期刊目錄列表 - 67卷(2022) - 【教育科學研究期刊】67(1)三月刊

校長在學習領導踐行中的資本運用與建構:以推動學習共同體為例 作者:淡江大學教育與未來設計系潘慧玲、文化大學師資培育中心洪瑞璇

卷期:67卷第1期
日期:2022年3月
頁碼:159-191
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202203_67(1).0006

摘要:
學習領導是因應二十一世紀所需的領導典範,也是十二年國教脈絡下學校進行變革與發展的重要利器,而學習共同體可作為學習領導的具體操作形式。為瞭解教育現場中校長如何在學習領導踐行中運用與建構不同形式的資本帶動學校變革,本研究以學習共同體作為學習領導探討之例,選擇國中、國小各一所作為研究場域,以半結構式訪談蒐集所需資料。研究結果發現,為實踐學習共同體,學校領導者善用自身的人力、文化與社會資本於學習領導,進而為學校建構相互交織的專業資本,在專業資本不斷蓄積厚實之後,便轉換生成領導者與學校的象徵資本。這段學習領導打造學校專業資本、引領變革的歷程,受到學校場域獨特性影響,讓學校的遊戲規則逐步改寫,呈現了校本的個殊路徑。

關鍵詞:校長領導、專業資本、學習共同體、學習領導

《詳全文》 檔名

參考文獻:
  1. 卯靜儒(2014)。改革即改變嗎?─教育改革理解路徑之探索。教育學刊,42,1-37。https:// doi.org/10.3966/156335272014060042001 【Mao, C.-J. (2014). Reform as change? Exploring approaches for understanding educational reform. Educational Review, 42, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.3966/156335272014060042001】
  2. 佐藤學(2004)。學習的快樂:走向對話(鍾啟泉,譯)。教育科學。(原著出版於1999年) 【Sato, M. (2004). Pleasure of learning: Toward dialogic practice (C.-C. Chung, Trans.). Educational Science Publishing House. (Original work published 1999)】
  3. 佐藤學(2010)。學校的挑戰:創建學習共同體(鍾啟泉,譯)。華東師範大學。(原著出版於2006年) 【Sato, M. (2010). Challenge of schools: Create learning community (C.-C. Chung, Trans.). Hua Dong Normal University. (Original work published 2006)】
  4. 佐藤學(2012)。學習的革命:從教室出發的改革(黃郁倫、鍾啟泉,合譯)。親子天下。(原著出版於2006年) 【Sato, M. (2012). Revolution in learning: Change from classrooms (Y.-L. Hung & C.-C. Chung, Trans.). Parenting. (Original work published 2006)】
  5. 佐藤學(2019)。學習革命的願景:學習共同體的設計與實踐(黃郁倫,譯)。親子天下。 【Sato, M. (2019). Vision of learning revolution: Design and practice in learning community (Y.-L. Hung, Trans.). Parenting.】
» 展開更多
中文APA引文格式潘慧玲、洪瑞璇(2022)。校長在學習領導踐行中的資本運用與建構:以推動學習共同體為例。教育科學研究期刊,67(1),159-191。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202203_67(1).0006
APA FormatPan, H.-L. W., & Hung, J.-H. (2022). School Principals’ Use and Generation of Capital in Leadership for Learning: A Case Study on the Learning Community. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 67(1), 159-191. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202203_67(1).0006

Journal directory listing - Vol.67(2022) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【67(1)】March

School Principals’ Use and Generation of Capital in Leadership for Learning: A Case Study on the Learning Community Author: Hui-Ling Wendy Pan (Department of Education and Futures Design,
Tamkang University), Jui-Hsuan Hung (Center of Teacher Education, Chinese Culture University)

Vol.&No.:Vol. 67, No. 1
Date:March 2022
Pages:159-191
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202203_67(1).0006

