among this limited group.
Getting to scale may be an entirely different challenge.

In Chapter 3 the concept of an instrumental case study was introduced, in addition to
the belief that case-to-case transfer may be possible. Instrumentality suggests that what is
found could be tied to theories, to help reﬁne or build theory. The change literature was
brieﬂy featured in Chapter 2, but strategies for change were not elaborated. The degree to
which these strategies for creating a more learning-centered are consistent with
organizational learning was found to be strong. The degree to which they link with
change practices could lead to another research stream.

Conclusions

The researcher draws the following conclusions about Case College’s strategies for
becoming more learning-centered:

1. Becoming a more learning-centered college relies heavily on process in addition
to a focus on content.

2. Becoming more learning-centered is a major change process; as such, it will take
considerable time. Case College has already been on the journey for more than ﬁve years
and leaders feel they have only begun to see the desired changes, and it is a small minority
who are actively engaged in the change effort.

3. An empowering, humane environment is an important dimension in becoming

236

more learning-centered, because leadership matters, broad-based groups must be involved,
and trust and respect for others and their views must prevail. Collaboration depends on
these, and change depends upon collaboration, at least at Case College.

4. Individuals’ commitment to learning, variously described as professional
development, staff development, sharing, and gaining experience, among other terms, is a
critical ingredient in a change process designed to create a more learning-centered
organization. Professional development, a form of learning, is reported earlier as a key
strategy employed by Case College. A learning emphasis is consistent with the
organizational learning literature.

5. Clarity of the goals and measures of the achievement are important. Case
College leaders know what they are attempting to achieve (keeping the focus) and are
clear about what outcomes are expected (results orientation). Implicit in a results
orientation is a need for measuring progress or collecting and reporting data. Typically
goals are long-range outcomes to be achieved, and these change rarely. What may change
are the strategies for achieving the goals, or the objectives, benchmarks, or other activities
and measures. It is in the strategies for achieving goals that innovation must occur.

6. Organizational learning strategies appear useful in Case College’s efforts toward
becoming a more learning-centered organization. Informants provided many examples of
actions that align closely with organizational learning premises. They also reported, on the
organizational learning inventory, that there was “some” or “extensive evidence” on all of
the factors identiﬁed as contributors to organizational learning. Because many of these

factors are closely related to Case College’s strategies (reference Table 11), it appears that

237

organizational learning is instrumental in implementing strategies for becoming a more
learning-centered community college. More research would be required to conﬁrm this
observation.

With the extent to which this conclusion, that organizational learning contributes to
organizational effectiveness, has been conﬁrmed in private-sector research, there is strong
evidence to suggest that comparable results may be found for community colleges.
Argyris, cited in Chapters 1 and 2, notes that “the more effective organizations are at
learning the more likely they will be at being innovative” (Argyris, 1992, p. 1). Being
innovative is an important method by which an institution will become more learning-
centered. A break from current traditions must occur.

The ﬁndings suggest that Case College is making progress on its learning-centered
journey and that the college has made some discoveries which could be beneﬁcial to
others. At the same time, it is important to remember the many diﬂ’erences among
institutions. What works at Case College may not work as well in other places. Certainly
this advice was forthcoming from Case College respondents as well.

Most writers contend that cultures and contexts are signiﬁcant in deﬁning what
works and how things work in organizations. Case College informants support this view.
When Case College interviewees talked about their interactions with colleagues in other
schools, particularly one with a unionized faculty, they acknowledged how different the
approaches would need to be. Case College representatives generally feel positive about
where they are with this agenda, and they view themselves as among the most advanced

nationally; yet they quickly note how far they have to go. They also caution about the

238

complacency that can result when individuals in a college believe they are ahead of the
pack.
Contributions to the Literature

This study represents an effort to document the strategies being employed by a small
group of leaders in one community college to create a more learning-centered institution.
Although some articles and chapters have been written and many presentations made by
college leaders about their own efforts, the researcher was unable to ﬁnd any example of a
study conducted to analyze these strategies in a community college. Because becoming a
more learning-centered institution is a goal of the majority of the nation’s community
colleges, its ﬁndings are timely. This study can serve as comparative data for other
researchers analyzing colleges’ strategies for becoming more learning-centered. The
design and protocol should also provide tools useﬁrl to other researchers and practitioners
who will engage interviewees or college stakeholders in conversations about the learning-
centered agenda.

Adaptations of the interview questions can be used for focus groups, forums, or
workshops. The organizational learning inventory could be used as a tool to analyze an
organization’s learning orientations and capability, and another community college group’s
data can then be compared with the data reported in this research. At this time, no other
reports of the use of this instrument in a community college setting exist, except for the
pre-testing of the instrument done by this researcher in another community college.

The data may also serve Case College as it gains perspective on the conclusions

reached by an outside researcher. The fact that the lack of a complete list of strategies did

239

not surface in any of the interviews suggests either a lack of communication about what
the strategies are or the lack of well-deﬁned strategies. It is possible, as noted earlier, that
these may in fact serve Case College well, since adaptation is important in a dynamic
environment.

Perhaps as important as any of the ﬁndings is that becoming more learning-centered
may not be dramatically different ﬂom any other change processes. There are some
simple-to-identify but difﬁcult-to-implement strategies for initiating change. Lots of
models may guide the work of change leaders, but the strategies that rise to the top
parallel those for working with groups in almost any setting. There is no magic bullet and
the process takes time. For external evaluators, this understanding will be important.
Many observers are critical of education for its slowness to respond, a view that was
introduced in earlier chapters. In matters substantive, the change process may be long.

Critics of higher education must be cognizant of the challenges faced by agents of
change in a college setting; this research may aid that understanding. Concurrently,
practitioners may also be well served by understanding the magnitude of the change
process. Even an institution with focused dedication and extensive resources is ﬁnding the
journey to be very slow.

Other practitioners should be well served by understanding the length of time that
the learning-centered change effort requires; this is not an overnight transformation. An
explicit strategic plan that spans many years may not be the best approach for another
college but rather this more cultural approach may be more appropriate. Changing

cultures takes even more time. Leaders must understand this.

240

Recommendations for Future Resear_ch_:

Until there is more information available about the strategies in use in the colleges
leading the way in the learning-centered agenda, it is impossible to know how consistent
the ﬁndings of this research may be with strategies in place in other colleges. Although
O’Banion’s 1997 book provides chapters about several colleges, the information primarily
reﬂects opinion pieces ﬂom upper administrators within the institution. No research has
been published to date that examines the strategies. Few views beyond those of top
administrators are oﬂ‘ered. This research is similarly limited in that the informants were
centrally involved in the learning-centered initiative and the interviewees were primarily
upper-level administrators.

The ﬁrst recommendation for future research is that a similar inquiry should be
conducted in additional leading colleges. Speciﬁcally, the other eleven which have already
been designated as the Vanguard Colleges would be perfect starting points for this
expanded research. An anticipated outcome of the Vanguard initiative is a report on the
results of the activities at each of the colleges, but the particular focus of that research is
presemly unspeciﬁed. We should expect to see some perspective provided about the areas
of focus in that initiative which will add substantially to the literature. Additional studies
conducted by outside researchers within the other 11 colleges could lend additionally
valuable perspectives.

My view is that the instrument utilized for this research is a useﬁrl tool for
describing the learning orientation of the organization and assessing the extent to which

facilitating factors are in place. What is not known is how this information may be useful

241

in the development of strategy. However, until there is benchmark data available in other
colleges, we cannot know how signiﬁcant the Learning Orientations or the Facilitating
Factors are in understanding the college’s strategies for becoming more learning-centered.
A second recommendation is that this instrument be utilized by a comparable leadership
team in each of the Vanguard colleges, as well as other colleges seeking to understand
their learning style and their relative strengths in factors that contribute to organizational
learning. Consideration should be given to conducting future administrations of the
instrument in a group setting, where there would be the opportunity for discussion
concerning the items. The author of the instrument, Anthony DiBella, recommends this.

The instrument as used in this research was primarily used to develop a thicker
description of the case college. Future researchers may wish to use the tool to assess
organizational capability for advancing organizational learning. Those who conclude that
organizational learning is a necessary condition for organizational development would
want to explore more firlly the relationship between these two constructs. This research
does not answer the question of organizational capability except to the extent that all of
the factors reported to be contributing to organizational learning on the survey form were
rated at or above the mid-point on the scale. This suggests a moderately high level of
organizational learning, yet the research does not establish how this capacity translates
into strategy for the organization.

Third, it would be useful to know whether other groups less close to the learning-
centered agenda would report somewhat similar results both resulting ﬂom the interview

questions and the instrument. Research that would reach further into this organization

242

could be helpful in enhancing our understanding of Case College’s strategies. Even the
interviewees acknowledged that the further one goes down into the organization the less
consistent would be the views. The voices of these individuals are important in
developing the next stages of strategy at Case College, as well as being informative in any
college.

Irnportantly, the research ﬁndings suggest that there may be a correlation between
organizational learning and progress toward becoming learning-centered colleges. This
conclusion is drawn because the college is moderately high on evidence of facilitating
factors or characteristics of organizational learning (as reported on the instrument and
revealed through the interviews when compared with the literature). Ifthis ﬁnding can be
established, through further research in this and other community colleges, a new line of
inquiry regarding strategic planning and professional development may be indicated. If
there is a direct relationship, organizational strategy may appropriately focus on building
organizational learning capacity. Considerably more research would be required to
establish this correlation.

Fourth, the degree to which the strategies for promoting a more learning-centered
organization parallel theorists’ views of how change needs to implemented should be
explored. It may well be that was discovered was an iteration of a change model. It may
also be that these ﬁndings could contribute to change theory. Future research would need
to explore this connection. The data ﬂom this case, however, could become the
foundation for this analysis, and the second part of the major research question could

simply be addressed to relating the strategies to theories of organizational change.

243

A Closing Perspective

There is the possibility that this learning-centered agenda is another in a wave of
half-realized education reforms. Many hope this is not the case. The fact that this reform
reaches to the core of the mission of the colleges suggests that it should have a more
enduring quality. The fact that it is not modeled after some industry model, such as Total
Quality Management or Management-by-Objectives, may also improve its sustainability.

Chapter I laid out enormous challenges confronting higher education and
community colleges. At the heart of these great challenges is the need for colleges to do
better at assisting learners to achieve their learning goals. Striving to become a more
learning-centered institution is one approach to meeting these challenges. Building
organizational learning capability, as explained in depth in Chapter 2, is another possibility.

This study documents the strategies that one leading college is using to become
more learning centered and describes how these strategies relate to premises of
organizational learning. College leaders are searching for ways to meet the challenges
they face. Learning how to become more learning-centered may be one important
response. William Flynn, writing for the New Expeditions project conducted by the
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) observed,

These multiple challenges—pervasive technology, increased calls for accountability,

unprecedented competition — force us to consider what was once an impossible

thought: we may forfeit our mandate to provide cost effective, accessible,
undergraduate education. Given the enormous size of our educational system, the
sheer scope of change required, and the entrenched forces opposing such change,
signiﬁcant innovations are scattered. What is needed is not just incremental or even

institutional change, but transformation. Unless we can transform our institutions
to be relevant, competitive, accessible and accountable, we may lose the ﬂanchise.

(Flynn. 1998, p. 1)

244

This research was designed to provide a perspective on ways in which we can “transform
our institutions to be relevant, competitive, accessible and accountable.” Becoming a
more learning-centered organization is one important, possible goal for making our
organizations more relevant and more accountable. There are lessons to be learned ﬂom
Case College. This and ﬁrture research should add to the knowledge base about how

college leaders can more successfully create more learning-centered organizations.

245

APPENDICES

246

 

88: 955 Banana?

 

 

 

$3: venom
63: 852v. 28 59m 33: 88.20
G8: 285 as seem 88: none
coo: cows? Goo: wane a Em
a§§§§ £8: :3. can: wagon
usages: awe: 8.89m 83: EEO $3: .4 manna—2
83: $20M 8%: 0802 23 :m $0302 ”.0 £330
33: $52 a. 28me Ago: :03. See: omcom 8:898:00 8 88$.
t 33: 2:530
$3: 8:2”,—
83: mane—2
can: @353
$88: :2890
68: Eng can: usage
83: sage—seam a. 8280 Ammo: 89069
$3: $52 a. «:35 $33 0.822 :82» 63: 5.800 E033
Ameﬂ on £33 528m . 28¢: :25 A32 .mwmc £28m mo 88m can 35.8984
828m 8 owe—80 E8280
mew—.80..— .weiug .8 owe—.80 .8558qu
88:33.35 wen—.83 wen—.83 czar—388:0

 

 

 

 

 

88% ESE:— .8234 98 83838?— uﬁEeoA 2: .8 £833.82 3:33:80

< 597555;.

