工作场所中基于项目行动学习的理论模型研究
|
摘要
教育心理学认为,在人的一生中,概括起来主要从事两类活动：一是改造客观世界的活动；二是改造主观世界的活动。前一类活动我们统称为“工作”,后一类活动被称为“学习”,而架起这两者间桥梁的正是近年来异军突起的“工作场所学习”。其中,“基于项目行动学习”(简称PBAL)则是工作场所学习中应用最广、影响最大的一种新兴学习模式。它在对传统学习模式反思批判的基础上,提出了一种新的、替代性的学习路径。然而,当前对于基于项目行动学习的研究多侧重于操作层面或执行层面的“工具性”研究,将其看作是一种培训(学习)工具,关注其流程与操作的方法,而忽视学习活动过程的理论层面研究,尤其是缺乏基于中国国情的相关理论研究。基于此,本文在建构扎根理论研究方法论的指导下,立足于中国本土企业推行基于项目行动学习的实践,以宝钢集团某公司为样本,通过现场观察、深度访谈、问卷调查等方法搜集底线数据,并按照扎根理论的要求,采用了规范的数据分析及编码技术,从个体、团队或组织三个学习层面,建构了基于项目行动学习的理论模型,并在新的理论模型指导下,探讨了基于项目行动学习的有效机制。主要内容包括：
第一章绪论。在分析选题背景与缘起、选题目的与意义的基础上,提出本文的整体研究思路、研究框架、研究方法、研究问题以及主要研究内容。
第二章文献综述与研究问题的提出。通过对基于项目学习以及行动学习等相关文献的梳理与综述,并结合已有实践,阐述了研究问题的提出及发展过程。
第三章研究方法论、研究设计、样本及编码简介。由于论文采用的是扎根理论研究方法,因而在研究成果的呈现上,面对丰富的数据,如何将研究结论用一种精练的方式呈现给读者,既不让读者淹没于数据和资料中,又能让读者清晰研究脉络、了解数据与理论之间的关系,从而提高研究的信度,是一个好的扎根理论研究必须要解决的问题。为此,论文在第三章详细阐述了扎根理论的研究方法和研究设计的过程(包括样本的选择、数据搜集的方法、数据分析的流程以及理论建构的过程)。
第四章工作场所中基于项目行动学习的影响因素分析。论文基于原始经验数据,通过扎根理论的实质性编码(substantive coding)获得了3个核心范畴与13个主范畴,分别从个体、团队与组织层面探讨了基于项目学习的影响因素以及这些因素是如何影响学习活动的,并绘制出相关概念间的关系图。
第五章工作场所中基于项目行动学习活动的研究。本章结合实践中基于项目行动学习的活动,探讨了基于项目行动学习的目标、过程、层次及阶段,并以原始经验数据为支撑,构建了基于项目行动学习的目标与过程的“实质理论模型”。
第六章工作场所中的学习研究——个体、团队与组织。一个好的扎根理论研究不应仅仅停留于“实质理论”的建构,原因在于这种立足于原始经验数据所构建的“实质理论”,由于其数据来源于特定研究对象,因而具有一定的局限性。为了解决这一问题,扎根理论一般都要求在“实质理论”建构以后要进行相关的文献比较研究。通过比较研究,一方面可以进一步完善所建构的“实质理论”,将其上升为“形式理论”；另一方面实现所建构的理论与现有研究的衔接,使得研究工作具有一定的延续性。基于这样一种理念,论文在第六章从个体、团队及组织三个层面对相关学习理论进行了文献回顾及综述,梳理出核心观点,并将其与第四章和第五章所建构的“实质理论”进行比较研究。
第七章工作场所中基于项目行动学习的理论模型重构。本章基于第四章、第五章的“实质理论”,结合第六章的文献比较研究,并在吸收已有研究成果的基础上,重新建构了基于项目行动学习的理论模型——基于项目行动学习连续统一体模型,成为本研究的最主要贡献。该模型包括：1个目标；2个过程；3个层次；4个阶段以及13个影响因素。其中1个目标表现为：基于项目行动学习实现了学习与工作、个体发展与组织绩效提升的融合：2个过程分别为：拓展性学习过程(即学习创新过程)与实践共同体学习过程(即知识应用过程)；3个层次是指基于项目行动学习活动跨越了个体、团队及组织三个层次；4个阶段则描述了基于项目行动学习活动中个体及组织的心智模式与思想方式的转化过程；13个影响因素则分别从个体、团队与组织层面剖析了工作场所中影响行动学习的主要因素及其相互关系。
第八章工作场所中基于项目行动学习的机制研究。本章着眼于理论模型的应用,根据新建构的理论模型,结合当前的实践,分析了基于项目行动学习在实践应用中存在的问题,并从学习的“动力机制”、“发生机制”以及“保障机制”三个方面探讨如何构建基于项目行动学习的有效机制。
第九章研究的发现、贡献及不足。受限于时间、精力与研究资源,本研究还有许多不足之处,例如,没有针对所建构的基于项目行动学习连续统一体模型进行验证性研究。未来还需要选择更多的样本、运用更多的理论进行比较与研究,以充实论文所获得的概念和范畴的内涵,进一步完善本文所建构的理论与研究发现,使之更具有普适性,并用于指导包括制度化教育改革在内的、更为广泛的学习实践。
In the terms of Educational Psychology, summarily, there are two kinds of activities we are engaged in during the whole life:one is the activities that transform the objective world; the other one is the activities that alter the subjective world. The former activities are collectively called "work" by us, the latter one is named "learning", and it is the rapidly developing "Workplace Learning" that becomes the bridge built between them. In the area of workplace learning, the Project-based Action Learning (hereinafter referred to as PBAL) is a kind of newly developing learning model which has profound impact and is applied broadly. Based on the critical reflection of the traditional learning model, PBAL puts forward a kind of new and substitutive learning path. However, the recent research on PBAL focused more on "instrumental" studies at an operating or executive level, seeing it as a tool of training (learning). It focuses on the method of process and operation, whereas it ignores the theoretical research on the process of learning activities. In particular, it lacks of relevant theoretical studies in the context of China. In view of the situation mentioned above and under the guidance of the Constructing Grounded Theory, which is a kind of research methodology, this thesis focus on the practice of PBAL expanded in the native companies of China. A native Chinese company called MeiShan Company of Baosteel lies in Shanghai is used as a case study. Based on the case, this paper uses the methods of on-site observation, depth interview and questionnaire survey and so on to collect the baseline data. After that, according to the demand of the Grounded Theory, the essay adopts the normative data analysis and coding techniques, from the medium level of learning activities (the level of team or organizational learning), to construct the theoretical model of Project-based Action Learning. Thereafter, based on the direction of the new theoretical model, the paper further discusses the Effective Mechanism of Project-based Action Learning. The main contents include:
Chapter One:Introduction. Based on the analysis of the background and origin for the subject's selection, followed with the subject's objective and meaning and then the paper comes up with the holistic research approach, frame, methods, problems and the mainly research contests of the paper.
