Download The Reflection of the Learning Organization Concept to ... and more Exams Knowledge Management in PDF only on Docsity!
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE January 2006 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 7 Number: 1 Article: 12
The Reflection of the Learning Organization
Concept to School of Education
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Esmahan AGAOGLU Anadolu University Faculty of Education ESKISEHIR-TURKEY ABSTRACT
The change and development that has been observed everywhere, it is the result of the knowledge accumulated along the human history. The knowledge was increasing since the primitive era and is now becoming the unique factor of production fast sidelining both capital and power. As a result of this situation, it is treated of the knowledge
society. In the knowledge society, it necessitates the learning organisations, which know
to profit by knowledge as a basic power.
In our time, the organization should adopt the education as a life style and transform them to learning organisation. This situation is current for educational organisations. The societies of today need the individuals who know how to reach knowledge, how to convert the gained knowledge to the behaviours, how to produce new knowledge using them. For growing up the individuals who have these characteristics, educational organisations have to transform to learning organisations. In this process, the teachers also have important role. For this reason, it was realised a descriptive study, which aimed to determine whether the schools of education have the learning organisation features. The sample group of study is the academic staff of the school of education at Anadolu University. The data was gathered with the questionnaire of learning organisation features. At the end of study, it was found that the academic staff believed the faculty had many features of learning organization, but some deficiencies about strategies.
Keywords: Knowledge society, learning organization, school of education, academic staff.
INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The rapidly changes and developments observed at almost every field today are the fruit of knowledge that reached us through the history of humanity. Knowledge, which aggregated first slowly and then rapidly under the influence of increasing knowledge since primitive civilizations led to the transformation of societies into knowledge
societies. The notion knowledge society is used to define societies in which knowledge,
as the fundamental power and capital, is considered an objective, not a means and is regarded as the primary power enlightening and guiding all stages of social life (Drucker, 1994). Rapid developments are observed in the field of technology, particularly in information technologies. Thus, the organization, implementation and management of knowledge has become easier; knowledge is conceived as the most crucial competition power of organizations; knowledge management systems are established in organizations in order to manage knowledge.
O’Dell and Grayson (1998), mentioning that change should not be a matter of chance, emphasized that organizations had to find knowledge substrata for the management of knowledge whose importance as a competition factor had been increasing. The increasingly important role of information technologies in the creation of innovative knowledge societies is acknowledged (Mansel and When, 1998). However, new technologies providing crucial advantages for the organization, implementation and
management of knowledge in the organizations require new skills, new thinking systems and new cultural norms (Severino, 2000).
Following the studies of Machlup (1962), who mentioned the contribution of knowledge to economics, Drucker (1969) emphasized the significance of knowledge and information technologies. And Bell (1971, 1973) who conceived knowledge as a strategic development resource, a transformation from an Industrial Society into a Knowledge Society is discussed especially after the Second World War. Inceler (1998) argues that a social and economic system, which is not based on knowledge, is out of the question. Furthermore, it is highlighted that the capacity of a society to produce, select, adapt, use knowledge and to transform it into commercial means plays an important role in achieving economic growth and improving life standards (The World Bank, 2002). Not only technologies but also management mentality has changed rapidly following the transformation from industrial society to knowledge society (Malone, 2002). For, the increasing need for information and knowledge to achieve efficient management requires management mechanisms that have the capacity to make use of knowledge efficiently, and thus, management mentality has been changing (Hillmer and Karney, 2001).
While the contribution of such traditional power resources as labor, land and money to organization decreases in knowledge societies, knowledge gains importance as a power resource providing superiority in competition (Schwartz, 1993). This situation leads to a change in organizational characteristics of knowledge societies (Inceler, 1998), for, under the influence of globalization, a transition from data to meaningful knowledge, bureaucracy to networks, teaching to learning, nationality to internationality and competitive strategies to cooperative strategies is observed in today’s societies (Rogers, 1996).
In the knowledge societies, described by Drucker (1996) as dynamic and competitive societies, the organizations are required to make use of knowledge efficiently; in other words, they are required to learn in order to achieve permanent progress (Celik, 2000a). Among the distinguishable characteristics of well-managed organizations lies the mentality that they adopt education as a life style and the fact that they transform into learning organizations since all their staff endeavors to learn continuously (Hillmer and Karney, 2001). It is argued that the success of an organization depends on the capacity of its staff to learn continuously and to share what they learn (Bryans, 2001), and it is observed that the importance of specialized knowledge in an organization has been increasing permanently (Argote and Ingram, 2000). Thus, many researches has been conducted concerning knowledge formation or knowledge transfer at group and/or organization level (Gruenfeld, Martorana and Fan, 2000; Levine, Higgins and Choi, 2000; Paulus and Yang, 2000; Rulke, Zaheer and Anderson, 2000).
