学习型组织对英语教师专业发展的抑制因素分析

开篇：润墨网以专业的文秘视角，为您筛选了一篇学习型组织对英语教师专业发展的抑制因素分析范文，如需获取更多写作素材，在线客服老师一对一协助。欢迎您的阅读与分享！

Abstract：The article analyzes factors which inhibites the English teachers’ development in the collective inquiry of an English Teaching and Research Group （ETRG）. Based on Senge’s （1990） systemic thinking of “learning organization”， the conclution is drawed that teachers’ own defensive mechanism and the way of evaluating teachers drove the teachers for the symptomatic solution， instead of the fundamental solution. The increasing reliance on the former weakened their capability to inquire the latter.

Key words：learning organization；system thinking；inhibition factor

1 How the problem came into sight

While surveying the generic structure of teachers collective inquiry （Wu， 2005）， I found the core substance of collective inquiry was English scores about which agreement of two strategies were reached， that is， intensive vocabulary consolidation and adaptation for new test form in advance whereas some valuable sub-themes generated in the course did not get into the center of inquiry. Such sub-themes were as how to improve students’ language sense， students’ requests for English films and more oral classes， cold student-teacher relationship and etc. What teachers inquired focused more on how to train students for high scores in the examination rather than the above that seemed away from the clear aim or serial topics of collective inquiry. The contradiction between what they believed and what they acted should have some causal factors. So， the thinking pattern beneath the collective inquiry needed to be examined.

2 Senge： learning organization

Senge’s （1990） “learning organization” was first applied to business. Senge believes that if the ways of thinking and interacting were changed， new and exciting concepts and capabilities could be established. His five key disciplines， namely， shared vision， team learning， personal mastery， mental model and system thinking have been expanded by many educatiors.

Senge describes systems thinking， one of the five key disciplines， as the cornerstone to all of the disciplines. Understanding the structures within a system provides greater clarity for actions that lead to healthy learning organizations. This discipline informs to analyse the systems thinking of collective inquiry in the ETRG as a learning organization.

3 Non-system thinking in the archetype

Though the school guide was promoting all the students’ development in an integrated way， the practical interest was to develop students into college， concisely， to increase college enrollment. Some metaphors in the excerpts from the collective inquiry revealed how students’ scores affected the competitive strength of the school and the feeling of competition had become unconcious in teachers’ life as Zhu’s murmur to himself， “why did I thought of these two words （be defeated）？ ”.

Excerpt 1

Zhu：…那就要高一、高二的那些老师对这个（题型）引起高度重视… 如果高一高二没有这种观念呢，那到了高三的话，又会输给别人（其他学校）了，我怎么就想到了这两个字？

（from recording of meeting 3）

Seemingly， teachers within ETRG were all indulged in seeking for a solution to improvement of students’ scores in a short time in order to win the “battle” against other schools in the national college entrance examination. The decisions they made， consolidating vocabulary intensely and adapting for the new test form in advance， appeared to be feasible for their situation and thus achieved “high efficiency” of collective inquiry， but the solutions were rather symptomatic than fundamental because they addressed only the symptoms of a problem （e.g. score）， not fundamental causes （e.g. weak humanistic quality and comprehensive language ability） . The fundamental solution to students’ humanistic quality and comprehensive language ability was set aside because they were “obscure or costly to confront” however might be lowly rewarded， such as the teachers’ job crisis or school’s loss in national college entrance examination. The side effects were that， on one side， the students learning stages were not so interconnected as Zhu sighed：

Excerpt 2

Zhu： 现在我们没办法去相信他初中学得这么样，没办法相信他了，到了高三作文还写得这样！

On the other side， English language was taught and learned as separate items， listening， close test， reading passage and writing， as in the new test form with speaking neglected and endless training accompanied， rather than as a whole evolved with students’ and teachers’ life （e.g. English films， school news）. The means for testing language ability were treated as teaching ends. Most teachers in the ETRG only cared the part of work they faced at the present stage， not how this part of work interacted with the broader system ， e.g. how students’ past and future learning connected with the present for students’ improvement of comprehensive ability， because “today’s problem comes from yesterday’s ‘solutions’” （Senge， 1990： 57）.