Chapter Two:Literature review is conducted and research questions are put forward. Through the review of relevant literature that focuses on PBAL, combined with the existing practice, the chapter expounds the origin and development of research questions.
Chapter Three:Details are outlined on research methodology, research design, sampling and encoding. In order to become a good research, if you use the Grounded Theory, then it is a must solved problem that how to use a kind of concise way to present the research conclusion. Since this research uses this approach (Grounded Theory), though facing with large data volumes, the paper needs a simple way to present the conclusion. That is to say, the paper should not only make the readers not submersed in the plentiful data and material but also keep the readers clear about the research venation and the relationship between the data and the theoretical. This is also a way to improve the research reliability. Therefore, the Chapter Three elaborates the research methods and research design of the Ground Theory (Which includes the selection of sample, the method to gather the data, the flow path of data analysis as well as the procedure of constructing a theory).
Chapter Four:The analysis of the influence factors on PBAL in the workplace. The study obtains three core and thirteen main categories based on original empirical data, through the method of "Substantive Coding" included in the Grounding Theory. And then this chapter discusses what the factors are and how they impact the learning activities from three perspectives:individual, team and organization, and map the relationship between the related concepts.
Chapter Five:The research on the activities to PBAL in the workplace. This chapter researches the objectives, process, the level and stage about PBAL Combining with the practice on learning activities, And supported by original empirical data, constructing the goals and process of substantive theoretical model of PBAL.
Chapter Six:The research on learning in the workplace-individual, team and organization. However, a good Grounded Theory Research should not only stay in substantial theoretical construction. This is because, for this kind of the substantial theory with the support of original empirical data, there is some limitation coming from the special research object. In order to solve this problem, it is required by the Grounded Theory that the comparative study of the relevant literature has to be done. This kind of comparative research, on the one hand, can perfect the substantial theory and ascent it into the formal theory. On the other hand, it can make the connection between the constructed theory and the existing research, which will be good for the continuity of the research. According to the ideas, Chapter Six includes the literature review of relevant learning theories from the perspective of individual, team and organization. It points out the core view and compares it with the substantial theory derived from Chapter4and Chapter5.
Chapter Seven:The reconstruction of the theoretical model of PBAL in the workplace. This chapter reconstructs the theoretical model of PBAL based on the substantial theory of the chapter4and chapter5and the result of the literature study-----the Continuum Model for Project-based Action Learning, which is the most important contribution in this research. This model comprises five parts:One Target, Two Procedures, Three Layers, Four Phases and Thirteen Influencing Factors. One Target can be reflected by the fact that the Project-based Learning make some combinations come true. These combustions lie between the learning and work, the individual development and the improvement of the organization performance; Two Procedures include:the expanding learning procedure (namely learning and innovation process) as well as the community of practice learning procedure (namely the application of the knowledge); Three Layers indicates the layers of individual, team and organization. They are crossed by the Project-based Action Learning activities; Four Phrases describe the transition procedure of the mental model and the thinking method, which is based on the Project-based Action Learning; Thirteen Influencing Factors imply the main factors that influence the Action learning in the workplace and the relationship between them, All of the factors are analyzed through the three layers of the individual, team and the organization.
Chapter Eight:The research on the mechanism of PBAL in the workplace. This chapter focuses on the application of the theoretical model, combining with the current practice, and analyses the existing practical problem in the application of the Project-based Action Learning. All of these analyses are grounded on the current practice and the new constructive theoretical models. Then this part discusses how to establish the Effective Project-based Action Learning Mechanism from the three learning aspects, which includes the learning dynamic mechanism, occurrence mechanism as well as the safeguard mechanism.
Chapter Nine:Research findings, contributions and shortcomings. There are still some shortcomings in this research since the limits of time, energy and the research resource, such as the lack of the confirmatory study for the Continuum Model of the Project-based Action Learning. In the further study, the research needs to select added samples and do better in the compare and study with the help of more theories. Therefore, the paper would get enrichment connotation for the concepts and the categories, whilst improve the constructed research theory and the discovery. Then the research would be able to be used universally and guides more learning practice, the institutional education transformation, for example.
