本研究針對一所透過教師社群發展課程與教學變革的公立高中，探究變革歷程中內外部組織關係與領導的交互作用。本研究以紮根理論分析文件、觀察與訪談等資料，發現研究個案的教師社群由上而下或由下而上引發動能，鬆動了學校行政領導，學科分立的社會結構，塑造教師社群的實作並且催化學校課程與教學的改變。
教師社群的實作連結了科層組織的校長領導與專業組織的教師領導，共同構成學校的「領導場域」。本研究深入探討「領導場域」中，反映各個教師社群的基本信念與假設的訴求績效表現與其他學校競爭的「維生 – 經濟性」實作邏輯、訴求課程與教學以促進學生學習的「創造 – 教育本質」、以及訴求學校成員關係與情誼的「互動 – 集體情感」實作邏輯等三種實作邏輯，這三種實作邏輯在「領導場域」中競逐組織的合法性原則。
本研究在「領導場域」與實作邏輯的探討中，借助Bourdieu的實作理論與關連性分析視框作為思考工具（a set of thinking tool），觀察組織運作中校長與教師領導等各自展現策略與行動，瞭解組織成員帶進場域的慣習與資本，在不同的位置上互相作用與影響，形塑組織的慣習與組織內運作的邏輯。然而組織外部政策、經濟、社會環境的影響從未停歇，加上成員在組織內部與其他成員區分化的驅力，組織內外的作用力與交互作用改變了組織運作的邏輯，進而產生重塑組織慣習的可能。
就個別專業學習社群而言，本研究印證了運作良好的教師社群是發展教師專業、改善學生學習、融合成員的願景與共享目的，發展學校變革的一種有效的實踐策略。本研究進一步發現教師參與情境中的實作、校長保護教師創作的自主性、社群召集人營造信任與集體情感等，是教師社群成為持續有效的學校影響力的重要因素。
教師社群中的學習通常以兩種模式進行，其一是重視「理論邏輯」的「工作坊模式」的產出常常是「知道（to know）」。其二是著眼於「實作邏輯」的「學習共同體模式」較可能產出「去作（to be）」的成效。「學習共同體模式」的特徵包括現場的協同性實作，藉著「實例領導」降低教師的抗力，以「對症下藥」選取合宜理論等方式連結實務與理論。
本研究的「領導場域」由正式行政組織與多個教師社群構成，欠缺實體連帶的校長與社群領導之間仰賴關係連帶的節點居中串連，促成校長與社群領導、以及社群領導彼此之間理念與實作的溝通。「領導場域」顯示學校從行政主導以團體規約為取向的「共識論述」過渡到關懷成員需求與不同主張的「差異政略」取向。關係連帶也是行政組織與社群協調，以及社群實作滲透到社群之外的橋梁。本研究發現的關係連帶的節點主要是擁有豐富社會資本的行政以及重視集體情感的教師。
在「領導場域」的三種實作邏輯中，「維生 – 經濟性」實作邏輯源自於「為學校好」的價值導向，肇因於少子化與十二年國教啟動的學校間競爭，個案學校加入國科會高瞻計畫取得經費，以創新課程為學校博取聲譽。「創造 – 教育本質」實作邏輯源自「為學生好」的價值導向，展現於教師自發性的形成社群，吸引各學科教師加入分享實務。而「互動 – 集體情感」實作邏輯源於「為老師好」的價值導向，則是衍生於教師發揮社會資本組成社群，以同事間的平等與情誼為先，避免產生同儕階級差異的同理心以及「做學校主人」的歸屬感。
本研究發現教師社群的三種實作邏輯有共存、互補與制衡的關係，在學校組織中互有消長。教育終究是人的志業，「維生 – 經濟性」實作邏輯源自對學校的情感、「創造 – 教育本質」實作邏輯源自對學生的情感，人的情感是三種實作邏輯共同的源頭。集體情感往往在權力僵持與成員階級差異化時湧現，默默地修復「領導場域」中價值的失衡。因此，本研究呼籲學校領導應關注集體情感如沉潛的洋流，在學校多元價值競逐中巨大的影響力。

This research studies the interactions between leadership and external/internal organizational relationships during the change of curriculum and instruction developed by professional learning communities (“PLCs”) at a public high school. Following the grounded theory approach, this research analysed documents, observations and interviews collected in the research. The researcher has identified that practice shaped by both top-down and bottom-up professional learning communities could initiate the momentum to untie the rigid administrative leadership and release the fragmented department structure, and then facilitate the change in curriculum and instruction.
