大学英语课程实施中的教师自主性研究：课程创生的视角
|
摘要
本研究主要从课程创生的角度来考察大学英语教师在实际课程实施中的教师自主性及其发展特点，找出影响大英教师课程自主创造性的因素，探究提高大学英语教师课程自主创生能力的途径。本研究基于以下动因（第一章）：（1）时代大背景、国家教育战略规划、大学英语教学改革趋势、教师与学生个人自主发展需求都向教师提出了自主诉求；（2）在自主性研究方面，从学生角度研究的多，而从教师角度研究的少，教师自主性没有被赋予其应有的重要性，国内外对教师自主的概念界定尚存分歧，理论探讨多，实证研究少；（3）大学英语课程实施多年来，成绩不小但问题仍不少，教学改革理念与教学实际仍存在落差，教师在实际运作课程过程中，出现课程目标“单一化”、教学内容“统一化”、教学方式“应试化”的现象，使“正式课程”“缩水减效”。本研究的内容主要涵盖三大方面：（1）对大学英语课程实施中的教师自主性进行理论探讨，厘清概念；（2）对目前部分高校大学英语教师课程自主创造性进行实证研究，考察大英教师课程自主创造性的实际状况；（3）对影响教师课程自主创生的主要因素进行分析，探究提高教师课程自主创生的途径。
本研究首先围绕教师自主性这个中心概念进行了理论研究，对教师自主性的研究从缘由、概念界定、影响因素及其测量等进行了文献梳理（第二章）。笔者认为，教师自主性概念界定在一切相关研究中起着至关重要的作用，影响着研究的方向、内容和结果。基于国内外有关教师自主概念的研究成果，结合课程及课程实施理论相关研究以及我国大学英语教学的特定环境，以相关理论（如过程哲学、建构主义、人本主义、课程概念重建主义、课程实施价值取向原则）及其对教师自主性的启示为基础，通过理论思辨的方法，笔者对教师自主的概念进行了解构和重构，分析出教师自主在课程实施视域中的定义、内涵结构和具体内容（第三章）。笔者认为，教师在课程实施中的自主性是指教师在充分理解和领悟国家正式课程基础上，在课程目标、课程内容、课程实施方式等方面从盲目独断性、消极被动性为主的单向课程理解转换到批判反思的探究性、积极主动的自觉性为主的多向课程对话的创造性。教师的课程自主创造性具有自发性、责任性、自控性、独立性、反省性、目标性、创新性和进取性等八个主要特征。
通过理论分析和思辨得出本研究的操作定义后，笔者就此展开了实证研究（第四章和第五章）。首先，笔者围绕本研究的操作定义，确定出研究的维度和相关变量，参考有关的教师自主性量表，自行设计出本研究的调查工具（问卷调查表、课堂观察表和访谈提纲）。正式调查在陕西八所高校的185名大英教师范围内展开，考察了大英教师在自主性内涵结构各维度上发展水平以及教师的人口统计学变量特征与教师自主性的相关性。同时，考察了教师在课程运行中的自主创生行为总体情况和影响因素。结果显示，参与研究的大学英语教师自主性水平总体不高，属中度自主状态，在自主性各维度表现也不均衡，其中责任性和进取性维度水平较高，自控性和目的性维度水平较低。教师的性别、年龄和所在学校性质变量与教师自主性各维度相关性较小，学历、职称变量与自主性各维度相关性较大。教师所在学校的地域差别与教师自主性表现出了一定的相关性，与省会城市高校的大英教师相比，边缘地高校的大英教师在教师自主性各维度表现出更高水平，这与研究者起初的假设相反。在课程自主创生方面，大英教师的课程目标自主创生能力不太理想，目标单一；内容创生能力也趋于一般水平，对统一教材内容的二次开发能力仍有待于提高，需进一步在课程内容的生活性、文化性和社会性上努力创造；课程实施方式上的创生能力也都处于一般水平，启发性、探究性和合作式的课堂活动仍不是主流。同时，笔者也通过调查，得出影响大英教师的自主性以及课程自主创生行为的主要因素。综合这些研究结果，结合自身教学实际感受和经验，笔者构建出提高大学英语教师课程自主创生能力的途径（第六章），从准确理解课程、灵活创生课程、持续反思课程等方面提出一些具体的做法。文章结尾部分（第七章）对本研究内容进行了整体回顾，指出本研究的创新之处和局限所在，同时对教师自主性研究的未来发展方向进行了展望。
本研究从课程创生的角度对大学英语教师的自主性进行了理论研究和实证探索，研究结果拓宽了自主性研究的视域，丰富了教师自主性的内涵，摸清了大学英语教师课程自主创生状况，为大学英语教师提高自身课程自主创生能力，进一步推进大学英语教学改革，实现外语教育目标，促进师生全面发展等都有一定的指导意义。
This study aims to probe into teacher autonomy in College English curriculumenactment, the characteristics and the factors preventing college English teachersfrom actively and creatively enacting the college curriculum, as well as the ways toimprove the enactive competence of the college English teachers. The study startsfrom the following reasons, which is the focus of Chapter One:1) There exists ageneral call, implicit or explicit, for the teachers to give their initiative into full playby the era, our national strategic plan, general trends of the college English reform,autonomous development of the teachers and students;2) There is still inadequacy inthe study of teacher autonomy against lots of the overwhelming importance attachedto learner autonomy, and disputes over the definition of teacher autonomy still exist,and more empirical studies are needed;3) Problems have emerged along with theachievement since the practice of College English curriculum. And there exist manymismatches between the idealized requirements and actualized practice, between theperceived curriculum and the operationalized curriculum by the teachers. Themismatches reduced the actual objectives of college English practice to simpleknowledge accumulation, actual content to standardized textbook-based knowledge,and actual mode to examination-oriented indoctrination, thus making formal officialcurriculum shrink in value. This study focuses on:1) redefining teacher autonomy,especially in terms of curriculum enactment;2) probing into the actualized enactivecompetence of college English teachers in an empirical study;3) analyzing the factorshindering teachers from creative enactment of College English curriculum anddeveloping ways to improve their enactive competence.
The study then centers on a theoretical review of researches into teacherautonomy, including the origin, definition, underlying factors and measurement,which is the focus of Chapter Two. The author holds that defining teacher autonomyis of great importance in that it determines the direction, content and result of thestudy. Based on the research findings available, along with the specific context of college English teaching, the study deconstructs and reconstructs the notion of teacherautonomy after drawing implications from relevant theories such as ProcessPhilosophy, Constructivism, Humanism, Curriculum Reconstructionism, andPrinciples of Curriculum Implementation. Through this analytical process, adefinition of teacher autonomy in College English curriculum enactment is workedout, as well as its structural characteristics and concrete content manifestations. Thisredefining process is included in Chapter Three. The author believes that teacherautonomy in curriculum practice refers to the creative curriculum enactment withactive reflection-involved and multi-directional, interactive curriculum negotiation interm of curriculum goals, content and mode instead of the passive, authoritative, andone-directional curriculum practice on the part of teacher. This creative curriculumenactment is embedded with the following eight structural characteristics: strongself-initiative, high sense of responsibility, great self-control, strong independence,active reflection, sound and clear goals, pioneering creation, and high aspiration.
After the operationalization of teacher autonomy in curriculum enactmentthrough theoretical analysis, the author conducts an empirical study with theself-designed and revised research instruments, probing into the actual enactivecompetence of college English teachers. The design, administration, results anddiscussions of the field study are all included in Chapter Four and Chapter Five. Thestudy focuses on the developmental features at the eight structural characteristics andthe correlations between teacher autonomy and such demographic features as gender,educational background, academic title and school type. The underlying factorspreventing teachers from creative enactment in real practice are also investigated. Theresults show that the general autonomy of college English teachers remains atmoderate level and it develops in an unbalanced way in terms of the eight structuralcharacteristics. College English teachers generally have quite high sense ofresponsibility and high aspirations for more knowledge and greater skills, yetrelatively low level of self-control and less sound and clear aim in real curriculumpractice. Teacher autonomy shows less correlation with such variables as teacher sex,age, and school type but higher correlation with variables like educational background and academic titles. School location also shows great correlation with teacherautonomy, with teachers from universities in underdeveloped areas showing greaterlevel of autonomy than their counterparts from universities in developed capital cities,which refutes the hypothesis. The curriculum enactive competence of college Englishteachers is still less than desired in that their teaching objectives are simplified,restricted to basic knowledge accumulation and skill cultivation, ignoring thinkingand emotional intelligence aspects, their teaching contents are standardized, confinedto formal set textbooks, with less life, cultural and social flavor in content, andteacher-dominated “teacher talks, students listen” way of teaching is still widespread,lacking adequate inspiring, exploring and cooperating interaction. Factors affectingthe curriculum enactive competence of college English teachers are also detected.Based on these findings, in Chapter Six, the author proposes some ways to improvethe curriculum enactive competence of college English teachers from followingaspects: accurately understanding formal curriculum, flexibly creating in real practice,continually reflecting throughout practice, self-initiated learning and researching andnurturing a positive autonomy-support organizational culture. Finally, in ChapterSeven, a summary of the study is given, including the general content, the creationand contribution, the limitations and future possible directions of the study.
