中国教研员研究的历史脉络与多重视角

沈伟; 孙天慈

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.05.008

中国教研员研究的历史脉络与多重视角

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.05.008

沈伟,
孙天慈

华东师范大学教育学部，上海， 200062

基金项目: 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“促进课堂转型的中小学教研体系重建”（16JJD880024）

计量
- 文章访问数: 205
- HTML全文浏览量: 468
- PDF下载量: 29
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 刊出日期: 2021-05-20

The Historical Context and Multiple Perspectives of Research on Chinese Teaching-research Officers

The Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China

摘要

摘要: 教研员是我国区域教学质量保障人员，为基础教育课程实施、教学改进、教师发展做出了贡献。随着教研员的地位与作用日显，有关教研员的研究表现出蓬勃发展的趋势。在教研员角色、教研工作、教研员能力与发展方面经历了理念探讨与历史分析、制度关切与实证调研、国际比较与本土论证相交叉的研究过程，其中教研员角色研究起步最早，教研转型成为新的研究热点。多线并进的研究提出了三个重要且环环相扣的研究问题：教研制度的特殊性与普遍性，教研员作为教学领导与课程领导的关系，教研员核心能力的基础所依。未来教研员的研究应以体制机制研究推动教研员职能的转变，以教学研究为基础分析教研范式的转型，以国际比较视野构建教研员专业标准。
- 教研员 /
- 历史脉络 /
- 多重视角 /
- 研究趋势
Abstract: Chinese teaching-research officers are regional teaching quality assurance staff, making contribution to the implementation of basic education curriculum, teaching improvement and teacher development. With more and more prominent status and functions of teaching-research officers, research on them tends to develop prosperously. The research on teaching-research officer’s role, teaching-research work and activity, as well as their capacity and development has gone through an interlaced process of conceptual discussion and historical analysis, institutional concern and empirical research, and international comparison and local argumentation. Among the extant research, the research on teaching-research officer’s role started earlier whereas the paradigm transformation becomes the new research hotspot. The multi-line research raises three important research questions: the origin of Chinese teaching research system, the role and status of Chinese teaching-research officers, and the core functions and key competence of Chinese teaching-research officers. In the future, the research of teaching-research officers should promote the transformation of their functions through the study of system and mechanism, analyze the transformation of paradigm on the basis of teaching research, and establish the professional standards of teaching-research officers from the perspective of international comparison.
- teaching-research officer /
- historical development /
- multiple perspectives /
- research trend

HTML全文

参考文献(70)

