学校民主决策何以赋能教师高质量教学实践*

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

持续提升教师教学实践水平是建设高素质专业化教师队伍的要求,也是加快建设高质量教育体系的关键。如何通过学校民主决策提升教师教学实践质量是教育管理领域亟须解决的问题。本研究以2018年TALIS调查中国上海市教师数据为基础,探讨学校民主决策对教师教学实践的影响机制与边界条件。研究发现,学校民主决策显著正向影响教师教学实践;专业学习共同体和教师组织承诺不仅在民主决策和教师教学实践之间分别起到部分中介作用,而且在两者间发挥着链式中介作用;教师公共服务动机正向调节民主决策影响教师教学实践的直接效应,同时也正向调节“民主决策—教师组织承诺—教师教学实践”这一中介路径。因此,提升教师教学实践水平,需增进“协同”,以共治理念创新学校民主决策制度和机制;塑造“共同”,以专业学习共同体助推教师成长;夯实“认同”,以关怀和支持提升教师组织承诺;培养“志同”,打造具有高公共服务动机的教师队伍,将教育家精神融入民主决策全过程,实现民主决策为高质量教学有效赋能。

关键词: 学校民主决策, 教师教学实践, 专业学习共同体, 教师组织承诺, 公共服务动机

Abstract:

Improving teachers’ teaching practice is essential for building a high-quality professional teaching workforce and education system. Based on the 2018 TALIS teacher data from Shanghai, China, this study examines how school democratic decision-making influences teachers’ teaching practice, including its mechanisms and boundary conditions. The findings show that school democratic decision-making has a significant positive effect on teachers’ teaching practice. Professional learning community and teachers’ organizational commitment play both partial mediating roles and a chain mediating role between school democratic decision-making and teachers’ teaching practice. Teachers’ public service motivation positively moderates the direct effect of school democratic decision-making and the mediating path through teachers’ organizational commitment. Therefore, schools should improve democratic decision-making through co-governance, promote teacher growth through professional learning community, strengthen teachers’ organizational commitment through care and support, and cultivate a teaching workforce with strong public service motivation. Integrating the educator spirit into democratic decision-making can further enhance the quality and effectiveness of teachers’ high-quality teaching practice.

Key words: school democratic decision-making, teachers’ teaching practice, professional learning community, teachers’ organizational commitment, public service motivation

中图分类号:

G451.2

蒲蕊, 郝以谱. 学校民主决策何以赋能教师高质量教学实践^*[J]. 教育科学, 2026, 42(3): 45-52.

Pu Rui, Hao Yipu. How School Democratic Decision-Making Empowers Teachers’ High-Quality Teaching Practice[J]. Education Science, 2026, 42(3): 45-52.