The study is generally meaningful and significant in that it adds to the literatureof teacher autonomy study both theoretically and empirically from the newperspective of curriculum enactment. The research expands the horizon of the teacherautonomy, enriches its connotation, investigates the general autonomy level of collegeEnglish teachers and their enactive competence in curriculum practice, and offersconcrete suggestions to improve enactive competence. The results are conducive tothe new round of college English reform, the final actualization of general aim offoreign language education, and the all-round improvement of the students and
本研究首先围绕教师自主性这个中心概念进行了理论研究，对教师自主性的研究从缘由、概念界定、影响因素及其测量等进行了文献梳理（第二章）。笔者认为，教师自主性概念界定在一切相关研究中起着至关重要的作用，影响着研究的方向、内容和结果。基于国内外有关教师自主概念的研究成果，结合课程及课程实施理论相关研究以及我国大学英语教学的特定环境，以相关理论（如过程哲学、建构主义、人本主义、课程概念重建主义、课程实施价值取向原则）及其对教师自主性的启示为基础，通过理论思辨的方法，笔者对教师自主的概念进行了解构和重构，分析出教师自主在课程实施视域中的定义、内涵结构和具体内容（第三章）。笔者认为，教师在课程实施中的自主性是指教师在充分理解和领悟国家正式课程基础上，在课程目标、课程内容、课程实施方式等方面从盲目独断性、消极被动性为主的单向课程理解转换到批判反思的探究性、积极主动的自觉性为主的多向课程对话的创造性。教师的课程自主创造性具有自发性、责任性、自控性、独立性、反省性、目标性、创新性和进取性等八个主要特征。
通过理论分析和思辨得出本研究的操作定义后，笔者就此展开了实证研究（第四章和第五章）。首先，笔者围绕本研究的操作定义，确定出研究的维度和相关变量，参考有关的教师自主性量表，自行设计出本研究的调查工具（问卷调查表、课堂观察表和访谈提纲）。正式调查在陕西八所高校的185名大英教师范围内展开，考察了大英教师在自主性内涵结构各维度上发展水平以及教师的人口统计学变量特征与教师自主性的相关性。同时，考察了教师在课程运行中的自主创生行为总体情况和影响因素。结果显示，参与研究的大学英语教师自主性水平总体不高，属中度自主状态，在自主性各维度表现也不均衡，其中责任性和进取性维度水平较高，自控性和目的性维度水平较低。教师的性别、年龄和所在学校性质变量与教师自主性各维度相关性较小，学历、职称变量与自主性各维度相关性较大。教师所在学校的地域差别与教师自主性表现出了一定的相关性，与省会城市高校的大英教师相比，边缘地高校的大英教师在教师自主性各维度表现出更高水平，这与研究者起初的假设相反。在课程自主创生方面，大英教师的课程目标自主创生能力不太理想，目标单一；内容创生能力也趋于一般水平，对统一教材内容的二次开发能力仍有待于提高，需进一步在课程内容的生活性、文化性和社会性上努力创造；课程实施方式上的创生能力也都处于一般水平，启发性、探究性和合作式的课堂活动仍不是主流。同时，笔者也通过调查，得出影响大英教师的自主性以及课程自主创生行为的主要因素。综合这些研究结果，结合自身教学实际感受和经验，笔者构建出提高大学英语教师课程自主创生能力的途径（第六章），从准确理解课程、灵活创生课程、持续反思课程等方面提出一些具体的做法。文章结尾部分（第七章）对本研究内容进行了整体回顾，指出本研究的创新之处和局限所在，同时对教师自主性研究的未来发展方向进行了展望。
本研究从课程创生的角度对大学英语教师的自主性进行了理论研究和实证探索，研究结果拓宽了自主性研究的视域，丰富了教师自主性的内涵，摸清了大学英语教师课程自主创生状况，为大学英语教师提高自身课程自主创生能力，进一步推进大学英语教学改革，实现外语教育目标，促进师生全面发展等都有一定的指导意义。
This study aims to probe into teacher autonomy in College English curriculumenactment, the characteristics and the factors preventing college English teachersfrom actively and creatively enacting the college curriculum, as well as the ways toimprove the enactive competence of the college English teachers. The study startsfrom the following reasons, which is the focus of Chapter One:1) There exists ageneral call, implicit or explicit, for the teachers to give their initiative into full playby the era, our national strategic plan, general trends of the college English reform,autonomous development of the teachers and students;2) There is still inadequacy inthe study of teacher autonomy against lots of the overwhelming importance attachedto learner autonomy, and disputes over the definition of teacher autonomy still exist,and more empirical studies are needed;3) Problems have emerged along with theachievement since the practice of College English curriculum. And there exist manymismatches between the idealized requirements and actualized practice, between theperceived curriculum and the operationalized curriculum by the teachers. Themismatches reduced the actual objectives of college English practice to simpleknowledge accumulation, actual content to standardized textbook-based knowledge,and actual mode to examination-oriented indoctrination, thus making formal officialcurriculum shrink in value. This study focuses on:1) redefining teacher autonomy,especially in terms of curriculum enactment;2) probing into the actualized enactivecompetence of college English teachers in an empirical study;3) analyzing the factorshindering teachers from creative enactment of College English curriculum anddeveloping ways to improve their enactive competence.
The study then centers on a theoretical review of researches into teacherautonomy, including the origin, definition, underlying factors and measurement,which is the focus of Chapter Two. The author holds that defining teacher autonomyis of great importance in that it determines the direction, content and result of thestudy. Based on the research findings available, along with the specific context of college English teaching, the study deconstructs and reconstructs the notion of teacherautonomy after drawing implications from relevant theories such as ProcessPhilosophy, Constructivism, Humanism, Curriculum Reconstructionism, andPrinciples of Curriculum Implementation. Through this analytical process, adefinition of teacher autonomy in College English curriculum enactment is workedout, as well as its structural characteristics and concrete content manifestations. Thisredefining process is included in Chapter Three. The author believes that teacherautonomy in curriculum practice refers to the creative curriculum enactment withactive reflection-involved and multi-directional, interactive curriculum negotiation interm of curriculum goals, content and mode instead of the passive, authoritative, andone-directional curriculum practice on the part of teacher. This creative curriculumenactment is embedded with the following eight structural characteristics: strongself-initiative, high sense of responsibility, great self-control, strong independence,active reflection, sound and clear goals, pioneering creation, and high aspiration.
After the operationalization of teacher autonomy in curriculum enactmentthrough theoretical analysis, the author conducts an empirical study with theself-designed and revised research instruments, probing into the actual enactivecompetence of college English teachers. The design, administration, results anddiscussions of the field study are all included in Chapter Four and Chapter Five. Thestudy focuses on the developmental features at the eight structural characteristics andthe correlations between teacher autonomy and such demographic features as gender,educational background, academic title and school type. The underlying factorspreventing teachers from creative enactment in real practice are also investigated. Theresults show that the general autonomy of college English teachers remains atmoderate level and it develops in an unbalanced way in terms of the eight structuralcharacteristics. College English teachers generally have quite high sense ofresponsibility and high aspirations for more knowledge and greater skills, yetrelatively low level of self-control and less sound and clear aim in real curriculumpractice. Teacher autonomy shows less correlation with such variables as teacher sex,age, and school type but higher correlation with variables like educational background and academic titles. School location also shows great correlation with teacherautonomy, with teachers from universities in underdeveloped areas showing greaterlevel of autonomy than their counterparts from universities in developed capital cities,which refutes the hypothesis. The curriculum enactive competence of college Englishteachers is still less than desired in that their teaching objectives are simplified,restricted to basic knowledge accumulation and skill cultivation, ignoring thinkingand emotional intelligence aspects, their teaching contents are standardized, confinedto formal set textbooks, with less life, cultural and social flavor in content, andteacher-dominated “teacher talks, students listen” way of teaching is still widespread,lacking adequate inspiring, exploring and cooperating interaction. Factors affectingthe curriculum enactive competence of college English teachers are also detected.Based on these findings, in Chapter Six, the author proposes some ways to improvethe curriculum enactive competence of college English teachers from followingaspects: accurately understanding formal curriculum, flexibly creating in real practice,continually reflecting throughout practice, self-initiated learning and researching andnurturing a positive autonomy-support organizational culture. Finally, in ChapterSeven, a summary of the study is given, including the general content, the creationand contribution, the limitations and future possible directions of the study.
The study is generally meaningful and significant in that it adds to the literatureof teacher autonomy study both theoretically and empirically from the newperspective of curriculum enactment. The research expands the horizon of the teacherautonomy, enriches its connotation, investigates the general autonomy level of collegeEnglish teachers and their enactive competence in curriculum practice, and offersconcrete suggestions to improve enactive competence. The results are conducive tothe new round of college English reform, the final actualization of general aim offoreign language education, and the all-round improvement of the students and
引文
Airasian, P. W. et al. Cautions for Classroom Constructivists [J]. Education Digest,1997,62(8).
Anderson, D.R. Creative teachers: risk, responsibility, and love[J]. Journal ofEducation,2002,183(1):33-48.
Anderson, L.W. The decline of teacher autonomy: tears or cheers?[J]. InternationalReview of Education.1987(33):357-373.
Aoki, N.“Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom, and responsibility.” In P.Benson&S. Toogood (eds.) Learner Autonomy7: Challenges to Research andPractice, pp.111-124. Dublin: Authentik.2002.
Aoki, N. An Alternative Way for Teachers to Develop[J]. The Teacher Trainer2002,16(2):10-11.
Aoki,N.,&Nakata,Y. Learner Autonomy: For the future of Japanese languageeducation and foreign language education. Tokyo:Hitsuji.2011.
Apple, M. Between Neo-liberalism and Neo-conservatism: Education andConservatism in a Global Context. In Burbules, N.C.and Torre S,C.A.Globalization and education: Critical Perspectives, NewYork and London:Routledge,2000:57-77.
Atsushi, I. Teacher Autonomy and Professional Teacher Development: Exploring theNecessities for Developing Teacher Autonomy in EFL Japanese Contexts[J].Asian EFL Jounal,2009, Vol.35.
