从共同体到伙伴关系:教师学习情境和方式的扩展与变革

王晓芳

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2015.03.006

从共同体到伙伴关系:教师学习情境和方式的扩展与变革

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2015.03.006

王晓芳

香港中文大学教育学院教育行政与政策学系, 香港 999077

基金项目:

教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目"组织学习视角下的校本教师学习研究" 15YJC880135

Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). "Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural-historical activity theory. Review ofeducational research, 77(2), 186-232.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal ofEducation and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Tsui, A. B., & Law, D. Y. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school -university partnership. Teaching and teacher education, 23(8), 1289-1301.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1-2), 23-39.
Stoll, L. (2010). Professional Learning Community. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd edition ed., Vol. 5, pp. 151-157.). Oxford: Elsevier.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 112-113.
Dall'Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review ofeducational research, 76(3), 383-412.
Wong, J. L. (2013). How Do Teachers Learn Through Engaging in School-Based Teacher Learning Activities? Applying a Knowledge Conversion Perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1-11.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
Adler, J. (2000). Social practice theory and mathematics teacher education: A conversation between theory and practice. Nordic Mathematics Education Journal, 8(3), 31-53.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1 (1), 45-56.
Wilson, E. (2004). Using activity theory as a lens to analyze interaction in a university -school initial teacher education and training partnership. Educational Action Research, 12(4), 587-612.
de Lima, J. á. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change. Journal of educational change, 2(2), 97-122.
Wong, A., & Edwards, G. (2009). Connecting communities of practice. In A. B. M. Tsui & G. E. F. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Learning in school-university partnership: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 132-148). New York: Routledge.
Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning: The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, 109-130.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source oflearning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall: 32 -34.
Waitoller, F. R., & Kozleski, E. B. (2013). Working in boundary practices: Identity development and learning in partnerships for inclusive education. Teaching and teacher education, 31, 35-45.
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335-363.
Wood, D. R. (2010). Learning Communities: Catalyst for Change or a New Infrastructure for the Status Quo? In B. L. Whitford, & Wood, D. R. (Ed.), Teachers learning in community: Realities and possibilities (pp. 41-71). New York: Suny Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In C. Cochran -Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report ofthe AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 69-109). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 149.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214-226.
Fenwick, T. (2007). Organizational learning in the "knots" Discursive capacities emerging in a school-university collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(2), 138-153.
Tsui, A. B., & Law, D. Y. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school -university partnership. Teaching and teacher education, 23(8), 1289-1301.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review ofeducational research, 81(3), 376-407.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers'communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 917-946.
Konkola, R., Tuomi " Gröhn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 211-228.
关于如何理解大学与学校伙伴关系, 王晓芳认为, 伙伴关系的本质是一种跨界安排, 通过边界实践和跨界活动, 联结不同的组织、共同体和活动系统。(参见:王晓芳:《从组织实体到跨界安排:理解大学与学校伙伴关系的两种路径及其综合》, 《教育学报》2014年第6期。)
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Körkköinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and instruction, 5(4), 319-336.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations'and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies ofscience, 19(3), 387-420.
Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning: The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, 109-130.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 73-85.
Martin, S. D., Snow, J. L., & Torrez, C. A. F. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third space: Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal ofTeacher Education, 62(3), 299-311.
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review ofeducational research, 81(2), 132-169.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge university press: 43.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601-617.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1 (1), 45-56.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal ofEducation and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Tsui, A. B., & Law, D. Y. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school -university partnership. Teaching and teacher education, 23(8), 1289-1301.
哈格里夫斯(Hargreaves)描绘了专业主义的演变路径, 区分出4类专业主义:前专业时期、专业自主时期、同侪专业时期和后专业或后现代时期。(参见:Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 6(2), 151-182.)
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review ofeducational research, 79(2), 702-739.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.
Engestrom, Y., Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2007). From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory. Journal of workplace learning, 19(6), 336-342.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review ofeducational research, 79(2), 702-739.
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. The Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In C. Cochran -Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report ofthe AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 69-109). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and teacher education, 24(1), 80-91.
Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and teacher education, 27(1), 10-20.
Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178-195.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational researcher, 4-15.
王晓芳就从成员资格、共同体中的冲突、教师个体性和专业自主权以及共同体与行政结构、制度化的关系四个方面, 重新审视和反思了专业学习共同体的概念。(参见:王晓芳:《什么样的"共同体"可以称作教师专业学习共同体———对教师专业学习共同体理论的审视与反思》, 《教师教育研究》2014年第4期。)
Edwards, A., Lunt, I., & Stamou, E. (2010). Inter " professional work and expertise: new roles at the boundaries of schools. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 27-45.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 55
计量
- 文章访问数: 178
- HTML全文浏览量: 194
- PDF下载量: 1
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 刊出日期: 2015-09-20