247

 

88: 8:8.

son: omnom as 5.58.
some scenes:
Goo: 5.50

wEZom
80305 28 $532 8380

 

Goo: mun... a Em
$8: $3
88: an?

68: gas:
88: 63832

8059895 82.5280
.8 28:88.82 5:820 30,—.

 

38: cows?
88: 282
88: E32

some 85.

38: sea

68: 856

some beam

88: an?

:88: 53933. a 825
$8: $3

$8: eased

83805

 

$8: 285 as :3on
$8: 5:23 a 8558

33: 98.5 encamwﬁa
88: SE

8%: awom

Chm: Loam—m

$8: mud. as :8
Ages soEamb

22529988280
25 muoEozoo—Sm

 

 

 

a8: awom

can: 536

$8: $3. a 5m

88: an?

33: 282

. 88: .3353

A82 .32 was 888.0

 

can: use?“
can:
.382 a 8322 .536

 

mos—,3 98 .835 623:2

 

 

248

 

828 m5 3: $83 320M

 

 

 

88: E32
8%: as? 8%: 55m 68: 65:32
:3: $8: 955 82353 63: 3.65
280 a. .235 .msoz Ea: scam 88: 03% a SEQ 382 38:
$9: $62 a. £85 38: mm“... Ea 5m 8%: ”yam a 9:8qu .5325.
68: 63332
88: $.82
38: 25 a.
333 9.80 cap—maﬁa .:2:m§> £0632 .5295
6%: ﬁeoﬁgm a 525 2.8:
. 88: £03 =2§2 a. .3334 .526
$8: $53 38: E82 88: 3.3%
$8: 2&8 a =3on 9%: :05 $8: :63 833328
38: 2.62 a. «:85 :33 :23 9%: ﬁg: as 2&3; 23 22325858
G8: ﬁne a. Em
68: £55
98: 3&6
$3: 9.80 unnammﬁa
88: £03
88: ESE £3: magnum
:3: :05 6%: saw a.
£8: :23 5233> Jams: .Eﬁoo
2.8: 5:8: 68: 6333.2
:8: 8:390 88: mg? eaoﬁm 3.53530

 

 

 

 

 

249

 

£80 ”888
83: £8.82
G8: 8% 8
.=o~:m§> 0.2.0.82 .5830

 

 

 

 

G8: 8888 $8: 8880 68: 8888.2

68: 88> 8 “.80 G8: 88 88 88 38: 88m a. 888

$8: 882 8 885 s8: :28 880 88m
$8: 588 :8: 888.0 38: 88m 88:0 8 2880

a8: 8:88

38: Sam 8

.:8=m§> £08.82 €830

-- 68: 88882

38: 8808

G8: 823. $8: 8882 8 8283
$8: 882 8 885 $80 820 888883 8.8: 88m 8 888 32>
280 888.8 38: 282 88: 88m 8.2% 8 8888... 888%

8003 9.05 888853
38: 8880

$8: 283 68: 88882

$80 282 68: .88 88

$8: .883 :8: :28 82853 .8882 .8880
$8: 882 8 £85 880 888.0 88: 88m 8580

$80 .883

G8: 8888 $80 888m

88: 282 68: 88882

68: 88882 38: 8882 28 8283
$8: 882 8 888 $80 8888 680 88m 8:888 8 8888

 

 

 

 

 

250

83:: 0832

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wager—0m
880 88m
088: a: .8582
$003 09000 088%53 05 .8008
88: 88,8 $8: 8880 .8882 880 .838 888—
68: =8> 8%: 8.8m 28 .8880. 88888838
@808: .8882
88 .888
$0302 6:00 .tonU
$8: 832 $8583 20 8880 88.82 88: 88m 8 8888 8288880
$8: 8883 $8: 8.88 8 588 8888880
88888. 688: Sam 8
$5283 300$ $3: 8002 .5855; £06.82 3.3.300 Eoﬁcw=<
830 8?.
388: 8880
@880 8:8
88: .882 M82 .8388 .888
$88: 88 8.8 :8
88: $8: 8.88
2.80 8 .885 .282 888: 283 $8: 8888
$88: 882 a. £85 :8: :28 :8: :88 88888882

 

 

 

 

 

251

APPENDIX B

Relationship Between Information Sources and Research Questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question/ I a b c d e
Information Source
Documents X X
Interviews P P P P P
Survey Instrument X X P
Observations X X X

 

 

Note: P indicates a primary source for that question.
The primary research question:

What are the strategies being used by leaders in a community college to
create a more learning-centered college, and how are the strategies
similar to or dtﬂerentﬁom the premises of organizational learning?

In exploring this question, a number of subquestions, which follow, will be examined:

a. What do leaders mean when they talk or think about their college becoming a
more learning-centered institution?

b. What strategies do the leaders say they are using to help the college become
more learning-centered?

c. What models do the leaders say they use and/or appear to use in crafting,
describing, and/or implementing their strategies for creating more learning-
centered colleges?

d. What barriers do leaders perceive stand in the way of becoming a more
learning-centered college?

e. What is this organization’s learning proﬁle (as reported by leader-informants’
responses to the Organizational Transitions learning inventory), and how similar
are the perceptions of individual leaders concerning the organization’s learning
proﬁle?

252

APPENDIX C
Organizational Learning Inventory

The instrument used for describing the learning style of Case College is one
developed by Organization Transitions, Inc. and is called “Building Organizational
Learning Capability - Learning Inventory and Strategies Workbook” (1998). This tool
was developed by Anthony J. DiBella , Edwin c. Nevis, and Janet M. Gould, as a result of
research supported in part by the International Consortium for Executive Development
Research, The Center For Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School of
Management, and the Healthcare Forum.

In describing the use of this inventory, DiBella writes:

(The Inventory) was created to assess an organizational unit as a learning system.
The purpose of the inventory is to

- Identify the learning strengths and developmental needs of the unit.

- Analyze the learning style of the unit.

- Assist in the preparation of action plans to improve learning capability.

- Provide staff at all levels with a way of understanding and talking about
organizational learning (Organizational Transitions, Inc, 1999, p. 1). . .

Part I asks you to assess your team’s seven “Learning Orientations”— the practices
that reﬂect where and how learning takes place and the nature of what is learned.
Part II asks you to assess your team’s ten “Facilitating Factors”-the processes and
practices that determine how easy or hard it is for learning to occur.

Part HI of the form was not used with Case College participants. A facilitator’s
guide was produced in 1999. This tool is designed to assist organizational leaders to
conduct inquiry into the learning processes of the organization and to develop and initiate
plans to become more effective at organizational learning.

Additional information about this tool may be obtained from the following location:

Dr. Antony J. DiBella
Organization Transitions, Inc.
75 Huguenot Drive

East Greenwich, RI 02818
USA

Telephone: 401-884-4195

Fax: 401-884-4106
E-mail: ajdibella@orgtransitions.com

253

APPENDIX D
RESEARCH ABSTRACT

Working Title
Community College Leaders’ Change Strategies
and Organizational Learning

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this research is to understand the strategies used by leaders in a
community college to become a more learning-centered college. Findings will be
interpreted from an organizational development perspective, with particular emphasis on
the theories of organizational learning.

Research Qgestion
What are the strategies being used by leaders in a community college
to create a more learning-centered college, and how are the strategies
similar to or diﬂkrentﬁ'om the premises of organizational learning?

Subquestions concern models in use, strategy development, the organization’s learning proﬁle, and
beliefs about learning-centered institutions.

Target Participants
Target participants are leaders in the college who are responsible for implementing a more

learning-centered college. The president, several reporting to the president, and other
campus leaders are the most likely to be engaged. Minimum number: 6. Maximum
number: 20.

Components of the research
1. Review of college documents, such as mission/vision, catalogs, planning documents,

professional development plans, etc.

2. Interviews with leaders (two or three interviews of one - two hours each).

3. Completion of survey: Building Organizational Learning Capacity

4. Observations: Researcher attendance at some leadership and learning meetings.

Time Frame for Research
Beginning in April 2000; anticipated ending of June 2000.

Conﬁdentialiﬂ and Information Sharing
The college and individual informants will not be named in any public documents. No

individuals will be identiﬁable in the published materials. Reports of the ﬁndings of the
study will not be available to the college until the research is complete and the dissertation
has been accepted. The researcher will make a visit to the campus at that time to share the
results, if desired.

254

APPENDIX E
Research Consent Form

Research Summagz

The purpose of this research is to understand the strategies employed by educational leaders in one
community college to become a more leaming-cartered college. The primary research question is: What
are the strategies being used by leaders in a commrmity college to create a more learning-centered college,
and how are the strategies similar to or diﬂ‘erent from the premises of organizational learning?

Estimated Time Commitment

The total amount of time participants are expected to invest in two months is about four hours. Two
interviews are planned that will range in largth from 45 minutes to two hours each. Each participant will
be asked to complete a survey instrument, “Building Organizational Learning Capability,” that is
expected to take about 40 minutes.

Procedures

The research design includes four components: (1) Review of college documents, (2) Interviews with key
members of the top-level leadership team and other educational leaders, (3) Administration of an
organizational learning inventory, and (4) Observations of leaders in college meetings or activities.

Leaders will be identiﬁed through conversations with designated college liaison(s) and examination of
college documents. Individual interviews will be established through use of telephone, e—mail, or regular
mail. Individual interviews are expected to be from 3-6 weeks apart. The survey instrument will be
returned directly to the researcher. Meetings or activities to be observed will be determined in
consultation with college liaisons.

Voluntag Particrp' ation

Although particular individuals who have knowledge inrportant to the research will be identiﬁed, their
participation is voluntary. Permission to conduct the research will ﬁrst be secured from the college
presidart, and it is expected that the president will inform others of his/her willingness to have the
research conducted. However, each individual has the right to determine whether s/he will participate and
to make the decision to ard their participation at any time.

Conﬁdmtim
Conﬁdentiality will be protected on two levels: the college and the individual. The college will not be

identiﬁed in a public forum or in print. In public documents, only the general characteristics of the
college will be disclosed, and these will be general enough that any one of more than 100 United States
commrmity colleges could ﬁt the description. Individual contributions will also be protected through
utilization of codes to refer to individual responses. Further, data will be reported in the aggregate for
most parts of the study. When individual responses or observations are signiﬁcant in the research
interpretation, neither the identity nor any identifying characteristics of the individual will be used. A
suﬁcient number of interviewees should preclude any person’s ability to identify a particular person’s
responses. Information from the study will not be available to the college until the research is complete.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

I voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

 

 

Signature (followed by printed name) Date

255

Appendix E - consent form continued

As the researcher, I agree to honor the agreements outlined above.

 

 

Signature (followed by printed name) Date

Disvibution: Copies to participant and researcher. See Following for Contad Information

Contact Information
(This section was Side 2 of original)

To Contact the Univegigt Under Whose Auspices this Research is Being Conducted

David E. Wright, Ph.D., Chair
246 Administration Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046

Phone (517) 355-23180
Fax (517) 353-2976
e-mail: UCRIHS@msu.edu

To Contact the Resear her

Roberta C. Teahen
8802 Peninsula Drive
Traverse City, MI 49686

Phone (231) 922-1 151

Fax (231) 922-1253
e-mail: rteahen@aol.com

256

APPENDIX F

Round 1 Interview Protocol and Questions

Round 1

1. Following greeting, introduce self and describe the research. (Reference Abstract to be
used for this purpose. Participant will be provided a copy of the abstract.)
Key points to cover:
0 Conﬁdentiality
- Request permission to audiotape

2. Tell me a little about your background with X college. How long have you been here?
In what roles have you served? What did you do before you came here? (Attempt to
build rapport with ﬁiendly conversation.)

3. Your college is noted for its interest in becoming a more learning-centered institution
(or a learning college; use college’s terminology). What does this mean to you? How
would you describe the ideal if you were to achieve all that you wanted to in this
direction?

4. What are the barriers you face in achieving your goal of becoming more learning
centered?

5. What are you personally doing to promote a more learning-centered college? What
strategies is the college using to create a more learning- or learner-centered college?

6. What do you believe needs to happen for this college to be more eﬁ‘ective in achieving
this goal?

7. How are strategies determined in this college? Who is involved in making these
deternrinations? How are they involved?

8. Describe how this organization works - for any initiatives. How do ideas emerge, get
reviewed, and/or implemented or rejected? How do decisions get made?

9. Tell me about how you go about your own learning? Who do you learn from? What
do you do to expand your own awareness of learning-centered colleges?

10. How do you use your own learning in the organization?

11. Tell me about other things I should know that I have not asked today about this
college’s strategies for becoming more learning centered.

257

Turn oﬁ‘ recorder: Would you like to offer any other observations?