Backhouse,J.K., G.L. Dickens, S.E. Rayner&M.J. Wood. Choice of Mathematics fora Level[M]. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Educational Studies,1982.
Barfield, A. Restrictions into resources: Learner autonomy and the literature review.In A.S. Mackenzie&E. McCafferty (eds),2002:137-145.
Barnes, D. From communication to curriculum[M]. London: Penguin.1976.
Benson, P. Autonomy as Learners and Teachers Right[A] In B.SINCLAIR, I.MCGRATH&T. LAMB (eds) Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: FutureDirections[C] London: Longman,2000:111-117.
Benson, P. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Langugae Learning. London:Longman.2001.
Benson, P. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2005.
Benson, P. Teacher education and teacher autonomy: Creating spaces forexperimentation in secondary school English language teaching[J]. LanguageTeaching Research.2010,14(3):259-275.
Breen, M. P.&Mann, S. Shooting Arrows at the Sun: Perspectives on a Pedagogy forAutonomy. In Benson,P.&Voller. P.(eds.). Autonomy and Independence inLanguage Learning.(pp.132-149). London: Longman.1997.
Broady, E&kenning, M-M. Promoting Learner Autonomy in University LanguageTeaching[M]. London: the Association for French Studies in Association with theCenter for Information on Language Teaching and Research,1996.
Brock, C. The effects of referential question on ESL classroom discourse [J]. TESOLQuarterly,1986,20(1).
Castle,K. Autonomy through pedagogical research[J]. Teaching and TeacherEducation.2006,22.
Charters, W. W. Sense of teacher work autonomy: Measurement&finding[M].Eugene: University of Oregon, Project MITT, Center for Educational Policy andManagement.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED66840)1974.
Chauvin, S.W.&Ellett, C.D. Teachers' Professional Orientation: An EmpiricalExamination of the Construct Validity Using the Results of Large-Scale FactorAnalyses.1993.
Crookes, G. What Influences What and How Second and Foreign Language TeachersTeach?[J]. The Modern Language Journal.1997,81(1):67-79.
Dearden, R.F. Autonomy and Education. In Education and the Development ofReason, D.F. Dearden, P.F. Hirst&R.S. Peters (eds),448–465. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.1972.
DeVries, R.&Kohlberg, L. Constructivist early education: Overview and comparisonwith other programs[M]. Washington: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children.1987.
Donald. E. Edgar,&Rodney. L. Brod. Professional Socialization and TeacherAutonomy. Technical Report, No.12. Stanford Center for Research and
Development in Teaching,1970.
Duffy,T.M.&D.H..Jonsseen. Comments on Philosophy and Constructivism inScience Education [J]. Science and Education,1991,(31):7-12.
Eisner, E. Educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs((2nd ed.)[M]. New York: Macmillan.1985.
Emery J., Margison,H.&Sears, A. Enhancing Teaching Performance: The Role ofProfessional Autonomy[J]. Interchange,2010,41(1):1–15.
Friedman, I. Teacher-perceived Work Autonomy: The Concept and ItsMeasurement[J]. Educational and Psychological Measurement,1999,50(1):58-76.
Foster, J. Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows Versions8to10: A Beginner’sGuide[M]. London: Sage Publications Ltd.,2001.
Fullan, M.,&Pomfret, A. Research on curriculum and instruction implementation[J].Review of Educational Research,197747(1),335-337.
Gardner, D.&Miller, L.(eds.) Establishing Self-access: from Theory to Practice [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2002.
Gilroy，D. P. The loss of professional autonomy: The relevance of Olga Matyash’spaper to the brave new world of British education[J]. Journal of Education forTeaching,1991,17(1):1-15.
Goodlad, J. I.,&Associates. Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculumpractice[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill.1979.
Graham, K. C. Running ahead: enhancing teacher commitment[J]. Journal of PhysicalEducation,1996,67(1):45-48.
Graves, K. The language curriculum: A social contextual perspectiveLanguage[J].Teaching,200841(2):147-181.
Green,S. K. et al. A review and Analysis of Constructivism for School-basedPractice[J]. School Psychology Review,2002,31(1).
Guttman, L. A general nonmetric techinique for finding the smallest coordinate spacefor a configuration fo points. Psychometrika.1968,33:469-506.
Hall, G.E.The Local Educational Change Process and Policy Implementation[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,1992,29(8):877-904.
Hanson, E. M. Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior (3rd ed.)[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,1991.
Holec, H. Autonomy and Foreign Language learning [M]. Oxford: Pergamon Press,1981.
Helsby, G. Teachers’construction of professionalism in England in the1990s[J].Journal of Education for Teaching,1995,21(3):317-332.
Huang, J.Teacher Autonomy in Language Learning: A Review of the Research [A] InK. R. KATYAL, H.C. LAM&X. J. DING(eds) Research Studies in Education,Volume3[C]. Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong,2005(a):203-218.
Jackson, P.W. Handbbook of Research on Curriculum[C],New York: MacmillanPublishing Company,1992:403.
Johnson, R. K. The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.1989.
Samuels, J.J. Impingements on Teacher Autonomy[J]. Urban Education.1970(5):152.
Kamii,C.&Houseman, L. B.Young Children Reinvent Arithmetic (2nded.)[M]. NewYork: Teachers College Press.2000.
Knowles, M. S. Self-directed Learning [M]. New York: Associaion Press.1975.
Kreis, K.＆Brockopp,D. Y. Autonomy: a component of teacher job satisfaction[J].Education,2001,107(1):110-115.
La Ganza, W. Learner autonomy-Teacher autonomy [A]. T. LAMB, H. REINDERS.Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities, and Responses[C].Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins,2008.63-79.
LaCoe, C. S. Teacher Autonomy: A Multifaceted Approach for the NewMillennium[M]. New York: Cambria Press,2008.
Lamb, T.,&Reinders, H.(Eds.). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities,and responses [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2008.
Little, D. Learner Autonomy: Definitions, Issues, and Problems[M]. Authentik Press,1991.
Little, D.Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considerations revisited[J].Innovation in Language Leaning and Teaching,2007,(1):14-29.
Little, D. Learner Autonomy: Why Foreign Languages Should Occupy a Central Rolein the Curriculum. In S.Green (Ed.) New perspectives on teaching and learningModern Languages,24-45. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.2000.
Little, D. Learning as Dialogue: The Dependence of Learner Autonomy on TeacherAutonomy [J] System,1995,23(2):175-182.
Littlewood, W. Defining and Developing Autonomy in East Asian Contexts[J].Applied Linguistics1999,20(1),71-94.
Long, M. H.&Sato C. J. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions ofteachers’ questions[J].TESOL Quarterly,1983,15:26-30.
McNiel.J. Curriculum: A comprehensive Introduction(5th edition)[M].Harper CollinsCollege Publishing,1996:241-262.
McGrath, I., Sinclair, B.,&Lamb, T. Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Futuredirections[M]. Harlow: Longman.2000.
Mike, N. Exploring and Defining Teacher Autonomy: A Collaborative Discussion. InDeveloping Autonomy, Proceedings of the College and University Educators’2001Conference, Shizuoka, Japan. Tokyo: The Japan Association for LanguageTeaching.
Nunan D. Communicative language teaching: Making it work[J]. ELT,1987.
Parsons.C, The Curriculum Change Game[M]. London: Falmer Press,1987.
Pearson L.C. The Prediction of Teacher Autonomy[J]. Education Research Quarterly,West Monroe,1998,22(1):33-38.
Pearson L.C., Hall B. W. Initial Construct Validation of the Teaching AutonomyScale[J]. Journal of Education Research,1993,86(3):172-178.
Pearson, L. C.,&Moonmaw, W. The relationship between teacher autonomy, stress,work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational ResearchQuarterly,2005,29(1),37-53.
Pearson, L. C.,&Moonmaw, W. Continuing validation of the teaching autonomyscale[J]. The Journal of Educational Research.2006,100(1):44-51.
Philliph, D.C.The Good,the Bad and the Ugly,The Many Faces of Constructivian[J].Educational Researcher,1995,24(7).
Ratnam, T. Understanding the Development of Teacher Autonomy Using a CulturalHistorical Approach. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association2007Japan Conference: Exploring theory, enhancing practice: Autonomy across thedisciplines. Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan, October2007
Rodgers D. B., Leslie A. L. Tension, Struggle, Growth, Change: Autonomy inEducation[J]. Childhood Education,2002,78(5):301-302.
Reinders, H. Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework ofindependent language learning skills[J]. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,2010,35(5),40-55.
Reinders, H., Hacker, P.&Lewis, M. The language adviser’s role: Identifying andresponding to needs[J]. Language Learning Journal.2004(30):30–35.
Scott P. A, Valimali M.et a1. Autonomy, Privacy and Informed Consent: concepts anddefinitions[J]. British Journal of Nursing,2003,12(1):43-47.
Shaw, J. Team-teaching as negotiating autonomy and shared understandings of whatwe are doing. from http://lc.ust.hk/%7Eailasc/symposium/Responses08Shaw.pdf,2002.
Skilbeck, M. School-Based Curriculum Development. London: Harper&Row,Publishers.1984.
Smith, R. C. Starting with Ourselves: Teacher-learner Autonomy in LanguageLearning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath&T. Lamb (eds.). Learner Autonomy,Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions (pp.88-89). London: Longman.2000.
Smith, R. C.Teacher Education for Teacher-learner Autonomy,http://www.warwack.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf.2001.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., and Zumwalt, K. Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson(ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum,402-435. New York: Macmillan.1992.