The practice of PLCs connected principal leadership in the bureaucratic organization and teacher leadership in the professional organization, thus forming the ‘leadership field’ of the school. This research inquired in-depth the three ‘logic of practice’ that reflecting the underlying belief and assumption of PLC practice in the ‘leadership field’. They are the ‘survival-economic’ logic of practice concerning performance and competition against other schools, the ‘creation-educational essence’ logic of practice concerning enhancement of student learning through curriculum and instruction, and the ‘interaction-collective emotions’ logic of practice concerning relationship and emotions of school members. These three logic of practice competed against each other for the principle of legitimacy in the ‘leadership field’.
In the course of exploring ‘leadership field’ and ‘logic of practice’, the researcher borrows Bourdieu’s theory of practice and relational analysis framework as a set of thinking tool to observe the strategies and actions principal and teacher leaders exerting in organization operation, to understand the habitus and capital members brought in the field and interactions between them on different positions, and to structure organizational habitus and logic of practice. As the influence from external policy, economic, and social environment never stops, also because the drives pushing organizational members to distinguish from others, those forces inside and outside of the organization and their interaction change the organizational logic of practice, and generate the possibility to reshaping organizational habitus.
For individual PLCs, this research proved that a well operated PLC is a powerful way to develop teacher professionalism, to improve student learning, to form shared vision and purpose, and to enhance school change. This research further discovered that the conditions shaping PLC a sustainably effective influence in school include teachers’ participation situated in practice, principal’s protection of teachers’ autonomy to creation, and that PLC teacher leader brings about trust and an atmosphere of collective emotions.
The professional development in PLCs normally is conducted in either the ’workshop model’ focusing on ’logic of theory’ that resulting in ‘knowing about’, or the ‘learning community’ model focusing on ‘logic of practice’ that resulting in ‘becoming’. ‘Learning community’ model relied on collaborative practice situated in classrooms, ‘leading by examples’ to reducing teachers’ resistance, and a ‘plug and play’ method to select and apply theory. The researcher would emphasize that ‘plug and play’ also played an important role in connecting theory and practice.
The ‘leadership field’ is structured by formal school organization and several PLCs. Due to the lack of concrete ties between the principal and PLCs teacher leaders, the communication of beliefs and practice among them relies on the knots of relational ties in the field. ‘Leadership field’ indicates a tendency shifting from ‘consensus discourse’ to ‘politics of difference’, where the former represents an administrative led group regulation fashion while the latter includes individual needs and different ideologies. Relational tie also becomes the bridge between administrative organization and individual PLCs, and between the individual PLCs and the whole school community. This research discovers that the knots of relational tie are comprised primarily of administratives possessing rich social capital and teachers embracing collective emotions.
Among the three logic of practice, the ‘survival-economic’ logic of practice originates from the value ‘for the sake of school’. The case study school opted to participate in the ‘High scope’ program for acquiring financial aids to develop innovated curriculum and instruction to build up school reputation for competition against other schools. The ‘creation-education essence’ logic of practice originates from the value ‘for the sake of students’. It is demonstrated in the process when teachers formed PLCs spontaneously and drew other teachers to participate and share practice in the community. The ‘interaction-collective emotions’ logic of practice originates from the value ‘for the sake of teachers’. It is derived from teacher’s social capital, the ‘owners of school’ kind of sense of belonging, the empathy against class difference among colleagues, and emphasized the importance of the equality and emotions among colleagues.
This research finds that three logic of practice are co-existed, complementary, and counter-balanced. Education eventually is a human enterprise. The ‘survival-economic’ logic of practice derives from emotions toward school. The ‘creation-educational essence’ logic of practice derives from emotions toward students. Human emotions are the source of all three logic of practice. The collective emotions often emerge when power struggle causes impasse or when school members are discriminated by class difference, and then implicitly amend the imbalance of values in the ‘leadership field’. Therefore, the researcher would like to urge that school leaders pay attention to the enormous strength of collective emotions, like the ocean current underneath the sea level, which can powerfully influence the competition of diversified values in school.

