:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國民小學資優班教師專業合作及相關因素之研究
作者:劉維哲
作者(外文):Liu, Wei-Che
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:特殊教育學系
指導教授:張昇鵬
賴翠媛
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2019
主題關鍵詞:國小資優班教師專業合作混合研究gifted classes of elementary schoolsprofessional teacher cooperationmixed methods study
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:2
本研究旨在探討國民小學資優班教師的專業合作,採混合研究的方式,瞭解資優班教師團隊運作之現況、教師合作關係、教師合作的重要性以及影響教師合作的因素,並期望藉由研究議題之探討,提升資優教育之品質。在量化研究方面,以台灣在職國小資優班教師為研究對象進行問卷調查,從北區、中區、南區、東區與離島共選取有效施測樣本237份問卷,依問卷調查結果探究資優班教師專業合作之情形、不同背景變項資優班教師在專業合作上之差異以及合作變項間之間的相關,並進一步提出教師團隊運作之預測模型。在質性研究方面,以半結構式訪談法,訪談25位不同背景變項資優班教師,探究更多關於教師合作的細節與深層因素,協助解釋並擴展量化結果。研究結論如下:
一、教師團隊運作方面
(一)資優班教師在課程與教學、班級經營、工作分配以及人際互動等團隊運
作方面之滿意度均高。
(二)滿意度高的團隊有比較密切的合作關係。
(三)教師團隊運作情形愈良好,教師愈認同合作的重要性。
二、教師合作關係方面
(一)資優班教師整體而言較偏向「合作文化」、「流動馬賽克」與「人為共
治」等合作特徵比較明顯的合作關係。
(二)教師合作關係受不同背景變項影響而有差異:
1、男性資優班教師較女性資優班教師有更明顯的「個人主義」色彩。
2、南區資優班教師「個人主義」與「巴爾幹化」的合作關係特徵明顯,而
北區資優班教師具有更多「流動馬賽克」合作關係之特徵。
3、教學年資「16-20年」之教師,「個人主義」與「巴爾幹化」的合作關係
較明顯;「21年以上」之教師則是「人為共治」與「合作文化」的特徵
較明顯。
4、專任教師的「巴爾幹化」色彩較濃。
5、「四班」編制的資優班,「個人主義」與「巴爾幹化」特徵明顯;「二班」
編制資優班則是「人為共治」、「合作文化」以及「流動馬賽克」的特徵
較突出。
(三)合作關係愈密切者,對合作重要性的認同度就愈高。
(四)合作關係與影響教師合作因素互為關連。
(五)合作關係是教師團隊運作滿意與否的預測指標。標準化迴歸方程式為:
教師團隊運作=.263×合作文化-.188×巴爾幹化-.175×個人主義
+.188×人為共治
三、合作重要性
(一)資優班教師多數認同教師合作對教師的心理支持、教學及學生學習上之
重要性。
(二)不同背景變項對合作重要性的看法存在差異:
1、北區教師比南區教師更認同教師合作的重要性。
2、「二班編制」資優班比「四班編制」資優班更認同教師合作的重要性。
(三)愈認同合作重要性的教師,也愈多認為信任與尊重以及溝通與衝突處理
是影響教師合作關係的要素。
四、影響教師合作之因素
(一)影響教師合作的因素包括:學校因素、個人特質、信任與尊重以及溝通
與衝突處理。
(二)不同背景變項對影響教師合作因素之看法存在差異:
1、女性資優班教師比男性資優班教師更重視「信任與尊重」與「溝通與衝
突處理」。
2、「二班編制」資優班比「三班編制」資優班更重視合作影響因素。
關鍵字:國小資優班、教師專業合作、混合研究
This study aims to explore the professional teacher cooperation of gifted classes of elementary schools. The method of mixed research was adopted to know about the current situation of teacher team operation of gifted classes of elementary schools, cooperative relationship of teachers, the importance of teachers’ cooperation, and the factors affecting teachers’ cooperation, and expects to improve the quality of gifted education by the discussion of this research topic. In the aspect of quantitative research, questionnaire survey was conducted to the research object of in-service teachers of gifted classes of elementary schools in Taiwan. A total of 237 questionnaires of effective testing samples were collected from the northern area, the central area, the southern area, the eastern area and offshore islands. According to the result of questionnaire survey, the condition of professional teacher cooperation of gifted classes, the difference of teachers in gifted classes with different backgrounds in professional cooperation, and the relevance between cooperative variables were explored, so as to further propose the prediction model of the operation of teacher team. In the aspect of qualitative research, semi-structured interview was adopted to interview 25 teachers of gifted classes with different background variables, so as to explore details and profound factors of teachers’ cooperation and assist to explain and expand the quantitative result. The findings of the study are as follows:
1. Operation of teacher team
(1) The degree of satisfaction of teachers of gifted classes is high in aspects of team operation, such as course and teaching, class operation, work distribution, and interpersonal interaction.
