國小教師團隊合作文化的雙面向探討－以發展學校願景爲例

The Cultural and Political Nature of Teacher Teams: Curriculum Committee Decisions in Designating Free-time Curriculum

10.6384/CIQ.201001.0117

孫敏芝(Ming-Chih Sun)

教師團隊合作 ； 課程發展 ； 教師文化 ； 個案研究 ； teacher collaboration ； curriculum development ； teacher culture ； case study

課程與教學

13卷1期（2010 / 01 / 01）

117 - 139

繁體中文

在近期教育政策鼓勵中小學自主發展學校課程的改革風潮之下，教師團隊成爲影響學校政策能否成功的關鍵因素。本研究以一所由教師共同發展彈性課程的國小爲個案，探究教師團隊在推動課程發展時，如何確立願景目標與分析學校情境。深度訪談蒐集資料約一學年，有以下重要發現： （一）教師合作文化的融合特質，使同事情誼及教師集體自主權更加鞏固，亦能產生團隊合作的積極效果，使教師更樂於分享。 （二）教師合作過程涉及權力運作與實踐個人自主權，難免會在確立學校願景及學校情境之分析時，出現分歧觀點與不同作法；團隊中會因個人教育價值觀與信念之差異，出現不同權力核心，形成非正式影響力。 （三）教師團隊合作設計彈性課程的過程中，建立真誠相待與不藏私的文化特質，能促使教師相互學習，加上團隊領導者的責任實踐與權力行使並進，能有效化解衝突。

Recently, the government of Taiwan has committed to pursuing a reform agenda for education which encourages schools to develop their own curricula. Teachers' collaboration in developing school curricula is seen as a key to successful curriculum reform. In this study, a primary-school teaching team that collaboratively planned free-time curriculum units for their age cohort was chosen. Data was collected by interviewing teachers about their decisions, understanding of school vision, and analyses and evaluation of school situations. Some important findings were obtained as follows: Firstly, team work was found to foster teachers' closeness and collective autonomy. If teams worked effectively in selecting and implementing rules of participation and labor partition, then positive outcomes were yielded. Secondly, both the use of power and the implementation of teacher autonomy existed in collaborative processes. There were differences and struggles among members in constructing schools visions and analyzing school situations. Various educational values and beliefs were found to create both legitimate and illegitimate power. Thirdly, teams with high levels of solidarity and trust among participants better facilitated teachers' learning from one another. Team leaders who demonstrated a sharpened sense of responsibility and use of power were able to resolve the conflict.

1. 孫敏芝(2007)。國民小學教師課程自主權的實踐與限制。課程與教學季刊，10(2)，65-80。
   連結：
2. 簡紅珠(2005)。對台灣中小學教學文化的幾點思考。課程與教學季刊，8(3)，1-13。
   連結：
3. Alexander, R. J.(1984).Primary teaching.Eastbourne:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
4. Beattie, M.,Thiessen, D.(1997).School-based restructuring and curriculum change: teachers' and students' contrasting perspectives.The Curriculum Journal,8(3),411-440.
5. Blasé, J. (Ed.)(1991).The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation.Newbury Park:Sage.
6. Blasé, J.,A. Hargreaves (Ed.)(2005).Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change.Dordrecht:Springer.
7. Boucher, C.,Smyth, A.,Johnstone, M. J.(2004).Creating collaborative spaces: The pleasures and perils of doing mud-disciplinary, multi-partner qualitative research.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,26(3),419-428.
8. Cameron, D. H.(2005).Teach working in collaborative structures.Educational Management Administration & Leadership,33(3),311-330.
9. Campbell, R. J.(1985).Developing the primary school curriculum.London:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
10. Christenson, M.,Slutsky, R.,Bendau, S.,Covert, J.,Dyer, J.,Risko, G.,Johnston, M.(2002).The rocky road of teachers becoming action researchers.Teaching and Teacher Education,18(3),259-272.
11. Dinnebeil, L. A.,Hale, L. M.,Rule, S.(1996).A qualitative analysis of parents' and service co-ordinators' descriptions of variables that influence collaborative relationships.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,16,332-347.
12. Eisner, E. W.(1967).Educational objectives-help or hindrance?.School Review,75(3),250-260.
13. Fullan, M.,Hargreaves, A.(1991).What's worth fighting for: Working together for your school.Toronto:Ontario Public Teachers Association.
14. Hargreaves, A.,J. Blasé (Ed.)(1991).The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation.Newbury Park:Sage.
15. Hawthorne, R. D.(1990).Analyzing school-based collaborative curriculum decision making.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,5(3),279-286.
16. Hickey, R.,Thompson, M. D.(2003).Collaborative curriculum-making: The interplay of ownership and dialogue.Curriculum Perspectives,23(3),24-33.
17. Iannaccone, L.(1975).Education policy systems: A study guide for educational administrators.Fort Lauderdale:Nova University.
18. Langer, G.,Colton, A.,Goff, L.(2003).Collaborative analysis of student work.Alexandria:ASCD.
19. Leonard, L. J.,Leonard, P. E.(1999).Reculturing for collaboration and leadership.The Journal of Educational Research,92(4),237-242.
20. Marlow, M. P.,Kyed, S.,Connors, S.(2005).Collegiality, collaboration and Kuleana: Complexity in a professional development school.Education,125(4),557-569.
21. O''Neil, J.(1995).On schools as learning organizations: A conversation with Peter Senge.Educational Leadership,52(7),20-23.
22. Park, S.,Henkin, A. B.(2005).Teacher team commitment, teamwork and trust: Exploring associations.Journal of Educational Administration,43(1),9-21.
23. Scribner, J. P.,Sawyer, R. K.,Watson, S. T.,Myers, V. L.(2007).Teacher teams and distributed leadership: a study of group discourse and collaboration.Educational Administration Quarterly,43(1),67-100.
24. Snell. M. E.,Janney, R.(2005).Collaborative teaming.Maryland:Paul H. Brookes.
25. Wallace, M.,T. Bush (Eds.),L. Bell (Eds.),R. Bolam (Eds.),R. Glatter (Eds.),P. Ribbins (Eds.)(1999).Educational management redefining theory, policy, and practice.London:Paul Chapman.
26. Wheelan, S. A.(2005).Faculty groups.Thousand Oks:Corwin Press.
27. Zmuda, A.,Kuklis, R.,Kline, E.(2004).Transforming schools.Alexandria:ASCD.
28. 教育部(2000)。學校本位課程發展基本理念與實施策略。臺北:教育部。
29. 陳千玉譯、E.H. Schein原著(2005)。組織文化與領導。臺北:五南。
30. 陳錫珍譯(2006)。教師團隊承諾、團隊合作與信任關係之研究（上）。教育研究月刊，145，102-108。
31. 蔡清田(2001)。實踐「學校本位課程發展」理念的專業行動。教育研究月刊，88，24-34。
32. 簡紅珠(2007)。教師專業發展與教學改善：借鏡日本小學教師的學課研究。教育研究月刊，158，130-140。

1. 劉世雄(Shih-Hsiung Liu)(2021)。國小教師採合作探究理念進行觀課、議課之個案研究。教育研究與發展期刊。17(1)。1-29。