Stenhouse, L. Research as a basis for teaching. In Rudduck, J.&Hopkins, D.(Eds.),Research as a Basis for Teaching: Reading from the Work of Lawrence Stenhouse.Oxford: Heinemann.1985.
Taba, H. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice[M]. San Diego: Harcourt,Brace&World,1962.
Tanner, D.&Tanner, L. D. Perspective on Curriculum History[M]. New York:Macmillan Publishing Company,1990.
Tanner, D.&Tanner, L. D.. Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice [M].New York: Macmillan Publishing Company,1980.
Thavenius. C. Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In Learner Autonomy inLanguage Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, S. Cotterall&D.Crabbe (eds). Frankfurt: Lang.1999.
Tort-Moloney, D. Teacher Autonomy: A Vygostkian Theoretical Framework, Dublin:Trinity College,CLCS,Occasional Paper. N0.48. ERIC ED412741.1997.
Ur, P. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996.
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B.,&Johnson, K. Theorizing language teacheridentity: Three perspectives and beyond[J]. Journal of Language, Identity, andEducation,2005,4(1):21-44.
Voller, P.“Does the Teacher have a Role in Autonomous Learning?”in P. Benson andP. Voller (eds.) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London:Longman,1997,98-113.
Villar, L.M. Reflective Teaching. In Husen, T. et al. The International Encyclopedia ofEducation,1994,(10):6216-6217.
Wajnryb, R. Classromm Observation Tasks: A Resource Book for Language Teachersand Trainers[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Education Teaching and ResearchPress,2011.
Wright, T. Roles of Teachers and Learners [M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.1987.
阿尔弗雷德·诺思·怀特海著，周邦宪译．过程与实在[M]．贵阳：贵州人民出版社，2006．
阿尔弗雷德·诺斯·怀特海，杨富斌译．过程与实在——宇宙论研究[M]．北京：中国城市出版社，2003．
安琦．外语教师自主教学实证研究[J]．外语电化教学．2011(4)：49-54．
保尔·朗格朗，周南照等译．终身教育引论[M]．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1985．
保罗·弗莱雷，顾建新等译．被压迫者教育学[M]．上海：华东师范大学出版社，2001．
鲍同梅．教师自主：一种审视教师发展的视角[J]．辽宁教育研究．2007(11)：97-100．
曹红霞．我国大学英语教学中的教师自主[D]．上海外国语大学．2006．
陈坚林．现代英语教学组织与管理[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000：74．
陈琪，张建伟．建构主义学习观要义评析[J]．华东师范大学学报（教育科学版）．1998（1）：64．
陈琦，刘儒德．当代教育心理学[M]．北京：北京师范大学出版社，2007．
陈时见．课程与教学[M]．桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2001．
陈侠．课程论[M]．北京：人民教育出版社，1989．
陈向明．实践性知识：教师专业发展的知识基础[J]．北京大学教育评论，2003(1)．
陈颖．教师自主的内涵透视[J]．教育学术月刊．2011(9)：69-71．
陈颖．教师自主与学习者自主的相关性研究[J]．外语电化教学．2011(4)：49-54．
陈佑清．课程即学生发展资源——对课程本质理解的一个新视角[J]．课程·教材·教法．2003(11)：10-14．
辞海·教育心理分册[M]上海：上海辞书出版社，1980．
从丛．“中国文化失语”：我国英语教学的缺陷[N]．光明日报．2000．10．19．
大卫·杰弗里·史密斯，郭洋生译．全球化与后现代教育学[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2000．
邓文英，敖凡．英语专业学生的中国文化失语症分析[J]．兵团教育学院学报．2005(4)：58-61．
邓大飞．试论外语教师教育中的教师自主发展[J]．教育与职业．2007（4）：66-68．
董金伟．教师专业发展与外语师资培养——广东外语外贸大学英语教育专业课程设置探讨[J]．广东外语外贸大学学报．2007(3)：98-101．
杜顺．网络环境下大学英语教师自主的探究[J]．丽水学院学报．2008（3）：97-100．
冯生尧，李子建．香港课程实施影响因素之分析[J]．全球教育展望．2001(5)：31-36．
高吉利，李秀萍．国外二语习得研究领域中的教师自主研究概述[J]．中小学英语教学与研究．2010(6)：4-9．
高吉利，李秀萍．自主性外语学习环境下的大学英语教师自主能力调查与研究[J]．外语界．2011(4)：29-35．
高文．试论课程与教学的一体化研究[J]．外国教育资料．1996(6)．
葛福东．外语教学：教师自主与学生自主[J]．内蒙古农业大学学报（社科版）．2007(1)：209-210．
何丽坤，廖冬庭．我国教师福利的现状及发展对策研究[J]．教育教学论坛．2011(36)：11-12．
华维芬．试论外语教师在自主学习模式中的定位[J]．外语研究．2001（3）：76-79．
戚宏波．中国外语者自主意识分析[J]．外语教学．2004（3）：90-93．
胡洁雯，吕芳慧．大学英语改革中的教师自主性研究[J]．现代教育科学．2010(4)：170-173．
胡清球等．大学英语教师课堂提问模式调查分析[J]．外语界．2004(6)：22-27．
黄甫全．大课程论初探——兼论课程（论）与教学（论）的关系[J]．课程·教材·教法．2000（5）：3-9．
黄甫全．课程本质新探明[J]．课程理论与实践．1996(1)：21-25．
黄晶伟．外语学习中的学习者自主与教师自主[J]．黑龙江教育学院学报．2009(4)：170-171．
黄景，Benson P．第二语言教育的教师自主性研究[J]．外语与外语教学．2007(12)：．
黄景．教师身份·教师能动·教师自主：二十年从教经历的反思[J]．教育学术月刊．2010(8)：27-31．
黄小莲．课程实施研究谱系(1970-2010年)．教育发展研究[J]．2011(8)：31-37．
黄有才．论外语教师职业自主[J]．教学与管理．2007(10)：33-34．
黄政杰．课程设计[M]．台湾：台湾华东书局，1991．
吉标，吴霞．课程实施：理解、对话与意义建构——一种建构取向的课程实施观[J]．西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)．2005(1)：85-88．
贾荣固．略论教师职业生涯发展[J]．大连教育学院学报．2002(1)：5-6．
蒋菁，徐锦芬．教师自主理论概述[J]．外语教育．2004(S)：103-106．
靳玉乐．课程实施：现状、问题与展望[J]．山东教育科研．2001(11)：2-6．
靖国平．从“知性人”到“智性人”——当代教育学人性假设的转型[J]．教育研究与实验．2010（4）：34-38．
孔文，李清华．关于EFL课堂中教师提问的对比研究[J]．国外外语教学．2007（3）：27-33．
雷红玉．外语教师自主：内涵、途径与作用[J]．高教论坛．2011(4)：89-92．
李臣之．课程实施：意义与本质[J]．课程·教材·教法．2001(9)：16-20．
李臣之．浅谈影响课程实施的六大因素[J]．教育导刊．2001（23）：24-25，32．
李臣之，张家军．理解本位课程思潮：特征与启示[J]．深圳大学学报（人文社科版）：2010（5）：156-161．
李洪修，熊梅．组织社会学视域中的学校课程实施策略[J]．东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)．2011(4)：209-212．
李茂森．国外教师专业自主的内涵研究回顾与思考[J]．现代教育管理．2010(1)：113-115．
李梦莉．大学英语教师自主性的影响因素和实现途径．高教论坛．2009（9）：92-95．
李明玲，赵艳华．课堂提问在外语教学中的应用研究[J]．吉林省教育学院学报，2009(9)：65-72．
李娜．试论自主学习模式下的教师自主[J]．广东交通职业技术学院学报，2006（4）：115-117.
李庆生，孙志勇．课堂提问：是获取信息还是挑战？——对大学英语课堂中教师提问功能的会话分析[J]．中国外语．2010（1）：58-64．
李文阁．生成性思维：现代哲学的思维方式[J]．中国社会科学．2000（6）：45-53，206．
李小红．教师与课程：创生的视角[M]．桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2009．
李亚红．英语新课程中教师自主性探析[J]．长春教育学院学报．2011（8）：88-89．
李英姿．大学英语自主教学模式下实现教师自主的必要性[J]．常熟理工学院学报．2008（12）:74-76.