The studies initiated by Argyris in 1960s and the book Argyris and Schon (1978) published based on these studies emphasized the importance of learning organization and the research on this subject accelerated after the publication of Senge’s book “Fifth Discipline” (Inceler, 1998). Senge (1990) states that conducting studies on this subject is very difficult until knowledge fields and development ways of learning organizations are discovered. The notion learning organization, which accelerated and gained importance following the studies of Senge is defined in many similar ways. Noe (1999) defines learning organization as an organization, which has enhanced its capacity to learn, conform and change. Dogan (2002) defines it as “an organization which creates, acquires and transfers knowledge, reflects concepts and has the capacity to change behaviors”. Gold and Watson (2001), arguing that organizations develop learning organization projects in order to facilitate changing the ability to plan their future, state that learning organization is a key element for the capacity of organizations to survive, conform and respond to uncertainty. Leithwood and Aitken (1995) define it as “an organization composed of people who reach an agreement to assess regularly not only
Kofman (1994) emphasizes that learning organizations should have the following three characteristics in order to be more creative and coherent than traditional organizations:
An organizational culture, which is based on such humane values as love, humanity, curiosity, help, etc. Dialogue and cooperative work practices Regarding the life as a system
Besides these characteristics, the conditions of the organizations hold great importance because organizational learning can be facilitated or hindered due to the conditions and the organization of these conditions. James (2003), who says that learning organization should be transformational, emphasizes that this characteristics of the learning organization has such components as leadership, culture, strategies, systems, structure and experts, and that technologically supported interaction is crucial for the integration of these components. Braham (1998), describing learning both as a process and as a value, states that due to the development of the organization and individuals, the staff will work more desirously, the clients will be offered better service and thus, the organization will create a better future. Learning has a vital function not only for people but also for organizations (Baloglu, 2001). However, there may be some factors hindering the achievement of learning in certain organizations. These factors hindering or delaying the transformation of the organization into a learning organization may be listed as follows: The learning incapacity of the staff, not realizing the problems hindering the development of the organization and/or hindering the participation of the staff to research solution to these problems, weak organizational culture, insufficiency of encouragement to learning, and isolation of the organization from learning environment, etc (Celik, 2000b). Among the factors facilitating organizational learning lie as follows: The clarity, acceptability and accessibility of the vision and mission of the organization, the existence of an organizational culture based on cooperative professional relationships and the establishment of a working environment and opportunities, which favor learning and in which the staff participates in decision-making processes (Leithwood and Louis, 2000).
Garvin (2000), stating that an organization cannot transform into a learning organization in one night, defines learning organization as “an organization which has the capacity to form, obtain, interpret, transfer and remember knowledge and which is able to change its behaviors benefiting from this new information”. Thus, organizations should have the above-mentioned characteristics and their human resources should conceive education as a life style. Current and future societies and organizations are in need of individuals who know how to learn, acquire new knowledge, transform the acquired knowledge into behaviors, produce new knowledge using this knowledge and are able to solve problems (Basar, 2003). Teachers assume great responsibilities for training people to have such qualities and, moreover, educational institutions should transform into learning organizations (Ensari, 1998). The lifelong learning concept, which has gained importance after the establishment of knowledge society, influences not only educational organizations, but also other organizations via students (Celik, 2000b). This concept requires that educational organizations should adopt the concept “learning organization” rather than “teaching organization” in order to keep up with the developments (Toremen, 2001). The teachers and principals are expected to play an efficient role for the transformation of educational institutions, acknowledged as a means of social development and progress into learning organizations (Erdogan, 2000).
However, in order for teachers to achieve this role, the institutions where they are working should provide the required conditions and offer them self-development opportunities. Moreover, teachers should be told the importance of lifelong learning during both pre-service training process and in-service training activities. The change in required individual types following the establishment of information societies have led to a need for change in institutional organizations. Teachers and teacher training are given
priority during the reform practices concerning educational institutions (Wenglinsky, 2000). People are influenced by the environment, in which they live and are particularly influenced by the educational institution where they are trained. Thus, it is claimed that the transformation of teacher training institutions into learning organizations may facilitate and accelerate the transformation of other schools within the educational system into learning organizations. Therefore, a research is planned in order to determine to what extent faculties of education, founded to train teachers, have the characteristics of learning organizations. The basic objective of the research is to determine the viewpoints of the instructors on to what extent schools of education have the characteristics of learning organizations. The responds to the following question will be searched with a view to reaching this objective:
What are the viewpoints of the instructors on the learning organization characteristics of the School? What are the viewpoints of the instructors on the following elements of learning organizations?