Round 2

Most second-round questions will be developed following analysis of ﬁrst-round
responses. In addition, the instrument will serve as a discussion about organizational
learning processes. Those questions follow.

Follow-Up Questions to Questionnaire Emerging from the DiBella/Nevis Framework

Introduction

I am interested to learn more about your perceptions concerning how the organization
learns, based on the survey form that you completed. To understand these, I will ask you
a number of questions about organizational processes.

The ﬁrst several questions will help me understand your organization’s learning style or
preferences. There are no right or wrong answers, they are just different ways of
learning, just as our students have different learning styles. As you answer the questions,
remember that my interest is in your initiatives toward becoming a learning college or a
learning-centered college. (Use the terminology they are using.) Answer these questions
from that context. Also answer concerning your perception of how the organization
functions, not just how you may operate.

1. What are your sources of information about becoming a more learning or learner-
centered college? (Relates to LOrl: Knowledge Source)
Possible follow-ups:
How do you use each of these?
How do you evaluate their relevance for your college?

2. What do you pay attention to in judging how well you are doing as a learning college?
(Relates to LOr 2: Content-Process Focus.)
Possible follow-ups:
What are you measuring or observing?
What tools are you using to measure? (Or how are you observing?)
What do you need to pay more attention to?

3. How is information about a learning college shared in this organization? (Relates to
LOr 3: Knowledge Reserve)
Possible follow-ups:
What sources of information exist concerning a learning-
centered college that are readily accessible to others in the
college? (e.g. web pages, regular reports, speech transcripts,
etc.)

258

How adequate do you believe the public information sources are?

To what extent do you believe that the information is held
by individuals or departments vs. shared knowledge across
the college?

4. How does information ﬂow through this organization? (Relates to LOr4 Dissemination
Mode).
Possible follow-up questions:
To what extent are the following used: group meetings,
position or opinion papers, private one-on-one meetings; in
formal settings, such as meetings; in informal settings, such
as the cafeteria, etc.

5. How would you describe this organization’s emphasis on improving what it already has
vs. developing new initiatives (services or programs?) (Relates to LOr 5, Learning Scope)
Possible follow-up questions:
What are some examples of areas of improvement that you have worked on
What are some examples of innovations which have been developed
What are some opportunities that you have chosen to bypass?
How would you describe the relationship between your
approach to new initiatives and the organization’s culture?

6. In what areas or directions are the greatest resource investments being made?
((Relates to LOr 6, Value-Chain Focus)
Possible follow-up questions:
Provide some speciﬁc examples of initiatives that have been
ﬁrnded in the past couple years.
How did you decided to support these initiatives instead of others?
Why did you believe that these were the appropriate commitments?

7. Describe the college’s professional development strategies. (Relates to LOr7 Learning
Focus)
Possible follow-up questions:
What types of individual development opportunities exist? How many
participate?
What types of group development opportunities exist? How many
participate?
How do the skills and knowledges gained in the individual
or group learning opportunities get shared with other
members of the college community?

The next set of questions relates to factors that are believed to contribute to organizational

259

learning. Again, answer each in relationship to this college’s strategies for becoming a
more learning-centered organization.

1. Describe your college’s external environmental scanning processes. How does this
information get shared? (FF 1 - Scanning Imperative)
Follow-up questions:
How formal is this process?
Who is responsible? Who else is involved?

2. Describe your perceptions of the gap that presently exists between what you want to
become and where you presently are. (FF2 - Performance Gap)
Follow-up questions:
How have you determined that this gap exists?
What will you do to reduce the gap?
How achievable is eliminating the gap? Why do you think this?

3. How are you measuring your progress toward becoming a learning college? (FF 3 -
Concern for Measurement)
Follow-up Questions:
How is this data used?
By whom?
How often?
What data do you think you need to be measuring?

4. Describe your view of this organization’s curiosity about new practices. (FF4 -
Organizational Curiosity)
Follow-up questions:
What are some examples of this curiosity
What do you think contributes to or impedes this curiosity?
How is curiosity valuable or not valuable to your organization?

5. How would you describe the openness of communication here? (FF5 - Climate of
Openness)
F allow-up questions:
How easy is it for others in the organization to call errors to your
attention?
Give me some examples of times when others called
concerns to your attention, whether they were errors or just
different opinions.
How do you handle it when you make an error?
What is the level of trust in this organization?
What makes you believe that?

260

6. Provide some detail about the learning opportunities and resources you make available
to people in the organization. GP 6 - Continuous Education)
Follow-up questions:
For what groups do you provide the most resources?
What is your rationale for this?

7. What are the ways in which you encourage individuals to go about becoming a more
learning-centered college? (FF 7 - Operational Variety)
Follow-up questions:
What examples do you see in practice?
What do you want to see practiced?
How do you support these efforts?

8. Which individuals or groups in the organization are championing the learning college
message? (FF8 - Multiple Advocates)
F ollow-up questions:
Why do you think these are the groups in the forefront?
Why are other groups not as engaged?
What plans do you have for involving others?

9. What are you personally doing to advance the learning agenda? (FF9 - Involved
Leadership)
F ollow-up questions:
When did you begin your efforts in this direction?
How much of your time is involved with these activities?
What are your ﬁrture plans for engagement?
How involved is the President?

10. How do you relate the concepts of a systems perspective to your efforts at developing
a learning-centered college? (FF 1 O - Systems Perspective)
F ollow-up questions:
What is your understanding of a systems perspective?
What impact do you believe “systems” have on your strategies?

Interview Questions 3
2/8/00
Revised 11/23/00

261

APPENDIX G
Round 2 Interview Questions
questions for all:

I have heard many use the term collaboration. When you talk about collaboration, what
does that mean to you?

Describe what collaboration looks like? How would I know it if I saw it?
Is there a particular model of collaboration that you believe in or practice?
How did you and do you learn to be collaborative?

Describe the culture of (Case College).

How will the momentum for becoming more learning-centered be sustained if and when
the (grant projects) activities end?

What’s the most important thing that (Case College) does to promote a more learning-
centered institution?

For Those Who Will be 1n Scottsdale
What do you consider to be the most important things that came out of your experience at
the Scottsdale retreat?

What will change in your strategies as a result of that experience
Questions for individuals:
CBA2:

enrollment ﬁgures
changes in percentages with learning-centered initiatives

0
u

Strengths and drawbacks to how (Case College) is organized at the management
levels

How does KOLB play into your work?

Explain how the A. S. programs reﬂect continuous education (reference facilitating
factor 6.)

262

Tell me about the Faculty Academy and how it plays into becoming a more
learning-centered institution.

Explain the external mandates for accountability and performance that are
inﬂuencing (Case College).

In the Curriculum and Faculty Development Plan there are a number of items
noted to be a part of the CDTL Puzzle (Curriculum Development, Teaching &
Learning). Where did this name come from?

Some are Departmental Leadership Projects and Curriculum Action Teams - tell
me about these.

Was this a presentation to an outside group overviewing the process?

How much of this ﬂowed from the Title III initiative?

The Core Competencies Leadership Team Stipend. How many are involved?
Descriptions of projects?

her understandings of organizational change and learning - ref. E—mail

“It really does not ﬁt my experience with organizational change and

learning. I will have to come down in the middle on many questions as

well. I would love to argue with the authors of it! ! !”

Tell me how it does not ﬁt with your experience.

What is your experience with organizational change and learning?

You talk about a change toolbox or changing the tools in our toolbox. What do
we need?

You talked about redesigning the curriculum (the issue of 3-credit courses, 16
weeks). What needs to be done? How should it be? How will you get there?
How will this decision be made, if it will?

Copy of the application for Vanguard?
COl

You use the term that the college has an ethos. What does this mean to you? What is the
ethos?

263

Tell me about the study groups you have used. Who was involved? How were they
selected? What did you do? What readings were most important?

The last comprehensive strategic plan is labeled 1996-00. It has a date of 12/10/99. What
changed from earlier editions? How did the changes get made?

The April 96 paper called (Case College): Shaping Our Future by (president) What was
the purpose of this paper? What followed this?

What has the response been to the feedback report and dissemination of the comments
collected? (June 15 was date by which individuals were to let others know if they wanted
to serve on a team.) _.

Tell me about the Phoenix experience.

ﬂ
What would it take to get buy-in from the department chairs?

Tell me about your experience in facilitating the round tables in the spring?

F3

What did you mean with the comment on L03: “

We have many long-term employees who are knowledge experts in their departments
and who "run" areas in ways nobody else really understands.

How did faculty inservice go? Best things? Areas for improvement?

How will this advance the learning centered initiative?

Tell me about he Math Team that has members from east, west, and Oscelola.

CBA4
Tell me about how the Math Team worked that was described in the handout for your
Innovations conference. (Top is labeled C.L.A.I. - Session 2, 98-99. What is CLAI? )

For faculty development content, you note that Performance-based Instruction and Active
and Cooperative Learning are the most important, but you do not list resources for these.
What do you use as resources? As models? (Noted in readings were WIDS, Kolb, etc.)

Tell me about the faculty development process at (Case College). The processes listed in
your handouts:

“0 Collaborative Learning Among Peers

° Guided readings and seminars (face-to-face & on-line dialog)

0 Consultant Presentations & Topical Workshops

0 Practice Teaching, peer Observation

- Design, Test, Publish Results”

264

Re the paper you sent as “Application Addendum” - 1/27/99. The deﬁnition of a learning-
centered institution. Others have this form? Who wrote app?

CBA5
What is the role of the provost? (In becoming a more learning-centered institution)

What is the role of department chairs? ( “)

Some have suggested that department chairs need to play a more central role in this
development. What do you think about that?

CBA2
copies of the institutional effectiveness reports

How do you share the data resulting from your efforts?

How do you think others use this information?

What types of information seems to be of most interest to others?
Who are the major data users in the organization?

Which positions do not use the data as much as you would like?

What directions are you moving with providing increasingly useﬁrl information?

questions for June
revised 11/19/00

265

APPENDIX B

PARTIAL LIST OF CASE COLLEGE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Accreditation Self-Study, 1993.
Report of the Reaccreditation Committee, 1993.
College Response to Reaccreditation Committee Report. 1993.
College Catalog 1999-2000.
Focus Groups Report
Teaching/Learning Plans
Class Schedule Summer 2000
(Case) College, Comprehensive Strategic Plan, 1996-00.

(President) April 1996. “(Case College): Shaping Our Future.” (1 l-page document that
lays out the learning imperative and the challenges.)

(Case College Administrator) AAHE Report. March 3, 2000. Summarizes sessions she
attended at conference and lays out challenges.

(Case) College, 1999, Le_arning;Centered Reference Guide. Has the terminology deﬁned.

(Case College Team). Inclusion - Course Outcome Summary. For use with faculty and
staff at Case College.

(Staff Member). From Dissertation. Form about awareness of teaching, learning and
advising strategies. From 94-99 Title III projects.

Collaborative Processes in Faculty Development. Presentation by (Team) League for
Innovation Conference, 1999.

(Case) College Faculty Development Program Bibliography. Contains references in
following categories: Assessment, Critical Thinking, Developmental Advising, and
Diversity/Inclusion.

Faculty Development Content. (Title HI Faculty Development Program). Includes tables
with 6 key areas: Performance-based Instruction (PBI), Critical Thinking, Diversity,

266

Developmental Advising, Assessment, and Active and Cooperative Learning.
(President). August, 1999. What Dilbert Doesn’t Know - Servant Leadership and the
Community College. Power-point slide presentation and a paper about servant leadership

presented at another college. Includes references.

(Case College’s) Learning-Centered Initiative Roundtables. Feedback Report Session 2,
1999-2000.

Curriculum and Faculty Development Plan.

Econoclarst 2000. Student magazine.

Learning-Centered Initiative Roundtables Feedback.

League for Innovation, Learning College Project Description.

Press Release, Vanguard College.

Learning-Centered Initiative, Script for Roundtable Facilitators, 1999.

Moving From Talk to Action: A Practical Guide to Becoming learning Centered. (1999).

(Staff Member) The Learning-Centered College: A Vision for (Case College). For
Curriculum Development, Teaching & Learning Document.

(Staff member). The Learning-Centered College, from her application in 1999.
Core Competencies Leadership Team Stipend Document.

Alumni Voice. Publication of the Alumni Association. Vol. 12. No. 2.

College Employment Application process.

Summer 2000 (May - August) Continuing Professional Education Course Schedule.
Leadership Program Professional Development Schedule.

Foundation Features - A newsletter for ﬁiends and supporters. (April 2000).

Just the Facts. (Case College) 1998—99. (Has vital statistics for demographic information
about college.)

267

Http://www.. . . website

Humanities Brochure.

Department of Communications. leaching Writing: A Process is Itself - A Compilation of
Teaching & Evaluating Strategies. Includes many sample activities and explains many

collaborative activities.