中文部分
于曉（譯）（2008）。M. Weber著。新教倫理與資本主義精神。台北：左岸文化。
尹弘飈、李子建（2008）。課程變革：理論與實踐。台北：高點教育。
王恭志（2004）。新右派課程政策主張的評析與啟示。教育研究資訊，12(5)，33-56。
方德隆（2009）。高中新課程特色與展望。教育研究月刊，177，12-25。
伍振鷟（2008）。中國教育史要略。台北：五南。
江志正（2010）。學校課程領導的永續思考。課程研究，5(1)，39-59。
李寶元（2000）。人力資本與經濟發展。北京師範大學。
李坤崇（2007）。高中新課程綱要總綱修訂的理念與特色。教育研究月刊，159，106-120。
李新鄉（2010）。教學卓越獲獎團隊表現與學校教師文化關聯性之研究：以大一國小為例。臺灣教育社會學研究，10(2), 41-83。
李顯榮（2004）。高中職多元入學方案之教育政策執行評估研究－以台北縣北部地區國中為例。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北縣。
郭官義、李黎（譯）（2001）。J. Habermas與M. Haller著。哈伯瑪斯：認知與旨趣。臺北市: 風雲論壇。
吳清山、高家斌（2007）。台灣中等教育改革分析：1994－2007年。教育資料集刊，34，1-24。
吳清基（2011）。推展十二年國民教育邁向教育新紀元。教育研究月刊，205，32-46。
林生傳（2004）。台灣近期教育改革的透視與省思。教育學刊，23，1-36。
林思伶、蔡進雄（2005）。論凝聚教師學習社群的有效途徑。教育研究月刊，132，99-109。
林佩璇（2000）。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。出自中正大學教育研究所. 主編，質的研究方法，239-263，高雄：麗文文化。
林佩璇（2004）。學校本位課程發展脈絡與現況研究。國立台北師範學院學報，17(2)，35-56。
林明地、連俊智（2008）。學校領導社群的意涵與塑造。教育研究月刊，171，16-27。
胡幼慧、姚美華（1996）。詮釋學與質性研究。載於胡幼慧（主編），質性研究：
理論、方法與本土女性研究實例（頁 141-158）。臺北市：巨流。
周淑卿（2002）。教師與學生在課程發展歷程中的處境-系統論與概念重建論的觀點。教育研究集刊，48(1)，133-151。
周祝瑛（2003）。誰捉弄了台灣教改。台北市：心理。
周新富（2005）。布爾迪厄論學校教育與文化再製。台北市：心理。
施佑吉、黃毅志（2009）。從教育社會學的觀點檢視十二年國民基本教育政策。教育政策論壇，12（3），35-64。
孫智綺（譯）（2002）。P. Bonnewitz著。布赫迪厄：社會學的第一課。台北：麥田。
高宣揚（1991a）。論布爾迪厄的「生存心態」概念。思與言，29（3），21-76。
高宣揚（1991b）。再論布爾迪厄的「生存心態」概念。思與言，29（4），295-303。
高宣揚（2002）。布爾迪厄。台北市：生智。
高淑清（2008）。質性研究的18堂課-揚帆再訪之旅。高雄市：麗文文化。
秦夢群（2010）。 教育領導理論與應用。台北：五南。
連俊智（2007）。台灣教育改革的省思與持續改善的思維-領導社群的整合觀點。屏東教育大學學報，28，71-100。
連俊智（2011）。學校領導社群關係結構模式之探討。中正教育研究，10（1），61-103。
連俊智、林明地（2013）。學校領導的學習共同體-學校領導動力剖析。學校行政，85，137-155。
張心怡（2009）。學校組織中社群之研究–以一所國民中學為例。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
張祝芬（2009）。高中課程領導之研究：分佈式領導取向。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
許宏儒（2006）。Bourdieu的「實踐」概念及其在教育研究上的啟示。教育研究與發展期刊，2（1），151-71。
陳伯璋（2003）。新世紀課程改革的省思與挑戰。台北：師大書苑。
陳幸仁（2008）。學校組織行為之微觀政治探究。教育理論與實踐學刊，17，1-25。
陳珊華（2004）。小學生文化資本之累積與作用。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
陳佩英（2008）。教師領導之興起與發展。教育研究月刊，171，41-57。
陳佩英、焦傳金（2009）。分散式領導與專業學習社群之建構：一所高中教學創新計畫的個案研究。教育科學研究期刊，54（1），55-86。
陳盛賢 (2007)。十二年國民教育的政策論述。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
陳逸淳，（2003）。論社會分類：涂爾幹與布迪厄。國立政治大學社會學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
張新仁、王瓊珠、馮莉雅（2009）。中小學教師專業學習社群手冊（再版）。臺北市：教育部。
黃乃熒（2009）。教育領導之社會正義實踐。教育研究月刊，181，5-15。
黃武雄（2003）。學校在窗外。台北縣：左岸文化。
黃宗顯（2003）。共識論述與差異政略思想在學校行政革新的和合與適應性：Habermas、Lyotard與中國「道」思想的全市性應用。教育研究集刊，49（2），97-115。
黃政傑（2005）。課程改革新論: 教育現場虛實探究。台北縣：冠學文化。
黃郁倫，鍾啟泉（譯）（2012）。佐藤學著。學習的革命：從教室出發的改革。台北：天下。
黃維（譯）（2003）。E. Wenger、R. McDermott和W. M. Snyder著。實踐社群：推動學習型組織之輪。台北：天下文化。
楊巧玲（2003）。知識經濟/商品化教育/績效學校：九0年代教育市場化的發展與挑戰。教育學刊，21， 225-242。
楊巧玲（2008）。教育改革對教師專業認同之影響：五位國中資深教師的探索性研究。師大學報，53(1)，25-54。
楊淑子、余東升（2001）。論文化素養教育與通識教育。通識教育與素質教育學術研討會論文集。香港中文大學。
賴志峰（2011）。分布式領導的研究成果之分析。教育研究月刊，201，75-86。