Vision and mission of the school School culture Organizational structure Strategies Policy and resources
METHOD
This research aiming to determine whether faculties of education have the characteristics of learning organizations based on the viewpoints of instructors is planned according to the descriptive survey model. Survey models are the research approaches aiming to describe a past or current situation. The event, individual or object involved in the research is described in its own circumstances and as it is. The research does not try to change or influence these elements. Observing and determining the research subject is of great importance (Karasar, 1998).
The researches conducted according to this model endeavor to reply the following questions: What is the current situation? Where are we? What do we want to do? Where do we have to go? How can we go there? (Howell, 1995).
The Population of the Study There are 65 Faculties of Education – 60 faculties at state universities and 5 at private universities – and 1 Faculty of Educational Sciences in Turkey in academic year 2003- 2004 when the research is conducted. Similar programs are implemented at these faculties in accordance with the accreditation attempts carried out by the Turkish Council of Higher Education (YOK) since 1997. Supposing that the instructors working at these universities display similar distribution, Anadolu University, Faculty of Education is selected as the research environment.
Anadolu University, one of the ten mega universities of the world (Daniel, 1998), hosts 700,000 students studying at organized and distance-learning education programs and more than 1,500 instructors (Agaoglu et al., 2002).
Faculty of Education is the first faculty in terms of the number of instructors and the second faculty in terms of the number of students among the faculties offering organized education. This Faculty, founded 20 years ago, has 173 instructors and 2,920 students. New teachers are trained for the required fields in Turkey in 5 departments and 11 programs of the Faculty (http://www.anadolu.edu.tr).
times and “I disagree” chosen 647 times. The option “I strongly disagree” was the least chosen option by the instructors.
Should we make a general evaluation about the statements involved in the questionnaire, it is found that: The average percentage of the responds “I strongly agree” and “I agree”, which reveal that the School has the characteristics of learning organizations, is 53.14%; and the average percentage of the responds “I disagree” and “I strongly disagree”, which reveal that the School does not have these characteristics, is 17.25%. The total percentage of the instructors who cannot decide whether the School has the mentioned characteristics is 29.3%. Evaluating these findings, it is possible to say that most of the instructors agree on the statements in the questionnaire about the characteristics of learning organizations. Thus, it is also possible to say that the instructors believe the School displays the characteristics of learning organizations in many aspects. That none of the instructors mentioned any negative viewpoint on certain items may prove that the instructors agree the School has the given characteristic.
However, that certain instructors did not agree with it (17.45 %) may demonstrate the incapacity of the institution in equaling the distribution of the conditions and opportunities required for the transformation into a learning organization among the instructors. The uncertainty of 29.63 % of the instructors supports this assumption. The statements “Students are precious to us” and “We assist our students”, which are mentioned in the 19th^ and 20th^ items of the questionnaire are strongly agreed by most of the instructors (61 and 60 instructors respectively).
The number of instructors who did not agree with these statements is respectively 34 and 36. The students form the most important client group of an educational institution (DETYA, 1998; Natrass, 1999). Thus, it is a constructive approach that the instructors find their primary clients precious and assist them for, it is possible to view this finding as an indicator of the instructors’ attempts.
