» 展開更多

1. 李文富（2012）。規劃學科中心種子教師轉型為學科諮詢輔導機制。宜蘭高中普通高中課程課務工作圈委託研究成果報告。宜蘭縣：國立宜蘭高級中學。【Li, W.-F. (2012). Planning discipline center seed teacher transformation for discipline counseling mechanism. Report on the Achievements of Entrusted Work Circle of Yilan Senior High School. Yilan County, Taiwan: National Yilan Senior High School.】
2. 阮孝齊（2016）。我國學習共同體政策擴散之研究（未出版博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。【Juan, H.-C. (2016). Research on the diffusion of the school as learning community policy in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.】
3. 林智中、張爽（2013）。香港高中課程改革：通識教育科的人力成本。課程與教學季刊，16（1），159-178。【Lam, C.-C., & Zhang, S. (2013). Senior secondary curriculum reform: The human costs of liberal studies in Hong Kong. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 16(1), 159-178.】
4. 張素貞、吳俊傑（2011）。從「深耕」到「精進」－九年一貫課程與教學輔導機制之推動。教育資料與研究，98，101-124。【Chang, S.-C., & Wu, J.-J. (2011). From “learning” to “progress” on the mechanism of teaching and advising of the nine years compulsory curriculum. Educational Resources and Research, 98, 101-124.】
5. 陳佩英（2009）。一起學習、一起領導：專業學習社群的建構與實踐。中等教育，60（3），68-88。doi:10.6249/SE.2009.60.3.05【Chen, P.-Y. (2009). Learning together, leading together: The construction and practice of professional learning community. Secondary Education, 60(3), 68-88. doi:10.6249/SE.2009.60.3.05】
6. 陳佩英（2015）。結構縫隙、社群結連與教育學想像的實踐。中等教育，66（1），58-78。doi:10.6249/SE.2015.66.1.04【Chen, P.-Y. (2015). Structural chasm, networked community, and pedagogical imaginary. Secondary Education, 66(1), 58-78. doi:10.6249/SE.2015.66.1.04】
7. 陳佩英、焦傳金（2009）。分散式領導與專業學習社群之建構：一所高中教學創新計畫的個案研究。教育科學研究期刊，54（1），55-86。doi:10.3966/2073753X2009035401003【Chen, P.-Y., & Chiao, C.-C. (2009). Distributed leadership and professional learning community: A case study of innovative teaching in a high school. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 54(1), 55-86. doi:10.3966/ 2073753X2009035401003】
8. 陳佩英、鄭美瑜、黃琪、鄭毓瓊、林雅婷（2016）。教育學想像的促能：跨校網絡學習社群與校本學習社群的共享願景實踐。教育研究月刊，265，91-109。doi:10.3966/1680636020 16050265007【Chen, P.-Y., Zheng, M.-Y., Huang, Q., Zheng, Y.-Q., & Lin, Y.-T. (2016). Enabling pedagogical imaginary: Networked learning communities and school-based learning communities realizing shared visions. Journal of Education Research, 265, 91-109. doi:10.3966/168063602016050265007】
9. 陳麗華（2011）。促進全員潛能開發的學習共同體。教師天地，171，76-77。【Chen, L.-H. (2011). To promote the full potential of the development of the learning community. Teachers In-service Education Center, 171, 76-77.】
10. 楊佩文、卯靜儒（2015）。教育改革中構築的主體、意義與關係：臺北市跨校教師共同備課之經驗分享。中等教育，66（1），153-171。doi:10.6249/SE.2015.66.1.08【Yang, P.-W., & Mao, C.-J. (2015). The building of subjects, meanings and relations in education reform－Experience of joint lesson planning shared by groups of Taipei teachers. Secondary Education, 66(1), 153-171. doi:10.6249/SE.2015.66.1.08】
11. 趙志成、何碧愉、張佳偉、李文浩（2013）。學校改進：理論與實踐。香港：香港中文大學香港教育研究所。【Zhao, Z.-C., He, B.-Y., Zhang, J.-W., & Li, W.-H. (2013). School improvement: Theory and practice. Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong Institute of Education Research, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.】
12. 潘慧玲、陳佩英、張素貞、鄭淑惠、陳文彥（2014）。從學習領導論析學習共同體的概念與實踐。市北教育學刊，45，1-28。【Pan, H.-L., Chen, P.-Y., Chang, S.-C., Cheng, S.-H., & Chen, W.-Y. (2014). Concepts and practices of learning community: An analysis from the perspective of leadership for learning. University of Taipei Education, 45, 1-28.】
13. 薛雅慈（曉華）（2014）。國中教師以學習共同體啟動：新學習型態之研究。教育科學研究期刊，59（1），101-140。doi:10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(1).04【Hsueh, S. Y.-C. (2014). Adopting a learning community in a junior high school under the 12-year basic education system. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 59 (1), 101-140. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(1).04】
14. Borgatti, S., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00087-4
15. Chen, P.-Y. (2017). Creating a network for teacher-led reform and pedagogical innovation in Taiwan. In A. Harris, M. Jones, & B. J. Huffman (Eds.), Teachers leading educational reform: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 155-172). London, UK: Routledge.
16. Chen, P.-Y., Lee, C.-D., Lin, H., & Chang, C.-X. (2016). Factors that develop effective professional learning communities in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(2), 248-265. doi:10. 1080/02188791.2016.1148853
17. Church, M., Bitel, M., Armstrong, K., Fernando, P., Gould, H., Joss, S., …Vouhe, C. (2003). Participation, relationships and dynamic change: New thinking on evaluating the work of international networks. London, UK: University College London.
18. Dudley, P. (2013). Teacher learning in lesson study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107-121. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.006
19. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2005). Painting a data-rich picture. Principal Leadership, 5(5), 16-20.
20. Fairhurst, G. L., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14(1), 5-26. doi:10.1093/ct/14.1.5
21. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
22. Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano‐López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-303. doi:10. 1080/10749039909524733
23. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
24. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. doi:10.4135/9781452219523
26. Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2006). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 45-62). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
27. Jackson, D., Cordingley, P., & Hannon, V. (2004, April). Networked learning communities: Programme, policy environment and the potential of participatory evaluation. Paper presented at the for AERA annual conference, San Diego, CA.
28. Jordan, J. J., Rand, D. G., Arbesman, S., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2013). Contagion of cooperation in static and fluid social networks. PloS One, 8(6), 1-10. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0066199
29. Kahne, J., O’Brien, J., Brown, A., & Quinn, T. (2001). Leveraging social capital and school improvement: The case of a school network and a comprehensive community initiative in Chicago. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 429-461. doi:10.1177/0013161012196 9389
30. Kuhn, T. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29(8-9), 1227- 1254. doi:10.1177/0170840608094778
31. Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. (2002). Untangling the threads: Networks, community and teacher learning in the national writing project. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 295-302. doi:10.1080/ 135406002100000440
32. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33. Little, J. W. (2005). Nodes and nets: Investigating resources for professional learning in schools and networks. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
34. McCormick, R., Fox, A., Carmichael, P., & Procter, R. (2011). Researching and understanding educational networks. London, UK: Routledge.
35. Network Learning Conference. (2017). NLC 2016: Looking back-moving forward. Retrieved from http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/index.htm
36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Networks of innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/ 9789264100350-en
37. Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action and inter- pretation (J. B. Thompson, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1981) doi:10.1017/CBO9781316534984
38. Robichaud, D., Giroux, H., & Taylor, J. R. (2004). The metaconversation: The recursive property of language as a key to organizing. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 617-634. doi:10. 5465/AMR.2004.14497614
39. Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1217-1245. doi:10.1177/0170840611411387
40. Stoll, L. (2004, April). Networked learning communities as professional learning communities. Paper presented at Aporia Consulting Ltd for Phase 1 of Evaluation of Networked Learning Communities Program Network Learning Communities Seminar, San Diego, CA.
41. Surman, M., & Surman, T. (2008). Listening to the stars: The constellation model of collaborative social change. Social Space, 24-29.
42. Taylor, C. (2003). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
43. Taylor, J. R., & Robichaud, D. (2004). Finding the organization in the communication: Discourse as action and sensemaking. Organization, 11(3), 395-413. doi:10.1177/1350508404041999
44. Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (1999). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C., R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46. Veugelers, W., & Zijlstra, H. (2005). Keeping school networks fluid: Networks in dialogue with educational change. In W. Veugelers & M. J. O’Hair (Eds.), Network learning for educational change (pp. 33-51). London, UK: Open University Press.
47. Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C. L., Chau, D., & Polhemus, J. L. (2003). Improving schools through networks: A new approach to urban school reform. Educational Policy, 17(4), 399-430. doi:10. 1177/0895904803254961