From Community to School-university Partnership:Expansion and Transformation of Sites and Approaches of Teacher Learning

WANG Xiaofang

Faculty of Education, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China

摘要

摘要: 教师共同体中的教师学习是经验式、参与式和身份获得的学习。边界明晰、成员同质的教师共同体可能压抑教师个体性, 限制学习机会, 侧重共同体的再生产和知识的代际传递, 不利于教育创新。作为边界地带的大学与学校伙伴关系代表着教师学习情境的扩展, 其特点在于开放的边界、包容性强, 多元话语和实践均能获得对话的空间。伙伴关系中教师学习方式是扩展式、横向式的跨界学习过程, 侧重于问题解决和探究, 体现在新知识的试验、探索和创造上, 代表着教师教学活动系统的整体提升。边界物件的开发和运用与作为跨界者的学校教师, 是帮助教师实现跨界学习的中介机制。如何将伙伴关系中的跨界学习与共同体学习两者相融合是教师学习未来重要的研究方向。
- 教师学习 /
- 专业学习共同体 /
- 大学与学校伙伴关系 /
- 跨界学习 /
- 边界物件
Abstract: Teacher learning is mediated by context. Teacher learning occurring in community is characterized as experiential, participative learning and a process of identity formation. However, teacher community with clearly-defined boundary is likely to undermine teacher professional development. School-university partnership can expand teacher learning sites. In this partnership, the boundary is ambiguous, open and inclusive, allowing diverse participants to exchange with each other through multiple discourse practices. In this context, teacher learning involves a process of problem-solving and inquiry, which helps to produce new knowledge and improve the teaching system. Both the development and utilization of boundary objects and boundary crossers are the mediating mechanism to facilitate teachers' boundary crossing learning. One of the important research topics in the field of teacher learning is how to connect boundary learning in partnership with learning in community.
- teacher learning /
- professional learning community /
- school-university partnership /
- boundary-crossing activities /
- boundary objects
注释:

1) Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). "Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural-historical activity theory. Review ofeducational research, 77(2), 186-232.

2) Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal ofEducation and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

3) Tsui, A. B., & Law, D. Y. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school -university partnership. Teaching and teacher education, 23(8), 1289-1301.

4) Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1-2), 23-39.

5) Stoll, L. (2010). Professional Learning Community. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd edition ed., Vol. 5, pp. 151-157.). Oxford: Elsevier.

6) Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53.

7) Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 112-113.

8) Dall'Alba, G., & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models. Review ofeducational research, 76(3), 383-412.

9) Wong, J. L. (2013). How Do Teachers Learn Through Engaging in School-Based Teacher Learning Activities? Applying a Knowledge Conversion Perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1-11.

10) Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational researcher, 27(2), 4-13.

11) Adler, J. (2000). Social practice theory and mathematics teacher education: A conversation between theory and practice. Nordic Mathematics Education Journal, 8(3), 31-53.

12) Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.

13) Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1 (1), 45-56.

14) Wilson, E. (2004). Using activity theory as a lens to analyze interaction in a university -school initial teacher education and training partnership. Educational Action Research, 12(4), 587-612.