Table: 2 Viewpoints of Instructors
Items
I strongly agree N %
I agree N %
Undecided N %
I disagree N %
I disagree N % 1 21
44
24
11
5
2 24
51
17
9
4
3 6
39
43
9
7
4 9
47
35
9
5
5 18
44
29
10
4
6 14
45
28
14
4
7 12
42
36
11
4
8 14
45
32
11
3
9 11
40
36
15
3
10 9
49
37
7
3
11 15
44
27
12
7
12 11
54
21
16
3
13 14
47
27
15
2
14 12
48
32
10
3
15 7
40
40
13
5
16 50
44
7
3
1
17 5
41
35
15
9
18 14
44
27
15
5
19 61
34
9
1
20 60
36
9
21 37
47
17
4
22 25
44
31
3
2
23 21
41
24
16
3
24 14
45
30
15
1
25 13
50
25
16
1
26 13
47
29
15
1
27 42
44
13
5
1
28 18
37
36
13
1
29 8
38
34
20
5
30 2
22
51
23
7
31 6
31
49
16
3
32 4
23
54
21
3
33 5
26
53
19
2
34 5
29
47
20
4
35 6
12
39
36
12
36 8
42
25
24
6
37 8
28
29
31
9
38 9
40
33
18
5
39 11
45
32
14
3
40 11
49
31
13
1
41 18
47
13
16
11
42 9
44
38
13
1
43 10
42
36
15
2
44 7
32
41
21
4
45 8
33
36
22
6
46 8
38
34
13
12
TOTAL 713 679
1854
1431
647
184
The Viewpoints of the Instructors on the Vision And Mission of The School The vision and mission are of great importance for an institution to transform into a learning organization (Leithwood et al 2000; Celik 2000a). Thus, 10 items about the vision and mission of the School was included in the questionnaire. The viewpoints of the instructors about this subtitle are illustrated in Table: 3. Table: 3 displays that the instructors chose the option “I strongly agree” 138 times, “I agree” 446 times, “I feel neutral” 317 times, “I disagree” 106 times and “I strongly disagree” 42 times for the 10 items about the vision and mission of the School. These findings may reveal that the instructors believe their School has the characteristics of learning organizations as to the vision and mission. The rate of the instructors who agree is considerably higher than that of the instructors who disagree. This fact may prove that almost all instructors know that the mission of the School is to train teachers. Besides, these results may be the fruit of vision and mission determination attempts made since 1997 in accordance with the accreditation strategies. Vision and mission, which are said to create enthusiasm and fidelity among the staff and contribute to the design of future plans, should be determined clearly in all organizations (Erdogan 2000).
Vision that encourages long-term thinking should be accessible and shared by all the staff (Senge 1993). That most of the instructors of the School agree on the items about vision and mission may be conceived as an advantage for transformation of the institution into a learning organization. The findings of this research are parallel to the findings of a study conducted by Leithwood et al. (2000).
Table: 4 The viewpoints of the instructors on the school culture
Item No
I strongly agree N %
I agree N %
Undecided N %
I disagree N %
I strongly disagree N % 1 15
44
27
12
7
2 11
54
21
16
3
3 14
47
27
15
2
4 12
48
32
10
3
5 7
40
40
13
5
6 50
44
7
3
1
7 5
41
35
15
9
8 14
44
27
15
5
9 61
34
9
1
10 60
36
9
TOTAL 249
432
234
99
36
The Viewpoints of the Instructors on the School Culture Every organization consists of a specific culture (Celik 2000a). Thus, it is emphasized that every organization has to socialize its members in a common culture in order to reach an organizational integrity (Sisman 2000). The educational organizations which create their own cultures and transfer this culture have to welcome the changes to transform from teaching organizations into learning organizations (Toremen 2001). The viewpoints of the instructors on the organizational culture of the School, which is conceived as an important factor that affects the transformation of the institution into a learning organization, are
demonstrated in Table: 4. When the findings illustrated in Table 4 are examined, it is observed that the instructors chose the option “I strongly agree” 149 times, “I agree” 432 times, “I feel neutral” 234 times, “I disagree” 99 times and “I strongly disagree” 36 times for the items about this factor. Almost all of the instructors “strongly agree” or “agree” on the items “Students are precious to us” and “We assist our students”. It is possible to claim that the instructors believe the School has the appropriate organizational culture for its transformation into a learning organization, considering that the approaches of the instructors to this sub-problem is more positive than the others. Organizational culture is acknowledged as one of the most important factors facilitating transformation into a learning organization (Cheng 1996). That the instructors find the feedback of their colleague precious may be regarded as an advantage for transformation into a learning organization. Similarly, in the study conducted by Leithwood et al. (2000), teachers mentioned that the feedback of their colleagues was the best way of learning. Thus, that the instructors find the feedback of their colleague precious is acknowledged as a positive indicator.
The Viewpoints of Tte Instructors on The Organizational Structure of Tte School An organizational structure which is active and efficient is a factor that facilitates transformation into a learning organization (Leithwood et al. 2000).
The viewpoints of the instructors on whether the organizational structure of the School is favorable to learning organization are illustrated in Table: 5.