[1]	陈桂生. (2012). 常用教育概念辨析. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[2]	陈明选, 耿楠. (2019). 测评大数据支持下的有效教学研究. 远程教育杂志,37(03),95—104.
[3]	陈峥, 卢乃桂. (2010). 中国内地教师领导的障碍与条件. 复旦教育论坛,8(3),54—47.
[4]	丛立新. (2011). 沉默的权威: 中国基础教育教研组织. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
[5]	崔允漷. (2009). 论教研室的定位与教研员的专业发展. 上海教育科研,(8),4—8.
[6]	崔允漷. (2012). 教研员即专业的课程领导者. 基础教育课程,(5),26—29.
[7]	顾明远. (2014). 应重视和加强教研队伍建设. 中国教育报. (007).
[8]	胡惠闵, 汪明帅. (2017). 课程改革背景下的教研员角色—基于一位区县教研员的个案考察. 全球教育展望,(12),85—100.
[9]	江淑玲, 蔺素琴. (2019). 教研员指导教学策略研究: 情境界定理论的视角. 教育发展研究,38(10),66—77.
[10]	教育部. 教育部关于加强和改进新时代基础教育教研工作的意见. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3321/201911/t20191128_409950.html, 2019−11−25.
[11]	李叶峰. (2011). 论教研员的课程领导. 当代教育科学,(14),15—17.
[12]	梁芹, 蒋丰. (2004). 对教研员专业发展的思考. 教育与教学研究,18(10),22—23.
[13]	梁威, 李小红, 卢立涛. (2016). 新时期我国基础教育教学研究制度: 作用、挑战及展望. 课程•教材•教法,36(02),11—16+73.
[14]	梁威, 卢立涛, 黄冬芳. (2010). 中国特色基础教育教学研究制度的发展. 教育研究,(12),77—82.
[15]	刘历红. (2014). 教研员教学领导力: 解决课堂核心问题. 中小学管理,(6),32—34.
[16]	刘旭东, 花文凤. (2017). 迈向承认: 教研员的行动旨归. 西北师大学报(社会科学版),(7),76—81.
[17]	卢乃桂, 沈伟. (2011). 英、美、澳教育视导的实践、影响及理据. 比较教育研究,(9),37—43.
[18]	罗生全, 孟宪云. (2017). 教研员胜任力初探. 教育研究,(09),126—133.
[19]	马克•塔克主编, 柯政主译. (2013). 超越上海: 美国应该如何建设世界顶尖的教育系统. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[20]	潘涌. (2008). 教研员职能转变与使用机制改革. 教育发展研究,(Z4),17—20.
[21]	漆涛, 胡惠闵. (2019). 基础教育教研职能变迁70年的回顾与反思——兼论教学研究的概念演化. 课程•教材•教法, (19), 79−87.
[22]	秦磊. (2013). 论以专业服务理念完善教研组织架构. 教育研究,(4),46—50.
[23]	沈伟, 汪明帅. (2021). 何以为师? 教研员的素质现状与提升途径, 中国电化教育, （5）, 102—109.
[24]	沈伟. (2012). 美国教育问责背景下的教学辅导员: 回顾与反思. 全球教育展望,(2),61—66.
[25]	沈伟. (2013). 教研员作为边界工作者: 意涵与能力建构. 教育发展研究,(10),64—68.
[26]	沈伟. (2014). 中国大陆教研员的制度演变与身份建构. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
[27]	宋萑. (2012). 论中国教研员作为专业领导者的新角色理论建构. 教师教育研究,(1),18—24.
[28]	王洁. (2011). 从“专业指导”到“专业支持”—上海市教研员现状调查的分析与思考. 人民教育,(9),44—47.
[29]	王培峰. (2009). 教研员职能转变的定位与路径. 中国教育学刊,(2),81—84.
[30]	王艳玲, 胡惠闵. (2019). 基础教育教研工作转型: 理念倡导与实践创新. 全球教育展望,(12),31—41.
[31]	王艳玲, 胡惠闵. (2020). 我国教研机构的类型与职能: 基于全国抽样调查的分析. 教育发展研究,(8),23—31.
[32]	魏宏聚. (2010). 课程范式转型与教研员角色重塑. 中国教育学刊,(3),47—49.
[33]	武君宇. (2015). 试析教研员的学术权力. 教育理论与实践,35(35),38—40.
[34]	徐梦杰, 曹培英. (2017). 试论我国区县教研室职能的持存与流变. 课程·教材·教法,(12),97—103.
[35]	杨兰, 王建军, 陈丽翠. (2020). 教师培训者专业素养的“实质”与“形式”平衡. 教育发展研究,(8),51—57.
[36]	杨小敏, 向蓓莉. (2011). 促成并引领富有研习智慧的教学协作—社会变革中教研员职能的再定位. 中国教育学刊,(6),73—76.
[37]	姚利民. (2005). 国外有效教学研究述评. 外国中小学教育,(8),23—27.
[38]	张广斌. (2011). 转型与使命: 新时期教研队伍建设研究. 中国教育学刊,(11),74—76.
[39]	赵才欣. (2008). 有效教研——基础教育教研工作导论. 上海: 上海教育出版社.
[40]	赵虹元. (2018). 我国教研员角色的变迁与展望. 课程·教材·教法,(10),111—116.
[41]	赵可云, 杨鑫. (2017). 教研员区域信息化教学引领力模型研究. 电化教育研究,(3),116—122.
[42]	赵明仁, 黄显华. (2006). 近20年来西方教学研究的新进展: 对教学的理解及其转变. 比较教育研究,(2),7—12.
[43]	钟启泉. (2006). 教学研究的两种范式—日本教育学者平山满义教授访谈. 当代教育科学,(13),23—28.
[44]	周光辉. (2008). 从管制转向服务: 中国政府的管理革命—中国行政管理30年. 吉林大学社会科学学报,48(3),18—28+159.
[45]	Amott, P. & Ang, L. (2020). Rethinking teacher educator professional identity. In M. A. Peters (ed.), Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer.
[46]	ATE. (2020). The teacher educator standards, https://ate1.org/standards-for-teacher-educators, 2020−10−21.
[47]	Bush, T. Qian, H & Fang, J. (1998). Educational management in China: An overview. Compare, 28(2), 133—140. doi: 10.1080/0305792980280202
[48]	Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Research, 28(7), 15—25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X028007015
[49]	Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E., (2007). Coach can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading First. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
