Author: Hong Liu

DOI: 10.62670/2308-7668.2025.52.2.003

Source: Issue: vol. 52 No. 2: 15 June 2025

Publisher: PE "Center of Excellence"

Document type: Research article

Abstract

This study examines the implementation of Teacher Research Groups (TRGs) within a resource-limited rural junior secondary school in western China. Guided by Morris’s (1996) curriculum framework adapted into three dimensions of goals and objectives, activities and practices, and effectiveness evaluation, this qualitative case study explores how contextual constraints shape the structure, processes, and outcomes of a Chinese TRG.
Data was collected over three months through semi-structured interviews with 12 participants, 24 hours of participant observations, and document analysis. The findings reveal a gap between policy intentions and local enactments: while TRGs are aligned with national reform goals and include diversified activities such as open lessons, peer observations, collective planning, mentorship programs, and theme-based initiatives, their impact is hampered by heavy workloads, symbolic participation, and performative evaluation practices. Context-sensitive adaptations, such as flexible scheduling and blended digital platforms, are critical for sustaining genuine professional learning.
The study concludes with policy and practical recommendations, including decentralized autonomy, incentivized engagement, infrastructure investment, and capacity-building workshops. Implications for future research and practice highlight the need for adaptive fidelity in implementing TRGs in rural contexts.

Key words: Teacher Research Groups, rural education, qualitative case study, curriculum framework

References

1. Morris, P. (1996). The Hong Kong school curriculum: Development, issues and policies. Hong Kong University Press.
2. Paine, L. W., & Ma, L. (1993). Teachers working together: A dialogue on organizational and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 671–682.
3. Chen, X. (2020). The evolution and reform of China’s teaching and research system. Beijing: Educational Science Press.
4. Ministry of Education (MoE). (2011). Notice on the implementation of the 360-hour in-service teacher training policy. Beijing: MoE.
5. Ministry of Education (MoE). (2010). Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development (2010–2020). Beijing: MoE.
6. Zhao, Y., & Zhang, G. (2010). China’s education reform and the future of Chinese education. International Journal of Educational Reform, 19(1), 5–16.
7. Hairon, S., & Tan, C. (2017). Professional learning communities in Singapore and beyond: A baseline study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(4), 634–650.
8. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
9. Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing social research: The unity and diversity of method. Pine Forge Press.
10. DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.
11. Fullan, M. (2006). Leading professional learning. The School Administrator, 63(10), 10–14.
12. Sargent, T., & Hannum, E. (2009). Doing more with less: Teacher professional learning communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 258–276.
13. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
14. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
15. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
16. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.
17. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.
18. Wang, H. (2015). Reform and reality: A case study of school-based teacher professional development in rural China. Chinese Education & Society, 48(6), 487–503.
19. Zhao, Y. (2015). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin Press.
20. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
21. Huang, Y., & Shimizu, H. (2016). Challenges to teacher professional learning and development in China: Teachers’ perspectives on the impact of reforms. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 326–341.
22. Lewis, C. (2000). Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development. Invited paper for the American Educational Research Association Meetings, New Orleans, LA.
23. Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement – A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121–148.
24. Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Merrill Prentice Hall.
25. Paine, L. W. (1990). The teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 49–81.
26. Paine, L. W., & Fang, Y. (2006). Reform as hybrid model of teaching and teacher development in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(4–5), 279–289.
27. Tan, C. (2013). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on achieving educational success. Springer Briefs in Education. Springer.
28. Wong, J. (2010a). Implementing school-based professional learning communities in Hong Kong secondary schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2), 97–111.