【网学提醒】：本文主要为网上学习者提供同伴结对观摩与教师专业发展，希望对需要同伴结对观摩与教师专业发展网友有所帮助，学习一下吧!
资料包括： 论文(86页25679字)
说明：Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
The year 2003 saw the birth of English Curriculum Standard for Senior Schools. Compared to the traditional syllabi emphasizing knowledge, such as grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation, the new curriculum focuses on developing students’ comprehensive competence. This brings teachers who are accustomed to transmitting knowledge and encouraging rote learning a big challenge.
To implement the new curriculum successfully, teachers “at the grassroots level” (Hayes, 1995:254) are required to participate in training programs run by relevant colleges and organizations. They are supposed to achieve a higher level of language proficiency, to adopt new teaching approaches, to improve their teaching techniques and so on. However, teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about teaching and education are crucial in any innovation. And the essence of change is the teachers’ internal awareness of current situation and their willingness to challenge the methods and the attitude they are used to. This change cannot be achieved overnight. As Wang maintains, “the change required of teachers can only be supported through involving them in their professional doings and reflections” (2002).
Hence, the programs composed of a series of lectures, one-shot workshops or prepackaged seminars do not seem to bring about quite radical alteration in teaching –learning behaviors. Although teachers are teaching the content of the new curriculum, they are doing so in the old style: lessons are teacher-centered lockstep, with heavy emphasis on choral repetition and formal grammatical exercises. It is not a problem troubling innovators and trainers in China alone. It is actually a worldwide problem related to education innovations, which Hayes (2000:136) recognizes as the “surface adherence to the language of innovations” as the result of the “tendency for curricular change in education systems worldwide to encompass rapid and massive changes”.
目录：Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Chapter 3 Research Design
Chapter 4 Data Presentation and Discussion
Chapter 5 Conclusion
参考文献：Allwright, D. 1989. Observation in the Language Classroom. Burnt Mill, Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Almarza, G. G. 1996. Students foreign language teacher’s knowledge growth. In Freeman, D. & Richards, J. C. (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. pp. 50-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. 2004. Pursuing Professional Development: the Self as Source. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bartlett, L. 2000. Teacher development through reflective teaching. In Richards, J.C. & Nunan, D (Eds), Second Language Teacher Education. pp. 202-214. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Bax, S. 1995. Appropriate methodology: the content of teacher development activities. System, 23 (3), pp. 347-357.
Becker, H. & Hamayan, E. 2004. Teaching ESL K-12: Views from the Classroom. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Borg, S. 1998. Data-based teacher development. ELT Journal, 52 (4), pp. 273-281.
Carrier, K. A. 2003. NNS teacher trainees in Western-based TESOL programs. ELT Journal, 57 (3), pp. 242-250.
Cheng, X. T. 2003. Guidance to New Curriculum Training in Basic Education: Junior English. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. （程晓堂，基础教育英语新课程师资培训指导：初中英语。北京师范大学出版社。）
Cosh, J. 1999. Peer observation: a reflective model. ELT Journal, 53 (1), pp. 22-27.
Clair, N. 1998. Teacher study groups’ persistent questions in a promising approach. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (3), pp. 465-492.
Curtis, A. 1997. Teacher development: Why bother? Paper presented at Lembaga- Bahasa Indonesia Language Association (LB-LIA) Conference: Teacher development: Becoming aware of our development as language teachers. Yayasan, LIA. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Diaz-Maggioli, G. H. 2003, Options for teacher professional development. English Teaching Forum, No. 4, 2003, pp. 2-13.
Donaghue, H. 2003. An instrument to elicit teachers’ beliefs and assumptions. ELT Journal, 57 (4), pp. 344-350.
Edge, J.1992.Cooperative Development: Professional Self-development through Cooperation with Colleagues. Burnt Mill, Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.
Elbaz, F. 1983. Teacher Thinking: A Study of Practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm.
Fanselow, J. 1988. Let’s see: contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (1), pp. 113-130.
Freeman D. 1982. Observing teachers: three approaches to in-service training and development. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (1), pp. 21-28.
Freeman, D. 1989. Teacher training, development, and decision making: a model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (1), pp. 27-45.
Freeman, D. 1996. The ‘unstudied problem’: research on teacher learning in langue teaching. In Freeman, D. & Richards, J. C. (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. pp. 351-378. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, D. & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). 2002. Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Fullan, M. 1993. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. London: The Falmer Press.
Golombek, P. R. 1998. A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (3), pp. 447-461.
Good, T. & Brophy, F. 1987. Looking in Classrooms. New York: Harper & Row.
Hayes, D. 1995. In-service teacher development: some basic principles. ELT Journal, 49 (3), pp. 252-261.
Hayes, D. 2000. Cascade training and teachers’ professional development. ELT Journal, 54 (2), pp. 135-145.
Head, K. & Taylor, P. 1997. Readings in Teacher Development. London: Heinemann.
James, P. 2001. Teachers in Action: Tasks for In-service Language Teacher Education and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jarvis, J. 1992. Using diaries for teacher reflection on in-service courses. ELT Journal, 46 (2), pp. 133-143.