Fall 1996 Teaching Seminar. Using Classroom Assessment Techniques. (Faculty
Member). “Customizing the Classroom.”

Show Me, Don’t Tell Me!!! (Faculty Member). Teaching Serrrinar. October 5, 1996.
Agenda for Teaching Writing: A Process in Itself - Fall 1996.

District Board of Trustees. Policy and Procedure. (Includes evaluation and assessment
information.)

Humanities Core Competencies Development Teams. Draft course competencies for
Humanities Courses.

Theater and Entertainment Technology Associate in Science Degree. (Promotional piece
and model schedule.)

Film Production Technology Associate in Science Degree.

Departmental Contacts Directory.

Associate in Science Degrees and Certiﬁcate Options.

Agenda of College Prep Task Force Meeting, May 9, 2000.

Project proposal Sample- Title V Direction 2000.

Memo regarding college preparatory Class Enrollment Projections. April 3, 2000.
CPT Review Workshops - Update to College Prep Task Force. February 2000.
Memorandum ﬁom the President to all staff: Subject: The First Fifty Days. 3/10/00.
Memorandum from the President to all staff. Vanguard learning College. 5/5/00.

Destination 2000: The Art of Assessment. Materials from June 2000 workshops.

268

Includes Website information, Project information, Schedule and program information,
keynote speaker materials, ﬁnal program evaluation summary, pre-post assessments and
results.

Displaced Homemaker/Career Directions Program brochure.

Academics in Motion (AIM) brochure for low-income, academically needy, ﬁrst-
generation college students.

SLS 1122 Student Success - Get on Course Brochure (3-credit hour elective).
Career Center - LifeMap

Honors Program Description Card.

Draft course competencies by faculty for Humanities Core Competencies.
Registration: Step by Step.

HUM 2000 Second-Level Humanities Courses

Curriculum Model - a Plan for Learning.

The (Case College) Source. (A newspaper) April 12, 2000.

Having Trouble Seeing Your Job Future? Continuing Professional Education (Oracle
certiﬁed database adnrinistrator) brochure.

Admissions Application form.

FYI - Helpﬁrl Hints. Goal setting - the process of achieving success.

Handouts from presentation to Executive Council by team. Includes Student Core
Competencies, Good Practice in Underggaduate Education. AAHE Bulletin article, “What
Research says about improving undergraduate education,” Three Deﬁnitions: Higher
learning, assessment, and classroom assessment. Deﬁning features matrix (Teaching
Centered vs. Learning-Centered); Perry’s model of intellectual and ethical development.
Executive Council Report, June 26, 2000. (Talking points)

Draft Core Competency Learning Teams Proposal (CDTL, June 00) Proposal presented
to Executive Council for next stage of development. Accepted by group and expanded.

269

Task Assignment Sheet for Curriculum development in NSF grant. Has page on evidence
of past success.

Project Summary of NSF Project Grant for Information Technology Workforce
Development System plus budget pages.

College’s Assessment website (Description of assessment)

College’s Developmental Advising website.

College’s Active Learning website.

Faculty website on “Increasing Retention in College Preparatory Mathematics.”
Developmental Advising Retention. Return Rates. (website)

College Preparatory English [I (Fall 2000 website).

Faculty and Staff website.

President. Remarks on the Occasion of the Class of 2000 Commencement. April 28,
2000.

E—mail correspondence from several in response to speciﬁc information requests.

dissertation\college\documents
revised 1 ll 1 9/00

270

APPENDIX I

 

 

 

 

 

Theorists and Their Foci
Learning Organization Learning-Centered College Organizational Learning

Chris Argyris (1999) Robert Barr and John Tagg Russell Ackoﬂ‘ (1981)

Gene Calvert, Sandra (1995) ' Chris Argyris (1999)

Mobley, and Lisa George Boggs (1998, 1999) Chris Argyris and Donald
Marshall, (1994) Carlsen and Radakovich (1999) Schon (1978)

Arie DeGeus (1988) Patricia Cross (1998) Arie DeGeus (1988)

Peter Ewell (1997) Paul Elsner (1997) Anthony DiBella and Edwin

David Garvin (1993) Peter Ewell (1997) Nevis (1998)

Martha Gephart, Victoria Thomas Fallo (1997) John Brown & Duguid
Marsick, Mark William Flynn (1999) Kim Cameron, Sarah
VanBuren, and Michelle Kimberly Garcia (1998) Freeman, and Aneil
Spiro (1996) Paul Gianini (1998) Mishra (1995)

Robert Keidel (1995) Lee Howser (1997) Kim Cameron and David

Fred Kofrnan and Peter Senge Susan Kelley (1998) Whetten (1996)

(1993) Larry Lashway (1998) Scott Cook and Dvora

Michael Marquardt (1996) Jerry Moskus (1999) Yanow (1996)

Jerry Moskus (1999) Terry O’Banion (1995, 1997, George Huber (1991)

John Redding (1998) 1998) Robert Keidel (1995)

Edgar Schein (1985, 1992) Karen Wells (1999) (concept only)

Peter Senge (1990) Wingspread Group (1993) Michael Marquardt (1996)

Karen Watkins and Victoria Kathryn Moore (1998)

Marsick (1993) Edwin Nevis, Anthony
DiBella, and Janet Gould
(1997)
Edwin Nevis, Joan Lancourt,
and Helen Vassalo (1996)

Reg Revans (1980) (concept

only)

Edgar Schein (1985, 1992,

1995,1999)

Ray Stata (1996)

Peter Vaill (1996)

Etienne Wenger (1998)
ﬂearning communities in
organizations)

notes\appendix I
1 1/19/00

271

 

APPENDIX J

Letter to College
Roberta C. Teahen
8802 Peninsula Drive
Traverse City, MI 49686
telephone (231) 922-1151 (work) e-mail: rteahen@aol.com
April 10, 2000

President, (Case College)
P. O. Box
City, State, Zip
Dear President:

Community colleges must become increasingly adept at learning if they are to retain the vitality
that has characterized their impressive growth. As a long-time community college faculty member and
administrator, I have a deep interest in the future capacity of community colleges. As a doctoral student
at Michigan State University, I have developed a keen interest in organizational learning.

(Case College) is at the forefront in its eﬁ‘orts to become more learning centered. My
dissertation research concerns college leaders’ strategies for becoming more leaming-centered
organizations. The purpose of this letter is to invite your participation in my research. An abstract of
my research proposal and the consent form are enclosed for your review. I have also enclosed a resume
so that you can see the breadth of my background. Although I am new to formal research, I am an
experienced commrmity college educator.

The research will take a minimal amount ofyour staﬂ‘s time. The estimated time per
individual is about four hours over a two-three month period with meetings, individual interviews,
completion of a survey instrumart, and/or telephone conversations. The target grorqr are those with top-
level responsibilities for helping the college to become more learning-centered. The president and those
who report directly to the president, along with other campus leaders with responsibilities associated
with becoming more learning-centered, are the individuals I would like to meet with. It would be ideal
to have a group of8-12 participate.

Organizational learning is becoming a topic of vital importance in organimtions. This research
should not only provide valuable information for your carrrpus, but it should also contribute to
knowledge important for other college leaders. I would very much appreciate your support of my
inquiry on your campus. The identity of your college and the individuals who are interviewed will be
kept conﬁdential. Once the research documart has been accepted by MSU, I will be pleased to make a
visit to your campus to share the ﬁndings with the participants in a format of your choice - a seminar, a
meeting, or individually.

I will call your ofﬁce in about one week to talk with you about this request.

Sincerely,

Enclosures Roberta C. Teahm

272

APPENDIX K
Learning Theories

Real learning gets to the heart of what it means to be human. Through
learning we re-create ourselves. Through learning we become able to do
something we never were able to do. Through learning we reperceive the
world and our relationship to it. 7hrough learning we extend our capacity to
create, to be part of the generative process of life (Senge, 1990, p. 14).

The literature on learning is both broad and expansive. Most of it focuses on
individual behaviors and emerges from many paradigms: psychological, social, cognitive
science, and others. The learning literature contributes important perspective to
understanding organizational processes, especially because the behaviors of individuals
and groups represent the organization. Although separate from the organizational learning
literature, which emanates from organizational behavior and organizational development
theorists, an overview of some of the learning literature is offered here because it should
help with understanding the actors and actions in an organizational context. Peter Senge,
in The Fifth Discipline. observes:

Learning has very little to do with taking in information. Learning, instead, is a
process that is about enhancing capacity. Learning is about building the capability to
create that which you previously couldn't create. It's ultimately related to action,
which information is not (Senge, 1990, p. 191).

Some believe that behavioral change is required for learning; others insist that new ways
of thinking are enough. Some cite information processing as the mechanism through
which learning takes place; others propose shared insights, organizational routines, even
memory (Garvin, 1993, p. 80).

Despite the particulars of the “change,” whether behavioral, attitudinal, or cognitive,
there is strong agreement among organizational learning theorists that some change results
from learning. Some contend that improved performance will be based on both learning
and experience (Nevis, DiBella, & Gould, 1997). Most also believe that learning precedes
organizational performance improvements.

In a learning organization, employees are expected to learn and to plan their ﬁxture
learning (Marquardt, 1996, p. 26). Learning may also become problematic. The learning
process has the potential for tremendous murkiness, as leaders and followers explore new
paths in pursuit of new agendas. It is perhaps this uneasiness between comfort with the
known and uncertainty concerning the unknown that lies at the heart of organizations’
inability to break out of traditional patterns of behavior.

273

Boulding has suggested that inappropriate mental models (1988) are one of the
primary factors causing organizational dysfunction today, even threatening the
survival of some organizations (p. 101). . . Porras and Robertson (1983) performed
a metaanalysis of large numbers of change studies and discovered that fewer than
40% of the change efforts produced positive change in the dependent variable of
interest. Beer, Eisenstat, and Spector (1990) found that in one third of the major
resource-intensive change initiatives they studied in depth . . . the efforts actually
made the situations worse (Dent, 1999, p. 26).

Qoﬂmctivism and Meaning Making

Constructivism refers to the concept that each person creates his own knowledge
based upon his own interpretations of each situation. If each person makes different
meaning of what appears to others to be the same situation, then not only will the learning
be different, but so must the strategies for implementing change be different. An
unanswered question is the extent to which these learning differences are acknowledged in
strategy formulation and implementation.

Meaning is always an interpretation of experience based upon our previous
experiences, our meaning systems and the language we use. However, there is a
danger in this: we can impose our meaning systems on our present experience in an
uncritical manner, rather than seeing things as they 'really are' (Mezirow, 1991, cited
in Jarvis et al., 1998, p.36).

Prior experiences of all of the learners of the organization will be part of the meaning they
make of every situation. Further, because of this experience, they may not see things as
they really are. Many assumptions exist, particularly in higher education, which are not
supported by convincing evidence. An important tenet of organizational learning is that
we must challenge assumptions. In doing so, new issues are raised, as learners may
become defensive about the challenges and evoke what Argyris refers to as defensive
routines:

I deﬁne these as any action or policy that prevents human beings from experiencing
negative surprises, embarrassment, or threat, and simultaneously prevents the
organization from reducing or eliminating the causes of the surprises,
embarrassment, and threat. Organizational defensive routines are anti-learning and
overprotective (Argyris, 1992, p. 102-3).

Experiential Learning
Learning from experience is essential for individual and organizational

eﬂectiveness and. . . this learning can occur only in situations where personal
values and organizational norms support action based on valid information,

274

free and informed choice, and internal commitment Kalb, 1984, p. 11).

Kolb, in 1975, advanced a model of experiential learning which has been applied
primarily to individual learning. This model describes a continuous cycle comprised of
concrete experience, observations and reﬂections, formulation of abstract concepts and
generalization, and testing implications of concepts on situations, The model can also be
applied to an organizational context.

Industry research by Kolb has demonstrated that managers with diﬂ‘erent learning
styles approach problem solving and decision making differently. Both learning and
decision-making are similar processes requiring adaptation (Kolb, 1996, p. 27 8).
Although it is beyond the scope of this research, the relationship between the strategies of
leaders and their personal learning styles may contribute important perspective to
understanding the organization’s learning proﬁle. If Kolb’s work were conducted among
collegiate leaders, we should expect to see the same results as those uncovered in
industry—that the learning style of the manager inﬂuences strategy development and
consequently the learning style of the organization.

A frequently cited concern in organizations is that communication is poor.
Considerable research exists to suggest that ‘Vvhen style differences are great,
communication difficulty rises” (Kolb, 1996, p. 284). Acknowledging the learning
differences among leaders and followers may be a vital link in a change strategy. Kolb
believes that an awareness of the experiential learning model and our own individual
learning style will help improve individual and organizational learning. He makes two
recommendations:

First, learning should be an explicit objective that is pursued as consciously and
deliberately as proﬁt and productivity. . . The nature of the learning process is such
that opposing perspectives, action and reﬂection, concrete involvement and
analytical detachment, are all essential for optimal learning. When one perspective
comes to dominate others, learning effectiveness is reduced in the long run. From
this we can conclude that the most effective learning systems are those that can
tolerate differences in perspective (Kolb, 1996, p. 285-6).