图/表 7

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

图2

图3

参考文献 39

[1]	CHEN W, MASON S, STANISZEWSKI C, et al. Assessing the quality of teachers’ teaching practices[J]. Educational Assessment,Evaluation and Accountability, 2012(24):25-41.
[2]	教育部办公厅关于印发基础教育课程教学改革深化行动方案的通知[EB/OL].(2023-05-26)[2025-06-11].http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/jcj_kcjcgh/202306/t20230601_1062380.html.
[3]	周敏丹, 张铭芳. 论教师的教学问题意识:内涵、表现与提升路径[J]. 中国教育学刊, 2022(4):79-84.
[4]	贾美华, 何光峰, 李晓蕾. “双减”背景下北京市中小学课堂教学问题的诊断与改进:基于204节录像课的分析[J]. 教育科学研究, 2024(1):68-75.
[5]	KIT-LING L. Classical Chinese reading instruction:current practices and their relationship with students’ strategy use and reading motivation[J]. Teaching and teacher education, 2017(64):175-186.
[6]	中共中央印发《关于建立中小学校党组织领导的校长负责制的意见(试行)》[EB/OL].(2022-01-26)[2025-06-11]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2022-01/26/content_5670588.htm.
[7]	[15][22] SARAFIDOU J O, CHATZIIOANNIDIS G. Teacher participation in decision making and its impact on school and teachers[J]. International journal of educational management, 2013, 27(2):170-183.
[8]	周志山, 许大平. 基于实践活动的使动性和制约性:吉登斯结构二重性学说述议[J]. 浙江师范大学学报, 2002(5):65-69.
[9]	[28] 吉登斯. 社会的构成:结构化理论纲要[M].李康,李猛,译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社,2016:15,23.
[10]	王雁, 范文静, 张文秀, 等. 学校融合氛围对教师融合教育素养的影响:教师能动性的中介作用[J]. 中国特殊教育, 2020(8):15-21.
[11]	桑国元, 叶碧欣, 黄嘉莉. 教师能动性:内涵、维度与测量[J]. 中国教育政策评论,2019:116-133.
[12]	[40] SOMECH A. Participative decision making in schools:a mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes[J]. Educational administration quarterly, 2010, 46(2):174-209. doi: 10.1177/1094670510361745
[13]	王陆, 彭玏, 马如霞. 大数据循证视角下高质量课堂教学的数据特征[J]. 电化教育研究, 2024, 45(3):10-17.
[14]	KUNTER M, KLUSMANN U, BAUMERT J, et al. Professional competenceof teachers: effects on instructional quality and studentdevelopment[J]. Journal of educational psychology, 2013, 105(3):805-820. doi: 10.1037/a0032583
[16]	PARKER S K. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy:the roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 1998, 83(6):835-852. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835
[17]	HONINGH M, HOOGE E. The effect of school-leader support and participation in decision making on teacher collaboration in Dutch primary and secondary schools[J]. Educational management administration & leadership, 2014, 42(1):75-98.
[18]	JONES M R, KARSTEN H. Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research[J]. MIS quarterly, 2008, 32(1):127-157. doi: 10.2307/25148831
[19]	SMYLIE M A, LAZARUS V, BROWNLEE-CONYERS J. Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decision making[J]. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 1996, 18(3):181-198. doi: 10.3102/01623737018003181
[20]	尹弘飚, 秦晗. 教师专业学习社群研究:范式、旨趣与论述[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(3):61-77. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2024.03.006
[21]	LOUIS K S, MARKS H M. Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools[J]. American journal of education, 1998, 106(4):532-575. doi: 10.1086/444197
[23]	LOMOS C. The relationship between teacher professional community and participative decision-making in schools in 22 European countries[M]// ARNOUD O G B,TOBIAS F,KATHARINA M M,et al. Concept and design developments in schoolimprovement research. Cham: Springer international publishing,2021:41-62.
[24]	胡卫鹏, 时勘. 组织承诺研究的进展与展望[J]. 心理科学进展, 2004(1):103-110.
[25]	蒲蕊, 崔晓楠, 钱佳. 合作型学校文化何以影响教师教学策略:基于教学效能感、组织承诺的中介效应分析[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(7):89-99. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2024.07.008
[26]	SOMECH A, BOGLER R. Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment[J]. Educational administration quarterly, 2002, 38(4):555-577. doi: 10.1177/001316102237672
[27]	WADESANGO N. The relationship between teacher participation in decision-making and organisational commitment[J]. Journal of social sciences, 2012, 31(3):337-344. doi: 10.1080/09718923.2012.11893043
[29]	ZHENG X, YIN H, LIU Y. Are professional learning communities beneficial for teachers? A multilevel analysis of teacher self-efficacy and commitment in China[J]. School effectiveness and school improvement, 2021, 32(2):197-217. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2020.1808484
[30]	VANDENABEELE W. Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation:an institutional approach[J]. Public management review, 2007, 9(4):545-556. doi: 10.1080/14719030701726697
[31]	庞春敏, 汤贞敏. 公共服务动机对师范生乡村从教意愿的影响分析[J]. 高教探索, 2023(4):46-52.
[32]	尹弘飚, 杨鑫, 尚雯. 结构化理论视角下教师工作场所学习力的提升路径[J]. 教师教育学报, 2022, 9(6):17-24.
[33]	RYAN R M, DECI E L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development,and well-being[J]. American psychologist, 2000, 55(1):68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
[34]	LIN M, LIU Q, LI Z. Perceived superior trust and organizational commitment among public employees:the mediating role of burnout and the moderating role of public service motivation[J]. Heliyon, 2024, 10(3):e24997. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24997
[35]	HAM S H, LEE S. Participative decision-making and school innovativeness:an uncertainty management perspective[J]. The Asia-Pacific education researcher,2023:1-10.
[36]	CHRISTENSEN A A. A global measure of professional learning communities[J]. Professional development in education, 2024(33):1-17.
[37]	LIU Y, WATSON S. Whose leadership role is more substantial for teacher professional collaboration,job satisfaction and organizational commitment:a lens of distributed leadership[J]. International journal of leadership in education, 2023, 26(6):1082-1110. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2020.1820580
[38]	JIANG X. Does public service motivation affect teacher satisfaction from the perspective of urban and rural dual structure? Empirical analysis based on Estonia TALIS 2018 data[J]. Frontiers in psychiatry,2022(13):727659.
[39]	EDWARDS J R, LAMBERT L S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation:a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis[J]. Psychological methods, 2007, 12(1):1-22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

变量	均值	标准差	DDM	TIP	PLC	TOC
DDM	2.997	0.610
TIP	2.958	0.454	0.271^***
PLC	3.818	0.944	0.333^***	0.232^***
TOC	2.835	0.522	0.517^***	0.208^***	0.272^***
PSM	3.400	0.597	0.276^***	0.234^***	0.183^***	0.256^***

路径	标准化系数	标准误	显著性	路径	标准化系数	标准误	显著性
DDM→PLC	0.385	0.021	p<0.001	PLC→TOC	0.126	0.022	p<0.001
DDM→TOC	0.553	0.022	p<0.001	PLC→TIP	0.261	0.032	p<0.001
DDM→TIP	0.208	0.035	p<0.001	TOC→TIP	0.146	0.035	p<0.001

	标准化效应值	标准误	95%置信区间		占总效应量比例
	标准化效应值	标准误	下限	上限	占总效应量比例
总效应	0.397	0.025	0.352	0.452	100.00%
直接效应	0.208	0.035	0.144	0.286	52.39%
间接效应	0.189	0.024	0.141	0.234	47.61%
路径1:DDM→PLC→TIP	0.101	0.014	0.075	0.128	25.44%
路径2:DDM→TOC→TIP	0.081	0.019	0.042	0.117	20.40%
路径3:DDM→PLC→TOC→TIP	0.007	0.002	0.004	0.012	1.76%

	PLC	TOC	TIP
DDM	0.457^***	0.368^***	0.117^***
	(0.028)	(0.014)	(0.015)
PSM	0.152^***	0.076^***	0.131^**
	(0.029)	(0.014)	(0.014)
DDM*PSM	0.054	0.055^**	0.039^*
	(0.041)	(0.020)	(0.020)
PLC		0.051^***	0.066^***
		(0.008)	(0.009)
TOC			0.048^***
			(0.018)
其他变量	控制	控制	控制
调整R²	0.132	0.314	0.130