International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches

: 2015  |  Volume : 1  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 119--124

An investigation on the relationship between organizational learning and educational innovation

Mohammad Reza Nili1, Ahmad Reza Nasr1, Mohammad H Yarmohammadian2, Setareh Mousavi1,  
1 Department of Curriculum Planning, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran
2 Health Management and Economics Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Setareh Mousavi
Department of Curriculum Planning, Isfahan University, Isfahan


Aim: The purpose of this research was to study the relationship between organizational learning and educational innovation. Methods: The population of this study was all faculty members in public universities of Isfahan (1,745 persons) in the academic year 2011-2012. The sample size of the study, 312, was estimated by Cochran«SQ»s sample size formula, which has been selected using cluster random sampling. To collect data standard questionnaire based on theory of Gomez et al. to organizational learning and, researcher-made questionnaire of educational innovation was used, which its content validity was confirmed by supervisor and advisor as well as experts, and its reliability of questionnaire of organizational learning was evaluated by Cronbach«SQ»s alpha coefficient, 89%, reliability of questionnaire of educational innovation was evaluated by Cronbach«SQ»s alpha coefficient, 92%. Results: Obtained results by Pearson correlation coefficient showed the significant relationship between organizational learning and educational innovation and its dimensions. Obtained results from multi-correlation coefficient and step by step regression showed that the best predictor of educational innovation is system thinking, transfer and integration of knowledge, openness, and experimentation. Conclusion: The effect of organizational learning in educational policies and educational programs, and revised in accordance with the conditions that caused curriculum the new education is inevitable. Requiring faculty members to observe the educational innovations in the teaching process, integrated and convergent approaches in the content of such postings education today.

How to cite this article:
Nili MR, Nasr AR, Yarmohammadian MH, Mousavi S. An investigation on the relationship between organizational learning and educational innovation.Int J Educ Psychol Res 2015;1:119-124

How to cite this URL:
Nili MR, Nasr AR, Yarmohammadian MH, Mousavi S. An investigation on the relationship between organizational learning and educational innovation. Int J Educ Psychol Res [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 7 ];1:119-124
Available from:

Full Text


Extensive and on-going changes in the environment caused organizations to facing new challenges. These challenges are so vast that even organizations with technologies, products, and services cannot success in a competitive global market. [1] Moreover, old approaches and solutions have lost their potential to deal with organizational challenges and current external environment, and should be replaced with new approaches and perspectives. [2] This has led many organizations to reconsider their strategic priorities, and business should focus on adaptability to rapid response to changing market and students needs through new methods of collaboration. One of the ways of responding to the educational change factors and success in this environment is "innovation." Universities must try to have trained and motivated personnel with a set of skills, experience, and knowledge. This is an essential and inseparable part of such a strategy that should be considered. Information and knowledge in the universities rest with labor force and in such organizations knowledge is power. [2] communications include engagement in the decision making process and provide a quality product through job enrichment, training, technology, and create a reward system that encourages agility push forces. [10]

Organizational learning

It seems that organizational learning was used for the 1 st time by Cyert and March in their initial study of behavioral aspects of enterprise decision making in 1963. [3] Bayraktaroglu and Kutanis (2003) argue that the history of academic interest in the topic of learning organizations goes back to the late 1950s. [4] Regardless of the exact date of issue of organizational learning, this subject has not attracted much attention until the late 1970s. It was at this time that a number of theorists including [5],[6],[7] have focused their activities on organizational learning. Although research activities in the 1980s, also on this subject continued, in the 1990s, the issue of organizational learning is only one of several issues in the field of management trends such as strategy and production management and since then overwhelmed organizational learning by management new discussions such as learning organizations. [4] Argyris and Schon define organizational learning as the detection and correction of errors. Elsewhere, organizational learning depends on sharing knowledge, beliefs, and assumptions among individuals and teams. [8] Gomez et al. have looked at organizational learning from the perspective of the knowledge acquisition process. They define organizational learning as the ability to acquire, create, and transfer and integration of knowledge. [9] Furthermore, scholars have developed a variety of factors to measure organizational learning. For example, Lahtinmaky et al. argue that three factors create the ability to learn: Adaptability the collective mission and strategy and create a collective future. Goh and Richards also showed five factors: The mission and purposes of transparency, commitment and leadership abilities, experience, knowledge and teamwork and group problem solving Templeton et al., and Gomez et al. argued four factors to measure organizational learning including: (1) Management commitment, (2) system thinking, (3) openness and experimentation, and (4) transfer and integration of knowledge. These components can enable staff to deal appropriately with environmental changes and respond quickly to changes and provide educational innovation in universities. [9],[10]