(2) Teams with high degree of satisfaction have comparatively close cooperative relationship.
(3) The better the operation condition of teacher team, the more the teachers recognize the importance of cooperation.
2. Relationship of teachers’ cooperation
(1) On the whole, teachers of gifted classes prefer the cooperative relationship with comparatively obvious cooperative features, such as “Collaboration cultures”, “Moving Mosaic” and “Contrived Collegiality”.
(2) The relationship of teachers’ cooperation differs with different background variables:
1. Compared with female teachers of gifted classes, male teachers of gifted classes have more obvious color of “Individualism”.
2. Teachers of gifted classes in southern area have obvious features of cooperative relationship of “Individualism” and “Balkanization” while teachers of gifted classes in northern area have more obvious feature of cooperative relationship of “Moving Mosaic”.
3. Teachers with “16-20 years” of teaching year have comparatively obvious cooperative relationship of “Individualism” and “Balkanization”; and teacher with “over 21 years” of teaching year have more obvious features of “Contrived Collegiality” and “Collaboration cultures”.
4. Full-time teachers have comparatively strong color of “Balkanization”.
5. Gifted classes with the formation of “four-class” have obvious features of “Individualism” and “Balkanization”, and gifted classes with the formation of “two-class” have comparatively outstanding features of “Contrived Collegiality”, “Collaboration cultures” and “Moving Mosaic”.
(3) The closer the cooperative relationship, the higher the degree of recognition of the importance of cooperation.
(4) The cooperative relationship is relevant to the factor of teachers' cooperation.
(5) The cooperative relationship is the prediction index of whether the operation of teacher team is satisfactory. The standardized regression equation is:
Operation of teacher team=.263×Collaboration cultures—.188×Balkanization—.175×Individualism+.188×Contrived Collegiality
3. The importance of cooperation
(1) Most teachers of gifted classes recognize the importance of teachers’ cooperation on the mental support of teachers, teaching and students’ study.
(2) There are differences in the opinions of teachers with different background variables on the importance of cooperation:
1. Teachers in northern area recognize the importance of teachers’ cooperation more than teachers in southern area.
2. Gifted classes with “two-class formation” recognize the importance of teachers’ cooperation more than gifted classes with “four-class formation”.
(3) The more the teachers recognize the importance of cooperation, the more they believe that trust and respect, communication and conflict resolution are the factors affecting the relationship of teachers’ cooperation.
4. Factors affecting teachers’ cooperation
(1) Factors affection teachers’ cooperation include: school factor, individual traits, trust and respect, communication and conflict resolution.
(2) There are differences in the opinions of teachers with different background variables on factors affecting teachers’ cooperation:
1. Female teachers of gifted classes emphasize “trust and respect” and “communication and conflict resolution” more than male teachers of gifted classes.
2. Gifted classes with “two-class formation” value factors affecting cooperation more than gifted classes with “three-class formation”.