第一章绪论。在分析选题背景与缘起、选题目的与意义的基础上,提出本文的整体研究思路、研究框架、研究方法、研究问题以及主要研究内容。
第二章文献综述与研究问题的提出。通过对基于项目学习以及行动学习等相关文献的梳理与综述,并结合已有实践,阐述了研究问题的提出及发展过程。
第三章研究方法论、研究设计、样本及编码简介。由于论文采用的是扎根理论研究方法,因而在研究成果的呈现上,面对丰富的数据,如何将研究结论用一种精练的方式呈现给读者,既不让读者淹没于数据和资料中,又能让读者清晰研究脉络、了解数据与理论之间的关系,从而提高研究的信度,是一个好的扎根理论研究必须要解决的问题。为此,论文在第三章详细阐述了扎根理论的研究方法和研究设计的过程(包括样本的选择、数据搜集的方法、数据分析的流程以及理论建构的过程)。
第四章工作场所中基于项目行动学习的影响因素分析。论文基于原始经验数据,通过扎根理论的实质性编码(substantive coding)获得了3个核心范畴与13个主范畴,分别从个体、团队与组织层面探讨了基于项目学习的影响因素以及这些因素是如何影响学习活动的,并绘制出相关概念间的关系图。
第五章工作场所中基于项目行动学习活动的研究。本章结合实践中基于项目行动学习的活动,探讨了基于项目行动学习的目标、过程、层次及阶段,并以原始经验数据为支撑,构建了基于项目行动学习的目标与过程的“实质理论模型”。
第六章工作场所中的学习研究——个体、团队与组织。一个好的扎根理论研究不应仅仅停留于“实质理论”的建构,原因在于这种立足于原始经验数据所构建的“实质理论”,由于其数据来源于特定研究对象,因而具有一定的局限性。为了解决这一问题,扎根理论一般都要求在“实质理论”建构以后要进行相关的文献比较研究。通过比较研究,一方面可以进一步完善所建构的“实质理论”,将其上升为“形式理论”；另一方面实现所建构的理论与现有研究的衔接,使得研究工作具有一定的延续性。基于这样一种理念,论文在第六章从个体、团队及组织三个层面对相关学习理论进行了文献回顾及综述,梳理出核心观点,并将其与第四章和第五章所建构的“实质理论”进行比较研究。
第七章工作场所中基于项目行动学习的理论模型重构。本章基于第四章、第五章的“实质理论”,结合第六章的文献比较研究,并在吸收已有研究成果的基础上,重新建构了基于项目行动学习的理论模型——基于项目行动学习连续统一体模型,成为本研究的最主要贡献。该模型包括：1个目标；2个过程；3个层次；4个阶段以及13个影响因素。其中1个目标表现为：基于项目行动学习实现了学习与工作、个体发展与组织绩效提升的融合：2个过程分别为：拓展性学习过程(即学习创新过程)与实践共同体学习过程(即知识应用过程)；3个层次是指基于项目行动学习活动跨越了个体、团队及组织三个层次；4个阶段则描述了基于项目行动学习活动中个体及组织的心智模式与思想方式的转化过程；13个影响因素则分别从个体、团队与组织层面剖析了工作场所中影响行动学习的主要因素及其相互关系。
第八章工作场所中基于项目行动学习的机制研究。本章着眼于理论模型的应用,根据新建构的理论模型,结合当前的实践,分析了基于项目行动学习在实践应用中存在的问题,并从学习的“动力机制”、“发生机制”以及“保障机制”三个方面探讨如何构建基于项目行动学习的有效机制。
第九章研究的发现、贡献及不足。受限于时间、精力与研究资源,本研究还有许多不足之处,例如,没有针对所建构的基于项目行动学习连续统一体模型进行验证性研究。未来还需要选择更多的样本、运用更多的理论进行比较与研究,以充实论文所获得的概念和范畴的内涵,进一步完善本文所建构的理论与研究发现,使之更具有普适性,并用于指导包括制度化教育改革在内的、更为广泛的学习实践。
In the terms of Educational Psychology, summarily, there are two kinds of activities we are engaged in during the whole life:one is the activities that transform the objective world; the other one is the activities that alter the subjective world. The former activities are collectively called "work" by us, the latter one is named "learning", and it is the rapidly developing "Workplace Learning" that becomes the bridge built between them. In the area of workplace learning, the Project-based Action Learning (hereinafter referred to as PBAL) is a kind of newly developing learning model which has profound impact and is applied broadly. Based on the critical reflection of the traditional learning model, PBAL puts forward a kind of new and substitutive learning path. However, the recent research on PBAL focused more on "instrumental" studies at an operating or executive level, seeing it as a tool of training (learning). It focuses on the method of process and operation, whereas it ignores the theoretical research on the process of learning activities. In particular, it lacks of relevant theoretical studies in the context of China. In view of the situation mentioned above and under the guidance of the Constructing Grounded Theory, which is a kind of research methodology, this thesis focus on the practice of PBAL expanded in the native companies of China. A native Chinese company called MeiShan Company of Baosteel lies in Shanghai is used as a case study. Based on the case, this paper uses the methods of on-site observation, depth interview and questionnaire survey and so on to collect the baseline data. After that, according to the demand of the Grounded Theory, the essay adopts the normative data analysis and coding techniques, from the medium level of learning activities (the level of team or organizational learning), to construct the theoretical model of Project-based Action Learning. Thereafter, based on the direction of the new theoretical model, the paper further discusses the Effective Mechanism of Project-based Action Learning. The main contents include:
Chapter One:Introduction. Based on the analysis of the background and origin for the subject's selection, followed with the subject's objective and meaning and then the paper comes up with the holistic research approach, frame, methods, problems and the mainly research contests of the paper.
Chapter Two:Literature review is conducted and research questions are put forward. Through the review of relevant literature that focuses on PBAL, combined with the existing practice, the chapter expounds the origin and development of research questions.