[50]	Engeström, Y. et. al., (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[51]	Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393—405. doi: 10.1177/002248702237394
[52]	Gallucci, C.et.al. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919—963. doi: 10.3102/0002831210371497
[53]	Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217—247. doi: 10.1086/461445
[54]	Haneda, M. et. al. (2019). Ways of interacting: What underlies instructional coaches’ discursive action. Teaching and Teacher Education, (78), 165—173.
[55]	Hargreaves, A. (1994). Contrived collegiality: The Micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In A. Hargreaves. Changing teachers, changing times: Teacher’s work and culture in the postmodern age, London: Casell.
[56]	Hashim, A. (2020). Coaching and districtwide improvement: Exploring the systemic leadership practices of instructional coaches. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1—44.
[57]	Honig, M.I.（2006）. Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field in M.I. Honig(ed.) New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. New York: SUNY Press, pp. 1−24.
[58]	Law E. H. F., Galton M., Kennedy K., Lee J. C. K. (2016). Developing Curriculum Leadership Among Teachers for School-Based Curriculum Innovations in Hong Kong: A Distributed and Problem-Solving Approach. In: Robertson M., Tsang P. (eds) Everyday Knowledge, Education and Sustainable Futures. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, Singapore: Springer.
[59]	Liang, X. Y., Kidwai, H., & Zhang, M. X., (2016). How Shanghai does it: Insights and lessons from the highest-ranking education system in the world. Washington, DC: World Bank.
[60]	Kane, B. D. & Rosenquist, B. (2019). Relationships between instructional coaches’ time use and district- and school-level policies and expectations. American Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 1718—1768. doi: 10.3102/0002831219826580
[61]	Kraft, M.A., Blazer, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teaching coach on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causa/evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88. 547−588.
[62]	Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 310—347. doi: 10.1177/0013161X12456700
[63]	OECD. (2020). Benchmarking the performance of China’s Education System, Paris: OECD Publishing.
[64]	Paine, L. (1990). Teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 49—81.
[65]	Sargent, T. C., & Hannum, E. (2009). Doing more with less: Teacher professional learning communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 258—276. doi: 10.1177/0022487109337279
[66]	Smith, K. (2005). Teacher educators’expertise: What do novice teachers and teacher educators say?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 177—192. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.008
[67]	Sweeney, D., & Harris, L. (2016). Student-centered coaching: The moves. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
[68]	Velzen, C. & Volman, M. (2009). The activities of a school-based teacher educators: A theoretical and empirical exploration. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(4), 345—367. doi: 10.1080/02619760903005831
[69]	Yin, H., Xie, C., Hu, H., & Wang, M. (2020). Demystifying and sustaining the resilience of teacher educators: The perspective of Teaching-research officers in China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(3), 311—323.
[70]	Zheng, X., Yin, H. B., & Liu, H. (2020). Are professional learning communities beneficial for teachers? A multilevel analysis of teacher self-efficacy and commitment in China. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.