甄曉蘭、鍾靜（2002）。學校本位課程發展相關問題及其相應措施之研究。師大學報，47(1)，1-16。
甄曉蘭、簡良平（2002）。學校本位課程發展權力重整問題之批判分析。教育研究集刊，48，65-94。
蓋浙生（1979）。教育經濟學研究。台北市：教育部教育計畫小組。
歐用生（2004）。課程領導: 議題與展望。台北: 高等教育。
楊思偉（2006）。推動十二年國民教育政策之研究。教育研究集刊，52（2），1-31。
劉阿榮（2009）。競爭型經費對高等教育發展的影響。第五屆兩岸高等教育論壇－「人文、管理與高等教育」學術研討會論文集。桃園：元智大學。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。台北：心理。
蔡進雄（2010）。論學校轉型為專業學習社群的校長領導作為。教育研究月刊，194，44-53。
簡良平（2001）。學校自發展課程中課程籌劃的探究。課程與教學季刊，4，25-46。
簡良平、甄曉蘭（2001）。學校自主發展課程之相關因素分析。教育研究集刊，46，53-80。
鄭進丁（1986）。國民小學校長角色之分析。高雄市：復文。
謝文全（2007）。教育行政學。台北市：高等教育。
謝國雄、高穎超、李慈穎、吳偉立、劉怡筠、劉惠純、鄭玉菁、葉虹靈、林文蘭、（2007）。以身為度、如是我做—田野工作的教與學。臺北：群學。
 
西文部分
Addison, B. (2009). A feel for the game – A Bourdieuian analysis of principal leadership: a study of Queensland secondary school principals. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(4), 327-341.
Apple, M.W. (2001). Comparing Neo-liberal Projects and Inequality in Education, Comparative Education, 37(4), 409-23.
Barbalet, J.M. (2002). Emotions and sociology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 443–449.
Bates, R. (2006). Culture and leadership in educational administration: A historical study of what was and what might have been. Journal of Educational Administration and History. 38(2), 155-168.
Beatty, B. R. (2000). The emotions of educational leadership: Breaking the silence. Interational Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(4), 331-357.
Beatty, B. R. (2011). From crayons to perfume: Getting beyond contrived collegiality. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 257-266.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977).［1972］. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1979).［1984］. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed. Poetics, 12, 311-356.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The market of symbolic goods. Poetics, 14, 13-44.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The form of capitals. In John G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the Sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). Choses dites. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, P. (1990).［1980］. The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). Some properties of fields. In Sociology in Question, translated by Richard Nice (pp.72-77). London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1996).［1989］. The state nobility. Cambridge: Polity Press
Bourdieu, P. (1998).［1994］. Practical Reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2001).［1998］. Masculine domination. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2005).［2000］. The social structures of the economy. Translated by Chris Turner. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a united view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213.