Chapter Three:Details are outlined on research methodology, research design, sampling and encoding. In order to become a good research, if you use the Grounded Theory, then it is a must solved problem that how to use a kind of concise way to present the research conclusion. Since this research uses this approach (Grounded Theory), though facing with large data volumes, the paper needs a simple way to present the conclusion. That is to say, the paper should not only make the readers not submersed in the plentiful data and material but also keep the readers clear about the research venation and the relationship between the data and the theoretical. This is also a way to improve the research reliability. Therefore, the Chapter Three elaborates the research methods and research design of the Ground Theory (Which includes the selection of sample, the method to gather the data, the flow path of data analysis as well as the procedure of constructing a theory).
Chapter Four:The analysis of the influence factors on PBAL in the workplace. The study obtains three core and thirteen main categories based on original empirical data, through the method of "Substantive Coding" included in the Grounding Theory. And then this chapter discusses what the factors are and how they impact the learning activities from three perspectives:individual, team and organization, and map the relationship between the related concepts.
Chapter Five:The research on the activities to PBAL in the workplace. This chapter researches the objectives, process, the level and stage about PBAL Combining with the practice on learning activities, And supported by original empirical data, constructing the goals and process of substantive theoretical model of PBAL.
Chapter Six:The research on learning in the workplace-individual, team and organization. However, a good Grounded Theory Research should not only stay in substantial theoretical construction. This is because, for this kind of the substantial theory with the support of original empirical data, there is some limitation coming from the special research object. In order to solve this problem, it is required by the Grounded Theory that the comparative study of the relevant literature has to be done. This kind of comparative research, on the one hand, can perfect the substantial theory and ascent it into the formal theory. On the other hand, it can make the connection between the constructed theory and the existing research, which will be good for the continuity of the research. According to the ideas, Chapter Six includes the literature review of relevant learning theories from the perspective of individual, team and organization. It points out the core view and compares it with the substantial theory derived from Chapter4and Chapter5.
Chapter Seven:The reconstruction of the theoretical model of PBAL in the workplace. This chapter reconstructs the theoretical model of PBAL based on the substantial theory of the chapter4and chapter5and the result of the literature study-----the Continuum Model for Project-based Action Learning, which is the most important contribution in this research. This model comprises five parts:One Target, Two Procedures, Three Layers, Four Phases and Thirteen Influencing Factors. One Target can be reflected by the fact that the Project-based Learning make some combinations come true. These combustions lie between the learning and work, the individual development and the improvement of the organization performance; Two Procedures include:the expanding learning procedure (namely learning and innovation process) as well as the community of practice learning procedure (namely the application of the knowledge); Three Layers indicates the layers of individual, team and organization. They are crossed by the Project-based Action Learning activities; Four Phrases describe the transition procedure of the mental model and the thinking method, which is based on the Project-based Action Learning; Thirteen Influencing Factors imply the main factors that influence the Action learning in the workplace and the relationship between them, All of the factors are analyzed through the three layers of the individual, team and the organization.
Chapter Eight:The research on the mechanism of PBAL in the workplace. This chapter focuses on the application of the theoretical model, combining with the current practice, and analyses the existing practical problem in the application of the Project-based Action Learning. All of these analyses are grounded on the current practice and the new constructive theoretical models. Then this part discusses how to establish the Effective Project-based Action Learning Mechanism from the three learning aspects, which includes the learning dynamic mechanism, occurrence mechanism as well as the safeguard mechanism.
Chapter Nine:Research findings, contributions and shortcomings. There are still some shortcomings in this research since the limits of time, energy and the research resource, such as the lack of the confirmatory study for the Continuum Model of the Project-based Action Learning. In the further study, the research needs to select added samples and do better in the compare and study with the help of more theories. Therefore, the paper would get enrichment connotation for the concepts and the categories, whilst improve the constructed research theory and the discovery. Then the research would be able to be used universally and guides more learning practice, the institutional education transformation, for example.
引文
[1](美)J·莱夫和E·温格著,王文静译.情境学习：合法的边缘性参与[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004.
[2](美)赖尔·约克斯著,胡英坤,孙宁译.战略人力资源开发[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2007.
[3](美)理查德·斯旺森,埃尔伍德·霍尔顿著,王晓晖译.人力资源开发[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2008.
[4](美)加里·德斯勒.人力资源管理(第十版)[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2008.
[5](美)雷蒙德·A·诺伊等.人力资源管理(第五版)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[6](英)伊恩·麦吉尔和利兹·贝蒂.行动学习法[M].北京：华夏出版社,2002.
[7](美)戴维·L·达特里奇&詹姆斯·L·诺埃尔.行动学习—重塑企业领导力[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[8]张鼎昆.行动学习：再造企业优势的秘密武器[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2005.
[9]顾增旺.行动学习：组织能力提升新境界[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2010.
[10](美)埃德温·M·布里奇斯,菲利普·海林杰著,丛书主编：冯大鸣.以问题为本的学习：在领导发展中的运用[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2002.
[11](巴)保罗·弗莱雷著,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.
[12](美)威廉·艾萨克著,王成,谭励,赵凌崎译.商业对话艺术[M].沈阳：辽宁出版社,2003.
[13](美)史蒂芬·P·罗宾斯著,郑晓明译.组织行为学[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2001.
[14](日)野中郁次郎,竹内广隆.创造知识的公司[M].北京：科学技术部国际合作司出版,1999.
[15](美)雪伦·B·梅里安和罗斯玛丽·S·凯弗瑞拉著,黄健等译.成人学习的综合研究与实践指导[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2011.
[16](美)布鲁克菲尔德著,张伟译.批判反思型教师ABC[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2002.