Keywords: gifted classes of elementary schools, professional teacher cooperation, mixed methods study
【中文部分】
王文科、王智弘(2014)。教育研究法。臺北市:五南。
王修曉譯(2009)。研究方法概論。臺北市:五南。
江文慈(2004)。實習教師的情緒地圖:社會建構的觀點。教育心理學報,36
(1),59-83。
江麗莉(2003)。幼稚園教師間的合作關係。國教世紀,206,41-43。
呂金燮(2002)。我國國小資優教育課程的發展與調適。資優教育研究,2
(2),1-22。
呂翠夏(1998)。如何與你的伙伴教師合作—一份觀察實例。成長幼教季刊,
34,27-31。
何欣姿(2006)。公立幼稚園教師合作教學之研究。南臺科技大學學報,31,
99-114。
李如蓁(2008)。幼稚園搭檔教師合作互動歷程之研究。國立屏東教育大學幼
兒教育學系碩士論文,未出版,屏東縣。
李安明(2004)。我國國小校長教學領導與教師有效教學之調查研究。行政
院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC92-2413-H-134-009)。新竹
市:新竹師範學院初等教育學系。
李咏吟、趙曉美、李孟文、蔡曉楓、陳鏗任(2008)。資源班數學教師合作式省
思專業成長團體研究。中等教育, 59(1),72-91。
李美枝、鍾秋玉(1996)。性別與性別角色析論。本土心理學研究,6,260-299。
李智令(2002)。高雄市國小啟智班實施協同教學現況之研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
李新鄉(2010)。教學卓越獲獎團隊表現與學校教師文化關聯性之研究:以大
一國小為例。臺灣教育社會學研究,10(2),41‒83。
李聰明(1990)。創造學校文化。現代教育,79(4),85-100。
吳明隆(2013)。SPSS統計應用學習實務:問卷分析與應用統計。易習圖書。
吳武典、張芝萱(2009)。資優教育師資專業標準之建構。資優教育研究,9
(2),103-104。
吳麗君等譯,F. J. Buckley著(2003)。協同教學(Team teaching: What, Why, and
How?)。嘉義市:濤石文化。
林明地、梁金都(2014)。國小人員情緒地理的研究:以校長為焦點。當代教
育研究季刊,22(4),55-103。
林步昇譯,Steven Sloman & Philip Fembach著(2018)。知識的假象。臺北市:
先覺。
林秀靜(1998a)。淺談資優生的學習需求。資優教育季刊,68,16-21。
林秀靜(1998b)。國中資優班教師工作壓力與因應方式之調查研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
林家蓉(2005)。桃竹苗四縣市國民小學校長教學領導與教師文化之研究。國
立新竹教育大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,新竹市。
林素卿(2004)。高雄市國小特殊教育教師工作滿意與工作壓力之長期調查研究。國立花蓮師範學院特殊教育教學碩士班碩士論文,未出版,花蓮縣。
林清江(1991)。教育社會學新論:我國社會與教育關係之研究。臺北市:五南。
林慧蓉(2012)。由情緒地理探究教師專業發展文化之建構。臺中教育大學學
報,26(2),87-105。
周汶昊譯,John Wooden,Steve Jamison著(2015)。團隊,從傳球開始:五
百年都難以超越的 UCLA 傳奇教練伍登培養優越人才和團隊的領導心
法。新北市:木馬文化。
周國民(2013)。幼兒教師合作教學中情緒地理之敘說研究。教師專業研究期
刊,6,1-30。
周淑卿(2002)。課程政策與教育改革。臺北市:師大書苑。
高紅瑛(2000)。協同教學的理念與實踐。教育研究月刊,77,57-62。
許育榮(2003)。國民小學教師文化之調查研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究
所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義市。
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2014)。高級中等以下學校特殊教育班班級及專責單位設置與人員進用
辦法。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2008)。資優教育白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
陳奕安(2002)。基隆市國民中小學教師文化與教師專業成長態度之研究。臺
北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
陳昭儀(2012)。資優教育教師之專業能力與專業成長歷程探析。資優教育季
刊,122,1-8。
陳幼雯譯,杉浦正和著(2018)。圖解團隊領導學。臺北市:東販出版。
陳美芳,黃楷茹(2015)。臺灣資優教育的現況、挑戰與展望:回應學校需求的
論述。資優教育論壇,13,17-34。
陳斐卿、林盈秀、蕭述三(2013)。教師合作設計課程的困難-活動理論觀點。
教育實踐與研究,26,63-94。
陳麗如(2011)。特殊教育論題與趨勢。臺北市:心理出版社。
黃彥超(2013)。國民小學教師文化之理論模式建構。國立暨南國際大學教育政
策與行政學系博士論文,未出版,南投縣。
黃裕元、陳俍任、張榮仁(2006/02/14)聯合報。http://cbs.ntu.edu.tw/postread.php/board=education&num=1489&hotmode=0
黃慧瑜(2016)。高雄市國小普通班教師與資源班教師合作諮詢需求及現況之研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
黃素珍(2005)。國民小學一般教師、特殊教育資優類教師與特殊教育障礙類工作滿意度之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