Table: 5 The viewpoints of the instructors on the organizational structure of the School
Item No
I strongly agree
N %
I agree
N %
Undecided
N %
I disagree
N %
I strongly disagree N %
1 37
47
17
4
2 25
44
31
3
2
3 21
41
24
16
3
4 14
45
30
15
1
5 13
50
25
16
1
6 13
47
29
15
1
7 42
44
13
5
1
8 18
37
36
13
1
9 8
38
34
20
5
TOTAL 191
393
239
107
15
As illustrated in Table 5, the instructors chose the option “I strongly agree” 191 times, “I agree” 393 times, “I feel neutral” 107 times, “I disagree” 107 times and “I strongly disagree” 15 times for the items about organizational structure. The option “I strongly disagree” is the least chosen option among the other dimensions of the questionnaire.
Thus, it may be inferred that most of the instructors believe the School has the favorable organizational structure for transformation into a learning organization.
However, the responds of the instructors to some items (for instance items 28 and 29) display that they seem undecided whether this factor is taken into account in the School.
Table: 7 The viewpoints of the instructors on the policy and resources
Item No
I strongly agree N %
I agree N %
Undecided N %
I disagree N %
I strongly disagree N % 1 9
40
33
18
5
2 11
45
32
14
3
3 11
49
31
13
1
4 18
47
13
16
11
5 9
44
38
13
1
6 10
42
36
15
2
7 7
32
41
21
4
8 8
33
36
22
6
9 8
38
34
13
12
TOTAL 91
370
294
145
45
As seen in Table: 7, the instructors chose the option “I strongly agree” 91 times, “I agree” 370 times, “I feel neutral” 294 times, “I disagree” 145 times and “I strongly disagree” 45 times for the items in this part. We can deduce that the instructors have positive viewpoints on the policies followed and resources provided for transformation into a learning organization. However, it is also observed that options stating negative opinion “I disagree” and “I strongly disagree” are mentioned 185 times. Thus, it can be inferred that the distribution of the resources are posing problems. However, the University is among the ones that provide its instructors with best resources and equipment in Turkey. That is why it is not possible to say that certain instructors are not provided with these opportunities. Considering this factor, we can infer that the instructors mentioning negative opinion lack personal development motivation, called by Senge (1993) as ‘personal mastery’.
For, Anadolu University is among the first three best universities of Turkey, providing the most comprehensive library and computer equipment opportunities. These equipements are used actively to share knowledge and in-service training activities of all staff. Furthermore, the instructors are granted financial support for participating in national and international academic and scientific activities. Thus, it is not possible to believe that the opinions of these instructors on this matter are objective.
RESULTS AND SUGGESTIONS
The analyses of the research findings demonstrate that the School has the favorable characteristics for transformation into a learning organization. However, the high rate of the undecided instructors is regarded as an indicator of the deficiencies in the School in the supply of opportunities and conditions.The analyses of the sub-problems reveal that the School has the favorable organizational culture and structure required for transformation into a learning organization and that the vision and mission of the School is shared by most of the instructors. It is observed that there are a considerable number of instructors mentioning negative opinions on the policies and resources, although most of them have positive opinions on this factor. Despite these positive attitudes, most of
the instructors believe that the strategies implemented for the transformation of the School into a learning organization are not sufficient.
Finally, it is possible to conclude that the School has to determine strategies for both individual and institutional learning besides improving the conditions for transformation into a learning organization.
BIODATA AND CONTACT ADDRESSES of AUTHOR
Dr. Agaoglu obtained She get her Bachelor’s degree from Istanbul University, School of Foreign Languages the Department of French Language and Literature in 1986. She completed her MA programme in Anadolu University, Social Sciences Institute, the Department of Educational Sciences. She completed her Ph.D at Hacettepe University, Social Sciences Institute in the Department of Educational Administration, Supervision, Planning and Economics in 1995. she was a lecturer in 1991, and she was an Assistant Professor in 1995, and Associated Professor in 1998.
She has written 14 articles and 3 books; she also has more than 20 paper presented. She has worked on four projects nationwide; she was project coordinator on three of them. Currently, she has been working as associated professor at the division of educational administration, supervision, planning and economics in Faculty of Education. She speaks French, English and Italian.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Esmahan AGAOGLU Anadolu University, Faculty of Education, ESKISEHIR, TURKEY Phone: +90(222) 335 05 80 Fax: +90 (222) 335 05 79 e-mail: esagaogl@anadolu.edu.tr
REFERENCES
Agaoglu, E., Imer, G. and Kurubacak, G. (2002). A case study of organizing distance
education: Anadolu University, TOJDE [The Turkish on-line journal of distance
education] , 3 (1), 45-51. http://tojde.anadolu.edu.trRetrieved February 2, 2002
Agaoglu, E. and Oktaylar, A. (2003). Ogrenen orgut kulturune iliskin ogretmen ve yonetici gorusleri [The views of teachers and head teachers about learning organizations culture], presented paper in 12th National Educational Sciences Conference. Antalya (Turkey): October 16-18.