Jia, A. W. 2005. A report on the status quo of middle school English teachers’ professional development. English Teaching and Research in Schools, No. 2, 2005. pp. 1-5. (贾爱武, 中学外语教师专业发展状况的调查报告, 《中小学英语教学与研究》2005年第二期. pp. 1-5。)
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. 1982. The Coaching of Teaching. Educational Leadership,40 (1), pp. 4-10.
Kennedy, J. 1999. Using mazes in teacher education. ELT Journal. 53 (2), pp. 107-114.
Lange, D. E. 2000. A blueprint for a teacher development program. In Richards, J. C. & Nunan, D. (Eds.), Second language teacher education. pp. 245-268. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ma, X. 2003. Facilitating Teacher Change and Development through Reflective Participatory Teacher Training. Unpublished MA thesis, Beijing Normal University.
Murphy, J.M. 1992. An etiquette for the non-supervisory observation of L2 classrooms. Foreign Language Annuals, 25 (3), pp. 215-225.
Nunan, D. 1989. A client-centered approach to teacher development. ELT Journal, 43 (2), pp. 111-118.
Nunan, D. (Ed).1992. Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parker, W. C. 1984. Developing teachers’ decision making. Journal of Experimental Education, 52 (4), pp. 220-226.
Pennington, M. C. 2002. Bridging gaps: a dialectic perspective on teacher development. In Pulverness, A. (Ed.), IATEFL 2002 York Conference Selections. pp. 61-74. Kent: IATEFL.
Qiao, J.P. 2004. An investigation of Middle School EFL Teachers’ Beliefs in Beijing. Unpublished MA thesis. Beijing Normal University.
Reichelt, M. 2000. Case studies in L2 teacher education. ELT Journal, 54 (4), pp. 346-353.
Ribisch, K. H. 1999. The facilitator as agent of change. ELT Journal, 53 (2), pp. 115-121.
Richards, J. C.2000. Beyond Training. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C.1991. Teacher development through peer observation TESOL Journal, 1 (2), pp. 7-11.
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. 2000. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Richards, J. C. & Nunan, D. (Eds.). 2000. Second Language Teacher Education. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Shaeffer, S. 1990. Participatory approaches to in-service teacher training. In Rust, V. D. & Dalin, P. (Eds), Teachers and Teaching in the Developing World. pp. 95-114. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Shao, G. H. & Dong, T. 2004. On school-based teacher education and peer observation. Curriculum material approach, 20 (1), pp. 72-76. (邵光华，董涛. 教师教育校本培训与同事互助观课浅论 《课程 教材 教法》, 第20卷第1期, pp. 72-76。)
Swan, J. 1993. Metaphor in action: the observation schedule in a reflective approach to teacher education. ELT Journal, 47 (3), pp. 242-249.
Tsui, A. B. M. 2003. Understanding Expertise in Teaching: Case Studies of Second Language Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wajnryb, R. 1992. Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, M. 1998. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Q. 2002. The National Curriculum Changes and English Language Teaching in the People’s Republic of China. Keynote Presentation in the 2002 International Conference on English Teacher Education and Development. Beijing.
Wang, Q. & Seth, N. 1998. Self-development through Classroom Observation: Changing Perceptions in China. ELT Journal, 52 (3), pp. 205-213.
Wedell, M. 2003. Giving TESOL change a chance: supporting key players in the curriculum change process. System, 31, pp. 439-456.
Williams, M. 1989. A developmental view of classroom observation. English Language Teaching Journal, 43 (2), pp. 85-91.
Woods, D. 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
作者点评：This chapter summarizes the major findings of the study. Then implications for teacher training are elaborated. And limitations and suggestions for further researches are proposed.
5.1 Main findings
The study explores the effect of peer observation on teachers’ change in their personal knowledge of the new curriculum and classroom practice. The main findings can be summarized as follows.
1) Peer observation is an effective follow-up approach to the change in teachers’ knowledge and practice.
Although it still takes time for teachers to practice what they preach, in the action-reflection-reaction process, teachers gradually put into practice what they know about the new curriculum, and their practice in turn helps to reconstruct their knowledge. Hence, peer observation functions as an effective follow-up approach, which helps to change and develop teachers’ knowledge and practice in their own specific teaching contexts. During the transitional period from the old syllabi to the new curriculum, teachers feel themselves challenged, puzzled, and even in danger. They are not ready to change until they realize that the innovations will provide benefits both to themselves and their learners. This can not be achieved by taking part in several training projects. Peer observation offers teachers a non-threatening opportunity to “try things out for themselves” in their own specific context. Hence, changes in both beliefs and behaviors happen.
2) The while-observation reflections and the post-observation conferences benefit teachers most.
Space for independent personal response is offered. Teachers do not receive information and instructions from an outside expert. Instead they acquire meaningful knowledge in the process of practice. They decide for themselves what to look into, how to look into the problem and how to solve the problem. They respond personally to the data. And personal responses allow teachers to draw upon their knowledge and experience in reacting to the data, and can also provide insight into their beliefs about the aspect of ELT under study. They take responsibility for their own leaning, and think and behave independently. This is especially necessary and helpful for young teachers who have just entered this special area.