黃錦樟、葉建源編譯(2000)。學校與改革—人本主義的傾向。稻田出版。
黃囇莉(2003)。質性資料分析、詮釋與撰寫:國立台灣師範大學教育研究中心
質性工作坊成果摘要-〈紮根理論的資料分析與再詮釋〉。教育研究資訊,
11(4),159-172。
孫敏芝(2009)。國小教師團隊合作化的雙面向探討-以發展學校願景為例。
課程與教學季刊,13(1),117-140。
張宇樑、吳樎椒譯,Creswell, J. W.著(2011)。研究設計:質化、量化及混合方法取向。臺北市:學富文化事業有限公司。
張芝萱(2012)。從社會心理層面探討國小資優教育教師專業認定之發展與挑
戰。資優教育季刊,122,9-16。
張銀鳳(2000)。兩位帶班教師相處之哲學。幼教資訊,118,56-57。
張媛甯,張嘉容(2018)。國小教師文化與教師專業學習社群發展之個案研究。
學校行政雙月刊,114,252-282。
張書豪、劉維哲(2012)。榮譽的名字「基浮帝」。資優教育的推手,1-14。臺北市:教育部。
張儷憓(2013)。桃園縣國小普通班教師與資源班教師合作諮詢之困境與因應策略之研究。國立臺北教育大學特殊教育學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
鈕文英(2015)。擁抱個別差異的新典範-融合教育。臺北市:心理出版社。
隋夢真(2002)。論協同教學之優缺點。國教之友,54(1),76-81。
楊俐容(1988)。教室裡的春天—幼師伙伴間的衝突與化解。成長幼教季刊,
34,27-31。
楊俊威(2009)。國中小資源班教師合作諮詢現況及相關因素之研究。國立高雄師範大學特殊教育學系博士論文,未出版,高雄市。
楊智穎(2000)。從建立合作文化談教師專業成長。人文及社會學科教學通訊,
11(3),126-132。
楊鶴青(2009)。彰化縣國民小學資源班教師與普通班教師合作諮詢現況之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,彰化縣。
趙慧芬譯,Margaret Heffernan著(2012)。《大難時代》Wilful Blindness-Why we ignore the obvious at our peril?,p.34。漫遊者。
鄭玉玲、練雅婷(2003)。兩個女人的故事。載於中華民國幼兒教育改革研究主
編,來!說我們的故事:幼教師的專業成長,201-222。臺北市:心理出版
社。
鄭明輝譯,Andrew Stellman & Jennifer Greene著(2011)。團隊之美。臺北市:
碁峰資訊。
鄭青青、林芝蓉、巫佳蓉(2000)。她們的故事--合作帶班的心路歷程。幼教資
訊,118,51-55。
鄭博真(2002)。協同教學:基本概念、實務和研究。高雄市:復文。
鄭媛文(2005)。桃園縣國小資源班教師工作壓力與工作滿意度相關之研究。中
原大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,桃園縣。
葉芷嫻、林雍智(2006)。國小資優班班級經營探究-現況、困境與提升經營
效果之策略。國小特殊教育,41,14-21。
劉美君(2014)。花蓮縣國民小學教師文化與教師專業學習社群之關係研究。
國立東華大學教育行政與管理學系碩士論文,未出版,花蓮縣。
劉維哲(2014)。資優班教師合作情形之研究-以臺北市國小一班智能資優班為
例。2014年第十九屆特殊教育課程與教學研討會暨中華民國特殊教育學會
中區研討會議事手冊暨論文選集。中華民國特殊教育學會。
劉維哲(2015)。從Hargreaves教師文化觀點探究資優班教師的合作。資優教育
季刊,135,17-28。
蔣馥朵譯,Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis著(2016)。合作的物種:人類的相
互性及其演化。(A cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its
Evolution.) 臺北市:五南。
蘇彥捷譯,Tomasello, M.著(2017)。我們為什麼合作-先天與後天之爭的新理
論。(Why we cooperate ?)。北京師範大學出版社。
謝志偉、王慧玉譯,Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L.著(2010)。混合方法研究導論。臺北市:心理。
謝東霖(2015)。北部地區國中特教班雙導師合作關係與教師效能感之研究。國
立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
謝雅玲(2004)。幼兒園合班教師的互動關係—以兩個班級為例。國立台灣師
範大學人類發展與家庭研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
臺北市教育局(2003)。臺北市九十一學年度資優教育評鑑報告。
臺北市政府(2015)。臺北市資賦優異教育白皮書。
蔡春美、蘇韋列、蕭景容、魏慧珠譯,Daniel Levi著(2012)。團體動力學-
團隊工作的運用。臺北市:洪業文化。
蔡崇健(1994)。特殊教育教師專業知能發展的需求評估。特殊教育研究學刊,10,103-117。
蔡典謨(2015)。資優夥伴關係之道-Partnership。中華資優教育學會2015年會員大會暨學術研討會。
齊貴枝(2012)。公立幼稚園教師合作教學之研究。國立臺東大學幼兒教育學系
研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺東縣。
蕭蒂雯(2013)。國民小學教師文化與教師集體效能感關係之研究。國立嘉義
大學教育學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義市。

【外文部分】
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher
collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455.