Anadolu University’s Official Web Page. (2004.). Retrieved June 10, 2004 from:
http://www.anadolu.edu.tr
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000). ‘Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from
the experience of others’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Balci, A. (2000). Orgutsel Gelisme –Kuram ve Uygulama [Organizational Development – Theory and Practice-] (2. Ed.). Ankara: PegemA Yayinlari.
Baloglu, N. (2001). Etkili Sinif Yonetimi [Effective Classroom Management]. Ankara: Gazi
Universitesi Kirsehir Egitim Fakultesi.
Gruenfeld, D. H.; Martorana, P. V. and Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their
worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 45-59.
Hillmer, S. and Karney, D. (2001). In support of the assumptions at the foundation of
Deming’s management theory, Journal of Quality Management, 6, 371-400.
Howell, D. C. (1995). Fundamental Statistics for tne Behavioral Sciences (3rd^ ed.).
California, International Thomson Publishing.
Inceler, H. S. (1998). Teknoloji Yonetimi [Technology Management]. Istanbul: Desnet
Yayinlari.
James, C. (2003). Designing learning organizations, Organizational Dynamics, 32 (1), 46-
Karasar, N. (1998). Bilimsel Arastirma Yöntemi [Scientific Research Method] (8th^ ed.).
Ankara: Nobel Yayincilik.
Kofman, F. (1994). Peter Senge: The heart of learning organisations, Organizational
Dynamics (September), 5-23.
Leithwood, K. and Aitken, R. (1995). Making Schools Smarter. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Leithwood, K.; Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (2000). Leadership and other conditions which foster organizational learning in schools, In K. Leithwood and K. S. Louis (Eds)
Organizational learning in Schools (pp. 67-90). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger Publishers.
Leithwood, K. and Louis, K. S. (Eds) (2000). Organizational Learning in Schools. Lisse:
Swets and Zeitlinger Publishers.
Levine, J. M.; Higgins, E. T. and Choi, H-S. (2000). Development of strategic norms in
groups, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 88-101.
Machlup, F. (1962). The Production and Distribution of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Malone, D. (2002). Knowledge management: A model for organizational learning,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 3, 111-123.
Mansell, R. and When, U. (Eds.) (1998). INK-Knowledge Societies –Information
Technology for Sustainable Development-. London, UK: Oxford University Sussex Press.
Natrass, H. (1999) Why is continuous quality improvement important in higher
education, In M. Coruh (Ed.), Implementation of total quality principles in higher
education (pp. 277-282 ). Ankara: Haberal Egitim Vakfı.
Noe, R. A. (1999). Employee Training and Development. NewYork: Irwin McGraw Hill.
O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C. J. (1998). If We Only Knew What We Know: The Transfer of
Internal Knowledge and Best Practice. NewYork: Free Press.
Paulus, P. B. and Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in
organizations, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76-87.
Perkins, D. N. and Shaw, R. B. (1992). Teaching organizations to learn, Training and
Development Yearbook. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Pitta, D. and Franzak, F. (1996). Boundary spanning product development in consumer
markets: Learning organizational insights, Journal of Consumer Marketting, 5, 66-81.
Rogers, D. A. (1996). The challenge of Fifth Generation R and D, Research-Technology
Management (July-August), 33-41.
Rulke, D. L.; Zaheer, S. and Anderson, M. H. (2000). The Transfer of cognitive Skill.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schwartz, P. (1993). Post-capitalist-Peter Drucker, the father of modern management,
discusses how knowledge, not capital, is the new basis of wealth-‘ Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.03/drucker_pr.html (July/August) Retrieved March 2003.
Severino, R. C. (2000). Building knowledge societies: ASEAN in the information age, Retrived April 2003 from: http://www.nitc.org.my/
Senge, P. M. (1993). Besinci Disiplin [Fifth Discipline] (Tra.: A. Ildeniz and A. Dogukan)
(2nd ed.). Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yayinlari.
Sisman, M. (2000). Orgutler ve Kulturler. [Organizations and Cultures] Ankara: PegemA
Yayincilik.
The World Bank. (2002). Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary
Education. Washington, D. C.
Toremen, F. (2001). Ogrenen Okul [Learning School]. Ankara: Nobel Yayin Dagitim.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). Teaching the tachers –Different Setting, Different Results-.
Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center.