Darling-Harmmond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blue print for creating schools that work. Jossey-Bass. John Wiley & Sons.
Denzin, N.K. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2000). Developing comparative and international educational leadership and management: A cross-cultural model. School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 143-160.
Dobbin, F. (2008). The poverty of organizational theory: Comment on: “Bourdieu and organizational analysis.” Theory and Society, 37(1), 53-63.
Eacott, S. (2010). Bourdieu’s strategies and the challenge for educational leadership. International Forum of Leadership in Education, 13(3), 265-281.
Emirbayer, M., & Goldberg, C. A. (2005). Pragmatism, Bourdieu, and collective emotions in contentious politics. Theory and Society, 34(5-6), 469-518.
Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37(1), 1-44.
Evers, C. W., & Katyal, K. R., (2008). Educational Leadership in Hong Kong Schools 1950-2000: critical reflections on changing themes. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(3), 251-264.
Firestone, W.A., & Riehl, C. (2005). A new agenda for research in educational leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gibbs, G.R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage.
Giroux, H. A. (2004). Public pedagogy and the politics of neo-liberalism: making the political more pedagogical. Policy Futures in Education, 2(3-4), 494-503.
Glatthorn, A.A. (2000). The principle as curriculum leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Grenfell, M. J. (2007). Pierre Bourdieu: Education and training. London and New York: Continuum.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunter, H.M. (2001). Leaders and Leadership in Education. London: Paul Chapman.
Gunter, H.M. (2004). Labels and Labelling in the field of educational leadership. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(1), 21-41.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35-48.
Harbermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(3), 227-241.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Redistributed leadership for sustainable professional learning communities. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 550-565.
Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In J. Blasé (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 46-72). London: Sage.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: With implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(4), 315-336.
Hargreaves, A. (2001a). Classrooms, colleagues, communities, and change: The sociology of teaching at the turn of the century. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education & Development, 4(1), 101-129.
Hargreaves, A. (2001b). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record. 103(6), 1056-1080.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: heresy, fantasy or possibility. School Leadership and Management, 23(3), 313-324.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hayton, P., & Spillane, J. P. (2008). Professional community or communities? School subject matters and the management of elementary school teachers’ work. In Macbeath, J., & Cheng, Y. C. (Eds.), Leadership for learning: International perspectives (pp.65-79). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Henderson, J.G., & Hawthorne, R.D. (1995). Transformative Curriculum Leadership. Teachers College Press: New York.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R., & Clark, T.（2006）. Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 641-53.
Ho, E.S. (2009). Educational leadership for parent involvement in an Asian context: Insights from Bourdieu’s theory of practice. The School Community Journal. 19(2), 101-122.
Hord, S. M. (2004). Professional learning communities: An overview. In S. M. Hord (Ed.), Learning together, leading together: Changing school through professional learning communities (pp.5-14). New York: Teachers College Press
Huang, T. (2012). Agents’ social imagination: The “invisible” hand of neoliberalism in Taiwan’s curriculum reform. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(1), 39-45.
Huffman, J.B., & Hipp, K.K. (2003). Professional learning community organizer. In J. B. Huffman & K. K. Hipp (Eds). Professional learning communities: Initiation to implementation. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Hursh, D. W., & Henderson, J. A, (2011). Contesting global neoliberalism and creating alternative futures. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(2), 171-185.
Joshee, (2012). Challenging Neoliberalism through Gandhian Trusteeship. Critical Studies in Education, 53 (1), 71-82.
Johnson, S.M. (1990); The primacy and potential of high school departments. In M.W. McLaughlin, J.E., Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers' realities (pp. 167–186). Teachers College Press, New York (1990).
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Kruse, S., Louis, K., & Bryk, A. (1995). Building professional learning in schools. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Ladwig, J.G. (1994). For whom this reform? : Outlining educational policy as a social field. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(3), 341-363.
Lamaison, P., & Bourdieu, P. (1986). From rules to strategies: An interview with Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Anthropology, 1(1), 110-120.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Le Cornu, R., & Ewing, R. (2008). Reconceptualising professional experiences in pre-service teacher education…reconstructing the past to embrace the future. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1799-1812.