李子建，黄显华．课程：范式、取向与设计[M]．香港：香港中文大学出版社，1996．
连蓉．新手-熟手-专家型教师心理特征的比较[J]．心理学报．2004（1）：44-52．
联合国教科文组织国际教育发展委员会．学会生存——教育世界的今天和明天[M]．华东师范大学比较教育研究所译．北京：教育科学出版社，1996：107．
刘成新．整合与重构：技术与课程教学的互动解析[D]．南京师范大学，2006．
刘芳，夏纪梅．高校英语教师反思性培训实证研究——基于一项全国高校英语骨干教师培训现场的调查[J]．外语界．2011(4)：57-62．
刘红，高志英．大学英语教师自主教学体系的构建与实践[J]．外语界．2006（S）：79-86．
刘红芳．论自主式英语课堂教学模式中教师的中介作用[J]．教育探索．2008（5）：97-98．
刘宏刚，徐锦芬．培养学生自主能力，促进教师自主发展——访华中科技大学外国语学院徐锦芬教授[J]．疯狂英语(教师版)．2008(6)：4-7．
刘家凤，鄢章荣．大学英语教师知识结构优化——新形势下的大学英语教师专业素质培育再思考[J]．西南民族大学学报(人文社科版)．2007（6）：314-318．
刘静．论高校外语教学改革中国中的教师自主[J]．中国民航飞行学院学报．2008(6)：61-64．
刘世文．对中国文化英语表达能力的调查及其启示[J]．基础教育外语教学研究．2003(1)：29-32．
刘旭，王静静．高校教师课程意识现状调查[J]．教师教育研究．2010（4）：53-58．
刘要悟．试析课程论与教学论的关系[J]．教育研究．1996（4）：10-16．
马文·哈里斯，李培荣译．文化人类学[M]．北京：东方出版社，1988．
马云鹏．课程实施及其在课程改革中的作用[J]．课程·教材·教法．2001（9）：21-26．
迈克尔·富兰，赵中建等译．教育变革新意义[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2005．
孟卫青．教师自主性探析[J]．现代教育论丛．2000（4）：24-26．
孟晓磊．中小学教师自主性的发展特点及其与工作绩效的关系研究[D]．西南大学，2010．
米卫文．论自主型教学模式下的教师自主[J]．湘潭师范学院学报．2008(2)：201-203．
裴希山．外语教学中的学习者自主和教师自主[J]．继续教育研究．2011(5)：145-148．
钱晓霞．试论英语教师职业发展中的教师自主[J]．外语界．2005（6）：30-35．
秦晓晴．外语教学研究中的定量数据分析[M]．武汉：华中科技大学出版社，2003．
任永泽．论教师的智慧实践[J]．现代教育论丛．2010（8）：55-61．
芮燕萍．大学英语教师专业发展状况实证研究——以教师反思与教学实践为例[D]．上海外国语大学，2011．
施良方．课程理论——课程的基础、原理与问题[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，1996．
石秀霞．山东省高校教师工作满意度实证研究[D]．山东理工大学，2008．
史逢阳．论大学英语教师自主性发展的制约因素及有效途径[J]．外语研究．2011(6)：169-171．
史清敏，金盛华，山田敬．中日青少年自主性发展的比较研究[J]．外国教育研究．2003（2）：22-24．
束定芳．外语教学改革：问题与对策[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社．2005．
束仁龙．高校教师职业压力来源与缓解策略[J]．池州学院学报．2008（1）：113-116．
斯皮罗等．认知弹性、建构主义和超文本——支持结构不良领域高级知识获得随机访问教学[A]．斯特弗等编，教育中的建构主义[C]．高文译．上海：华东师范大学出版社，2004．
宋伊雯，肖龙福．大学英语教学“中国文化失语”现状调查[J]．中国外语．2009(6)：88-92．
苏尚锋．个体与组织：教师自主性的二重维度教师教育研究[J]．教师教育研究．2007（6）：1-5．
孙丙堂．与自主学习相适应的大学英语自主教学模式的构建[J]．山东外语教学．2008（1）：52-56．
孙春．学习者自主与教师自主性[J]．湖北教育学院学报．2005(4)：129-131．
腾健．建构主义理论在外语教学思维活动中的应用[J]．华东船舶工业学院学报（社会科学版）．2004（2）：88-91．
托娅，孙立新．社会建构主义极其对外语教学的指导意义[J]．外语界．2003（5）.
汪霞．课程研究：现代与后现代[M]．上海：上海科学教育出版社，2003．
王策三．教学论稿[M]．北京：人民教育出版社，1985．
王鉴．课程论热点问题研究[M]．桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2008．
王敏勤．课程与教学的关系与整合[J]．中国教育学刊．2003(8).
王勤梅．高校英语教师自主能力现状调查研究[J]．四川教育学院学报．2011（12）：32-35.
王守仁，王海啸．我国高校大学英语教学现状调查及大学英语教学改革与发展方向[J]．外语教学．201（5）：4-17．
王晓龙．大学英语教学中教师自主的实现策略[J]．安徽工业大学学报（社科版）．2010(4)：94-96．
王艳．自主学习者对教师角色的期待[J]．外语界．2007（4）:37-43．
威廉姆·E·多尔．后现代课程观[M]．王红宇译．北京：教育科学出版社，2000．
威廉·F·派纳等著，张华等译．理解课程[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2003．
吴杰．教学论[M]．长春：吉林教育出版社，1986．
吴康宁．教育社会学[M]．北京：人民教育出版社，1998．
吴书芳．大学英语教师如何实现其自主性[J]．中国成人教育．2007（5）：97-98．
吴书芳．非英语专业大学英语教师自主性英语教学能力调查与分析[J]．疯狂英语(教师版．2009（3）：96-99．
吴书芳．国内教师自主研究述评[J]．疯狂英语(教师版)．2010（2）：123-126．
吴书芳．大学英语教师自主性差异研究——以新手教师与熟手教师为例[J]．外语教学．2011（6）：52-55．
吴一安．优秀外语教师专业素质探究[J]．外语教学与研究．2005（3）：199-204．
吴一安．外语教师专业发展探究[J]．外语研究．2008（3）：29-38.
夏纪梅．影响大学英语教学质量的相关因素[J]．外语界．2000（4）：3-7．
夏雪梅．教师课程实施程度的评估：一种整合架构[J]．教育发展研究．2009（22）：25-30．
邢和祥．课程实施影响因素：一种分析的框架[J]．当代教育科学．2010(18)：24-27．
徐洁．整合：课程与教学关系研究的走向[J]．江西教育科研．2002(1)：．13-15．
徐玉珍．改造我们的课程观[A]．全国课程专业委员会秘书处．21世纪中国课程研究与改革[C]．北京：人民教育出版社，2001．
杨彩莲．高校教师工作满意度的影响因素探析[J]．高教论坛．2006（8）：181-183．
杨敏．多维角度透视当代中国大学英语教学模式[M]．武汉：中国地质大学出版社，2004．
杨明全．革新的课程实践者——教师参与课程变革研究[M]．上海：上海科技教育出版社，2003．
姚翠荣．中小学教师自主性问卷的修编及发展特点研究[D]．西南大学，2011．
姚计海，钱美华．国外教师自主研究述评[J]．外语教育研究．2004（9）：44-47．
姚计海，申继亮．教师教学自主性问卷的编制与修订[J]．心理发展与教育．2010(3)：303-307．
姚计海，申继亮．中小学教师教学自主权量表的修订[J]．应用心理学．2007(4)：329-333．
姚计海．教学自主：教师专业发展的动力[J]．中国教育学刊．2009(6)：83-86．
叶澜．教师角色与教师发展新探[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2001．
于海波．教师课程实施能力研究[J]．当代教育科学．2011(12)：13-16．
于慧慧，刘要悟．对多尔后现代课程观的些许质疑[J]．教育科学论坛．2005（10）：16-19．
余文森．国家级课程改革实验区教学改革调研报告[J]．教育研究．2003(11)：40-44．
余文森．论以校为本的教学研究[J]．教育研究．2003(4)：54-59．
袁凌，谢赤，谢发胜．高校教师工作满意度的调查与分析[J]．湖南师范大学教育科学学报．2006(5)：105-108．
张凡迪．高校教师工作满意度调查分析启示[J]．工作研究．2009(7).
张华．走向课程理解：西方课程理论新进展[J]．全球教育展望．2001(7)：40-41．
张华．课程与教学整合论[J]．教育研究．2000(2)：52-58．
张慧军．大学英语课堂提问现状与提问策略探究[J]．教育与职业．2010(20)：151-152．
张慧琴，张琨．大学英语课堂沉默现象探究[J]．中国外语．2009（2）：78-84．
张利．首都高校教师工作满意度的结构、现状及其影响研究[D]．对外经济贸易大学，2007．
张莲．外语教师课堂决策研究——优秀外语教师个案研究[J]．外语教学与研究．2005（4）：265-270．
张为民，朱红梅．大学英语教学中的中国文化[J]．清华大学学报．2002(增1)：34-40．
张亚慧．浅谈实现教师自主的途径[J]．长春教育学院学报．2011（3）：12-13．
张艳君．英语教师专业知识结构与学生专业知识能力培养的对策实施[J]．黑龙江高教研究．2005(4)：150-152．
郑志辉，刘祖勤．课程实施主体探究[J]．内蒙古师范大学学报(教育科学版)．2009(1)：108-111．
中国大百科全书(教育卷)[M]．北京：中国大百科全书出版社，1985．
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编．现代汉语词典[M]．北京：商务印书馆出版，1996．
钟启泉．对话与文本：教学规范的转型[J]．教育研究．2001（3）：33-39．
周乐乐．探析在大学英语改革背景下的教师自主性[J]．内江科技．2009(2)：76-77．
周星等．大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析[J]．外语与外语教学．2002（1）：60-69．
周燕．中国高校英语教师发展模式研究[J]．外语教学理论与实践．2008（3）：40-47．
朱小蔓，杨一鸣．走向自我成长型教师培养的高师素质教育[J]．南京师大学报(社会科学版)．2002（1）：61-65．
祝晓燕．试论大学英语教师自主性的影响因素和实现途径[J]．黑龙江教育（高教研究与评估）．2010(4)：66-67．
佐藤学，钟启泉译．课程与教师[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2003．
Anderson, D.R. Creative teachers: risk, responsibility, and love[J]. Journal ofEducation,2002,183(1):33-48.
Anderson, L.W. The decline of teacher autonomy: tears or cheers?[J]. InternationalReview of Education.1987(33):357-373.
Aoki, N.“Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom, and responsibility.” In P.Benson&S. Toogood (eds.) Learner Autonomy7: Challenges to Research andPractice, pp.111-124. Dublin: Authentik.2002.
Aoki, N. An Alternative Way for Teachers to Develop[J]. The Teacher Trainer2002,16(2):10-11.