Educational innovation

The world-wide experiences show that educational innovations in the field of educational innovation have taken place. For this reason, without a doubt it is essential to be aware of such developments and try to investigate the possibility to expand and deepen them, and to make these methods native across Iran. [11]

Educational innovation is a learning process for teachers, faculty member and their schools and universities. Good understanding of innovation and clear conception of curriculum and education are necessary conditions for improved implementation of new education into practice. The key message of this presentation can be crystallized into three (1) successful curriculum (2) re-conceptualizing curriculum (3) changing the way teachers teach and students learn requires specific approaches. [12] Which the first round was in 2001-2005, and the 1999 knowledge and innovation reforms in Australia [13] are examples of such a link. Following this trend, innovation in higher education teaching has benefited from national grants in countries like US, UK and Australia. In terms of such funding, South Africa has a long way to go.

The results of these studies showed that organizations with a competitive advantage in the new environment and responded quickly according to customers' needs are innovative and progressive. Agility and creativeness require the existence of flexible manufacturing educational systems, having knowledge of the workforce and management structure that encourages team innovations. [1] According to the new definition of agility there are characteristics such as the ability for quick reaction to sudden and unpredictable changes, [14],[15],[16] ability to survive and thrive in an environment of continuous and unpredictable changes. [17],[18],[19],[20]

The universities in the survey had different reasons for making changes to the educational innovation. However, they all started with the assumption that, through educational innovation, pupils, and faculty members could enjoy learning and achieve more. There was, therefore, a common focus on finding ways to:

Improve pupils' and faculty members motivation and engagementDevelop their resilience, independence and ability to work in teamsRaise their attainment.

In the universities that had a history of success and high achievement, the innovations often arose from a concern that performance might have peaked. [21]

Given the definitions of the concept on innovation available in literature, the differentiations (product, process, routine, radical, and incremental) and associations (newness and change) of the concept, and trends that have been set on how to support innovation in learning and teaching internationally, this should usher in an era in South African higher education where national funding is made available to support innovation. [12] Siemens provides another angle to the differentiations of the concept of innovation as far as technology and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in learning and teaching is concerned. He speaks of a differentiation between what he calls "two parallel trends:" social/conceptual innovation and tool-based innovation, examples of which include wikis and blogs. It should then become easier identify what should go as innovation, even where ICT is concerned as. On its own, the use of new technological tools in learning and teaching should not be confused with innovation. [22]

Studies on the relationship between organizational learning and educational innovation showed no studying with research. However, some related studies are as follows: Researches indicated that the conducted researches have shown that there is positive relationship between the expanded services schools offer that provide more learning opportunities for students and the success the students achieve. [23],[24],[25] Raintry in his doctoral dissertation entitled "organizational learning in public administration," suggests that organizational learning can increase the effectiveness of managers. Because public sector managers are faced with an uncertain environment, organizational learning mechanisms that can be effective in preventing unsafe environment can lead to increased management capabilities and better respond to their environment. [26] Teurlings et al. conducted a literature review into the effects of new forms of learning in secondary education. [27] They identified three points of departure for new learning: An activating learning environment with an emphasis on independent learning, meaningful and authentic contexts, and students working together cooperatively. However, intended effects such as preventing dropout and achieving a higher success rate have not yet been examined and the researchers found no reliable research that includes large-scale comparisons of new and existing teaching methods and results. Brown and Bessant (2003) in study entitled "manufacturing strategy, mass customization and agile manufacturing capabilities in the development of small and medium enterprises" commitment of senior management to mobilize all personnel, working closely with customers and suppliers and partners, learning from the outside, development of a flexible workforce and culture for innovation, creativity and support efforts across organizational capabilities were identified. [28]

The other study aims to identify barriers to change curricula in Shahid Beheshti University and Shahid Behehsti Medical University.

Friedman test prioritized five areas studied from the perspective of the faculty members of Shahid Beheshti University as internal barriers, external barriers, economic and financial barriers, motivational and human barriers, and professional and career barriers; and from the view point of faculty members of Shahid Beheshti Medical University as internal barriers, external barriers, economic and financial barriers, professional and career barriers, and motivational and human barriers. According to the barriers to change, strategies such as holding appropriate workshops and reviewing the curricula, creating a structure that will delegate reviewing the curricula and will institutionalize it in university and providing adequate funding to promote faculty members curricula in the process of change and reforming academic curricula are recommended for the elimination of the barriers. [29]

Therefore, the present study examined the relationship between these two variables and the prediction educational innovation. On the dimensions of the organizational learning intends to examine the following hypotheses:

There is a relationship between organizational learning and educational innovationThere is a relationship between dimensions of organizational learning (management commitment, systems thinking, openness and experimentation, transfer and integration of knowledge) and educational innovation.

