下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
With regard to teacher training, there are some basic questions. Claxton stated that, "what we do in teacher training may be ineffective because it is the wrong thing to do or because it is the right thing done at the wrong time or in the wrong way" (Claxton, 1985:82). We have sound reasons to question whether teacher training is done correctly. Borko & Putnam (1996) insisted that learning to teach is a complex process because teachers must learn multiple sets of knowledge, skills and understandings to be well prepared to enter the teaching profession. Learning to teach itself is also a complex process because it involves complex interactions amongst teachers' cognitive processes, their knowledge structures, affective predispositions and their classroom practice (Calderhead, 1988). Even after teachers start work, they are at different stages of their profession, and they differ in their interpretative abilities, their use of routines, and the emotional investment that they make in their work (Berliner, 2001). In-service training, or teacher development, is even more problematic, as Miles comments, "in short, it (professional development) is pedagogically naive, a demeaning exercise that often leaves its participants more cynical and no more knowledgeable, skilled, or committed than before" (Miles, 1995: vii), though he later claims that the hope for development lies in rethinking professional development in fundamental terms, such as curriculum, course design, school environment and so on. Researchers have examined teachers' learning (Shulman, 1986; Fenstermacher, 1986; Carter, 1990; Borko & Putnam, 1996) and teacher development (Joyce, 1990; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Guskey & Huberman, 1995; Bank & Mayes, 2001; Fullan, 2001), and expressed differing views, and the conduct of teacher training and teacher development has varied in different backgrounds.
Therefore, this research started with the following broad questions in mind and is aimed at finding out
To be more specific, these broad questions lead to the core questions of this study: (1) Can the planned in-service training programme lead to changes in teachers' understanding, knowledge, beliefs and practice in the classroom? (2) How can such an in-service training programme promote teacher development? The fieldwork of this research was designed to integrate with the Gardener Project and lasted for two years through three research phases. In Phase 1 (Chapters 4 and 5), information was collected on current Chinese English teachers understanding about language teaching. From this phase there emerged five themes of current English teachers' knowledge, beliefs and behaviours. The second phase (Chapters 6 and 7) studied the content, the process and the setting of an in-service training programme which is university-based, and information was collected on how such university-based courses have affected the teachers in terms of change. In Phase 3 (Chapters 8 and 9), the author collected and analysed evidence from the teachers while they conducted action research at their schools, and concluded that teacher development cannot be guaranteed without a supportive and positive system, and that social factors have a great influence on teachers' behaviour, though changes in teachers' beliefs and knowledge would affect how they behave in teaching. During the two year period, qualitative data were collected from teachers, among whom 32 out of the 100 top teachers worked collaboratively with the author for one and a half years. Data from other teachers, such as 48 ordinary English teachers studying for a master's degree and 88 other English teachers in Chongqing, were also collected.