Aoki,N.,&Nakata,Y. Learner Autonomy: For the future of Japanese languageeducation and foreign language education. Tokyo:Hitsuji.2011.
Apple, M. Between Neo-liberalism and Neo-conservatism: Education andConservatism in a Global Context. In Burbules, N.C.and Torre S,C.A.Globalization and education: Critical Perspectives, NewYork and London:Routledge,2000:57-77.
Atsushi, I. Teacher Autonomy and Professional Teacher Development: Exploring theNecessities for Developing Teacher Autonomy in EFL Japanese Contexts[J].Asian EFL Jounal,2009, Vol.35.
Backhouse,J.K., G.L. Dickens, S.E. Rayner&M.J. Wood. Choice of Mathematics fora Level[M]. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Educational Studies,1982.
Barfield, A. Restrictions into resources: Learner autonomy and the literature review.In A.S. Mackenzie&E. McCafferty (eds),2002:137-145.
Barnes, D. From communication to curriculum[M]. London: Penguin.1976.
Benson, P. Autonomy as Learners and Teachers Right[A] In B.SINCLAIR, I.MCGRATH&T. LAMB (eds) Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: FutureDirections[C] London: Longman,2000:111-117.
Benson, P. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Langugae Learning. London:Longman.2001.
Benson, P. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning[M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2005.
Benson, P. Teacher education and teacher autonomy: Creating spaces forexperimentation in secondary school English language teaching[J]. LanguageTeaching Research.2010,14(3):259-275.
Breen, M. P.&Mann, S. Shooting Arrows at the Sun: Perspectives on a Pedagogy forAutonomy. In Benson,P.&Voller. P.(eds.). Autonomy and Independence inLanguage Learning.(pp.132-149). London: Longman.1997.
Broady, E&kenning, M-M. Promoting Learner Autonomy in University LanguageTeaching[M]. London: the Association for French Studies in Association with theCenter for Information on Language Teaching and Research,1996.
Brock, C. The effects of referential question on ESL classroom discourse [J]. TESOLQuarterly,1986,20(1).
Castle,K. Autonomy through pedagogical research[J]. Teaching and TeacherEducation.2006,22.
Charters, W. W. Sense of teacher work autonomy: Measurement&finding[M].Eugene: University of Oregon, Project MITT, Center for Educational Policy andManagement.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED66840)1974.
Chauvin, S.W.&Ellett, C.D. Teachers' Professional Orientation: An EmpiricalExamination of the Construct Validity Using the Results of Large-Scale FactorAnalyses.1993.
Crookes, G. What Influences What and How Second and Foreign Language TeachersTeach?[J]. The Modern Language Journal.1997,81(1):67-79.
Dearden, R.F. Autonomy and Education. In Education and the Development ofReason, D.F. Dearden, P.F. Hirst&R.S. Peters (eds),448–465. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.1972.
DeVries, R.&Kohlberg, L. Constructivist early education: Overview and comparisonwith other programs[M]. Washington: National Association for the Education ofYoung Children.1987.
Donald. E. Edgar,&Rodney. L. Brod. Professional Socialization and TeacherAutonomy. Technical Report, No.12. Stanford Center for Research and
Development in Teaching,1970.
Duffy,T.M.&D.H..Jonsseen. Comments on Philosophy and Constructivism inScience Education [J]. Science and Education,1991,(31):7-12.
Eisner, E. Educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs((2nd ed.)[M]. New York: Macmillan.1985.
Emery J., Margison,H.&Sears, A. Enhancing Teaching Performance: The Role ofProfessional Autonomy[J]. Interchange,2010,41(1):1–15.
Friedman, I. Teacher-perceived Work Autonomy: The Concept and ItsMeasurement[J]. Educational and Psychological Measurement,1999,50(1):58-76.
Foster, J. Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows Versions8to10: A Beginner’sGuide[M]. London: Sage Publications Ltd.,2001.
Fullan, M.,&Pomfret, A. Research on curriculum and instruction implementation[J].Review of Educational Research,197747(1),335-337.
Gardner, D.&Miller, L.(eds.) Establishing Self-access: from Theory to Practice [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2002.
Gilroy，D. P. The loss of professional autonomy: The relevance of Olga Matyash’spaper to the brave new world of British education[J]. Journal of Education forTeaching,1991,17(1):1-15.
Goodlad, J. I.,&Associates. Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculumpractice[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill.1979.
Graham, K. C. Running ahead: enhancing teacher commitment[J]. Journal of PhysicalEducation,1996,67(1):45-48.
Graves, K. The language curriculum: A social contextual perspectiveLanguage[J].Teaching,200841(2):147-181.
Green,S. K. et al. A review and Analysis of Constructivism for School-basedPractice[J]. School Psychology Review,2002,31(1).
Guttman, L. A general nonmetric techinique for finding the smallest coordinate spacefor a configuration fo points. Psychometrika.1968,33:469-506.
Hall, G.E.The Local Educational Change Process and Policy Implementation[J].Journal of Research in Science Teaching,1992,29(8):877-904.
Hanson, E. M. Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior (3rd ed.)[M]. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,1991.
Holec, H. Autonomy and Foreign Language learning [M]. Oxford: Pergamon Press,1981.
Helsby, G. Teachers’construction of professionalism in England in the1990s[J].Journal of Education for Teaching,1995,21(3):317-332.
Huang, J.Teacher Autonomy in Language Learning: A Review of the Research [A] InK. R. KATYAL, H.C. LAM&X. J. DING(eds) Research Studies in Education,Volume3[C]. Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong,2005(a):203-218.
Jackson, P.W. Handbbook of Research on Curriculum[C],New York: MacmillanPublishing Company,1992:403.
Johnson, R. K. The Second Language Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.1989.
Samuels, J.J. Impingements on Teacher Autonomy[J]. Urban Education.1970(5):152.
Kamii,C.&Houseman, L. B.Young Children Reinvent Arithmetic (2nded.)[M]. NewYork: Teachers College Press.2000.
Knowles, M. S. Self-directed Learning [M]. New York: Associaion Press.1975.
Kreis, K.＆Brockopp,D. Y. Autonomy: a component of teacher job satisfaction[J].Education,2001,107(1):110-115.
La Ganza, W. Learner autonomy-Teacher autonomy [A]. T. LAMB, H. REINDERS.Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities, and Responses[C].Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins,2008.63-79.
LaCoe, C. S. Teacher Autonomy: A Multifaceted Approach for the NewMillennium[M]. New York: Cambria Press,2008.
Lamb, T.,&Reinders, H.(Eds.). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities,and responses [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2008.
Little, D. Learner Autonomy: Definitions, Issues, and Problems[M]. Authentik Press,1991.
Little, D.Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considerations revisited[J].Innovation in Language Leaning and Teaching,2007,(1):14-29.
Little, D. Learner Autonomy: Why Foreign Languages Should Occupy a Central Rolein the Curriculum. In S.Green (Ed.) New perspectives on teaching and learningModern Languages,24-45. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.2000.
Little, D. Learning as Dialogue: The Dependence of Learner Autonomy on TeacherAutonomy [J] System,1995,23(2):175-182.
Littlewood, W. Defining and Developing Autonomy in East Asian Contexts[J].Applied Linguistics1999,20(1),71-94.
Long, M. H.&Sato C. J. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions ofteachers’ questions[J].TESOL Quarterly,1983,15:26-30.
McNiel.J. Curriculum: A comprehensive Introduction(5th edition)[M].Harper CollinsCollege Publishing,1996:241-262.
McGrath, I., Sinclair, B.,&Lamb, T. Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Futuredirections[M]. Harlow: Longman.2000.
Mike, N. Exploring and Defining Teacher Autonomy: A Collaborative Discussion. InDeveloping Autonomy, Proceedings of the College and University Educators’2001Conference, Shizuoka, Japan. Tokyo: The Japan Association for LanguageTeaching.
Nunan D. Communicative language teaching: Making it work[J]. ELT,1987.
Parsons.C, The Curriculum Change Game[M]. London: Falmer Press,1987.
Pearson L.C. The Prediction of Teacher Autonomy[J]. Education Research Quarterly,West Monroe,1998,22(1):33-38.
Pearson L.C., Hall B. W. Initial Construct Validation of the Teaching AutonomyScale[J]. Journal of Education Research,1993,86(3):172-178.
Pearson, L. C.,&Moonmaw, W. The relationship between teacher autonomy, stress,work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational ResearchQuarterly,2005,29(1),37-53.
Pearson, L. C.,&Moonmaw, W. Continuing validation of the teaching autonomyscale[J]. The Journal of Educational Research.2006,100(1):44-51.
Philliph, D.C.The Good,the Bad and the Ugly,The Many Faces of Constructivian[J].Educational Researcher,1995,24(7).
Ratnam, T. Understanding the Development of Teacher Autonomy Using a CulturalHistorical Approach. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association2007Japan Conference: Exploring theory, enhancing practice: Autonomy across thedisciplines. Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan, October2007
Rodgers D. B., Leslie A. L. Tension, Struggle, Growth, Change: Autonomy inEducation[J]. Childhood Education,2002,78(5):301-302.
Reinders, H. Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework ofindependent language learning skills[J]. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,2010,35(5),40-55.
Reinders, H., Hacker, P.&Lewis, M. The language adviser’s role: Identifying andresponding to needs[J]. Language Learning Journal.2004(30):30–35.
Scott P. A, Valimali M.et a1. Autonomy, Privacy and Informed Consent: concepts anddefinitions[J]. British Journal of Nursing,2003,12(1):43-47.
Shaw, J. Team-teaching as negotiating autonomy and shared understandings of whatwe are doing. from http://lc.ust.hk/%7Eailasc/symposium/Responses08Shaw.pdf,2002.