[17](法)让·梅松纳夫.群体动力学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1996.
[18](美)迈尔斯,休伯曼著,张芬芬译.质性资料的分析：方法与实践[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2008.
[19](英)凯西·卡麦兹著,边国英译.建构扎根理论：质性研究实践指南[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2011.
[20](美)巴尼·G·格拉泽著,费小冬译.扎根理论研究概论：自然呈现与生硬促成[M].美国：社会科学出版社,2009.
[21](美)施特劳斯·A,科宾·J著,徐宗国译.质性研究概论：扎根理论发展的技术与程序[M].台湾：巨流图书公司,1997.
[22]陈向明.在参与中学习与行动：参与式方法培训指南[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2011.
[23]陈向明.社会科学质的研究[M].台北：五南图书公司,2002.
[24]陈向明.质性研究：反思与评论[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2008.
[25]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2000.
[26](美)乔伊斯·P·高尔,M.D.高尔,沃尔特·R·博格著,屈书杰等译.教育研究方法：实用指南[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
[27](英)海伦·瑞恩博德,艾莉森·富勒,安妮·蒙罗著,匡英译,情境中的工作场所学习[M],北京：
外语教学与研究出版社,2011.
[28](丹)克努兹·伊列雷斯著孙玫璐译.我们如何学习[M],北京：教育科学出版社,2010.
[29](美)R.基恩·索耶主编.剑桥学习科学手册[M],北京：教育科学出版社,2010.
[30](美)克里斯·阿吉里斯,唐纳德·舍恩著,姜文波译.组织学习(第二版)[M].北京：中国人民大学
出版社,2011.
[31](美)约翰·D·布兰思福特,安·L·布朗等编著,程可拉等译.人是如何学习的——大脑、心理、
经验及学校[M],上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[32](苏)维果茨基著,余震球译.维果茨基教育论著选[M].北京：人民出版社,1994.
[33](苏)A.H.列昂捷夫.活动意识个性[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1978.
[34](苏)维果茨基,列昂捷夫,鲁宾斯坦著,冯克诚编译.发展思想与教育论著选读(上)[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,2006.
[35]彼得·圣吉,郭进隆译.第五项修炼—学习型组织的艺术与实务[M].上海：上海三联书店,1994.
[36]乔纳森主编·郑太年,任友群等译·学习环境的理论基础[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[37]黄健.造就组织学习力[M].上海：上海三联书店,2003.
[38]施良方著.学习论[M].北京：人民出版社,2001
[39]郑太年.学校学习的反思与重构-知识意义的视角[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006.
[40]王文静.情境认知与学习[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社,2005.
[41]石伟平.时代特征与职业教育创新[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006.
[42]赵健.学习共同体——关于学习的社会文化分析[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2006.
[43]董守文,张华.成人学习学[M].东营：石油大学出版社,1994.
[44]叶敬忠等著.参与.组织.发展[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2001.
[45]单中惠.现代教育的探索——杜威与实用主义教育思想[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002.
[46]顾小清.面向信息化的教师专业发展研究——一个行动学习框架[D].华东师范大学,2004.
[47]贾旭东.基于扎根理论的中国城市基层政府公共服务外包研究[D].兰州大学,2010.
[48]邓文君.基于扎根理论的中国旅游业人员跨文化敏感性研究[D].浙江大学,2006.
[49]陈伟兰,谷昀,陈菲.行动学习法及其在我国的应用研究[N].福建行政学院报,2009(3),pp.15-20.
[50]张素玲.行动学习及其在我国领导人才培训中的应用研究[N].国家教育行政学院学报,2009(12),pp.32-35.
[51]江成承.保罗·弗莱雷的“对话式教学”及其现实意义[N].贵州教育学院学报(社会科学),2005(1),pp.16-18.
[52]仓平,王素芬.基于扎根理论的大学产业集群形成机理研究——以同济大学建筑规划产业集群为例[N].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2008(4),pp.115-124.
[53]王伟.组织学习理论研究述评[N].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005(1),pp.68-71.
[54]孟娟.心理学扎根理论研究方法[N].吉首大学学报(社会科学版),2008(5),pp.170-174.
[55]黄健.工作-学习研究：教育的新疆域——西方工作-学习领域理论成果评述[J].开放教育杂志,2011(4),pp.60-67.
[56]杜翔云,钟秉林,Kolmos A..以问题为基础的学习理念及其启示[J].中国高等教育,2008(2),pp.20-24.
[57]Ronald L.Jacobs著,李宇晴译.个关于工作场所学习的建议性概念框架：对人力资源开发理论建设与研究的启示[J].中国职业技术教育,2010(6),pp.41-49.
[58]吴萍.工作场所学习初探[J].职业教育研究,2009(3),pp.143-144.
[59]张振新,吴庆麟.情境学习理论研究综述[J].心理科学,2005,28(1),pp.125-127.
[60]赵蒙成.工作场的学习：概念、认知基础与教学模式[J],比较教育研究,2008(1),pp.51-56.
[61]郭小兵,王勇,许庆瑞.组织学习理论：喧嚣中的蠕行[J].研究与发展管理,2003(8),pp.1-6.
[62]秦发盈.国外组织学习理论综述与本土应答[J].继续教育研究,2004(4),pp.11-16.
[63]魏静.成人质变学习理论述评[J].全球教育展望,2006(12),pp.66-69.
[64]朱敏.西方成人质变学习理论发展的比较研究[J].当代教师教育,2011(9),pp.82-85.
[65]翟学伟.人情、面子与权力的再生产——情理社会中的社会交换方式[J].社会学研究,2005(4),pp.48-57.
[66]翟学伟.个人地位：一个概念及其分析框架[J].中国社会科学,1999(4),pp.144-157.