15) de Lima, J. á. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change. Journal of educational change, 2(2), 97-122.

16) Wong, A., & Edwards, G. (2009). Connecting communities of practice. In A. B. M. Tsui & G. E. F. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Learning in school-university partnership: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 132-148). New York: Routledge.

17) Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning: The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, 109-130.

18) Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source oflearning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall: 32 -34.

19) Waitoller, F. R., & Kozleski, E. B. (2013). Working in boundary practices: Identity development and learning in partnerships for inclusive education. Teaching and teacher education, 31, 35-45.

20) Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335-363.

21) Wood, D. R. (2010). Learning Communities: Catalyst for Change or a New Infrastructure for the Status Quo? In B. L. Whitford, & Wood, D. R. (Ed.), Teachers learning in community: Realities and possibilities (pp. 41-71). New York: Suny Press.

22) Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In C. Cochran -Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report ofthe AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 69-109). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

23) Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 149.

24) Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214-226.

25) Fenwick, T. (2007). Organizational learning in the "knots" Discursive capacities emerging in a school-university collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(2), 138-153.

26) Tsui, A. B., & Law, D. Y. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school -university partnership. Teaching and teacher education, 23(8), 1289-1301.

27) Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review ofeducational research, 81(3), 376-407.

28) Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers'communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and teacher education, 18(8), 917-946.

29) Konkola, R., Tuomi " Gröhn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 211-228.

30) 关于如何理解大学与学校伙伴关系, 王晓芳认为, 伙伴关系的本质是一种跨界安排, 通过边界实践和跨界活动, 联结不同的组织、共同体和活动系统。(参见:王晓芳:《从组织实体到跨界安排:理解大学与学校伙伴关系的两种路径及其综合》, 《教育学报》2014年第6期。)

31) Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Körkköinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and instruction, 5(4), 319-336.

32) Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations'and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies ofscience, 19(3), 387-420.

33) Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning: The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, 109-130.

34) Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 73-85.

35) Martin, S. D., Snow, J. L., & Torrez, C. A. F. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third space: Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal ofTeacher Education, 62(3), 299-311.

36) Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review ofeducational research, 81(2), 132-169.

37) Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation: Cambridge university press: 43.

38) Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.

39) Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601-617.

40) Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2012). Whatever happened to process theories of learning? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1 (1), 45-56.

41) Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal ofEducation and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

42) Tsui, A. B., & Law, D. Y. (2007). Learning as boundary-crossing in school -university partnership. Teaching and teacher education, 23(8), 1289-1301.

43) 哈格里夫斯(Hargreaves)描绘了专业主义的演变路径, 区分出4类专业主义:前专业时期、专业自主时期、同侪专业时期和后专业或后现代时期。(参见:Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 6(2), 151-182.)

44) March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.

45) Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review ofeducational research, 79(2), 702-739.

46) Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.

47) Engestrom, Y., Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2007). From workplace learning to inter-organizational learning and back: the contribution of activity theory. Journal of workplace learning, 19(6), 336-342.

48) Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review ofeducational research, 79(2), 702-739.

49) Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. The Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.

50) Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In C. Cochran -Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report ofthe AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 69-109). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

51) Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and teacher education, 24(1), 80-91.

52) Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and teacher education, 27(1), 10-20.

53) Walker, D., & Nocon, H. (2007). Boundary-crossing competence: Theoretical considerations and educational design. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(3), 178-195.

54) Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.

55) Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational researcher, 4-15.

56) 王晓芳就从成员资格、共同体中的冲突、教师个体性和专业自主权以及共同体与行政结构、制度化的关系四个方面, 重新审视和反思了专业学习共同体的概念。(参见:王晓芳:《什么样的"共同体"可以称作教师专业学习共同体———对教师专业学习共同体理论的审视与反思》, 《教师教育研究》2014年第4期。)

57) Edwards, A., Lunt, I., & Stamou, E. (2010). Inter " professional work and expertise: new roles at the boundaries of schools. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 27-45.

58) Wenger, E. (1998). Communities ofpractice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge university press: 55