Lebaron, F. (2003). Pierre Bourdieu: Economic models against Economism. Theory and Society, 32(5-6), 551-565.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence. NY: Routledge.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What do we already know about educational leadership, in W.A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp.12-27). New York: Teachers College Press.
Light, R.L. (2011). Opening up learning theory to social theory in research on sport and physical education through a focus on practice. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(4), 369-382.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Halls, CA: Sage.
Lindkvist, L. (2005). ‘Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: a typology of knowledge work in groups’. Journal of Management Review, 42(6) 1189–210.
Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading Learning: Making Hope Practical in Schools. NY: Open University Press.
Louis, K.S., & Miles, M.B. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
Macbeath, J., & Cheng, Y. C. (2008). Leadership for learning: International perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marks, H.M., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707-750.
Marsh, C., Day, C., Hannay, L., & McCutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualizing school based curriculum development. London: The Falmer Press.
Maton, K. (2005). A question of autonomy: Bourdieu’s field approach and higher education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 20(6), 687-704.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Niesz, T. (2010). Chasms and bridges: generativity in the space between educators’ communities of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 37-44.
Pang, N. (2010). Leadership forces in Hong Kong secondary schools. School Leadership and Management. 30(4), 351-365.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation method (3rd Ed.). Thousands Oaks, California: Sage.
Robbins, D. (2000). Bourdieu and Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623-639.
Roy, N. (1999). Bourdieu, ‘habitus’, and educational research: is it all worth the candle. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 20(2), 175-187.
Sandel, M.J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Schein, E.（2010）. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schussler, D. L. (2003). Schools as learning communities: unpacking the concept. Journal of School Leadership, 13(5), 498-528.
Seddon, T., Angus, L., & Poole, M. E. (1990). Pressures on the move to school-based decision-making. In J. D. Chapman (Ed.). School-based decision-making and management. London: The Falmer Press.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992). Moral leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (2000). The Lifeworld of Leadership: Creating Culture, Community, and Personal Meaning in our Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (2005). Strengthening the Heartbeat: Leading and Learning Together in Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Slavin, R, E. (1995). Effective Programs for Elementary and Secondary Schools. (No. R305A040082) MD: John Hopkins University. Center for American Progress and the Institute of Education Science.
Small, D. (2011). Neo-liberalism in crisis? Educational dimensions. Policy Futures in Education, 9(2), 258-266.
Spillane, J.P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.
Strauss, A. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994), Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 273-285.
Swartz, D. L. (2008). Bringing Bourdieu’s master concepts into organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37(1), 45-52.
Swedberg, R. (2010). The economic sociologies of Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Sociology, 5(1), 1-18.
Tayler, S., & Singh, P. (2005). The logic of equity practice in Queensland state education - 2010. Journal of Education Policy. 20(6), 725-740.
Thaler, R.H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge. CT: Yale University Press.
Thompson, P., & Holdsworth, R. (2003). Theorizing change in the educational 'field': re‐readings of 'student participation' projects. International Journal of leadership in Education. 6(4), 371-391.
Thomson, P., Lingard, B., & Wrigley, T. (2012). Ideas for changing educational systems, educational policy and schools. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 1-7.
Tönnies, F. (1988). Community & society, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction, Inc.
Torres, C.A. (2002). The state, privatization and educational policy: A critique of neo-liberalism in Latin America and some ethical and political implications. Comparative Education, 38(4), 365-385.
Vaughan, D. (2008). Bourdieu and organizations: The empirical challenge. Theory and Society, 37(1), 65-81.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological process. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Walker, D. K. (2006). Fostering hope: a leader’s first and last task. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 540-569.
Wasley, P.A. (1991). Teachers Who Lead: The Rhetoric of Reform and the Realities of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
Weick, K. E.(1995). Sense making in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridage University Press.
Westheimer, J., & Cuban, L. (1998). Among school teachers: Community, autonomy, and ideology in teacher’s work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Woods, P.A. (2004). Democratic Leadership: Drawing Distinctions with Distributed Leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zembylas, M. (2007). Emotional capital and education: Theoretic insights from Bourdieu. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 443-463.
Zorn, D., & Boler, M. (2007). Rethinking emotions and educational leadership. International Journal of Educational Development, 10(2), 137-151.