Kolb’s ﬁndings also support the view of Bensimon and Neumann who argue the
importance of different types of thinkers within an effective team. There are known
diﬂ‘erences in perspective in academic settings. The disciplinary focus, the differing
understanding of institutional purposes, and general skepticism between groups are
frequent areas of communication breakdowns. An eﬁ‘ective change strategy will
accommodate differing voices, and different learners, while staying the course or staying
aligned with the goals.

275

Types of Learning

There are many additional perspectives on learning which inform understanding
about behaviors of individuals and groups in learning contexts. Following are some
examples of those which may contribute to interpretation of the ﬁndings in this research
study.

Sggleﬂnd Double-loop learning
Chris Argyris and Donald Schon have deﬁned learning by its actions in an
organizational environment and use the terms single- and double-loop learning. These
terms are reported to have originated with Ashby’s book Design for the Era (1952).
Single-loop learning is a type of learning which maintains the status quo, while double-
loop learning is change-oriented. The authors explain that double-loop learning questions
underlying policies and goals and challenges assumptions (Argyris, 1977, p. 116).

A group of authors who conducted research in a school setting deﬁne double-loop
learning “as a process that examines the underlying assumptions and leads, not only to the
acquisition and integration of new knowledge, but to the eﬂ‘ective use and dissemination
of professional knowledge” (Scribner et al, 1999, p. 155).

mm

Adaptive learning is considered to be the same as single-loop learning, according to
Argyris & Schon and Senge. Marquardt also relates it to experience: “Adaptive learning
is learning ﬁom experience and reﬂection” (Marquardt, 1996, p. 23).

Generative Learning

Generative learning, according to Marquardt, is the “learning that is created ﬁ'om
reﬂection, analysis, or creativity " (Marquardt, 1996, p. 23), and Senge writes that
“‘learning’ in this context does not mean acquiring more information, but expanding the
ability to produce the results we truly want in life” (Senge, 1990, p. 142). In explaining
this meaning in the personal mastery chapter of his book, Senge explains the importance of
maintaining a “creative tension ’in order to optimize personal performance. He explains
that juxtapositioning vision (the ideal) and current reality (the present) generates this
tension and that personal mastery is learning how to sustain this tension (Senge, 1990, p.
142)

Maintenance Learning

Less common in the literature, but interesting nonetheless, is the concept of
maintenance learning. Its contrast is innovative learning, explained next. Maintenance
learning was deﬁned by Botkin, Elrnandjra, and Malitza in 1979. They deﬁned it as:

276

the acquisition of ﬁxed outlooks, methods, and rules for dealing with known and
recurring situations. It enhances our problem-solving ability for problems that are
given. It is the type of learning designed to maintain an existing system or an
established way of life ( Botkin et al, 1979, cited in Jarvis et al, 1998, p. 60).

As deﬁned, maintenance learning is similar to single-loop learning.

Innovative Learning

Botkin, Elrnandjra and Malitza see innovative learning as bringing “change, renewal,
restructuring and problem reformulation” (Ehnandjra & Malitza, 1979, cited in Jarvis et
al., 1998, p. 60). This deﬁnition suggests a meaning similar to generative learning. It
emphasizes something new and a break from the existing. This concept parallels double-
loop learning descriptions.

Transformative Learning

Emanating from the work of Mezirow, transforrnative learning is deﬁned as the
“development of revised assumptions, premises, ways of interpreting experience, or
perspectives on the world by means of critical self-reﬂection” (Cranton, 1994, p. xii).

Summary of Learning Types

Most of these categorizations of learning reﬂect either maintenance of the status quo
or effecting change. The forms of learning most prevalent within the organization will
have signiﬁcant impact upon the extent to which the organization is able to change as a
result of learning practices. By their very deﬁnitions, some of the learning types are best at
maintaining the status quo. Few believe the status quo is adequate for today’s challenges.

Appendix K
11/19/00

277

Learning Orientation 1
Knowledge Source APPENDIX L
Internal vs. External

Definition: Preference for developing knowledge internally as compared to
preference for acquiring knowledge developed externally.

Overall

lnterviewee LO1-1 LO‘l-2 LO1-3 L01-4 LO1-5 Rating L01 Notes

F1 2 1 2 1 1 2 See Note1
CO4 1 1 1 1 2 1 See Note 2
CBA4 1 1 1 1 1 1 '
001 1 1 1 2 1 2 See NoteS
002 1.5 1.5 1 5 1.5 1.5 3
CBA5 2 1 1 2 2 2
F2 2 1 1 2 1 2 See Note4
F3 1 2 1 2 1 2 See Notes
CBA3 1 1 1 1 1
CO3 1 1 1 2 2 3 See Note 6
Overall Rating Average 1.90
Standard Deviation on Overall Rating 0.738
Frequency 1 6 8 8 3
Frequency 1.5 1 1 1 1
Frequency 2 3 1 1 5
Percentage 1 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.333 0.6
Percentage 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.111 0.1
Percentage 2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.556 0.3
Note 1: Title III & IV projects very research-based; But also high confidence in our internal products

and process.

Note 2: Although we use refs(?) from outside, it is heavily 'processed' before put to work for us.
Has to be internalized early.

Note 3: Focus is on collaboration. External expertise is used to inform discussions. Internal staff
lead the discussion.

Note 4: Initially we looked external; as we have developed self-confidence and trust we have looked
more internally.

Note 5: Underscored collaboration; We use internal faculty/staff for most action or planning teams and
program development. Our performance goals are based mostly on internal student
performance stats.

Note 6: Conference presentations external; consults - external; faculty best practices teaching
strategy - internal.

Codng Scheme: Learning Orientations Pairs: Overall Rating:

1 = lntemal 1 = Mostly lntemal
2 = External 2 = More Internal
3 = Even
4 = More External

5 = Mostly External

278

Learning Orlentatlon 2
Content-Process Focus
Content vs. Process

Definition: Emphasis on accumulation of knowledge about what products/services are as compared
to emphasis on accumulation of knowledge about how those products/services are developed,
delivered, or improved.

Overall
Interviewee L02-1 L02-2 L02-3 L02-4 L02-5 Rating L02 Notes
F1 2 2 1 2 2 5
CO4 2 2 1 2 2 4 See Note1
CBA4 2 2 2 1 1 4
CO1 1 1 2 2 2 4 See Note 2
CO2 1.5 1.5 1 5 1.5 1 5 3
CBA5 2 1 1.5 2 1 3
F2 1 2 1 1 2 3 See Note3
F3 1 1 1 2 2 3
CBA3 2 2 1 2 1 3
C03 1 2 1 1 2 3 See Note4
Overall Rating Average 3.50
Standard Deviation on Overall Rating 0.707
Frequency 1 4 3 6 3
Frequency 1.5 1 1 2 1 1
Frequency 2 5 6 2 6 6
Percentage 1 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3
Percentage 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Percentage 2 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6

Note 1: Product mix hasn't changed dramatically, but delivery and service has.
Note 2: | see both as important, but consistency of process probably is more important.
Note 3: This was hard. These choices seem to both describe us.

Examples: I struggled choosing only one. What we teach and

how we teach it both effect student learning so the both seem to be at work here.
Note 4: Research on learning-centered initiative. Budget reflects our process;

expenses are treated as overhead.

Coding Scheme: Learning Orientations Pairs: Overall Rating:
1 = Content 1 = Mostly Content
2 = Process 2 = More Content
3 = Even

4 = More Process
5 = Mostly Process

279

Learning Orlentatlon 3
Knowledge Reserve
Personal vs. Publlc

Definition: Knowledge is possessed by individuals as compared to knowledge that is publicly available.

Overall
Interviewee L03-1 LO3-2 LO3-3 L03-4 LO3-5 Rating L03 Notes
F1 1 2 2 1 1 2 See Note 1
CO4 2 2 1 2 1 3 See Note 2
CBA4 2 2 2 1 1 4
CO1 1 1 2 2 1 3 See Note 3
CO2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3
CBA5 1 1 2 1 1.5 3
F2 1 1 2 1 1 2
F3 1 2 1 1 1 1 See Note 4
CBA3 1 2 2 2 1 4
003 1 2 2 2 1 2 See Note 5
Overall Rating Average 2.70
Standard Deviation on Overall Rating 0.949
Frequency 1 7 3 2 5 8
Frequency 1.5 1 1 1 1 2
Frequency 2 2 6 7 4 0
Percentage 1 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.8
Percentage 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Percentage 2 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 0

Note 1: Consultants, external & expertise

Note 2: Sources of knowledge are both data & story.

Note 3: We hire based on skills, but development tends to be team-based.

Note 4: We have many long-term employees who are knowledge experts in their departments
and who 'run' areas in ways nobody else really understands.

Note 5: Statistics from (colleague's) dissertation - personal.

Coding Scheme: Learning Orientations Pairs: Overall Rating:
1 = Personal 1 = Mostly Personal
2 = Public 2 = More Personal
3 = Even
4 = More Public
5 = More Public

280

Learning Orlentatlon 4
Dlssemlnatlon Mode
Formal vs. Informal

Definition: Knowledge is shared in formal, prescribed methods as compared to knowledge that is
shared through informal methods, such as role modeling and casual interaction.

Overall
Interviewee LO4-1 LO4-2 LO4-3 L04-4 LO4-5 Rating L04 Notes
F1 2 2 2 2 1 5 See Note 1
C04 2 2 2 1 2 4 See Norez
CBA4 2 1 2 1 1 2
CO1 2 2 1 1 1 2 See Note 3
002 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3
CBA5 1 1.5 1 1 1 3
F2 1 2 2 1 2 3
F3 2 2 2 1 2 5 See Note4
CBA3 1 2 2 1 ' 2 4
C03 2 2 2 1 2 5
Overall Rating Average 3.60
Standard Deviation on Overall Rating 1.174
Frequency 1 1 2 8 4
Frequency 1.5 1 1 1 1
Frequency 2 6 7 7 1 5
Percentage 1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.4
Percentage 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Percentage 2 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.5

Note 1: Generally, the LCI.

Note 2: Lots of meetings & discussion - little that is written is shared.

Note 3: Official procedures are shared formally but much expertise is disseminated through
informal networks.

Note 4: The definition states this is about how 'knowledge is shared' yet the statements below state
'we learn.‘ I do not think these are the same. Our institution is very formal in how it shares
information but we actually learn it in very informal ways. I answered the
statements below on learning. Examples: Title III, Title V, Faculty Academy.

Coding Scheme: Learning Orientations Pairs: Overall Rating:
1 = Formal 1 = Mostly Formal
2 = Informal 2 = More Formal
3 = Even

4 = More lnfonnal
5 = Mostly lnfonnal

281

Learning Orlentatlon 5
Learning Scope
Incremental vs. Transformative

Definition: Preference for knowledge related to the improvement of existing products, services, or
capabilities as compared to preference for knowledge related to the development of new ones.

Interviewee L05-1 L05-2 L05-3

F1 2 2 2
CO4 1 2 1
CBA4 2 2 2
C01 2 2 2
C02 1.5 2 1.5
CBA5 2 2 2
F2 2 1 2
003 2 2 2
CBA3 1 1 1
F3 2 1 1
Overall Rating Average

Standard Deviation on Overall Rating
Frequency 1 2 3 3
Frequency 1.5 1 0 1
Frequency 2 7 7 6
Percentage 1 0.2 0.3 0.3
Percentage 1.5 0.1 0 0.1
Percentage 2 0.7 0.7 0.6

Note 1: New president will reinforce this preference.

Overall
L05-4 Rating L05 Notes
2 5 See Note 1
2 3
2 5
2 4 See Note 2
2 4
2 5
1 3
2 5 See Note 3
2 1
2 3 See Note 4
3.80
1.317
1
O
9
0.1
O
0.9

Note 2: We draw on existing knowledge, but seek new ways to improve services.
Note 3: Learning-centered initiative - transformative; College Level Academic Initiative.
Note 4: Different areas at the college fall into different sides of these pairs.
High-level administrators are always looking for new ideas, but some departments
(registrar's office) keep re-doing the same old thing.

Coding Scheme: Learning Orientations Pairs:
1 = Incremental
2 = Transformative

282

Overall Rating:

1 = Mostly Incremental

2 = More Incremental

3 = Even

4 = More Transformative
5 = Mostly Transformative

Learning Orientation 8
Value-Chain Focus
Design/Make vs. Market/Deliver

Definition: Emphasize learning investments in engineering or production activities (--design and
make--) functions versus sales or service activities (--market and deliver») functions.