[67]尹弘飚.专业场景中教师的面子：一项扎根理论的探索[J].当代教育与文化,2009(1),pp.81-84.
[68]于光君.费孝通的“差序格局”理论及其发展[J].社会科学论坛,2006(12),pp.51-54.
[69]冯生饶,谢瑶妮.扎根理论：一种新颖的质化研究方法[J].教育实验与评价[J],2001(6),pp.51-54.
[70]陈向明.扎根理论的思路和方法[J].教育研究与实验,1999(4),pp.58-63.
[71]费小冬.扎根理论研究方法：要素、研究程序和评判标准[J].公共行政评论,2008(5),pp.23-41.
[72]田霖.扎根理论评述及其实际应用[J].经济研究导刊,2012(10),pp.224-231.
[73]薛晶心.扎根理论方法与高等教育研究[J].大学教育科学,2011(10),pp.85-87.
[74]李志刚.扎根理论方法在科学研究中的运用分析[J].东方论坛,2007(4),pp.90-94.
[75]吴刚,洪建中.一种新的学习隐喻：拓展性学习的研究——文化-历史活动理论视角[J].远程教育杂志,2012(3),pp.23-30.
[76]吴刚.拓展性学习中形成性干预的研究——文化-历史活动理论视角[J].远程教育杂志,2013(2).
[77]吴刚.活动理论视野下的成人学习变革研究[J].教育学术月刊,2012(6),pp.83-86.
[78]吴刚.基于问题式学习模式(PBL)述评.武汉理论大学(社会科学版)[N],2011(10),pp.54-63.
[1]Argyris C, Schon D. (1978). Organizational learning:a theory of action perspective [M]. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, Reading.
[2]Backman, K.& Kyngas, H.A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a Novice Researcher, Nursing and Health Sciences, (1):pp.147-153.
[3]Barrows, H.S.. Problem-Based Learning in Medicine and Beyond:A Brief Overview [J]. In Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education:Theory and Practice. By L.A. Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.), San Francisco:Jossey-Bass:pp.3-12.
[4]Barrows, H.& Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-Based Learning:An Approach to Medical Education [J]. New York:Springer.
[5]Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years [M]. New York:Springer.
[6]Barrett, T. (2005). Understanding problem-based learning [J]. In Handbook of Enquiry & Problem Based Learning. Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (Eds). Galway:CELT, pp.17.
[7]Bridges, E. M. (1992). Problem based learning for administrators [M]. Eugene, OR:ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon, pp.5-6.
[8]Benjamin E. M., Schneider M. S. and Hinchey K. T. (1999). Implementing practice guidelines for diabetes care using problem-based learning:A prospective controlled trial using firm systems [J]. Diabetes Care,22(10), pp.1672-1678.
[9]Blumer (1979). Comments on "George Herbert Mead and the Chicago tradition of sociology". Symbolic Interaction,2(2), pp.21-22.
[10]Barnett, R. (1999). Learning to work and working to learn. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp.29-44).London:Routledge.
[11]Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace:strategies for effective practice. Australia:Allen & Unwin,2001.
[12]Barrie, J.,& Pace, R.W.. Learning for organizational effectiveness:Philosophy of education and human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly,9,1998:pp.39-54.
[13]Bierema, L.L. (1996). Development of the individual leads to a more productive workplace. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace Learning:Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice (pp.21-28). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[14]Camp, G.. Problem-Based Learning:A Paradigm Shift or a Passing Fad? MEO 1:2, from http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000003.htm
[15]Cooke, M.,& Alavi, C. (1995). Approaching problem-based learning [J]. In C. Alavi (Ed.), Problem-based learning in a health science curriculum. London:Routledge, pp.12-37.
[16]Crotty,M.(1998).The Foundations of Social Research:Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London:Sage,pp.4.
[17]Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J.A. Smith, R. Harre,& L.Van Langenhove (Eds.) Rethinking methods in psychology. London:Sage.pp.27-49.
[18]Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory. In N.K. Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.,). Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage, pp.509-535.
[19]Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory:A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage Publications.
[20]Creswell, (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
[21]Clarke, N. (2005). Workplace learning environment and its relationship with learning outcomes in health care organizations. Human Resource Development International,8(2),pp.185-205.
[22]Crossan, L. White. (1999). An organizational learning frame work:From intuition to institution [J]. Academy of Management Review,24 (3), pp.522-537.
[23]Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. [24]Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory. San Diego:Academic Press.
[25]Dirkx, J.M. (1997). Human resource development as adult education:Fostering the educative workplace. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace Learning:Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice (pp.41-47). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[26]David H. Jonassen & Susan M. Land (2000).Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp.37.
[27]Edens, Kellah M. (2000). Preparing Problem Solvers for the 21st Century through Problem-Based Learning [J].College Teaching, Spring2000, Vol.48 Issue 2, pp.55.
[28]Eaves, Y.D. (2001). A Synthesis Technique for Grounded Theory Data Analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing,35(5), pp.663.
[29]Engestrom, Y. (2008). From Teams to Knots:Activity Theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University press, pp.100-101.
[30]Evans, K.& Rainbird, H. (2002). The significance of workplace learning for a'learning society'. In K. Evans, P. Hodkinson.& L. Unwin (Eds.). Working to Learn (pp.7-28).London:KoganPage.
[31]Fox, S. (1997). Situated learning theory versus traditional cognitive learning theory:why management education should not ignore management learning, Systems Practice,10(6), pp.727-747.
[32]Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom [J]. Arlington Heights, IL:IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc:pp.160.
[33]Festinger, L., Schachter, S.,& Back, k. (1950).Social pressure in informal groups:A study of human factors in housing. New York:Harper & Row.