Conceptual framework of research

A holistic model is inherently complex but is promising from a conceptual construct. [Figure 1] shows the conceptual model of this study. The model below proposes a holistic concept of impact organizational learning key capabilities on educational innovation. To pay attention objects and hypothesis investigation, to have planning primary significance model for this research that, in fact, is a kind of innovation model. In this model to be paid to research of link and effect fields of establishing organizational learning on educational innovation appearance possibility. Base of this model to have shown the direct movement of researcher.{Figure 1}


Statistical population of the survey included all faculty members in public universities of Isfahan (1,745 persons) in the academic year 2011-2012 that 312 persons were selected as sample through cluster random sampling method proportional to volume of the statistical population. Measurement tools were (1) organizational learning: Standard questionnaire based on the theory of Gomez et al. were used to measure organizational learning. [9] This questionnaire included sixteen questions with five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree) that tested four components of management commitment (5 items), systems perspective (3 items), openness and experimentation (4 items), and knowledge integration and transfer (4 items). Content and construct validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by experts, and reliability coefficients of questionnaire were obtained in terms of Cronbach alpha (0.89). (2) Educational innovation: Self-made questionnaire based on theories of educational innovation was used in this research to measure educational innovation that included 20/5 items and tested four-dimensions of aims (6 items), content (7 items), teaching method (8 items), and evaluation (4 item). Responding scale of this questionnaire was five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree). Content and construct validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by experts, and reliability coefficients of the questionnaire were obtained in terms of Cronbach alpha (0.92).

Correlation analysis was used in this survey to analyze data and study the relationship among research variables (organizational learning and educational innovation) and step by step regression was applied to predict indicators of educational innovation as dependent variables through dimensions of organizational learning as predicting variables. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 19 (IBM Company, New York, USA).


Hypothesis 1: There is the relationship between organizational learning and educational innovation.

According to results of [Table 1], the correlation coefficient between organizational learning and educational innovation is significant at level P ≥ 0.05, which reveals a significant relationship between these two variables.{Table 1}

Hypotheses 2: There is the relationship between dimensions of organizational learning with educational innovation.

The results of [Table 2] shows that correlation coefficient between dimensions of organizational learning (management commitment, system perspective, openness and experimentation, transfer and integration of knowledge) and educational innovation has been significant at level P ≥ 0.05.{Table 2}

Which dimension of organizational learning predicts educational innovation?

According to results of [Table 3], the best predictor of educational innovation is system perspective, knowledge integration and transfer, openness and experimentation. Based on beta coefficient, degree of educational innovation is increased equal to 0.498/one unit in the system perspective, in knowledge integration and transfer dimension equal to 0.178/one unit and in openness and experimentation dimension equal to 0.149.{Table 3}


Results revealed that there is a significant relationship between organizational learning and educational innovation. Therefore, hypothesis (1) is confirmed. Results of this hypothesis are consistent with research results of Raintry, and Lahhafi. [28],[30] Similarly, results demonstrate that there is a relationship among dimensions of organizational learning and educational innovation. Therefore, hypothesis (2) is confirmed. Hence, organizational learning can enhance the effectiveness of the organization, and encounter to innovate effectively and use opportunities. University as well as a major producer of knowledge and information on community development and from the changes of the new era are not exempt, must be prepared to change to meet people through continuous learning and promote organizational learning and most faculty skills and satisfaction, renewal and development of knowledge provide coordination between individuals and necessary background to provide for educational innovation in universities.

Also obtained results from stepwise regression illustrate that the best predictor of the educational innovation is system perspective (β =0.498), in knowledge integration and transfer (β =0.178), openness and experimentation (β =0.149). Universities and higher education institutions should provide the needed texture of using the deep learning approaches. For this purpose, the use of active teaching methods that require paying attention to learning process and its realization (and not just increasing the information) and continuous involvement of students in their learning and more interaction with each other and their teachers are suggested to breed the spirit and skills of creativity, innovation and problem solving in the graduates.

Educational innovation is a learning process for teachers and their schools. A good understanding of change and a clear conception of the educational innovation are necessary conditions for improved situation of organizational learning and new curriculum into practice. Furthermore, as the conception of learning is becoming more studied and considered as an important factor changing education, exploring and rethinking what learning is deserves more attention in the future curriculum development efforts.

There are four characteristics of schooling and learning that make this essential:

Organizational learning is a formative activity conducted through a variety of processes, some of which are explicit and some of which almost invisible. The processes of learning convey meanings, and who conducts this process is an important part of the processOrganizational learning is a social process, located in interactions between teacher and learner, and learner and learner. Designating a person as a faculty member is not undertaken lightly and important messages - to universities, -are conveyed in deciding who shall be a teacherLearning is undertaken by all children/young people. Many of our other social provisions are episodic and accidentalLearning is conducted over a long period.


1Azmi FT. Mapping the learn-unlearn-relearn model imperatives for strategic management. Indian J Train Dev 2005;20:4-14.
2Jafarnejad A Shahay B. Introduction to Organizational Agility and Agile Manufacturing. Tehran: Mehraban Publication; 2010.
3Dawes PL. A model of the effects of technical consultants on organizational learning in high-technology purchase situations. J High Technol Manage Res 2003;14:1-20.
4Ghorbanyzadeh V. Organizational Learning and Learning Organization. Tehran: Publication Baztab; 2008.
5Argyris C. Double loop learning in organizations. Harv Bus Rev 1977;55:15-25.
6Argyris C, Schon DA. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1978.
7Jelinek M. Institutionalizing Innovation: A Study of Organizational Learning Systems. New York: Praeger; 1979.
8Graham CM. Organizational Learning, Entrepreneurship and Evaluative Inquiry Mechanisms of Small - Size Business Enterprises. University of Arkansas Thesis; 2006. p. 13-6.
9Gomez JP, Cespedes-Lorente J, Valle-Cabrera R. Organizational learning capability: A proposal of measurement. J Bus Res 2005;58:715-25.
10Templeton GF, Lewis BR, Snyder CA. Development of a Measure for the organizational learning construct. J Manage Inf Syst 2002;19:175-218.
11Mantegi M. Investigating educational innovations in Iranian schools. Q J Educ Innov 2008;24:57-64.
12Sahlberg P. Teaching and globalization. Res J Manag Glob Transit 2004;2:65-83.
13DEST. Evaluation of Knowledge and Innovation Reforms Consultation Report. Prepared by the External Reference Group, Australian Government; 2004.
14Shahaei B. Human dimension of organizational agility. Tadbir Mag 2007;17:24-1.
15Goldman SL, Negel RN, Preiss K. Agile Competitors and Virtual Organization: Strategy for Enriching the Customer, USA: Van Nostrand, Reinhold; 1995.
16Van Assen MF, Hans EW, de Velde V. An agile planning and control framework for customer-order driven discrete parts manufactoring environments. Int J Agile Manage Syst 2001;2:16-23.
17Maskell B. The age of agile manufacturing. Supply Chain Manag Int J 2001;6:5-11.
18Rigby C, Day M, Forrester P, Burnett J. Agile supply: Rethinking systems, systems thinking, systems practice. Int J Agile Manag Syst 2001;2:178-86.
19Richards CW. Agile manufacturing: Beyond lean? Prod Inventory Manag J 1996;37:60-4.
20Dove R. Response Ability- The Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Enterprise. New York: Wiley; 2001.
21Carbonell J. The innovation adventure. Change in schools. Madrid: Morata; 2001. p. 14.
22Siemens G. eLearning Resources and News: Learning, Networks, Knowledge, Technology, Trends. Blog Summary; 2007.
23Craig JR, Kacer BA. Using a curriculum implementation map as an evaluation to in assessing the facts of education reform in Kentucky. A paper presented on the annual meting of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando, FL, November 2000.
24Sobhanynezhad M, Shahaey B, Uzbashy A. Learning Organization. Tehran: Publication Ystarun; 2006.
25Slavin RE, Madden NA. Success for All: Summary of Research on Achievement Outcomes (revised). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research and Reform in Education: 2012.
26Beigi RN, Dorudi E. Presentation of the learning organization in the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). Cultur Manage J 2009;3:22-1.
27Teurlings C of Wolput B, Vermeulen M. New taller. A literature review on the effects of new forms of teaching in secondary education [Newly acquired taste. A literature study of the effects of new forms of teaching in secondary education]. Utrecht, Netherlands, 2006. http://www.schoolmanagers_VO.
28Shojaei M. Impact Dimensions of Organizational Agility on Organizational Performance in Gas Company of Isfahan, Management Master′s Thesis, University of Isfahan; 2011.
29Vajargah KF, Tazehkand JM, Zamanaimanesh H. Youzbashi A.  Barriers to change the academic curriculum From the viewpoint of the faculty members of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Sci 2011;11:767-78.
30Lahhafi L. Examine the Relationship Between Organizational Agility and Team Work (Case Study of Public and Private Banks in the City of Sanandaj). MSC Thesis, Islamic Azad University of Sanandaj; 2011.