Characteristics of Different Teacher Groups’ Teaching Behavior Improvement Based on Experiential Learning Cycle

Wang Lu; Ma Ruxia; Peng Le

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.02.006

Volume 39 Issue 2

Feb. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2021 > 39(2): 61-74

Wang Lu, Ma Ruxia, Peng Le. Characteristics of Different Teacher Groups’ Teaching Behavior Improvement Based on Experiential Learning Cycle[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(2): 61-74. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.02.006

Citation:

Wang Lu, Ma Ruxia, Peng Le. Characteristics of Different Teacher Groups’ Teaching Behavior Improvement Based on Experiential Learning Cycle[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(2): 61-74. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.02.006

Citation:

PDF( 942 KB)

Characteristics of Different Teacher Groups’ Teaching Behavior Improvement Based on Experiential Learning Cycle

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.02.006

1.
College of Education, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
2.
Beijing COP Education Consulting & Service Co. Ltd., Beijing 100089, China

Available Online: 2021-02-07
Publish Date: 2021-02-07

Abstract

Abstract

Teaching behavior has a direct influence on the effectiveness of teaching. Improvement of teaching behavior is a dynamic process and has group characteristics. Based on the theory of experiential learning circle, this study focused on the continuous improvement of 71 teachers’ teaching behavior in two years. 350 classes of these teachers were studied by the method of content analysis, in order to investigate the characteristics of teaching behavior improvement of novice teacher group, competent teacher group and proficient teacher group. This study indicated that the two-year continuous teaching behavior improvement process based on the experiential learning circle made great achievements, and all three groups of teachers improved the openness of the question. The common difficulties in behavior improvement of three teacher groups are engaging students in discussion and encouraging students to ask questions. The improvement of teachers’ teaching behavior was not significant in the stages of reflective observation and abstract conceptualization in experiential learning cycle. The focus of the three groups of teachers’ teaching behavior improvement has notable difference. The teaching behavior and learning stage that is most difficult to make improvement for proficient teachers are different from that for novice teachers and competent teachers. Novice teachers and competent teachers have different difficulties in teaching behavior improvement. Besides, the stage that is most difficult to make improvement is the same for these two groups. The teaching behavior improvement characteristics of different teacher groups found in this research can optimize the teaching behavior improvement methods and strategies, provide theoretical foundation for more targeted services that support teaching behavior improvement, and enrich relevant research on teaching behavior improvement.
- teaching behavior,
- improvement of teaching,
- teacher professional development

FullText(HTML)

References(55)

References

[1]	白改平, 韩龙淑. (2011). 专家型教师与熟手型教师数学课堂教学行为的异同及启示. 教育理论与实践,(11),34—36.
[2]	蔡宝来, 车伟艳. (2008). 国外教师课堂教学行为研究: 热点问题及未来趋向. 课程·教材·教法,(12),82—87.
[3]	曹一鸣, 于国文. (2017). 中学数学课堂教学行为关键性层级研究. 数学教育学报,(1),1—6.
[4]	曹一鸣, 王振平. (2018). 基于学生数学关键能力发展的教学改进研究. 教育科学研究,(3),61—65.
[5]	程力, 熊贤君. (2017). 台湾地区教学评鉴促教师发展的实践探索. 当代教育科学,(12),87—90. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2221.2017.12.019
[6]	陈振华. (2003). 论教师的经验性学习. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(3),17—24, 35.
[7]	段作章, 卢艳春. (2012). 教学理念向教学行为转化机制研究: 进展与趋势. 教育理论与实践,(7),57—61.
[8]	范敏. (2013). 指向教学行为转变的知识分类: 一种分析框架. 教育科学,(3),40—44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-8064.2013.03.007
[9]	房慧, 张九洲. (2013). 经验学习方法在合作学习中的应用研究. 教育教学论坛,(12),64—65. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9324.2013.12.047
[10]	方武. (2004). “对话 ”型课堂形态分析—以语文课程为例. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(2),92—95.
[11]	傅道春. (2002). 新课程中课堂行为的变化. 北京: 首都师范大学出版社.
[12]	韩龙淑. (2016). 专家型教师与熟手教师运用元认知提示语的数学课堂比较研究. 数学教育学报,(4),59—62.
[13]	胡庆芳. (2009). 课堂教学诊断改进系统的重建. 思想理论教育,(4),41—47.
[14]	黄友初. (2016). 教师课堂教学行为的四个要素. 数学教育学报,(1),72—74.
[15]	陆莉玲. (2018). 指向教学行为改进的课程分析. 江苏教育研究,373(13),40—44.
[16]	李国杰, 程学旗. (2012). 大数据研究: 未来科技及经济社会发展的重大战略领域. 中国科学院院刊,(6),647—657. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-3045.2012.06.001
[17]	李琼, 倪玉菁. (2007). 小学数学课堂对话的特点: 对专家教师与非专家教师的比较. 课程·教材·教法,2007(11),36—40, 35.
[18]	彭宇, 庞景月, 刘大同, 彭喜元. (2015). 大数据: 内涵、技术体系与展望. 电子测量与仪器学报,(4),469—482.
[19]	乔爱玲, 王陆, 李瑶, 尹阳春, 陈丝. (2018). 不同教师群体教学行为的差异性研究. 电化教育研究,(4),93—100, 108.
[20]	乔运超. (2018). 课堂观察中观察者的行为偏差与矫正. 教育研究,(10),104—108.
[21]	沈毅, 崔允漷. (2008). 课堂观察——走向专业的听评课. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[22]	宋秋前. (2004). 课堂提问行为的临床诊察与改进. 当代教育科学,(13),22—24. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2221.2004.13.007
[23]	孙建龙. (2011). “行为差距”及课堂教学改进的实践思考. 当代教育科学,(8),36—38. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2221.2011.08.012
[24]	唐卫海, 韩维莹, 仝文. (2010). 专家教师与新手教师教学行为的比较. 天津师范大学学报(社会科学版),(1),77—80. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1106.2010.01.016
[25]	王传金. (2008). 教学观念向教学行为转化的理路. 江苏教育研究,(8),49—52.
[26]	王陆. (2015). 教师在线实践社区的知识共享与知识创新的机理分析. 电化教育研究,(5),101—107.
[27]	王陆, 蔡荣啸. (2016). 课堂大数据视角下的提问倾向研究. 电化教育研究,(7),82—92.
[28]	王陆, 马如霞. (2019). 基于教育大数据的知识发现方法与技术. 北京师范大学出版社.
[29]	王陆, 张敏霞. (2019). 基于课堂教学行为大数据的教学反思方法与技术. 北京师范大学出版社.
[30]	王庆超, 孙芙蓉, 袁娇, 姜丽希. (2016). 我国教师教学行为研究热点及演进—基于949篇CSSCI期刊论文知识图谱分析. 教育评论,(11),102—106.
[31]	王元卓, 靳小龙, 程学旗. (2013). 网络大数据: 现状与展望. 计算机学报,(6),1125—1138.
[32]	魏宏聚. (2018). 中小学课堂教学研究范式分类及适切性判断. 河南大学学报(社会科学版),(4),122—128.
[33]	吴永军. (2015). 教学规程: 将教学理念转化为教学行为的指南. 课程•教材•教法,2015(5),21—27.
[34]	杨碧君, 曾庆玉. (2017). 中学互动教学的问题与改进. 中小学管理,(5),28—31. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2384.2017.05.011
[35]	叶立军. (2014). 数学教师课堂教学行为研究. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社.
[36]	叶立军, 斯海霞. (2010). 基于录像分析背景下的代数课堂教学提问研究. 教育理论与实践,2010(3),41—43.
[37]	俞国良. (1999). 专家要新手型教师教学效能感和教学行为的研究. 心理学新探,(2),32—39.
[38]	张敏霞. (2012). 技术支持下的高中数学课堂教学行为研究. 中国电化教育,2012(6),63—68. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2012.06.012
[39]	邹逸, 殷玉新. (2018). 从“基于经验”到“数据驱动”: 大数据时代教师教学决策的新样态. 教育理论与实践,(13),52—56.
[40]	Berliner, D. C. (1988). The Development of Expertise in Pedagogy. Beginning Teachers, 35.
[41]	Bonwell, C. C. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom. Eric Digest Eric Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington D. C.
[42]	Bulent, D., Erdal, B., Ceyda, A., Betul, T., & Cevahir, D. (2016). An analysis of teachers questioning strategies. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(22), 2065—2078. doi: 10.5897/ERR2016.3014
[43]	Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, (44), 1—39.
[44]	Croom, B., & Stair, K. (2005). Effective Questioning for Effective Learning. The Agricultural Education Magazine, (78), 12—14.
[45]	Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. NJ: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
[46]	Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Constructions: a Reconfiguration of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273—292. doi: 10.1080/13450600500105502
[47]	Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2009). Experiential Learning Theory: A Dynamic, Holistic Approach to Management Learning, Education and Development. In Armstrong, S. J. & Fukami, C. (Eds.) Handbook of management learning, education and development. London: SAGES.
[48]	Osterman, K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective Practice for Educators: Improving Schooling through Professional development. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.
[49]	Patrícia A. A. (2010). Classroom questioning: teachers’ perceptions and practices. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, (2), 305—309.
[50]	Pedrosa H., Almeida P. A., & Watts, D. M. (2008). Developing a mini-project: students’ questions and learning styles. The Psychology of Education Review, (32), 6—17.
[51]	Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait-time: slowing down may be a way of speeding up. Journal of Teacher Education, (37), 43—50.
[52]	StanoA. S. (1981). A Study of The Relationship Between a Specific Question-Asking Technique and Students' Achievement in Higher Cognitive Level. Chicago: University of Chicago.
[53]	Streifer, P. A. (2001). The “drill down” process. School Administrator, 58(4), 16—19.
[54]	Wan Yusoff, W. M. (2018). The Impact of Philosophical Inquiry Method on Classroom Engagement and Reasoning Skills of Low Achievers. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, (7), 135—146.
[55]	Yen, T. S., & Halili, S. H. (2015). Effective Teaching of Higher Order Thinking (HOT) in Education. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, (3), 41—47.