[34]Glaser, B.G and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory:Strategies for Qualitative Research, New York:Aldine Publishing Company.
[35]Glaser, B.G (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity:Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, Mill Valley, CA:Sociology Press.
[36]Glaser, B. G (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis:Emergence vs. Forcing, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
[37]Glaser, B.& Holton, J. (2007). The Grounded Theory Seminar Reader. Mill Valley:Sociology Press.
[38]Holton, E.F., Ⅲ. (1999). An integrated model of performance:Bounding the theory and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resource Development,1, pp.26-46.
[39]Holton, E.F.,& Kaiser, S.M. (2000).Relationship between learning organization strategies and performance driver outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Meeting, Raleigh, NC. Baton Rouge, LA:AHRD.
[40]Jonassen, D.H.,& Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
[41]Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning:Experience as the Source of Learning and Development [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall. pp.113.
[42]Kolmos. A. (2009). Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning:Institutional and Global Change[J],In:University Science and Mathematics Education in Transition, O. Skovsmose et al. (eds.), Springer, pp.261-279.
[43]Kolmos, A.& Graaff, E. (2003). Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning [J]. International Journal of Engineering Education,17(5), pp.657-662.
[44]KnowIes, M.S. (1968). The Modern Practice of Adult Education:Andragogy versus Pedagogy. Chicago:Follett.
[45]Knowles, M (1975). Self-directed learning:A guide for learners and teachers [M]. Toronto:The Adult Education Company, pp.18.
[46]Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F.,& Swanson, R.A. (1998). The Adult Learner:The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. (5th ed.) Houston:Gulf.
[47]Klein, K.J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A.A., Jr. (1999). Multilevel theory building:Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review,2, pp.243-248.
[48]Kaplan, R.S.,& Norton, D.P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
[49]Kim, D.H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning [J].Sloan Management Review, (Fall), pp.37-50.
[50]Kutti, A. (1996).Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B., Anardi (Ed.), context and consciousness:Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, pp.17-44.
[51]Lofland, J.& Lofland, L.H. (1995).analyzing social settings (3rd ed.).Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
[52]Layder (1998).Sociological practice:Linking theory and social research. London:Sage.
[53]Long, N. (2001). Development sociology:Actor perspectives [M]. London, UK:Routledge.pp233.
[54]MaCallin, A.M. (2003). Designing a grounded theory study:some practicalities. Nursing in Critical Care,8(5):pp.203-208.
[55]Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult education, pp.3-24.
[56]Mezirow.J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning [M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. pp.167.
[57]Marquardt, M J. (1996).Building the Learning Organization [M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
[58]Marquardt, M.J. (1999). Action learning in action. Palo Alto, California:Davies-Black Publishing, (4).
[59]Mansfield, R. (1991). Deriving Standars of Competence. In E. Fennel (Ea), Development of Assessable Standards for National Certification. London:Department for Education and Employment, pp.80-86.
[60]Midgley, G (2000). Systemic intervention:Philosophy, methodology, and practice [M].New York: Kluwer, pp.113
[61]Peter Schwartz, Stewart Mennin and Graham Webb. (2001). Problem-based learning:case studies, experience and practice [J]. London:Kogan, pp.2.
[62]Prince, M.J.& Felder, R.M. (2006). Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods:Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases [J]. Journal of Engineering Education,95(2):pp.123-138.
[63]Pedler, M. (1992). Action learning in Practice (2nd edition) [M]. Aldershot:Grower Publishing Company Limited.
[64]Pettigrew, S.F. (2000). Ethnography and Grounded Theory:a Happy Marriage? Advances in Consumer Research,27, pp.256-260.
[65]Revans R. (1982).The origin and growth of action learning [M]. Bromley:Chartwell Bratt.
[66]Ruona, W.E.A. (2000). Core beliefs in human resource development. In W.E.A. Ruona,& GA. Roth (Issue Eds.), Advances in Developing Human Resources:Philosophical Foundations of Human Resource Development Practice. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.
[67]Rauner, F.L (2002). Em-und Arbeitsaufgaben fur einegestaltungsorientierte Berufsbildung. Berufsbildung und Innovation, (1).
[68]Swanson, R.A.,& Arnold, D.E. (1997). The purpose of HRD is to improve performance. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace Learning:Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice (pp.13-19). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[69]Swanson, R.A.& Holton, E.F.(2001). Foundation of human resource development [M] Berrett-Koehler.
[70]Schmidt, H. and Moust, J. (2000).Factors Affecting Small Group Tutorial Learning:A review of Research[M]. Problem-based Learning:A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions. Evenson D. and Hmelo.C. (eds.), London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[71]Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors:what grounded theory is not, Academy of Management Journal. 49(4), pp.633-642.
[72]Shah, S.K. and Corley, K.G (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide, Journal of Management Studies,43(8), pp.1825-1835.
[73]Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge:Cambridge university press, pp5.
[74]Strauss&Corbin. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques [M]. Newbury Park:Sage.
[75]Silverman, (2001). Interpreting qualitative data:Methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction. (2nd ed.). London:Sage.
[76]Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not [J]. Academy of Management Journal, (49): pp.633-642.
[77]Schmidt, H. and Moust, J. (2000). Factors Affecting Small Group Tutorial Learning:A review of Research [M]. Problem-based Learning:A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions. Evenson D. and Hmelo.C. (eds.), London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[78]Smith, M.C.,& Pourchot, T. (Eds.). (1998). Adult Learning and Development:perspectives from Educational Psychology. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
[79]Stata,R.(1989).Organizational Learning-The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review,pp.63-74.
[80]Sambrook, S. (2005). Factors influencing the context and process of work-related learning: synthesizing findings from two research projects. Human Resource Development International, 8(1),pp .101-119.