The main causal factor for that was “delay”， which “represents a more fundamental response to the problem， one whose effects take longer to become evident” （ibid： 106）. Inside the school， immediate benefit was more appreciated than delayed effects， for the school evaluated teachers’ immediate efficiency mainly according to students’ scores rather than other aspects， as Xiu represented the opinions when asked why some valuable sub-themes were not further inquired：

大家对成绩都很关注的，那（研究）方面嘛， 学生家长看不到你的成绩，包括学校领导，这是一方面； 另一方面就是中学老师理论薄弱，平常又忙， 没时间再去钻研； 还有就是老师之间常会有些保留， 有些问题不会深入去探讨的，担心你班的成绩会比他好。

（from interview）

Thus， teachers’ own defensive mechanism and the way of evaluating teachers drove the teachers for the symptomatic solution and caused teachers to “shift the burden” （Senge： 104） to pursue the fundamental solution. The side effects of this created an additional reinforcing （amplifying） process and often made it even more difficult to explore the fundamental solution. The increasing reliance on symptomatic solutions weakened their capability to inquire fundamental solutions.

The thinking pattern beneath teachers’ collective inquiry could be illustrated by the archetype of shifting the burden （see Figure 1）， which helped see the structure of collective inquiry with more clarity.

In shifting the burden structure in ETRG， the symptomatic solution could lead to low-leverage changes while the fundamental solution could bring out high leverage changes. To deal with the shifting the burden structure effectively， “a combination of strengthening fundamental response and weakening the symptomatic response” is required according to Senge （1990： 110）.

Figure 1 Shifting the burden structure in ETRG

（Adapted from Senge， 1990： 106）

The defensive routines in the collective inquiry also obstructed the progress of inquiry but high leverage might be embedded in it if it was made public for further examination or discussion. It seemed that showing a film for students was kind of teaching crime in public but was welcomed by both teachers and students in secret. It was no wonder after I learned new Rules about Teaching Accident Recognition in G School was set out those days. In it， teachers who changed teaching content personally would be investigated and assume responsibility for that. So no teacher dared risk the accident， teaching the things beyond the plan which was unified beforehand in collective teaching preparation group. What they could do was to consolidate so-called basic knowledge around teaching syllabus and to adapt students for the new test form around the test syllabus， which controlled their teaching behaviors with the aim of high scores.

Such thinking pattern in the ETRG violated the laws of system thinking that the evident solution is usually not only ineffective in the long term but also addictive and dangerous for “pushing harder and harder on familiar solutions， while fundamental problems persist or worsen， is a reliable indicator of non-systemic thinking” （Senge， 1990： 61）

4 Discussion

To improve the system thinking within the ETRG， the mental models should be changed for they shape how we act. “The inertia of deeply entrenched mental models can overwhelm even the best systemic insights” （ibid： 178）. Changing the mental model of the ETRG is a way to transform defensive routines. Oral English classes and seeing English films are comprehensive forms of learning integrated with many splendid humanistic factors， which are beneficial for improving students’ comprehensive language ability and humanistic quality. If they were neglected only because they were not directly linked with scores and thus had a time-delayed effect， the fundamental problem of students’ comprehensive quality would be worse. The high leverage was that they both could be achieved in system thinking if teachers in the ETRG could see the problem in a dynamic and whole way of thinking and explore the potential contents in their special teaching way instead of a static and partial way of thinking， e.g. dichotomy in dealing with the problem. Of course， a certain time delay should be necessarily accepted. In other word， “a language of interrelationships， a language made up of circles” rather than straight lines is needed to get away from “linear thinking” （Senge， 1990：74）

Reference books：

[1] Wu， Z. J. 2005. Teachers’ Knowing in Curriculum Change [M]. Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

[2] Senge， P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline： The Art and Pracice of the Learning Organization [M]. New York： Doubleday Currency.

[3] Briefly， shared vision is a particular mental image of what is important to an individual and to an organization （Senge， 1990： 172）. Team learning addresses how people work together and evolve into communities of learning （Senge et al. 2000）. It requires “ balancing dialogue and discussion”（Senge， 1990： 247）. Personal mastery is described as “continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision， of focusing our energies， or developing patience， and of seeing reality objectively” （ibid： 7）. Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions， generalizations， or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action （Senge， 1994： 8）. Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes （Senge， 1990： 68）.

[4] Defensive routines are entrenched habits we use to protect ourselves from embarrassment and threat that come with exposing our thinking （Senge， 1990： 249-250）.