Linkage and Recontextualization: Mechanisms of Teacher Learning in Inter-School Professional Learning Communities
-
摘要: 如何在校际合作中推进专业学习共同体以促进教师学习，是教师专业发展研究重要方向。本研究通过质性研究方法，分析校际专业学习共同体中教师学习机制。基础教育集团是中国语境下的一种校际合作形式，研究以A集团的校际专业学习共同体作为案例，数据来源包括对样本集团40名教职工的访谈及集团内外部的文本资料。研究发现，边界物和跨界者是校际专业学习共同体中教师跨界学习的中介，而连接和再情境化是借助中介使教师学习发生的机制：连接强调跨界者和边界物相互连接，跨界者以边界物为载体，边界物被跨界者开发和使用；再情境化强调在校际互动中支持跨情境识别和协商，校际、学科间以及层级间的差异促进了教师的多元跨界学习。Abstract: How to promote professional learning communities in inter-school collaboration in order to facilitate teacher learning is an important direction for teacher professional development research. The study aims to analyze the mechanisms of teacher learning in inter-school professional learning communities through qualitative research methods. Basic Education Groups are a form of inter-school collaboration in the Chinese context, and the Inter-School Professional Learning Community of Group A was selected as the case for this study. We used interviews with 40 staff members and artefacts (inside and outside the Education Group) for data collection. This study found that boundary objects and boundary crossers mediated teachers' learning across borders in inter-school professional learning communities and that linkage and recontextualization were the mechanisms that enabled teacher learning to take place with the help of mediators. Linkage emphasizes that boundary crossers and boundary objects were connected to each other, that boundary crossers used boundary objects as vehicles, and that boundary objects were developed and used by boundary crossers; recontextualization emphasizes that inter-school interactions supported cross-contextual identification and negotiation, and that inter-school, inter-disciplinary, and inter-level differences facilitate multiple boundary crossings for teacher learning.
-
表 1 样本学校基本情况
学校 H校 M校 L校 H1校区 H2校区 M1校区 M2校区 在校生数 1 141 862 601 614 716 教职工数 116 78 44 成立时间 1988年 2008年 2001年 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 A集团教职工人数及访谈抽样情况
H校 M校 L校 总人数 抽样人数 总人数 抽样人数 总人数 抽样人数 校长 1 1(1) 1 1(1) 1 1(1) 副校长 3 1(1) 3 1(1) 2 1(1) 中层干部 14 4(2) 9 3(0) 7 2(0) 普通教师 96 10(3) 65 7(1) 34 7(1) 教职工总数 116 16(7) 78 12(3) 44 11(3) 注：括号中的数字是被抽样的校际专业学习共同体成员的数量。
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 校际专业学习共同体中的边界物和跨界者类别及具体形态
类别 具体形态 边界物 人工物 如与校际专业学习共同体相关的规章制度文件、官方公众号上发布的教师日志、每次例会上会用到多媒体设备等 话语 如共通的教育教学理论和实践语言 过程 如每周例会的主题主要由共同体中的教师协商确定 跨界者 教师 校际专业学习共同体成员 领导者 集团总校长、各校的校长、副校长及中层干部等领导人员
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 H集团公众号“教育日志”板块文章信息汇总表
撰稿人所在学校(篇) 校际专业学习共同体成员(篇) 校际专业学习共同体成员为撰稿人的文章数占各校总文章数的比例 阅读量 总校长 3 — —— 1 918 H校 24 15 62.50% 4 698 M校 8 3 37.50% 1 225 L校 15 2 13.33% 2 290 总计 50 20 40.00% 10 131
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 杜芳芳. 英国中小学校际合作研究及对我国共同体办学模式的启示[J]. 基础教育, 2021, 18(4): 94-102. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHJY202104012.htm [2] ARMSTRONG P W, BROWN C, CHAPMAN C J. School-to-school collaboration in England: A configurative review of the empirical evidence[J]. Review of education, 2021, 9(1): 319-351. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3248 [3] SUN M, LIU J, ZHU J, et al. Using a text-as-data approach to understand reform processes: a deep exploration of school improvement strategies[J]. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 2019, 41(4): 510-536. doi: 10.3102/0162373719869318 [4] ARMSTRONG P. Effective school partnerships and collaboration for school improvement: a review of the evidence[R]. London: Department for Education, 2015. [5] 教育部基础教育司. 《关于进一步激发中小学办学活力的若干意见》[EB/OL]. 教育部官网. (2020-09-24)[2021-01-19]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/fbh/live/2020/52485/sfcl/202009/t20200924_490272.html .[6] 张爽. 基础教育集团化办学的模式研究[J]. 教育研究, 2017, 38(06): 87-94. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JYYJ201706011.htm [7] LIU J. Building education groups as school collaboration for education improvement: a case study of stakeholder interactions in District A of Chengdu[J]. Asia pacific education review, 2021, 22(3): 427-439. doi: 10.1007/s12564-021-09682-0 [8] WEBSTER-WRIGHT A. Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning[J]. Review of educational research, 2009, 79(2): 702-739. doi: 10.3102/0034654308330970 [9] BASSET D, LYON G, TANNER W, et al. Plan A + Unleashing the potential of academies[R]. London: The Schools Network and Reform, 2012. [10] AINSCOW M, CHAPMAN C, HADFIELD M. Changing education systems: a research-based approach[M]. London: Routledge, 2019. [11] MUIJS D. Improving schools through collaboration: a mixed methods study of school-to-school partnerships in the primary sector[J]. Oxford review of education, 2015, 41(5): 563-586. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2015.1047824 [12] 方征, 高洁, 内生式增量: 松散教育集团中的渐进性制度变迁[J]. 全球教育展望, 2022, 51(11): 29-41. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WGJN202211003.htm [13] DÍAZ-GIBSON J, CIVÍS M. Redes socioeducativas promotoras de capital social en la comunidad: un marco teórico de referencia[J]. Cultura y educación, 2011, 23(3): 415-429. doi: 10.1174/113564011797330270 [14] DÍAZ-GIBSON J, ZARAGOZA M C, DALY A J, et al. Networked leadership in educational collaborative networks[J]. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 2017, 45(6): 1040-1059. [15] KATZ S, EARL L. Learning about networked learning communities[J]. School effectiveness and school improvement, 2010, 21(1): 27-51. doi: 10.1080/09243450903569718 [16] PRENGER R, POORTMAN C L, HANDELZALTS A. The effects of networked professional learning communities[J]. Journal of teacher education, 2018, 70(5): 441-452. [17] POORTMAN C L, BROWN C. The importance of professional learning networks[A]. Networks for learning[M]. London: Routledge, 2018: 10-19. [18] HORD S M. Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement[M]. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1997. [19] STOLL L, BOLAM R, MCMAHON A, et al. Professional learning communities: A review of the literature[J]. Journal of educational change, 2006, 7(4): 221-258. doi: 10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8 [20] VANGRIEKEN K, MEREDITH C, PACKER T, et al. Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review[J]. Teaching and teacher education, 2017, 61: 47-59. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001 [21] PRENGER R, POORTMAN C L, HANDELZALTS A. Factors influencing teachers' professional development in networked professional learning communities[J]. Teaching and teacher education, 2017, 68(1): 77-90. [22] KATZ S, EARL L. Learning about networked learning communities[J]. School effectiveness and school improvement, 2010, 21(1): 27-51. doi: 10.1080/09243450903569718 [23] POORTMAN C L, BROWN C, SCHILDKAMP K. Professional learning networks: a conceptual model and research opportunities[J]. Educational research, 2022, 64(1): 1-18. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2021.2013127 [24] AKKERMAN S F, BAKKER A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects[J]. Review of educational research, 2011, 81(2): 132-169. doi: 10.3102/0034654311404435 [25] 郑鑫, 尹弘飚, 王晓芳. 跨越教师学习的边界[J]. 教育发展研究, 2015, 35(10): 59-65. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SHGJ201510014.htm [26] AKKERMAN S, BRUINING T. Multilevel boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership[J]. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2016, 25(2): 240-284. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1147448 [27] 叶菊艳, 卢乃桂, 曹钰昌, 谢欣荷. 教师跨界学习研究: 概念、现状与展望——"跨界教育实践中的教师学习与发展国际研讨会"综述[J]. 教师发展研究, 2022, 6(03): 116-124. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JSFJ202203015.htm [28] AKKERMAN S F, VAN EIJCK M. Re-theorising the student dialogically across and between boundaries of multiple communities[J]. British Educational Research Journal, 2013, 39(1): 60-72. [29] ENGESTRÖM Y. Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration[J]. Mind, culture, and activity, 2007, 14(1-2): 23-39. doi: 10.1080/10749030701307689 [30] LEVINE T H. Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning: The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory[J]. Teacher Education Quarterly, 2010, 37(1): 109-130. [31] STAR S L, GRIESEMER J R. Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39[J]. Social Studies of Science, 1989, 19(3): 387-420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001 [32] STAR S L. This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept[J]. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2010, 35(5): 601-617. [33] WENGER E. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems[J]. Organization, 2000, 72: 234. [34] ENGESTRÖM Y, ENGESTRÖM R, KÄKKÄINEN M. Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities[J]. Learning and instruction, 1995, 5(4): 319-336. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6 [35] LEVINA N, VAAST E. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems[J]. MIS quarterly, 2005, 29(2): 335-363. doi: 10.2307/25148682 [36] 王晓芳. 从共同体到伙伴关系: 教师学习情境和方式的扩展与变革[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2015, 33(03): 43-52. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HDXK201503006.htm [37] GUILE D. The concept of "recontextualization": Implications for professional, vocational and workplace learning[J]. Learning, culture and social interaction, 2019, 23: 100343. doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100343 [38] OMONA J. Sampling in qualitative research: Improving the quality of research outcomes in higher education[J]. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 2013, 4(2): 169-185. [39] GLASER B G, STRAUSS A L. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research[M]. New York: Routledge, 2017. [40] CHARMAZ K. Constructing grounded theory[M]. London: sage, 2014. [41] GLASER B G. Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory[M]. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, 1978. -
点击查看大图
表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 555
- HTML全文浏览量: 278
- PDF下载量: 29
- 被引次数: 0