教師如何一起學習?: 探究中國大陸課程改革背景下學校教研組(TRGs)的教師學習 = How do teachers learn together? :a study of teachers' learning in school-based Teaching Research Groups (TRGs) within the context of curriculum reform in China.

• Other Authors: 張晓蕾 (author.)
• Format: Others
• Language: Chinese; English
• Published: 2014
• Subjects: Teachers > Training of > Curricula; Teachers > Training of > Curricula > China; Education and state; Education and state > China
• Online Access: http://library.cuhk.edu.hk/record=b6115419; http://repository.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/item/cuhk-1202880

當前中國大陸新課程改革進入深化階段，教師專業發展政策將校本教研作為一種策略，試圖基於原有學校教研組開展校本教研，幫助教師學習以推進教學變革。借助組織學習的分析框架（4I）及組織知識轉化的理論，本研究對上海市基礎教育學校中的六個教研組內的教師學習展開實證研究，呈現出以下一些研究發現。 === 首先，中國大陸的學校組織具有嚴緊-鬆散耦合系統的特徵。學校教研組是自上而下硬造的教師同事合作關係。教研組中教師的學習本質上是組織制度化學習。但透過參與組內教研活動，教師獲得不同的社會性學習經驗。其間，教師的學習及轉變是循環往覆的過程，不斷在改變和維持現狀之間進退徘徊。 === 其次，教研組內教師透過不同的學習活動，轉化和建構了較為豐富的個體知識，最為豐富的本土知識，較少的集體知識及系統知識。豐富的本土知識建構意味著在實踐中，大部分中國教師透過校本教研開展學習的實質在於維持現有教學實踐及規範。 === 進一步探索影響教師學習的因素發現，教師個人因素、群體的人際互動因素、教研組特質及校外政策均不同程度上影響其學習成效，但學校校長和教研組長的領導力策略對組內教師學習成效的影響較為關鍵。 === 以上研究發現揭示出中國教師校本教研學習過程與成效的特徵，追溯其間教師的學習過程及成效，學校教研組內教師的學習經驗呈現出四種類型（patterns），分別是（I）已成型的學習活動-利用性學習；（II）探索中的學習活動-利用性學習；（III）已成型的學習活動-探索性學習；（IV）探索中的學習活動-探索性學習。 === 此外，學校教研組這種特殊建制時刻影響著教師的學習及變革。在中國大陸學校教育體制中，教研組保障了特定時期內國家教育及變革政策要求自上而下進行傳播和擴散；但如果缺乏對於教學變革實質和發展過程的足夠關注，期待教師透過校本教研持續學習以實現變革的政策策略可能落空。借助校本教研變傳統教研組爲教師專業學習社群（PLC）的政策設想，尚與現實存在一定距離。 === School-based teacher professional development has been regarded as one of the mechanisms that support teacher learning and promote school reform. In the process of New Curriculum Reform in China, in addition to a range of school-based learning activities, such as mentoring programs, collective lesson preparation, and action research, school-based Teaching Research Groups(TRGs) have been widely enacted in schools in order to enhance teachers’ collaboration and learning and promote school change and improvement. This study, informed by Crossan et al.’s (1999) 4I organizational learning framework and organizational knowledge theories, explores what and how teachers learn from participating in TRGs in China. 51 participants, including teachers, teacher leaders and school principals were involved in the study. By collecting data from interviews, field observation as well as some relevant documents, this study generates three major findings as follows: === Firstly, the teachers participated in different school-based learning activities through TRGs. Mentoring programs, lesson observations supported intuiting process; collective lesson preparation, open lessons, meetings, instructional technology trainings supported interpreting process; action research in some TRGs supported integrating and institutionalizing process. While the forms of school-based learning activities were structured as the institutionalized practice in TRGs, the process, content and quality of these activities varied across different TRGs with varying impacts on teachers’ learning. === Secondly, the teachers in TRGs constructed different types of knowledge through engaging in school-based learning activities. For instance, they constructed self-knowledge through modelling and observing from intuiting process; they built up strong local knowledge through sharing, negotiating and experimenting from interpreting process; they developed weak collective knowledge through exploring and joint sense-making from interpreting to integrating processes; and they also formed limited system knowledge through disseminating and reifying from interpreting, integrating to institutionalizing processes. === Thirdly, the participants’ learning in TRGs was shaped by individual factors, interpersonal relationship in groups, and school management. Particularly, school leadership strategies proved to be the most influential factor in their learning. Findings further illustrate that school leadership strategies which could balance the bureaucratic and professional conflict within the TRGs could provide more professional resource and autonomy for teachers in exploring and developing new practices. However, in some cases, school leaders tended to adopt bureaucratic leadership strategies (instead of professional leadership strategies), which constrained teachers’ further learning and made them repeat developed practice over time. === This study concludes that Chinese teachers in TRGs mainly experienced exploitation learning, with only few of them experiencing exploration learning. Four patterns of teachers’ learning can be identified, including: (I) Developed school-based learning activities- exploitation; (II) Developing school-based learning activities-exploitation; (III) Developed school-based learning activities-exploration; (IV) Developing school-based learning activities-exploration. While only a few teachers in TRGs groups experimented and developed new collective knowledge, representing pattern (III) and (IV) learning, a large amount of teachers in TRGs were forced to internalize and tune the developed practice, representing pattern (I) and (II) learning. Therefore, although it was the contrived TRGs’ structure that helped teachers take up their work as routines in new work contexts, it did not move teachers beyond its ritual practice to meaningful joint work for changes and reform take place. It is thus necessary for school leaders and educational administrators to promote boundary-crossing learning with balanced school leadership strategies which may improve school-based teachers’ learning and promote change over time. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === Detailed summary in vernacular field only. === 張晓蕾. === Thesis (Ph.D.) Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2014. === Includes bibliographical references (leaves 288-302). === Abstracts also in English. === Zhang Xiaolei.