Abstract:
Background
Western countries have promoted the school restructuring movement since the mid-1980s. The movement advocates for systemic reform to change the structure and culture of schools and redefine the roles and responsibilities of those involved in schools (Cuban, 1988). Amid this global context, Taiwan began the process of educational decentralization in the mid-1990s. Subsequently, the Ministry of Education implemented a series of student-centered reforms, one of which being the 12-year basic education curriculum, implemented in 2019. This new competencies-based curriculum requires a new paradigm of teaching and learning. However, departing from traditional teaching approaches is challenging for teachers. Thus, guiding teachers and students through the new learning process is crucial for school leaders.
Leadership for learning requires relational and learning-focused communities (Marsh et al., 2014). Pan (2014, 2017a, 2017b) proposed that the learning community is an operational form of leadership for transforming schools. Leadership warrants investigation because it is essential when implementing new curricula. Unlike the approach in studies on leadership practices, we analyzed leadership as a method of capital construction.
“Capital” is variously defined. Bourdieu (1986) described three types of capital: cultural, social, and economic. Fullan and Hargreaves (2016) applied the concept of capital to the context of education and proposed that generating professional capital, including human, social, and decisional capital, would positively and considerably change schools. Caldwell and colleagues indicated that schools with financial, intellectual, social and spiritual capital can successfully restructure (Caldwell & Harris, 2008; Harris et al., 2009) indicated that schools with financial, intellectual, social, and spiritual capital can successfully restructure. They framed “leadership as capital formation;” this notion prompted our examination of principals’ creation of school capital through leadership for learning. To explore how principals use and create professional capital and practice leadership for learning, we investigated one elementary school and one middle school.
Literature Review
(1) Leadership for learning and the learning community
We observed that the concept of leadership for learning evolved through two pathways. The first was the discourse surrounding instructional leadership in North America. Instructional leadership evolved into leadership for learning through the combination of transformational and shared leadership (Dimmock, 2012; Hallinger, 2011). The second pathway involves a paradigm shift in leadership and learning. Leadership refers to a series of activities. Learning is embedded in leadership and life (Lingard et al., 2003; MacBeath & Dempster, 2008). Wagner (2001) argued that leadership for learning is an action theory of school reform. Studies on leading learning and the learning community have supported the aforementioned notions (Lin & Wu, 2016; Chen, 2016; Pan & Hsu, 2019).
“Learning Community” (xue xi gong tong ti , 學習共同體 ) as an approach for school change incorporating Japanese school practices was proposed by Sato and became a buzzword in Taiwan with the publication of Learning Revolution (Sato, 2006/2012). Sato was influenced by Dewey and Vygotsky when he developed his core theories surrounding teacher collegiality and classroom teaching (Sato, 1999/2004, 2006/2010, 2019). Although Sato’s ideas were introduced to Taiwan from Japan, Taiwan also developed an indigenous model that incorporated local practices. Pan (2014, 2017a, 2017b) described the “Learning Community” approach as a form of leadership for learning. The teacher and classroom learning communities encourage collective learning among teachers and students.
(2) Forms of capital
Two perspectives on capital have been adopted. First, the sociological perspective defines capital as assets owned by the dominant class. Bourdieu (1986) applied power relations to his analysis of capital, which takes the economic, cultural and symbolic forms. Second, some studies have linked capital to improving schools and organizational innovation and indicated that professional capital is key to transforming teaching (Chen, 2017; Campbell et al., 2016; Datnow, 2018; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2015; Malone et al., 2017). Professional capital consists of human, social, and decisional capital. Human capital is not a primary driver of school development, and social capital can generate human capital (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2016; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, 2013, 2020).
Methods
We recruited the principals, office ditrectors, and teachers of the two schools. Between April and June 2017, we conducted semistructured interviews with 12 participants regarding their perception of the “Learning Community” program. We employed triangulation and member checking to enhance the trustworthiness (Creswell, 2013).
Findings
The principals used their capital to lead teacher learning and exercised their professional competencies to encourage teachers to commit to improving their instructional practices. The principals were both learners and leaders as they shared their experiences and tended to the teachers’ needs; this process revealed embodied cultural capital. They utilized external so¬cial capital by seeking new ideas and providing avenues for teacher empowerment. The principals also employed various decisional capital-based strategies to encourage the teachers to participate in their reform programs.
The principals accumulated professional capital for their schools as they practiced leadership for learning. The principals guided the teachers through restructuring pedagogical practice by introducing the philosophies and practices of the “Learning Community” program. The teachers were divided into teams to implement the reform and build mutual trust through collaboration. The school leveraged the accumulated cultural capital to implement novel practices. The teachers, changing their habitus, were willing to take risks and try innovative teaching methods, thereby generating decisional capital. They also equipped themselves with the skills to make decisions about complex situations. In addition, interaction among the various forms of capital was converted to symbolic capital, and embedded symbolic power prompted educational change in terms of rewriting rules of the game in school fields.
Conclusion
The results indicate that capital plays a crucial role in school reform. Principals’ capital contributes to their ability to lead teacher learning required for the advancement of student outcomes. The accumulation of professional capital is essential to school reform. In addition, symbolic capital, which can be converted from various other forms of capital, improves the reputations of principals and schools. The trajectories of school practices elucidate the pathways involved in rewriting rules in school fields. The results also demonstrate the cultural specificity of capital. Different from the assertion of Bourdieu (1986) that economic capital is the foundation of all types of capital, we found that social capital is the cornerstone of school change.

Keywords:principal leadership, professional capital, learning community, leadership for learning