Skilbeck, M. School-Based Curriculum Development. London: Harper&Row,Publishers.1984.
Smith, R. C. Starting with Ourselves: Teacher-learner Autonomy in LanguageLearning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath&T. Lamb (eds.). Learner Autonomy,Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions (pp.88-89). London: Longman.2000.
Smith, R. C.Teacher Education for Teacher-learner Autonomy,http://www.warwack.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf.2001.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., and Zumwalt, K. Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson(ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum,402-435. New York: Macmillan.1992.
Stenhouse, L. Research as a basis for teaching. In Rudduck, J.&Hopkins, D.(Eds.),Research as a Basis for Teaching: Reading from the Work of Lawrence Stenhouse.Oxford: Heinemann.1985.
Taba, H. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice[M]. San Diego: Harcourt,Brace&World,1962.
Tanner, D.&Tanner, L. D. Perspective on Curriculum History[M]. New York:Macmillan Publishing Company,1990.
Tanner, D.&Tanner, L. D.. Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice [M].New York: Macmillan Publishing Company,1980.
Thavenius. C. Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In Learner Autonomy inLanguage Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, S. Cotterall&D.Crabbe (eds). Frankfurt: Lang.1999.
Tort-Moloney, D. Teacher Autonomy: A Vygostkian Theoretical Framework, Dublin:Trinity College,CLCS,Occasional Paper. N0.48. ERIC ED412741.1997.
Ur, P. A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996.
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B.,&Johnson, K. Theorizing language teacheridentity: Three perspectives and beyond[J]. Journal of Language, Identity, andEducation,2005,4(1):21-44.
Voller, P.“Does the Teacher have a Role in Autonomous Learning?”in P. Benson andP. Voller (eds.) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London:Longman,1997,98-113.
Villar, L.M. Reflective Teaching. In Husen, T. et al. The International Encyclopedia ofEducation,1994,(10):6216-6217.
Wajnryb, R. Classromm Observation Tasks: A Resource Book for Language Teachersand Trainers[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Education Teaching and ResearchPress,2011.
Wright, T. Roles of Teachers and Learners [M]. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.1987.
阿尔弗雷德·诺思·怀特海著，周邦宪译．过程与实在[M]．贵阳：贵州人民出版社，2006．
阿尔弗雷德·诺斯·怀特海，杨富斌译．过程与实在——宇宙论研究[M]．北京：中国城市出版社，2003．
安琦．外语教师自主教学实证研究[J]．外语电化教学．2011(4)：49-54．
保尔·朗格朗，周南照等译．终身教育引论[M]．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1985．
保罗·弗莱雷，顾建新等译．被压迫者教育学[M]．上海：华东师范大学出版社，2001．
鲍同梅．教师自主：一种审视教师发展的视角[J]．辽宁教育研究．2007(11)：97-100．
曹红霞．我国大学英语教学中的教师自主[D]．上海外国语大学．2006．
陈坚林．现代英语教学组织与管理[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000：74．
陈琪，张建伟．建构主义学习观要义评析[J]．华东师范大学学报（教育科学版）．1998（1）：64．
陈琦，刘儒德．当代教育心理学[M]．北京：北京师范大学出版社，2007．
陈时见．课程与教学[M]．桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2001．
陈侠．课程论[M]．北京：人民教育出版社，1989．
陈向明．实践性知识：教师专业发展的知识基础[J]．北京大学教育评论，2003(1)．
陈颖．教师自主的内涵透视[J]．教育学术月刊．2011(9)：69-71．
陈颖．教师自主与学习者自主的相关性研究[J]．外语电化教学．2011(4)：49-54．
陈佑清．课程即学生发展资源——对课程本质理解的一个新视角[J]．课程·教材·教法．2003(11)：10-14．
辞海·教育心理分册[M]上海：上海辞书出版社，1980．
从丛．“中国文化失语”：我国英语教学的缺陷[N]．光明日报．2000．10．19．
大卫·杰弗里·史密斯，郭洋生译．全球化与后现代教育学[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2000．
邓文英，敖凡．英语专业学生的中国文化失语症分析[J]．兵团教育学院学报．2005(4)：58-61．
邓大飞．试论外语教师教育中的教师自主发展[J]．教育与职业．2007（4）：66-68．
董金伟．教师专业发展与外语师资培养——广东外语外贸大学英语教育专业课程设置探讨[J]．广东外语外贸大学学报．2007(3)：98-101．
杜顺．网络环境下大学英语教师自主的探究[J]．丽水学院学报．2008（3）：97-100．
冯生尧，李子建．香港课程实施影响因素之分析[J]．全球教育展望．2001(5)：31-36．
高吉利，李秀萍．国外二语习得研究领域中的教师自主研究概述[J]．中小学英语教学与研究．2010(6)：4-9．
高吉利，李秀萍．自主性外语学习环境下的大学英语教师自主能力调查与研究[J]．外语界．2011(4)：29-35．
高文．试论课程与教学的一体化研究[J]．外国教育资料．1996(6)．
葛福东．外语教学：教师自主与学生自主[J]．内蒙古农业大学学报（社科版）．2007(1)：209-210．
何丽坤，廖冬庭．我国教师福利的现状及发展对策研究[J]．教育教学论坛．2011(36)：11-12．
华维芬．试论外语教师在自主学习模式中的定位[J]．外语研究．2001（3）：76-79．
戚宏波．中国外语者自主意识分析[J]．外语教学．2004（3）：90-93．
胡洁雯，吕芳慧．大学英语改革中的教师自主性研究[J]．现代教育科学．2010(4)：170-173．
胡清球等．大学英语教师课堂提问模式调查分析[J]．外语界．2004(6)：22-27．
黄甫全．大课程论初探——兼论课程（论）与教学（论）的关系[J]．课程·教材·教法．2000（5）：3-9．
黄甫全．课程本质新探明[J]．课程理论与实践．1996(1)：21-25．
黄晶伟．外语学习中的学习者自主与教师自主[J]．黑龙江教育学院学报．2009(4)：170-171．
黄景，Benson P．第二语言教育的教师自主性研究[J]．外语与外语教学．2007(12)：．
黄景．教师身份·教师能动·教师自主：二十年从教经历的反思[J]．教育学术月刊．2010(8)：27-31．
黄小莲．课程实施研究谱系(1970-2010年)．教育发展研究[J]．2011(8)：31-37．
黄有才．论外语教师职业自主[J]．教学与管理．2007(10)：33-34．
黄政杰．课程设计[M]．台湾：台湾华东书局，1991．
吉标，吴霞．课程实施：理解、对话与意义建构——一种建构取向的课程实施观[J]．西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)．2005(1)：85-88．
贾荣固．略论教师职业生涯发展[J]．大连教育学院学报．2002(1)：5-6．
蒋菁，徐锦芬．教师自主理论概述[J]．外语教育．2004(S)：103-106．
靳玉乐．课程实施：现状、问题与展望[J]．山东教育科研．2001(11)：2-6．
靖国平．从“知性人”到“智性人”——当代教育学人性假设的转型[J]．教育研究与实验．2010（4）：34-38．
孔文，李清华．关于EFL课堂中教师提问的对比研究[J]．国外外语教学．2007（3）：27-33．
雷红玉．外语教师自主：内涵、途径与作用[J]．高教论坛．2011(4)：89-92．
李臣之．课程实施：意义与本质[J]．课程·教材·教法．2001(9)：16-20．
李臣之．浅谈影响课程实施的六大因素[J]．教育导刊．2001（23）：24-25，32．
李臣之，张家军．理解本位课程思潮：特征与启示[J]．深圳大学学报（人文社科版）：2010（5）：156-161．
李洪修，熊梅．组织社会学视域中的学校课程实施策略[J]．东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)．2011(4)：209-212．
李茂森．国外教师专业自主的内涵研究回顾与思考[J]．现代教育管理．2010(1)：113-115．
李梦莉．大学英语教师自主性的影响因素和实现途径．高教论坛．2009（9）：92-95．
李明玲，赵艳华．课堂提问在外语教学中的应用研究[J]．吉林省教育学院学报，2009(9)：65-72．
李娜．试论自主学习模式下的教师自主[J]．广东交通职业技术学院学报，2006（4）：115-117.
李庆生，孙志勇．课堂提问：是获取信息还是挑战？——对大学英语课堂中教师提问功能的会话分析[J]．中国外语．2010（1）：58-64．
李文阁．生成性思维：现代哲学的思维方式[J]．中国社会科学．2000（6）：45-53，206．
李小红．教师与课程：创生的视角[M]．桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2009．
李亚红．英语新课程中教师自主性探析[J]．长春教育学院学报．2011（8）：88-89．
李英姿．大学英语自主教学模式下实现教师自主的必要性[J]．常熟理工学院学报．2008（12）:74-76.