Overall
I nterviewee L06-1 L06-2 L06-3 L06-4 Rating L06 Notes
F 1 2 2 1 1 2
CO4 2 1 2 2 4
CBA4 2 2 1 1 3
CO1 2 1 2 2 4 See Note 1
CO2 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 3
CBA5 1.5 1 2 1 3
F2 2 2 1 1 3
F3 2 1 1 1 1
CBA3 2 2 1 1 3
CO3 2 2 2 2 5 See Note 2
Overall Rating Average 3.10
Standard Deviation on Overall Rating 1.101
Frequency 1 0 4 5 6
Frequency 1.5 1 1 1 1
Frequency 2 9 5 4 3
Percentage 1 0 0.4 0.5 0.6
Percentage 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Percentage 2 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3
Note 1: Our processes focus more on service and adding value.
Note 2: Outsourcing of ads.
Coding Scheme: Learning Orientations Pairs: Overall Rating:
1 = Design/Make 1 = Mostly Design/Make
2 = Market/Deliver 2 = More Design/Make

3 = Even
4 = More Market/Deliver
5 = Mostly Market/Deliver

283

Learning Orientation 7
Learning Focus
Individual vs. Group

Definition: Development of knowledge and skills pertaining to individual performance as compared to
the development of knowledge and skills pertaining to group performance.

Overall
Interviewee LO7-1 LO7-2 LO7-3 L07-4 Rating L07 Notes
F1 2 2 1 2 See Note 1
CO4 2 1 2 2 4
CBA4 2 1 1 1 1
CO1 2 2 1 1 3 See Note 2
CO2 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 3
CBA5 2 2 2 2 5
F2 2 1 1 2 3
F3 2 2 1 1 4 See Note 3
CBA3 2 2 2 2 5
CO3 2 2 1 1 3 See Note 4
Overall Rating Average 3.444
Standard Deviation on Overall Rating 1.236
Frequency 1 0 3 7 4
Frequency 1.5 1 1 0 1
Frequency 2 9 6 3 5
Percentage 1 0 0.3 0.7 0.4
Percentage 1.5 0.1 0.1 0 0.1
Percentage 2 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.5

Note 1: My perspective - not necessarily widely shared.

Note 2: It seems to be blend of both learning focuses.

Note 3: Individuals, faculty, staff, etc. are hired for the specific function they will perform.
However, most big decisions are made by committees or action teams making
recommendations.

Note 4: LCl, Title III and V.

Coding Scheme: Learning Orientations Pairs: Overall Rating
1 = Individual 1 = Mostly Individual
2 = Group 2 = More Individual
3 = Even

4 = More Group
5 = Mostly Group

284

Facilitating Factor 1 APPENDIX M
Scanning Imperative

Definition: Gather information about conditions and practices outside the unit;
seek out information about the external environment.

Interviewee FF1 Notes
F1 6 See Note 1
C04 5 See Note 2
CBA4 6 See Note 3
C01 6
C02 7
CBA5 5
F2 6 See Note 4
F3 6
CBA3 7 See Note 5
C03 6
Summary 6.00

Standard Deviation 0.667

Note 1: Institutional research, enrollment management, but actually little assessment of student
learning.

Note 2: Much data is gathered--surveys, follow-up studies, environmental scans, labor market
information, etc. But it isn't clear how this really changes core processes in the
organization.

Note 3: Focus groups; focus on industry; institutional data.

Note 4: ACE/Kellogg; college & community relations/student services surveys; workforce
development; lobbyist; conferences, site visits

Note 5: AS, Advisory Groups, Business Surveys; partnerships with businesses

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

285

Facilitating Factor 2
Performance Gap

Definition: Shared perception of gap between current performance and desired performance.

Interviewee FF2 Notes
F1 6.5 See Note 1
C04 6 See Note 2
CBA4 6
C01 6 See Note 3
002 7
CBA5 6
F2 5
F3 3 See Note 4
CBA3 7
C03 3 See Note 5
Summary 5.6

Standard Deviation 1.46

Note 1: Within my circle, this is strong - There are large pockets of complacency.

Note 2: Widespread desire to improve results (graduates, 9.9.) has resulted in major strategies
to accomplish this. Result is 26% increase in graduates over past 6 years!

Note 3: Comprehensive Strategic Plan; cyber suite; redesign of core processes.

Note 4: Leaming-centered round tables; learning-centered leadership team.

Note 5: Student Success; GPA; rates of graduation.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

286

Facilitating Factor 3
Concern for Measurement

Definition: Considerable effort is spent defining or measuring key factors. Discourse over
metrics is regarded as a learning activity.

Interviewee FF3 Notes
F1 3.5 See Note 1
CO4 6 See Note 2
CBA4 6
CO1 7 See Note 3
002 7
CBA5 3
F2 5
F3 3 See Note 4
CBA3 7
CO3 6 See Note 5
Summary 5.9

Standard Deviation 1.63

Note 1: lnstitutionally we do this well - Faculty don't do it well.
Note 2: Excellent use of institutional effectiveness measures. Lots of emphasis on assessment
in classrooms. But not enough discussion of what the measurements really mean.

Note 3: Institutional data used extensively for decision-making; focus group; periodic reports
and updates.

Note 4: Institutional research department.; most grants are performance based and require
feedback/evals; tangible, yes; intangible, no; ideally yes; in practice, no.

Note 5: Documentation of Title III & V; Documentation of LCI.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

287

Facilitating Factor 4
Organizational Curiosity

Definition: Curiosity about conditions and practices; interest in creative ideas and new tel
support for experimentation.

Interviewee FF4 Notes

F1 4.5 See Note 1

CO4 6 See Note 2
CBA4 5

CO1 7 See Note 3
002 7
CBA5 6
F2 5

F3 4 See Note 4
CBA3 7

CO3 6 See Note 5
Summary 5.8
Standard Deviation 1.1

Note 1: We have met the resistance of the system - but innovators in this organization
tend to be persistent (3-course intensive language & ESL courses).

Note 2: Wide array of innovative grants, pilot projects, etc. Lots of release time
invested here.

Note 3: Several grant-funded projects; variety of innovative strategies; core
competencies learning-centered initiative; life map.

Note 4: ACE/Kellogg institutional transformation project; failed Kaplan plan; Title III, V,
Destination; Title III, V; Roundtables every few years, focus groups
(all attached to descriptors in narrative.)

Note 5: President's council - memory dump; Title III & V management teams;
Destination 2000.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

288

Facilitating Factor 5
Climate of Openness

Definition: Open communications among organization members; problems, errors, or lessons
are shared, not hidden.

Interviewee FF5 Notes
F1 6.5 See Note 1
C04 5 See Note 2
CBA4 4
CO1 6 See Note 3
002 6
CBA5 6
F2 6 See Note 4
F3 5 See Note 5
CBA3 7
C03 6 See Note 6
Summary 5.8

Standard Deviation 0.707

Note 1: We are probably as open across the hierarchy as any college I know or have worked in.

Note 2: In transition on this. Senior team can discuss ANYTHING. Not clear how criticism is
honored elsewhere.

Note 3: Roundtables; meetings of president's council 8. faculty leaders; periodic collegewide

forums.

Note 4: I think this is true for faculty. It is somewhat less true for administrators and not true
for most career service personnel.

Note 5: Not as widespread as should be (newsletter, general e-mails & voice mails); roundtables,
faculty senates. Some are, full-time new employees go through orientation or faculty
academy Trtle lll & Trtle V work together collegewide.

Note 6: Trtle Ill 8. V Initiatives; LCI.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

289

Facilitating Factor 6
Continuous Education

Definition: Commitment of quality resources for learning.

Interviewee FF6 Notes
F1 5.5 See Note 1
C04 6 See Note 2
CBA4 6
CO1 6 See Note 3
C02 6
CBA5 6
F2 6
F3 6 See Note 4
CBA3 6
C03 6 See Note 5
Summary 6.0

Standard Deviation 0.158

Note 1: We have lots of resources and they flow to the right places very often.
Note 2: Close to 4% of payroll devoted to formal training/leaming. Lots of release time invested.
Note 3: Leadership (case college); SPD Funds; Title lllN; Destination 98, 99, 00.
Note 4: Destination, Title III & V, new teaching-leaming centers. Money for professional
dev,; Leadership (case college) and all those above; SPD funds for full-time faculty;
Destination for full or part-time; Leadership (case college); stipends for faculty dev.
Note 5: AS programs; workforce dev.; focus on the workplace; faculty endowed chairs.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

290

Facilitating Factor 7
Operational Variety

Definition: Value different methods, procedures, and competencies; appreciate diversity.

Interviewee FF7 Notes
F1 5.5 See Note 1
CO4 5 See Note 2
CBA4 4
CO1 6 See Note 3
002 6
CBA5 6
F2 4 See Note 4
F3 7 See Note 5
CBA3 6
CO3 3 See Note 6
Summary 5.3

Standard Deviation 1.230

Note 1: We do well on this score at the grassroots; not necessarily at upper executive levels.
Note 2: Always a strong value in hiring & promotion of staff 8. administrators.
Not necessarily an effective value yet in hiring faculty.
Note 3: Diversity initiatives; diversity study groups.
Note 4: As creative as we are in some areas, we are still very much a "one size fits all" employer.
Note 5: Different teaching texts and resources by campus; many variances by dept. Faculty
set own schedules within guidelines; better home-office communications (e-mail, lntemet,
voice mail). Within limits of our accreditation agency SACS. Yes, EAEOC,
Leadership (case college), Diversity workshops. EAEOC (Equal Access, Equal Opportunity
Committee and campus representation sits on every hiring committee.) Title V,
Leadership (case college), Title III.
Note 6: Goals for diversification; policies & procedures.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 — 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

291

Facilitating Factor 8
Multiple Advocates

Definition: New ideas and methods can be advanced by employees at all organizational levels.
Multiple advocates or champions exist.

Interviewee FF8 Notes
F1 6.0 See Note 1
CO4 7 See Note 2
CBA4 5
CO1 6 See Note 3
002 6
CBA5 6
F2 5
F3 4 See Note 4
CBA3 7
003 2
Summary 5.4

Standard Deviation 1.506

Note 1: Very high in my department areas.

Note 2: Many champions for change--more than 300 active participants in learning centered initiative.
More than 100 active participants in Lifemap.

Note 3: Learning-Centered Initiative; core competencies; life map; workforce development

Note 4: Destination started from faculty requests. Curriculum development teaching & learning
(CDTL) team. Learning-centered initiative leadership team. Leadership (case college),
Destination.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

292

Facilitating Factor 9
Involved Leadership

Definition: Leaders personally and actively involved in learning initiatives and in ensuring
that a leaming environment is maintained.

Interviewee FF9 Notes
F1 6.0 See Note 1
CO4 6 See Note 2
CBA4 4
CO1 6 See Note 3
002 7
CBA5 6
F2 5
F3 3 See Note 4
CBA3 6
CO3 6 See Note 5
Summary 5.5

Standard Deviation 1.179

Note 1: This will get higher; as we said, provosts are not involved.
Note 2: Each member of the senior team "walks the talk."
Note 3: Leaming-Centered Initiative; core competencies; life map; workforce development
Note 4: Re-do budget based on learning-centered strategic plan, roundtables, creation

of instructional technology dept. to support innovations with learning technologies.
Note 5: LCI Initiative; President's council; faculty association.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

293

Facilitating Factor 10
Systems Perspective

Definition: Recognition of interdependence among organizational units and groups;
awareness of time delay between actions and their outcomes.

Interviewee FF10 Notes
F1 6 See Note 1
CO4 7 See Note 2
CBA4 4
CO1 6 See Note 3
002 6
CBA5 4
F2 4
F3 4 See Note 4
CBA5 7
003 5
Summary 5.3

Standard Deviation 1.252

Note 1: (CO1) and (002) use this perspective to sell (case college)--generally
a very good thing.
Note 2: Four year commitment to Learning-Centered Initiative and counting...Strategic goals
are all long-range, stable & well measured...no "goal of the month“ fads here...
Note 3: Leaming-centered initiative; core processes; life map
Note 4: Professional development opportunities (Title III, V, Destination, Leadership
[case college]; vision statement; leaming-centered initiative leadership team; Kaplan.

