Contradictions Derived from Collaboration: Transformations and Regenerations through University-School Partnership in Remote Schools
Yen-Hung Lin;Pei-Ying Chen
Yen-Hung Lin;Pei-Ying Chen
|作者(英文)：||Yen-Hung Lin;Pei-Ying Chen|
|論文名稱(英文)：||Contradictions Derived from Collaboration: Transformations and Regenerations through University-School Partnership in Remote Schools|
|英文關鍵字：||university-school partnership;Activity Theory;school improvement;EFSSD|
|摘要(英文)：||Since the 1980, university-school partnership has become a synonym of combining theory and practice, one that is regarded as a panaceum for school improvement. Hence, the Center for Educational Research and Evaluation (CERE) of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) in 2008 set up a project called “Evaluation for Systemic School Development (EFSSD)”. The EFSSD project was expected to help schools by raising their capacity of identifying and defining school problems and then developing action plans for improvement. A model of cyclic actions of evaluating-diagnosing-planning-improving (EDPI) was adopted for facilitating sustainable improvement. In order to investigate transformation and regeneration in this partnership, this paper drew on the Activity Theory proposed by Engestrom as the theoretical framework to examine collaborations and interactions taking place in the joint enterprise of school improvement. According to the the findings, the inner contradictions in the university were the fragementation of two research teams and the incoordination within division; the inner contradictions in schools
were different external expectations and the inutility of action plans. In addition, the divergent perception and interpretation of the object in this project also had limited effects on school self-improvement. The purpose of this study was to provide a basis for further research and university-school partnership in Taiwan through two-year project.
|參考文獻：||Allen, L. & Hensley F. (2005). School-university networks that improve student learning: Lessons from the League of Professional Schools. In M. J. O’Hair & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Network learning for educational change (pp.19-32). New York, NY: Open University Press.
Barnett, B. G., Hall, G. E., Berg, J. H., & Camarena, M. M. (1999). A typology of partnerships for promoting innovation. Journal of School Leadership, 9(6), 484–510.
Biott, C. (1992). Imposed support for teachers’ learning implementation or development partnerships?. In C. Biott & J. Nias (Eds.), Working and learning together for change (pp. 170-191). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24, 143-163.
Book C. L. (1996). Professional development schools. In In J.Shilula, T. Buttery, & E. Buyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 194-210). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Buchmann, M. (1987). Reporting and using educational research: conviction of persuasion. In J. Goodland (Ed.), The ecology of school renewal (pp. 170-191). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Callahana J. L. & Martin D. (2007). The spectrum of school–university partnerships: A typology of organizational learning systems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 136–145.
Chen S. L. & Wang L. Y. (2005). A survey of curricular practice and educational opportunity in rural schools. (Project Number: NSC94-2413-H-003-028). Taiwan: National Science Council.
Chen S. L. & Wang L. Y. (2007). Models of equal educational opportunity policies for rural areas in Taiwan: synthesis and reflections. Bulletin of National Institute of Educational Resources and Research, 36, 27-43.
Chen, P. (2008). Strategic leadership and school reform in Taiwan. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 293–318.
Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to development research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engestrom, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory: the case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin, & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64–103). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punama ki, R. L. (Eds), Perspectives of activity theory (pp. 377-404). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical conceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engestrom, Y. & Miettinen R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engestrom., R. Miettinen & R-L. Punamaki (1999) (Eds), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.1–18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). What’s worth fighting for in your school? Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School-university partnership. In K.A. Sirotnik & J.I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnership in action (pp.3-31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hammersley, M. (2002). Educational research, policymaking and practice. London, England: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Lin Y. & Chen P. (2010, January). Constructing a university-school partnership to improve remote schools in Taiwan: the EFSSD project. Paper presented at 23rd International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement (ICSEI), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Little, J. W. (1989). District policy choices and teacher’s professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 165–179.
McLaughlin, C., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2007). School-university partnerships for educational research-distinctions, dilemmas and challenges. Curriculum Journal, 18 (3), 327-341.
Pan H. L. (2007). School effectiveness and improvement in Taiwan. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp.269-286). New York, NY: Springer.
Roth, W. M., & Tobin, K. (2002). Redesigning an "urban" teacher education program: An activity theory perspective. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 9(2), 108-131.
Schlecty, P. C., & Whitford, B. L.(1988). Shared problems and shared vision: Organic collaboration. In K. A. Sirotnik & J.I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnership in action (pp.191-204). New York: Teachers College Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tsui A. B. M., Edwards G., Lopez-Real F., Kwan T. (2009). Learning in school university partnership: Sociocultural perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tsui, A. B. M., &Law, D. Y. K. (2007). Learning as boundary crossing in school–university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1289–1301.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Yamagata-Lynch L. C. & Haudenschild M. T. (2009). Using activity systems analysis to identify inner contradictions in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 507–517.