Acker, S. (1999). The realities of teachers, work: Never a dull moment. London,
England: Cassell.
Alexland, R. J.(1984). Primary teaching. Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Attard, K. (2012). Public reflection within learning communities: An incessant
type of professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education,
35,199-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643397.
Bacharach, N. L., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K.(2008). What makes co-teaching
work? Identifying the essential elements. College Teaching Methods & Styles
Journal, 4(3), 43-48.
Bair, M., & Woodward, R. G.(1964). Team teaching in action. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context
of educational innovation: learning activities and learning outcomes of
experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 533-548. doi:10.1016/
j.learninstruc.2009.09.001.
Banks, j. A., & Banks, C. A. M.(Eds.)(2010). Multicultural educational: Issues and
perspectives(7th ed).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Bauml, M.(2016). The Promise of Collaboration. Educational Leadership, 74(2),
58-62.
Beggs, D. W. (1964). Team teaching: Bold new venture. Bloomington, ID: Indiana
University Press.
Beninghof, A. M. (2012). Co-Teaching that works: Structures and strategies for
maximizing student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berry, B., Zeichner, N., & Evans, R. (2016). Teacher leadership: A reinvented
teaching profession. In J. Evers & R. Kneyber (Eds.), Flip the system: Changing
education from the ground up (pp. 209-25). London & New York: Routledge.
Boucher, C., Smyth, A., & Johnstone, M. J.(2004). Creating collaborative spaces: The pleasures and perils of doing mult-disciplinary, mult-partner qualitative research. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3), 419-428.
Bray, M.(2001).Community partnerships in education: Dimensions, variations, and
implications. Comparative Education Research Centre. The University of Hong
Kong. Pokfulam Road. Hong Kong, China.
Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L. L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in
practice: Action, reflection and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Colton A. B., Langer G. M., Goff D. L.(2015). Collaborative analysis of Student
learning-professional learning that promotes success for all. SAGE
Publications UK.
Cook, L., & Friend, M.(1995). Co-teaching: Guideline for greating effective
practices. Focus on Exceptional children, 28, 1-16.
Cook, L. (2004). Co-teaching: Principles, practices, and pragmatics. Presentation
for the New Mexico Public Education Department Quarterly Special Education Meeting April 29,2004. Available online at: www.lilieonline. com/courses/inclusion/co-teaching. Pdf
Coyle, N. C.(2000). Conflict resolution: It’s part of the job. Delta Gamma Bulletin,
66(4), 41-46.
Creswell, J. W.(2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Datnow, A.(2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in
the age of accountability. Journal of Eduvation Change , 12, 147–158.
Dean, S. E., & Witherspoon, C . F. (1962). Team teaching in the elementary school.
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education,
Education Brief No. 38. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office January.
Dettmer, P., Knackendoffel, A., & Thurston, L. P. (2013). Collaboration, consulation,
and Teamwor for students with special needs. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ellis, H., & Gary, W. (2017) “You Want Me To Do What?” The Benefits of Co-teaching in the Middle Level. Middle Grades Review, 3(1).
Eisen, M. J.(2000). The many faces of team teaching and learning: An overview.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 87, 5-14.