李子建，黄显华．课程：范式、取向与设计[M]．香港：香港中文大学出版社，1996．
连蓉．新手-熟手-专家型教师心理特征的比较[J]．心理学报．2004（1）：44-52．
联合国教科文组织国际教育发展委员会．学会生存——教育世界的今天和明天[M]．华东师范大学比较教育研究所译．北京：教育科学出版社，1996：107．
刘成新．整合与重构：技术与课程教学的互动解析[D]．南京师范大学，2006．
刘芳，夏纪梅．高校英语教师反思性培训实证研究——基于一项全国高校英语骨干教师培训现场的调查[J]．外语界．2011(4)：57-62．
刘红，高志英．大学英语教师自主教学体系的构建与实践[J]．外语界．2006（S）：79-86．
刘红芳．论自主式英语课堂教学模式中教师的中介作用[J]．教育探索．2008（5）：97-98．
刘宏刚，徐锦芬．培养学生自主能力，促进教师自主发展——访华中科技大学外国语学院徐锦芬教授[J]．疯狂英语(教师版)．2008(6)：4-7．
刘家凤，鄢章荣．大学英语教师知识结构优化——新形势下的大学英语教师专业素质培育再思考[J]．西南民族大学学报(人文社科版)．2007（6）：314-318．
刘静．论高校外语教学改革中国中的教师自主[J]．中国民航飞行学院学报．2008(6)：61-64．
刘世文．对中国文化英语表达能力的调查及其启示[J]．基础教育外语教学研究．2003(1)：29-32．
刘旭，王静静．高校教师课程意识现状调查[J]．教师教育研究．2010（4）：53-58．
刘要悟．试析课程论与教学论的关系[J]．教育研究．1996（4）：10-16．
马文·哈里斯，李培荣译．文化人类学[M]．北京：东方出版社，1988．
马云鹏．课程实施及其在课程改革中的作用[J]．课程·教材·教法．2001（9）：21-26．
迈克尔·富兰，赵中建等译．教育变革新意义[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2005．
孟卫青．教师自主性探析[J]．现代教育论丛．2000（4）：24-26．
孟晓磊．中小学教师自主性的发展特点及其与工作绩效的关系研究[D]．西南大学，2010．
米卫文．论自主型教学模式下的教师自主[J]．湘潭师范学院学报．2008(2)：201-203．
裴希山．外语教学中的学习者自主和教师自主[J]．继续教育研究．2011(5)：145-148．
钱晓霞．试论英语教师职业发展中的教师自主[J]．外语界．2005（6）：30-35．
秦晓晴．外语教学研究中的定量数据分析[M]．武汉：华中科技大学出版社，2003．
任永泽．论教师的智慧实践[J]．现代教育论丛．2010（8）：55-61．
芮燕萍．大学英语教师专业发展状况实证研究——以教师反思与教学实践为例[D]．上海外国语大学，2011．
施良方．课程理论——课程的基础、原理与问题[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，1996．
石秀霞．山东省高校教师工作满意度实证研究[D]．山东理工大学，2008．
史逢阳．论大学英语教师自主性发展的制约因素及有效途径[J]．外语研究．2011(6)：169-171．
史清敏，金盛华，山田敬．中日青少年自主性发展的比较研究[J]．外国教育研究．2003（2）：22-24．
束定芳．外语教学改革：问题与对策[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社．2005．
束仁龙．高校教师职业压力来源与缓解策略[J]．池州学院学报．2008（1）：113-116．
斯皮罗等．认知弹性、建构主义和超文本——支持结构不良领域高级知识获得随机访问教学[A]．斯特弗等编，教育中的建构主义[C]．高文译．上海：华东师范大学出版社，2004．
宋伊雯，肖龙福．大学英语教学“中国文化失语”现状调查[J]．中国外语．2009(6)：88-92．
苏尚锋．个体与组织：教师自主性的二重维度教师教育研究[J]．教师教育研究．2007（6）：1-5．
孙丙堂．与自主学习相适应的大学英语自主教学模式的构建[J]．山东外语教学．2008（1）：52-56．
孙春．学习者自主与教师自主性[J]．湖北教育学院学报．2005(4)：129-131．
腾健．建构主义理论在外语教学思维活动中的应用[J]．华东船舶工业学院学报（社会科学版）．2004（2）：88-91．
托娅，孙立新．社会建构主义极其对外语教学的指导意义[J]．外语界．2003（5）.
汪霞．课程研究：现代与后现代[M]．上海：上海科学教育出版社，2003．
王策三．教学论稿[M]．北京：人民教育出版社，1985．
王鉴．课程论热点问题研究[M]．桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2008．
王敏勤．课程与教学的关系与整合[J]．中国教育学刊．2003(8).
王勤梅．高校英语教师自主能力现状调查研究[J]．四川教育学院学报．2011（12）：32-35.
王守仁，王海啸．我国高校大学英语教学现状调查及大学英语教学改革与发展方向[J]．外语教学．201（5）：4-17．
王晓龙．大学英语教学中教师自主的实现策略[J]．安徽工业大学学报（社科版）．2010(4)：94-96．
王艳．自主学习者对教师角色的期待[J]．外语界．2007（4）:37-43．
威廉姆·E·多尔．后现代课程观[M]．王红宇译．北京：教育科学出版社，2000．
威廉·F·派纳等著，张华等译．理解课程[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2003．
吴杰．教学论[M]．长春：吉林教育出版社，1986．
吴康宁．教育社会学[M]．北京：人民教育出版社，1998．
吴书芳．大学英语教师如何实现其自主性[J]．中国成人教育．2007（5）：97-98．
吴书芳．非英语专业大学英语教师自主性英语教学能力调查与分析[J]．疯狂英语(教师版．2009（3）：96-99．
吴书芳．国内教师自主研究述评[J]．疯狂英语(教师版)．2010（2）：123-126．
吴书芳．大学英语教师自主性差异研究——以新手教师与熟手教师为例[J]．外语教学．2011（6）：52-55．
吴一安．优秀外语教师专业素质探究[J]．外语教学与研究．2005（3）：199-204．
吴一安．外语教师专业发展探究[J]．外语研究．2008（3）：29-38.
夏纪梅．影响大学英语教学质量的相关因素[J]．外语界．2000（4）：3-7．
夏雪梅．教师课程实施程度的评估：一种整合架构[J]．教育发展研究．2009（22）：25-30．
邢和祥．课程实施影响因素：一种分析的框架[J]．当代教育科学．2010(18)：24-27．
徐洁．整合：课程与教学关系研究的走向[J]．江西教育科研．2002(1)：．13-15．
徐玉珍．改造我们的课程观[A]．全国课程专业委员会秘书处．21世纪中国课程研究与改革[C]．北京：人民教育出版社，2001．
杨彩莲．高校教师工作满意度的影响因素探析[J]．高教论坛．2006（8）：181-183．
杨敏．多维角度透视当代中国大学英语教学模式[M]．武汉：中国地质大学出版社，2004．
杨明全．革新的课程实践者——教师参与课程变革研究[M]．上海：上海科技教育出版社，2003．
姚翠荣．中小学教师自主性问卷的修编及发展特点研究[D]．西南大学，2011．
姚计海，钱美华．国外教师自主研究述评[J]．外语教育研究．2004（9）：44-47．
姚计海，申继亮．教师教学自主性问卷的编制与修订[J]．心理发展与教育．2010(3)：303-307．
姚计海，申继亮．中小学教师教学自主权量表的修订[J]．应用心理学．2007(4)：329-333．
姚计海．教学自主：教师专业发展的动力[J]．中国教育学刊．2009(6)：83-86．
叶澜．教师角色与教师发展新探[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2001．
于海波．教师课程实施能力研究[J]．当代教育科学．2011(12)：13-16．
于慧慧，刘要悟．对多尔后现代课程观的些许质疑[J]．教育科学论坛．2005（10）：16-19．
余文森．国家级课程改革实验区教学改革调研报告[J]．教育研究．2003(11)：40-44．
余文森．论以校为本的教学研究[J]．教育研究．2003(4)：54-59．
袁凌，谢赤，谢发胜．高校教师工作满意度的调查与分析[J]．湖南师范大学教育科学学报．2006(5)：105-108．
张凡迪．高校教师工作满意度调查分析启示[J]．工作研究．2009(7).
张华．走向课程理解：西方课程理论新进展[J]．全球教育展望．2001(7)：40-41．
张华．课程与教学整合论[J]．教育研究．2000(2)：52-58．
张慧军．大学英语课堂提问现状与提问策略探究[J]．教育与职业．2010(20)：151-152．
张慧琴，张琨．大学英语课堂沉默现象探究[J]．中国外语．2009（2）：78-84．
张利．首都高校教师工作满意度的结构、现状及其影响研究[D]．对外经济贸易大学，2007．
张莲．外语教师课堂决策研究——优秀外语教师个案研究[J]．外语教学与研究．2005（4）：265-270．
张为民，朱红梅．大学英语教学中的中国文化[J]．清华大学学报．2002(增1)：34-40．
张亚慧．浅谈实现教师自主的途径[J]．长春教育学院学报．2011（3）：12-13．
张艳君．英语教师专业知识结构与学生专业知识能力培养的对策实施[J]．黑龙江高教研究．2005(4)：150-152．
郑志辉，刘祖勤．课程实施主体探究[J]．内蒙古师范大学学报(教育科学版)．2009(1)：108-111．
中国大百科全书(教育卷)[M]．北京：中国大百科全书出版社，1985．
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室编．现代汉语词典[M]．北京：商务印书馆出版，1996．
钟启泉．对话与文本：教学规范的转型[J]．教育研究．2001（3）：33-39．
周乐乐．探析在大学英语改革背景下的教师自主性[J]．内江科技．2009(2)：76-77．
周星等．大学英语课堂教师话语的调查与分析[J]．外语与外语教学．2002（1）：60-69．
周燕．中国高校英语教师发展模式研究[J]．外语教学理论与实践．2008（3）：40-47．
朱小蔓，杨一鸣．走向自我成长型教师培养的高师素质教育[J]．南京师大学报(社会科学版)．2002（1）：61-65．
祝晓燕．试论大学英语教师自主性的影响因素和实现途径[J]．黑龙江教育（高教研究与评估）．2010(4)：66-67．
佐藤学，钟启泉译．课程与教师[M]．北京：教育科学出版社，2003．