Rating: 1 - 2 Little Evidence to Support This Factor
3 - 5 Some Evidence to Support This Factor
6 - 7 Extensive Evidence to Support This Factor

294

Summary of Facilitating Factors

Standard
Factor Average Deviation
FF1 Scanning Imperative 6.0 0.667
FF2 Performance Gap 5.6 1.46
FF3 Concern for Measurement 5.9 1.63
FF4 Organizational Curiosity 5.8 1.1
FF5 Climate of Openness 5.8 0.707
FF6 Continuous Education 6.0 0.158
FF7 Operational Variety 5.3 1.23
FF8 Multiple Advocates 5.4 1.506
FF9 Involved Leadership 5.5 1.179
FF10 Systems Perspective 5.3 1.252
Mean 5.7 1.0889
Standard Deviation 0.276 0.453

295

APPENDIX N

FF1. Scanning Imperative

V alid

Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent

7 Extensive Evidence

 

. o_ 20 0
to support this factor t 2 0

-,6 Extensive Evrdence 60.0 80 o
to support this factor
5 Some evidence to 20 0 1000
support this factor
Total 100")

FF2. Performance Gap

Valid

Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent

7 Extensive Evidence

to support this factor 3 30.0 30,0
6 Extensrve Evrdence 4 40.0 70.0
to support this factor

5 Some evidence to l 100 80.0
support this factor

3 Some evidence to 2 20.0 100 0
support this factor

Total ‘0 100'0

296

FF3. Concern for Measurement
—

 

Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent
Valid 7 Extensrve EVidence 3 300 300
to support this factor
6 Extenswe Evrdence 3 30.0 (301)
to support this factor
5 Some evidence to I 10.0 700
support this factor
4 Some evidence to 1 10.0 80.0
support this factor
3 Some evidence to 2 20.0 1000 3"
support this factor g
Total 10 100.0 I

FF4. Organizational Curiosity
m

 

Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent

Valid 7 Extensive EVidence 30 0 30.0

to support this factor

6 Extensrve Evrdence 30 0 60.0

to support this factor

5 Some evidence to 30 0 900

support this factor

4 Some evrdence to 100 100.0

support this factor
Total 0 100 .0

 

 

297

FF5. Climate of Openeu
E

 

Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent

Valid 7 Extensive PVidence 20.0 200

to support this factor

6 Extensive findence 50.0 700

to support this factor

5 Some evidence to 20.0 90 0

support this factor

4 Some eVidence to 10 0 1000

support this factor
Total 0 1 00.0

FF6. Continuous Education

Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent

Valid 6 ExtenSive EVidence 10 1000 1000
b

   

 

298

5'

 

FF7. Operational Variety
_

 

Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent

Valid 7 Extenswe EVidence I 10.0 100

to support this factor

6 Extenswe EVidence 5 50.0 60.0

to support this factor

5 Some evidence to l 100 700

support this factor

4 Some evidence to 2 20.0 90.0

support this factor

3 Some evidence to I 10.0 1000

support this factor

Total 10 100.0

FF8. Multiple Advocates

—
Cumulative

Frequency Valid Percent Percent

Valid 7 Extensive Evidence

to support this factor 2 20.0 20.0
6 Extenswe EVidence 4 400 60.0
to support tl'us factor

5 Some evidence to 2 20.0 80.0
support tlus factor

4 Some evidence to 1 10.0 90.0
support tlus factor

2 Little evidence to 1 10.0 1000
support this factor

Total 10 100.0

299

FF9. Involved Leadership
_

 

Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent
Valid 7 Extenswe EVidence 1 10.0 10.0
to support this factor
6 Extenswe EVidence 6 60.0 70.0
to support this factor
5 Some evidence to 1 10.0 80.0
support this factor
4 Some evidence to 1 10.0 90.0
support this factor
3 Some ev1dence to I 10.0 1000

support this factor

Total 10 100.0
—

 

FF 10. Systems Perspective
—
Cumulative
Frequency Valid Percent Percent
Valid 7 Extenswe EVidence 2 22.2 22.2
to support this factor
6 Extenswe Evndence 3 33.3 55.6
to support this factor
5 Some evidence to l I 1.1 66.7
support this factor
4 Some evidence to 3 33.3 100.0
support this factor
Total 9 l00.0
Missing System 1
Total 10

300

ANOVA
—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
FF1. Scanning Imperative Between Groups .000 2 .000 .000 1.000
Within Groups 4.000 7 .571
Total 4.000 9
FF2. Performance Gap Between Groups 2.150 2 1.075 .412 .677
Within Groups 18.250 7 2.607
Total 20.400 9
FF3. Concern for Between Groups 8.400 2 4.200 2.100 .193
Measuremcm Within Groups 14.000 7 2.000
Tom] 22.400 9
FF4. Organizational Between Groups 7.350 2 3.675 1 1.433 .006
Curios” Within Groups 2.250 7 .321
Total 9.600 9
FF5. Climate of Openess Between Groups 1.350 2 .675 .756 .504
Within Groups 6.250 7 .893
Total 7.600 9
FF6. Continuous Education Between Groups .000 2 .000
Within Groups .000 7 .000
Total .000 9
FF7. Operational Variety Between Groups 1.350 2 .675 .371 .703
Within Groups 12.750 7 1.821
Total 14.100 9
FF8. Multiple Advocates Between Groups 3.150 2 1.575 .639 .556
Within Groups 17.250 7 2.464
Total 20.400 9
FF9. Involved Leadership Between Groups 6.750 2 3.375 4.109 .066
Within Groups 5.750 7 .821
Total 12.500 9
FF 10. Systems Perspective Between Groups 4.600 2 2.300 1.695 .251
Within Groups 9.500 7 1.357
Total 14.100 9

w

301

Group Statistics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
FF1. Scanning Imperative Male 5 5.80 .45 .20
Female 5 6.20 .84 .37
FF2. Performance Gap Male 5 5.40 1.52 .68
Female 5 5.80 1.64 .73
FF3. Concern for Male 5 5.60 1.14 .51
Measurement Female 5 5.20 2.05 .92
FF4. Organizational Male 5 5.80 .84 .37
curios“ Female 5 5.80 1.30 .58
FF5. Climate of Openess Male 5 6.00 .71 .32
Female 5 5.60 1.14 .51
FF6. Continuous Education Male 5 6.00 .00" .00
Female 5 6.00 .00" .00
FF7. Operational Variety Male 5 4.80 1.30 .58
Female 5 5.80 1.10 .49
FF8. Multiple Advocates Male 5 5.20 1.92 .86
Female 5 5.60 1.14 .51
FF9. Involved Leadership Male 5 5.80 .45 .20
Female 5 5.20 1.64 .73
FF 10. Systems Perspective Male 5 5.60 1.14 .51
Fermi ., 5.0..0 ~41 _ -63

   

a. t cannot be computed because the standard deviations of both groups are 0.

302

APPENDIX 0

Figure 2.3. Elements in Our Integrated Approach Mapped Onto
the Learning Cycle

Acquire

 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
  
  

   
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 

Scanning Imperative (FF1)
Performance Gap (FF2)
Concern for Measurement (FF3)
Organizational Curiosity (FF4)
Knowledge Source (LOrl)
Content—Process Focus (LOrZ)

 

Learning Focus (LOr7)
Involved Leadership (FF9)
System Perspective (FF10)

 
  

Operational Variety (FF7) Climate of Openness (FF5)

     

Multiple Advocates (FF8) Continuous Education (FF6)
Learning Scope (LOrS) Knowledge Reserve (LOr3) g!
69> ValueoChain Focus (LOr6) Dissemination Mode (LOr4)é§
4:. ()é‘

 

LOr - Learning Orientation
FF - Facilitating Factor

Source: An earlier version appeared in Nevis, DiBella. and Gould, 1995, p. 82.

Source: DiBella, A. & Nevis, E. (1998). How Organizations Learn - An Integrated
Strategy for Building Learning Capability. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass. Page 38.

303

References

Alfred, R L. (1984). Paradox for the community college: Education in the 805.
Community College Review, 12, 1, 2-6.

Alfred, R L. & Carter, P. (1999). Contr i 11 es: 'vin in an era of
continuous ehange. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Alfred, R L. & Carter, P. (Eds). (1993). Changing managerial imperatives. In New
Directions for Communig Colleges. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass

Alliance for Community College Innovation (ACCI). (1998). What do CEOs want to

know . . . about community colleges becoming more learning centered? Mission Viejo,
California: League for Innovation.

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (1999, June 2). Signiﬁcant
historical events in the development of community colleges. [On-line] Available:
http://www.aacc.nche.edu

American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1996). Special issue - The student
learning imperative. Jogmg ef College Smdent Development, 37, 2.

Amey, M.. & Twombly, S. (1992). Re-visioning leadership in community colleges. _T_h_e
Revie_w_ of ﬂigher Edecaﬁon. 15, 125-50.

Argyris, C. (1998, May-June). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Md
Business Review 98-105.

 

Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational leeg'ng. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Argyris, C. (1991, May-June). Teaching smart people how to learn. 5W
Review 99-109.

 

Argyris, C. (1977, September-October). Double loop learning in organizations. 11M
Business Review, 115-125.

Argyris, C. &Schon, D. (1996). Or ' a'on l ' II-Theo m o and
meetiee. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974). Theog in prectiee. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizatienal legm g: A meory ef am'on msmtive.
Reading, MA: Addison—Wesley.

304

Banta, T. W. (1993). Summary and conclusion: Are we making a diﬁ‘erence? In Banta,
T. (Ed), Making a diﬂ‘erence - Outcomes of a deme of assessment in higher education.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barr, R. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new reality for community colleges.
Lgdership Abstrects, 8, 3.

Barr, R. & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning. Change,27, 6, 12—25.

Barott, J. & Raybould, R. (1998). Changing schools into collaborative organizations.
In Restructuring schools for colLaboratieu, premises _aud pitfalls, 27-42. New York: State
University of New York Press.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., and Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don't produce
change. Harvard Business Review

 

Bensimon, E. &Neumann, A. (1993). Redesi ' colle ' tel rshi -Teams
tmwork in higuq education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Bergquist, W. H. (1992). The feur culuues ef the eeageuiy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Biggerstaﬂ‘, C. (1990). Creating, managing, and transforming organizational culture in
the community college: Perspectives of reputationally effective presidents. (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1990). Dissertau'on Abstracts luteruetionel.
(Order no. 9031514).

 

Bloom, BS. (1956). Taxonomy pf edueetioﬂ objectives. Vol. 1: Com
New York: McKay.

Boggs, G. (1995-6, December-January). The learning paradigm. Cemmum College
Journal.

Boggs, George R (1999). What the learning paradigm means for faculty. Mug
Abstracte. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1991). W San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boyett, J. & Boyett, J. (1998). The guru guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bridges, W. (1991). Mm’ g tra_r_isitions - Mm] g me most of euguge. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Brungardt, C. L. (1998). The new face of leadership - Implications for training

305

educational leaders. Q; the Hurizeu, 6, l, 7.

Bryant, D. W. (1992). New leadership considerations for old realities. Cemmunig/Junier
College nglerly, 16, 77-84

Calvert, G., Mobley, 8.; Marshall, L. (1994). Grasping the learning organization. _T_Luru'ug
eud Develupmeut, 39—43.

Cameron, K. & Whetten, DA (1996). Organizational effectiveness and quality: The
second generation. In Hi ti k of and r s c Volume XI.

Carter, P. & Alfred, R. L. (1996). Breaking out of the box - New colleges for a new
century. Ann Arbor“. University of Michigan.

Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F. B. (1996). W113; (3“1 ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A M. (1994). Indicators of institutional effectiveness. Los Angeles: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 385 310)

Collins, J. C.&Porras,J. I. (1997. MW
Mes. New York: HarperCollins.

Cook, S. D. N. , & Yanow, D. (1996). Culture and organizational learning. In Cohen

and Sproull (Eds), W (pp. 430-459). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Cook, W. (1990). The urngy pf cﬂge. Cambridge, MA: The Cambridge Group.
Corcoran, C., Duncan, D., Irwin-Robinson, H.,Pontz, R, Ruterbusch, M,; Teahen, R., &

Wimbish, J. (1996). R ' for] T . Unpublished manuscript,
Michigan State University.

Covey, S. (1989). W New York: Simon and
Schuster.

Cranton,P. (1994). .- ' 1 ° °
W San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Creswell, J. W. (1994). R ..
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

 

306

Critchley, B. & Casey, D. (1996). Second thoughts on teambuilding. In Starkey, K.,
pry organizations learn (pp. 335-347). London: International Thomson Business Press.

Cross, K. P. (2000). Collaborative learning 101 (The Cross Papers. No. 4). Mission
Viejo, CA: League for Innovation.

DeGeus, A. P. (1988, March-April). Planning as learning Harvard Business Review. 70-
74.

Dent, E. B. & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging resistance to change. 102% of
Applied Behavioral Sg'ence, 35, 1, 25.41.

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Introduction. In Denzin & Lincoln (Eds), Hendbpuk
of qualitative research (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DePree, M.. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Dell.

Dewey, J. (1990). The schoolgand soeiety and the child and the Quiculum. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. (Reprint of 1899 publication.)

Diamond, T. (1996). The paradigms of leadership. Developing a measure for machine

and systems thinking: Efﬁciency and optimization. W.
(University Microﬁlms No. 9626459).

DiBella, A. J. (2000). B i1 ' ' ti n 1
East Greenwich, RI: Organization Transitions, Inc.

   

DiBella, A & Nevis, E. (1998). How orggiile' tiens leeru. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dirkx, J. (1999). Invited reaction: Managers as facilitators of learning in learning
organizations. Human Reseurg Development ngedy 10, 2, 127-134.

Dolence, M. & Norris, D. (1995). Transforming higher education - A vision for learning
in the 21" century. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning.

Dmth, W. H. and Palus, C. J. (1994). WWW
making in e eemmunigy pf preeu'ce. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Duck, J. D. (1998). Managing change. In Her_vard Business Re_v_iew on Cha_nge. Boston:
Harvard Business School Publishing.

Eckel, R, Green, M, Hill, B, & Mellon, W. (1999). W
W (Occasional paper series of the ACE

307

project on leadership and institutional transformation.) Washington, DC: American
Council on Education (ACE). (Funded by W. K. Kellogg Foundation.)

ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (1996). 1996 ERIC trends - Policy and
governance. [On-line] Washington, DC: George Washington University. Available:
http://www. gwu. edu/~eriche/Library/policy.html

Ellinger, A.,Watkins, K. E., & Bostrom, R. P. (1999). Managers as facilitators of learning
in learning organizations. Humau Reseuree Development Quartedy 10, 2 , 105-125.

Ehnore, R F. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational
Researcher. 24. 9, 23-26.

Elmore, R. F. (1991). Forward. (sic) In G. A Hess, Jr. (Ed), School restructuring,
Chicago style (pp. vii-ix). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Ehnore, R F. (1996). Getting to scale with effective educational practice. In Rewei;d§
eud reform - Creating edueationu ineentives that war; San Francisco: J ossey—Bass.

Fallo, T. (1997). Continuous quality improvement in community colleges. (Doctoral
dissertation: Pepperdine University). Dis ti 11 Ah 5 ternatio

Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalizing from data as applied to
qualitative research. Educational Researcher 22 4, 16-23.

 

Flynn, W. J. New expeditiens - The search for the learning gntered college. San Marcos,
CA: Palomar College.

Gephart, M.. A., Marsick, V. J ., VanBuren, M. E., Spiro, M. S. (1996, December).
Learning organizations come alive. Trm’ 'ug and Development, pp. 35-45.

Gil], S. (1998). Leading question - What does leadership really mean. Cenuniuu'Que, 15,
3, l & 8.

Goss, T., Pascale, R, Athos, A (1998). The reinvention roller coaster: Risking the
present for a powerful ﬁiture. In Harvegd Business Review en change. (pp. 83-112).
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Segeut leedership. New York: Paulist Press.

Hammer, M. (1997). Beyond reengumg' ' - How the process-centered organization is
changing our work and our lives. New York: HarperCollins.

308

Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnoggaphy: Principles in practice. New York:
Routledge.

Hawley, J. (1993). Reawakeninﬂre spirit in work. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (1994). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and
interpretive practice. In Denzin & Lincoln, mindbook of qualitative research (pp. 262-
272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howser, L. & Schwinn, C. (1997). Emerging models of the new paradigm at Jackson
Community College. In O’Banion, T, A learning collge for the 21“ century (pp. 127-
149). Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science. 2. 88-115.

Janesick, V. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design - metaphor,

methodolatry, and meaning. In Lincoln & Denzin, Handboek of malitative Research (pp.
209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink: The desperate drive for consensus at any cost. In

Shafritz, J. & Ott, J. S. (Eds), Classics of Organization Theogy. Fort Worth: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.

Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Giiﬂin, C. (1998). The theogy Ed practice ef learning. London:
Kogan Page.

Johnson, L. (1997). From mechanistic to social systemic thinking - A digest of a talk by
Russell L. Ack_oﬂ‘. Cambridge, MA: Pegasus Communication

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active Learning: Cooperation
in the cellege claseroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Kanter, R M. (1983). The change mgers - Innovation for preductivig in the American
corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kaufman, Roger. (2000). Mega Planning. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
Keidel, R (1995). Sg’ug orgem_z_a' tional patterns. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kelley, S. (1998). A national town meeting on the learning college. Dallas: League for
Innovation.

309

Kofrnan, F. & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of the learning
organization W Autumn. 5-23

Kolb, D. A. (1996). Management and the learning process. In Starkey, K., Hew
W. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Kolb,DavidA. (1984). E 'enti l ' - x ' th so 01 '
dﬂeleprueut. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kotter, John. (1999). John P. Kotter en wgt leeders rﬂy do. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M. &Posner, B. Z. (1988). hi -Howt
WW eSlam Francisco}?111 Jossey-Bass

Kuhn,T. (1977). ' ' ‘.
ehauge. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press.

Labovitz, G &Rosmsky V (1998) W

 

 

Lashway, L. (1998). Creating a learning organization. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED
420897)

League for Innovation. (2000). League selects vanguard learning colleges. Available:
http://www.league.org/league/projects/lcp/lcp_selection.htm

League for Innovation. (2000). The learning college project. Available:
http://www.league.orgﬂiague/projects/lcp/background.htm

Levin, J. S. (1998). Making sense of organizational change. New Dirgu'eue fer
C ° lle es 102 43-54.

Loacker, G. & Mentkowski, M. (1993). Creating a culture where assessment improves
learning. InBanta,T (Ed) 2 ' - .. _
higher mg, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marks, H. M. & Louis, K. S. (1999, December). Teacher empowerment and the capacity
for organizational 16mins W 707-750

Marquardt, M J. (1996). Building thel mg egggm'zauen- A gstems epp rheee to
W New York: McGraw-Hill

 

310

 

McClenney, K. (1998). Community colleges perched at the millennium: Perspectives on
innovation, transformation, and tomorrow. Leadership Abstracte, 11, 4, 1-4.

Merriam-Webster. (1997). Merriem-Webster’s Collegiete Dictionhry. (10th ed.).
Springﬁeld, MA: Merriam-Webster.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall ef strategic planning. New York: The Free Press,
a Division of Simon and Schuster.

Moore, KM. (1998). The challenge of change in the information age: Three forces
spurring university transformation. Higher Edueeu'en 1.11. _E_u_rope XXIII, 2, 163-8.

Morgan, G. (1986) . Images of erganizatiou. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Moskus, J. (1999). Soaring moles and burrowing eagles: Decision-making in the
learning college. Innovetion Abgregs 2. 3, 2.

Naisbitt, J. (1984). Megatrende: Teri new directieue transforming cu; lives. New York:

' Warner Books.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A uption at risk. Washington,
DC: US. Government Printing Oﬂice.

Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M.. (1997). Understanding organizations as
learning systems.

Nevis, E., Lancourt, J ., & Vassallo, H. (1996). Intemional revolutions. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. . ~

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring - A feminine eppreeeh te ethice u mere! ngetien.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), Commission on Institutions of

Higher Education. (1997). Who- (2" od.) Chicago NCA
O’Banion, T. (1998, June 29). The center of the learning revolution. CerhpuuhtyCeLlege

Times 10 24, 4-5.

 

O’Banion, T. (1997). A Learning College for the 21" Cenhuy. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx
Press.

O’Banion, T. (1995). Community colleges lead a learning revolution. Edugtieuu

311

Reeerd, 76, 4, 23-27.

Omachonu, V. & Ross, J. (1994). Pu'uciples of totu gualiut. Delray Beach, FL: St.
Lucie Press.

Perelman, L. J. (1992). School’s out. New York: Avon Books.

Peters, T. & Waterman, R (1982 ). In search ef excellence - Lessens from Americelg
best-run companies. New York: Warner Books.

Peterson, P. L., McCarthey, S. J ., Ehnore, R. F. (1996). Learning from school
restructuring. American Educetion Reseerch Journal 33, 1, 119-153.

Pfeﬂ‘er, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through mule: Cnleashing the power ef the
werk force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

 

Ponitz, D. (1997). The Journey of transformation for Sinclair Community College In _A
leaguhgeehegefor the 21" century (pp. 104-126). Phoenix, AZ. Oryx Press.

Pugh, OS. (1990). W (3rd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.

Redding, J (1998) WWWﬂ.
Hardwiring the leﬂhigr e rgmen Alexandria, VA. ASTD.

Revans, R. (1980). Aetion lm' — New techniques fer mgegemﬂt. London: Blond
& Briggs.

 

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffueien ef innevatiens, (fourth edition). New York: The Free
Press.

Roth, G. (1996). ' histories: in d c ti nt
organizetiongt learning. MIT: Sloan School of Management.

Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M. G. (1997). WWW

univers'ties - Plannin survive an r . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rubin, H. (1998). 011 oration ' sf r t rs and n r tl er. Chicago:
Lyceum Books, Inc.

Schein, E. H. (1993). How can organizations learn faster? The challenge of entering the
green room. Sleeu Meuegement Review. 34 (2), 85-92.

Schein, E. H. (1992). CEM' 'onal gtlture and leadership. (2"d ed.). San Francisco:

 

312

_“_.___.__. _—
‘

r:-

Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. (1985). Crganizationul culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scherer, J. (1993). Work and the human spirit. Spokane, WA: John Scherer and
Associates.

Schoderbek, P. P., Cosier, R. A., Aplin, J. C. (1991). Mmement. San Diego:
Harcourt Brace J ovanovich.

Shoenberg, R (1992, November-December). Community, culture, communication - The
three C's of campus leadership. Liberal Educatioh, 78, 5, 2-54.

Schon, D. A (1987). Eduem' g the reﬂective praﬂ iener. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schon, D. A,. (1983). The reﬂective practitioner: Hew prefessionﬂe think in ection.
New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A,. (1971). Beyond the stable Me. New York: Random House.

Scribner, J., Cockrell, K., Cockrell, D., & Valentine, J. (1999). Creating professional
communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school

improvement process. ﬂugu'onal Adm 'stration Merly, 35, 1, 130-160.

Senge, RM. (1996). The leader’s new work. In Starkey, K. (_Ed, 1, How erganizations
learn. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Senge,P.M. (1990). Th h ' ' ° -Th ‘ f 1 '
organization. New York: Doubleday.

Spears, L. (1995). Servant-leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In Spears, L.C.,
Rﬂectiens on lgdgehip. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Stake, R. (1994). Case Studies. In Denzin & Lincoln (Eds), Handhoek of Quhhha' tive
Rmch (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA' Sage Publications.

Stalk, G., Evans, P., and Shuhnan, L. (1992, March-April). Competing on capabilities:
The new rules of corporate strategy. Hegard BusineeeReview. 57-69.

Starkey, K. (1996). How organizations learn. London: International Thomson Business
Press.

Stata, Ray. (1996). Organizational learning - the key to management innovation. In

313

Starkey, K. (Ed), Hew organizatiens teeth, (pp.316-333). London: International
Thomson Business Press.

Stevenson, H. W. & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learniug gap - Why our seheels are failing
and what we can leem frem Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.

Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intelleetugi eepital - The new wealth of orgem’ tions New York:
Doubleday.

Swenk, J. Planning Failures: Decision cultural clashes The Reu’ew of Higher Edueetiou,
2;, 1, 1-21.

Tichy, N. M. & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The treueformatienal leeder. New York: John 3'3
Wiley & Sons.

.‘7rr'u .., 7...
‘. --‘—-—_

Tierney, W. (1992). Cultural leadership and the search for community. Libel-e;
Educatioe, 78, 5, 16-21.

Underwood, J. C. and Hammons, J. O. (1999). Past, present, and future variations in
community college organizational structure. Community College Review 26, 4, 39-60.

U. S. Department of Education, Oﬁice of Educational Research and Improvement,

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1998). Fall enroll_r_ner_it in pestgeendaty
iugttu' tions, 1996. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Oﬂice.

Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning up a way of M' g. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Van der heijden, K. (1996). Seeeeu'es, the m ef stretegic mnyersetieu. Chichester,
England: John Wiley & Sons

Walleri,RD. &Seybert, J. A. (1993). InBanta,T. (Ed) W

Q_uteem§ ef e deeede ef eeseeeruent in higher edugtienﬂ (pp. 87-102). San Francisco.
Jossey-Bass.

 

Weick, K. E. (1995). W. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Wells, K. (1999, July). Putting learning ﬁrst at Sinclair Community College. Leaning
Abettaets, 2, 5.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ef puaetig - M° g, meeuhi' g, gud idehuty' .
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

314

 

Wheatley, M. & Kellner-Rogers. (1996). A simpler way San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative - Higher
expectations for higher education. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation.

315

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

11113111111111111111121111111111