Eisen, M., & Tisdell, E. J. (2000). Team teaching and learning in adult education.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (87). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). Gender and emotions in different
cultures. In A. H. Fischer(Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological
perspectives (pp. 71-94). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, A., & LaFrance, M. (2015). What drives the smile and the tear: Why women
are more emotionally expressive than men. Emotion Review, 7, 22-29.
Flinders, D. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum
and Supervision, 4(1), 17-29.
Fullan, M. (1993) Change forces: Probing the depths of education reform, London:
Falmer Press.
Gaikwad, S., & Brantly, P. (1992). Teacher isolation—loneliness in the classroom.
Journal of Adventist Education,54, 14-17
Glazier, J. A., Boyd, A., Hughes, K. B., Able, H. & Mallous, R. (2017). The elusive
search for teacher collaboration, The New Educator, 13(1), 3-21.

Goodlad, J.(1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY:
Mcgraw-Hill.
Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. (2009).
Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre-service teacher and
cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 285-296.
Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration:
A case study of a professional learning community. RMLE Online: Research in
Middle Level Education, 31, 1e17. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov.
Guise, M., Habib, M., Thiessen, K., & Robbins, A.(2017). Continuum of co-teaching
implementation: Moving from traditional student teaching to co-teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 370-382.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159e170.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076546.
Hargreaves, A. (1972). Interpersonal relations and education. London.
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, D. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived
collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and
Teacher Education 6 (3), 227-241.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1991). What’s worth fighting for in your school?
New York, NY: Teacher College.
Hargreaves, A.(1992). Understanding teacher developmenting. New York, NY:
Teachers College.
Hargreaves, A.(1993). Individualism and individuality: Reinterpreting the teacher
culture. International Journal of Educational Research 19.
Hargreaves, A.(1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and
culture in the postmodern age. London, England: Cassell.

Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (1996). Teachers' professional lives: Aspirations and
actualities. In I. F. Goodson, & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers' professional
lives, 1-27. London, England: Falmer Press.
Hargreaves, A.(1997).Cultures of teaching and educational change. International
handbook of teachers and teaching, 1297-1319.
Hargreaves, A.(1998a).The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development:
With implications for educational leadership. International Journal of
Leadership in Education 1 (4), 315-336.
Hargreaves, A.(1998b). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 14(8), 835-854.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 6 (2), 151-182.
Hargreaves, A.(2001a). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with
colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 503-527.
Hargreaves, A.(2001b). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College
Record, 103(6), 1056-1080.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2002). Teachers’ professional lives: Aspirations
and actualities. Teachers' professional lives, 9-35.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M.(2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in
every school. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M.(2013). The power of professional capital. Journal of
Staff Development, 34(3), 36-39.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximazing impact on learning.
London, England: Routledge.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American
Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-75.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Retrieved 28 June 2016, from
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/plc-cha34.pdf.
Johnson, S. M., Reinhorn, S. K., & Simon, N. S. (2015). Ending isolation: The payoff
of teacher teams in successful highpoverty urban schools. Working paper. The
Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of
Education, Cambridge, MA.
Kelchtermans, G.(1996). Teacher vulnerability: Understanding its moral and political
roots. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 307-323.
Keranen, N., & Prudencio, F. E. (2014). Teacher collaboration praxis: Conflicts,
borders, and ideologies from a micropolitical perspective. PROFILE Issues in
Teachers’ Professional Development, 16(2), 37-47.
Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2009) Priorities in teacher education: The 7 key elements
of pre-service preparation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kutsyuruba, B. (2011). Potential for teacher collaboration in post-Soviet Ukraine.
International Journal of Educational Development, 31(5), 541–551.
Lasky, C. A.(2000). The cultural and emotional politics of teacher-parent
interactions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 843-869.
Laughlin, K., Nelson, P., & Donaldson, S.(2011). Successfully applying team
teaching with adult Learners. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 11-17.
Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 9(4), 30-35.
Leat, D., Lofthouse, R., & Taverner, S. (2006). The road taken: Professional
pathways in innovative curriculum development. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 12(6), 657-674. doi:10.1080/13540600601029686.

Lippitt, G. L.(1983). Can conflict resolution be win? The School Administrator,
40(3), 20-22.