中文APA引文格式	陳佩英(2017)。對話即實踐：網絡學習社群專業資本積累之個案研究。教育科學研究期刊，62(3)，159-191。doi:10.6209/JORIES.2017.62(3).06
APA Format	Chen, P.-Y. (2017). Dialogue as practice: A case study on the accumulation of professional capital by the networked learning communities. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 62(3), 159-191. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2017.62(3).06

This research explored the pedagogical inquiry activities of the networked learning communities (NLCs), and the path and meaning of its professional empowerment. The case study focused on a group of teachers named the “Navigators,” comprised of seven Chinese Literacy teachers from six public high schools in Taipei. This study lasted 2 years and data collection included in-depth interviews, focus group interviews, field observation, and document analysis. The concepts of NLCs, professional capital, and dialogue as practice were employed to provide thick description and a thorough interpretation of the processes and changes involved in the NLCs. The results explain the context in which the NLCs originated, the drivers of participation, how agency was developed through collaboration, the use of social media for constraint-free communication, the use of professional enquiry and reconstructed lesson texts for accumulation of professional capital, and the network expansion that led to further development of new NLCs. When participants gathered for meetings and held discussions regarding lesson plans and instructional observation, they created a “third space” for collective inquiry. Through cycles of professional dialogue and the recurrent production of lesson texts, a shared pedagogy was strengthened that guided professional discourse and enabled common understanding. This discourse was then continued within the teachers’ respective schools to form a public narrative on educational practices. Along the process of recurrent production of talks and texts then practiced collaborative inquiry and reflection. This, in turn, shaped educational values and empowered the Navigators to be innovative with their curriculum and instruction.