The University--an organization that facilitates learning and continously transforms itself.

Palos, Ramona ; Munteanu, Anca

1. INTRODUCTION

Educational organizations have a particular status. On the one hand, they need to learn in order to cope with the extremely competitive social and economic environment in which they function and, on the other hand, they "produce" learning and disseminate knowledge enabling their services beneficiaries to better cope with the socio-economic context. In other words, not only do they adapt and develop in this environment, but they are the ones promoting and supporting competitivity growth. The teacher represents the "interface" between these institutions and the beneficiaries of the services they provide that is, the students. Organizational learning is achieved through employees, but it is not just a simple cumulus of individual learning results. Therefore, our research aims to investigate such aspects which relate to the cognitive dimension of those teaching in this kind of institutions. Having knowledge of a person's thinking style gives information regarding the way in which they "govern" or conduct daily activities, manner which provide a certain psychological comfort and which they have the tendency to perpetuate. Understanding the cognitive complexity or that of the personal system of representation enables predictions to be made regarding a person's behavior, the ways they interpret new information according to previous experience or present context, their availability in various learning situations and involvement resolutions in this process.

In terms of a society based on knowledge, learning becomes essential for survival. Organizations, just like people, need to learn permanently. An organization which learns further creates learning opportunities, encourages collaboration and team learning, facilitates knowledge dissemination, promotes inquiry and dialogue. Through organizational learning, the employees and organization adapt and develop (Glaveanu, 2008). This complex process consists of acquiring knowledge (through direct experience, others' experience, or via organizational memory), disseminating it, "transferring" it to others and implementing the new information in concert (Dale, 1994, as cited in Armstrong, 2003).

Argyris speaks about a single loop learning, adaptive, efficient in daily activities, by error diagnosis and correction without fundamental changes; a double loop learning generative, which implies reflection on the results, on the need to change them and not just on deviation corrections, involving critical thinking and creativity, leading to fundamental changes; triple loop learning or deuteron-learning--considered a higher level of learning, focused on learning how to learn (Knowles, Holton & Swanson, 1998).

2. RESEARCH DESIGN

2.1 Objectives and hypothesis of the research

The aim of this pilot research is to determine to what degree university teachers promote and assert continuous learning in what they themselves are concerned, as well as at an organizational level, through adopted behavior. The appointed objectives for the achievement of this purpose are: identifying the thinking and learning styles of teachers from university technical departments; identifying the impact these variables exert on the promotion of an organizational learning culture. The research sample consists of 50 university teachers from technical departments and 70 teachers from secondary education technical departments, aged 30 to 65, with a minimum of 5 years' teaching experience. The tests portfolio consists of: Honey and Mumford questionnaire (1986), made up of 40 items which require "yes"/"no" answers and evaluate four learning styles--active, reflexive, theoretic and pragmatic; thinking style questionnaire (elaborated by Sternberg & Wagner in 1994), a 7 level Likert scale-type test, consisting of 65 items which evaluate 13 thinking styles--legislative, executive, judiciary, monarchical, hierarchical, oligarchic, anarchical, local, global, internal, external, conservative and progressive; teaching styles for successful intelligence questionnaire (Palos & Maricutoiu, 2006) made up of 32 items, a 6 level Likert scale-type test, which determines the teacher's preference for teaching activities which stimulate the student's reproductive, analytical, creative and pragmatic abilities.

2.2 Analysis and interpretation of the results

O1. Identifying the thinking and learning styles of teachers from university technical departments.

H1. The professors teaching technical subjects in university express a preference for theoretical and pragmatic learning styles. Following the statistical processing of data (by using SPSS 15.00 and AMOS 4.0) we determined that differences emerge between university and secondary education teachers in respect to the reflexive learning style (table 1). Therefore, we conclude that secondary education level teachers are concerned with the stocking of large amounts of information, of minute and solid analyses, with a tendency to maximize certainty. This also reflects upon the manner in which they teach the informational contents, imprinting a rather theoretical character upon this level of education. This statement is also supported by the positive correlation with the preference for teaching situations which stimulate reproductive thinking in pupils, with emphasis on memorizing throughout the process of learning (r=.399**, p=.000). Unfortunately, our hypothesis was not confirmed. Nevertheless, the obtained results prove, once more, the educational reality and the need for reformation at a teaching and evaluation level, in order for useful labor market competences to be formed and evaluated, emphasizing the pragmatic character of these specializations.

H2. Professors teaching technical subjects in university express a preference for global thinking style. Various research works have identified significant relations between the teachers' style of thinking, the academic level at which they teach, the teaching experience and the subject concerned. In our case, we can observe that those who teach at an academic level express a preference for the global thinking style, whilst high school teachers show a preference towards the monarchical and conservative thinking styles (table 2). People who exhibit a global thinking style, present superior analytical and conceptualization skills. Considering the amount of information operated at an academic level, the ability to structure and synthesize become compulsory. Sternberg and Zhang (2005) consider the global thinking style as one which favors creativity, highlighting the need to overcome conventions, to do things different from others. The thinking style leaves a mark on the manner in which the professor learns and teaches after he has learned. Distinctive for these teachers are the active learning style (r=.271**, p=.004), in a constant pursuit of the "thrill" of new activities, of continuous challenge.

The preference for monarchic and conservative thinking style is specific to those who focus on singular goals, feeling at ease by acting according to already given rules and procedures, by minimizing change and searching for the familiar, for routine. In what the learning style is concerned, a preference for the theoretical and reflexive style can be noted among high school teachers, which highlights a concern for all possible aspects and indications before acting (r=.551**, p=.000; respectively r=.409**, p=.000). The monarchical and conservative styles are regarded as styles which inhibit creativity, being characteristic for those people who live by the rules.

O2. Identifying the impact these variables exert upon the promotion of an organizational learning culture.

An organization learns if its employees are involved in continuous learning, and its benefits find themselves in the improvement of personal performances, in the growth of the employee's value, of his carrier development opportunities. The university is an organization which facilitates learning for all its members, continuously transforming itself, but also "producing" learning for those involved in the initial and continuous training--its students.

Following this pilot research work, we can say that a number of differences regarding educational activity between the academic technical department and that of secondary education level stand out. Hence, in secondary level, the teacher emphasizes his pupils' need to stock and reproduce information, the theoretical aspect, he himself being a person who requires certainties, familiar situations. The university teacher does not forgo the amount of knowledge, but stimulates search for new information, its analysis, a global wholesome perspective on knowledge. Unfortunately, neither here do we find, to a greater extent, the prevailing pragmatic character, which should be specific for technical education, that is, adjusting knowledge to the requirements of the labor market. In return, the student's involvement in the development of his own knowledge is encouraged.

Detecting aspects related to the cognitive dimension (thinking and learning styles) enables predictions regarding a person's behavior to be made, in situations characterized through well defined parameters. If for secondary level we could rather talk about a single loop learning--which allows for efficient action in daily activities to be taken, allowing the person to automatically respond to certain situations, by following rules and procedures, at an academic level this acquires a generative character (double loop learning). Through this type of learning, the individual starts to change his mental pattern and open up towards alternate ways of dealing with things, in order to find more appropriate solutions. Hence, the university--through its teachers--is more open towards actively building up knowledge as a partnership with its student beneficiaries and in agreement with the requirements of a society based on knowledge.

2.3 Limits of the study

Among the limitation of the inquiry research we mention: an uneven representation of the technical university departments; an uneven representation of the participants, according to teaching academic level and gender variable.

3. CONCLUSIONS

Learning, as promoted at high school level, is of an adaptive kind, in which errors are detected and corrected, without the occurrence of any fundamental changes. At an academic level, learning acquires a generative aspect. This type of learning is relevant with complex problems, being often followed by radical changes, which grant these organizations the ability to adapt more quickly and efficiently to the exigencies of the socio-economic environment.

Considering the results obtained, we have decided to continue the study by identifying the degree in which the system of values and coping mechanism developed by teachers influence their resistance to change and that of the organizations they belong to. This will help us understand the differences between organizational types of learning, promoted in the Romanian educational institutions.

4. REFERENCES

Armstrong, M. (2003). The Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (translation), CODECS Publishing House, ISBN 973-8060-60-5, Bucharest, Romania

Glaveanu, V.P. (2008). Learning organizations, In Organizational-managerial Psychology. Present tendencies, Avram, E & Cooper, C.L. (Eds.), pp. 871-900, Polirom Publishing House, ISBN 978-973-46-0808-9, Iasi, Romania.

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1986). Learning style questionnaire-Scoring, In The Manual of Learning Styles, Maidenhead: Homey

Knowles, M.S.; Holton, E. & Swanson, R. (1998). The Adult Learner, Gulf Publishing Company, ISBN 0-88415-115-8, Houston, Texas. U.S.A.

Palos, R. & Maricutoiu, L. (2006). The impact of teacher's thinking and learning styles upon his/her teaching style. Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/ educol/documents/158827.pdf

Sternberg, R.J. & Zhang, Li. (2005). The Threefold Model of Intellectual Styles, In Educational Psychology Review, vol.17, no 1, pp. 1-53, ISSN 10648-005-1635-4

Tab. 1. Differences according to the tag-variable "learning
style"

Learning Tag variable Mean Std. t p
style dev.

Reflexive University 13.77 3.982 -2.020 0.03
 Secondary 15.49 4.625

Tab. 2. Differences according to the tag-variable "thinking
style"

Thinking Tag Mean Std. t p
style variable dev.

Monarchical University 16.36 3.066 -2.944 0.004
 Secondary 17.91 2.512

Global University 19.80 2.906 2.196 0.003
 Secondary 18.71 2.317 2.086

Conservative University 16.41 2.975 -2.806 0.006
 Secondary 18.13 3.310