Lortie, D.(1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lubetkin, B.(1997). Master the art of apologizing. The Manger’s Intelligence
Report.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H.(2006). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mandel, K., & Eiserman, T.(2016). Team teaching in high school. Eduactional
Leadership, 73(4), 74-77.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology:
Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2002). Qualitative data analysis(2nd). New York, NY: Sage.
Mulford, B. (1998) “Organisational learning and educational change”, in A.
Hargraves, A., Lieberman, A., M. Fullan, & D. Hopkin (eds). International
handbook of educational change. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 616-664.
Myers, M. (1993). To boldly go. In J. Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers develop
teachers research: Papers on classroom research and teacher development (pp.
10-25). Oxford, UK: Heinemann.
Nokes, J. D., Bullough, R. V., Egan, W. M., Birrell, J. R., & Hansen, M. (2008). The
paired-placement of student teachers: An alternative to traditional placements in
secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2168-2177.
Nolan, A., Molla, T.(2017). Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 62, 10-18.
Osmond-Johnson, P.(2017). Leading professional learning to develop professional
capital: The saskatchewan professional development unit’s facilitator
community. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 8(1), 1-17.
Ostovar-Nameghi1, S. A., & Sheikhahmadi1, M.(2016). From teacher isolation to
teacher collaboration: perspectives and empirical findings. English Language
Teaching, 9(5), 197-205.
Owen, S.(2014). Teacher professional learning communities: Going beyond contrived
collegiality toward challenging debate and collegial learning and professional
growth. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(2), 54-77.
Peplau, L. A., Miceli, M., & Morasch, B. (1982). Loneliness and self-evaluation. In
L. A. Peplau, & D. Perlman(Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory,
research and therapy (pp. 135-151). New York: JohnWiley and Sons.
Plank, K. M.(2013). Team Teaching. IDEA PAPER, 1-7.
Pratt, S.(2014). Achieving symbiosis: Working through challenges found in
co-teaching to achieve effective co-teaching relationships. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 41, 1-12.
Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models
and changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of
Education, 85, 290‒312.
Reed, R., & Eyolfson, J.(2015). Develop professional capital to help teacher thrive
in times of great change. Journal of Staff Development, 36(6), 38-41.
Riordan, G.P. (1995). Teachers’ perceptions of collaboration and clinical supervision.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED385494)
Roland, K., Johnson, S., Jones, L., & Boyer, C.(2016). Building professional capital
through the development of teaching partnerships. Proceedings of the
European Conference on Intellectual Capital., 231-239.
Rosenholtz, S. J.(1989). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools.
New York: Longman.
Rush, E. A.(2005). Institutional barriers to organizational learning in school
systems: The power of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1),
83-120.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2011). A self-determination theory perspective on
social, institutional, cultural, and economic supports for autonomy and their
importance for wellbeing. In V. I. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan, & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.),
Human autonomy in cross-cultural context , 45-64. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9667-8_3.
Rytivaara, A. & Kershner, R.(2012). Co-teaching as a context for teachers’
professional learning and joint knowledge construction. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28, 999-1008.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M, A.(2014). Making inclusion work with
co-teaching, Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 284-293.
Tomasello, M.(1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Tuckman, B. W (1965). “Developmental sequence in small groups”. Psychological
Bulletin. 63 (6): 384–399.
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427.
Ury, W.(1991). Getting past no: Negotiating with difficult people. New York:
Bantam Books.
Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E.(2017). Teacher communities
as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 61, 47-59.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K.(2007). Teacher education standards for the
field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 182-205.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. (2013). A guide to co-teaching: Practical
tips for facilitating student learning (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Vincente, J.(2017). What teacher collaboration looks like. American Educator,
41(2), 22-23.
Waller, D.(1932). The sociology of teaching. New York, NY: Russell and Rusell.
Wood, N., & Smith, S. J.(2004). Instrumental routes to emotional geographies.
Social and Cultural Geography, 5, 533-548.
Yin, R. K.(2013). Case study research: Design and methods.(5 ed.). New York,
NY: Sage.
Zeng, Z. (2013). Pathways to pre-service teachers' professional development: Insights
from teacher autonomy. Paper presented at international academic workshop
on social science. Changsha, Hunan, China
http://dx.doi.org/10.299/iaw-sc.2013.194.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE