How School Democratic Decision-Making Empowers Teachers’ High-Quality Teaching Practice

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

G451.2

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

Figures/Tables 7

References 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