[81]Senge, P.M. (1990).The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization [M]. New York:Doubleday/Currency.
[82]Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and Adult Learning. London:Routledge.
[83]Toohey, S. (1999). Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham:SRHE/Open University Press.
[84]Woei Hung. (2009). The 9-step problem design process for problem-based learning:Application of the 3C3R model [J]. Educational Research Review, (4):pp.118-141.
[85]Walton, H.& Matthews, M. (1989). Essentials of problem-based learning [J]. Medical Education,23, pp542-558.
[86]Wilson, H. S. and Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Methodological mistakes in grounded theory, Nursing Research,45(2), pp.122-24.
[87]Watkins, K.E.,& Marsick, V.J. (1993).Sculpting the Learning Organization:Lessons in the Art and Science of Systematic Change [M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[88]Watkins, K.E.,& Marsick, V.J.. The case for learning. In E.F. HoltonⅢ (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference. Baton Rouge, LA:Academy of Human Resource Development,1995.
[89]Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:learning, meaning and identity [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2](美)赖尔·约克斯著,胡英坤,孙宁译.战略人力资源开发[M].大连：东北财经大学出版社,2007.
[3](美)理查德·斯旺森,埃尔伍德·霍尔顿著,王晓晖译.人力资源开发[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2008.
[4](美)加里·德斯勒.人力资源管理(第十版)[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2008.
[5](美)雷蒙德·A·诺伊等.人力资源管理(第五版)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[6](英)伊恩·麦吉尔和利兹·贝蒂.行动学习法[M].北京：华夏出版社,2002.
[7](美)戴维·L·达特里奇&詹姆斯·L·诺埃尔.行动学习—重塑企业领导力[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[8]张鼎昆.行动学习：再造企业优势的秘密武器[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2005.
[9]顾增旺.行动学习：组织能力提升新境界[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2010.
[10](美)埃德温·M·布里奇斯,菲利普·海林杰著,丛书主编：冯大鸣.以问题为本的学习：在领导发展中的运用[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2002.
[11](巴)保罗·弗莱雷著,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.
[12](美)威廉·艾萨克著,王成,谭励,赵凌崎译.商业对话艺术[M].沈阳：辽宁出版社,2003.
[13](美)史蒂芬·P·罗宾斯著,郑晓明译.组织行为学[M].北京：机械工业出版社,2001.
[14](日)野中郁次郎,竹内广隆.创造知识的公司[M].北京：科学技术部国际合作司出版,1999.
[15](美)雪伦·B·梅里安和罗斯玛丽·S·凯弗瑞拉著,黄健等译.成人学习的综合研究与实践指导[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2011.
[16](美)布鲁克菲尔德著,张伟译.批判反思型教师ABC[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2002.
[17](法)让·梅松纳夫.群体动力学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1996.
[18](美)迈尔斯,休伯曼著,张芬芬译.质性资料的分析：方法与实践[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2008.
[19](英)凯西·卡麦兹著,边国英译.建构扎根理论：质性研究实践指南[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2011.
[20](美)巴尼·G·格拉泽著,费小冬译.扎根理论研究概论：自然呈现与生硬促成[M].美国：社会科学出版社,2009.
[21](美)施特劳斯·A,科宾·J著,徐宗国译.质性研究概论：扎根理论发展的技术与程序[M].台湾：巨流图书公司,1997.
[22]陈向明.在参与中学习与行动：参与式方法培训指南[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2011.
[23]陈向明.社会科学质的研究[M].台北：五南图书公司,2002.
[24]陈向明.质性研究：反思与评论[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2008.
[25]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2000.
[26](美)乔伊斯·P·高尔,M.D.高尔,沃尔特·R·博格著,屈书杰等译.教育研究方法：实用指南[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
[27](英)海伦·瑞恩博德,艾莉森·富勒,安妮·蒙罗著,匡英译,情境中的工作场所学习[M],北京：
外语教学与研究出版社,2011.
[28](丹)克努兹·伊列雷斯著孙玫璐译.我们如何学习[M],北京：教育科学出版社,2010.
[29](美)R.基恩·索耶主编.剑桥学习科学手册[M],北京：教育科学出版社,2010.
[30](美)克里斯·阿吉里斯,唐纳德·舍恩著,姜文波译.组织学习(第二版)[M].北京：中国人民大学
出版社,2011.
[31](美)约翰·D·布兰思福特,安·L·布朗等编著,程可拉等译.人是如何学习的——大脑、心理、
经验及学校[M],上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[32](苏)维果茨基著,余震球译.维果茨基教育论著选[M].北京：人民出版社,1994.
[33](苏)A.H.列昂捷夫.活动意识个性[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1978.
[34](苏)维果茨基,列昂捷夫,鲁宾斯坦著,冯克诚编译.发展思想与教育论著选读(上)[M].北京：中国环境科学出版社,2006.
[35]彼得·圣吉,郭进隆译.第五项修炼—学习型组织的艺术与实务[M].上海：上海三联书店,1994.
[36]乔纳森主编·郑太年,任友群等译·学习环境的理论基础[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2002.
[37]黄健.造就组织学习力[M].上海：上海三联书店,2003.
[38]施良方著.学习论[M].北京：人民出版社,2001
[39]郑太年.学校学习的反思与重构-知识意义的视角[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006.
[40]王文静.情境认知与学习[M].重庆：西南师范大学出版社,2005.
[41]石伟平.时代特征与职业教育创新[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006.
[42]赵健.学习共同体——关于学习的社会文化分析[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2006.
[43]董守文,张华.成人学习学[M].东营：石油大学出版社,1994.
[44]叶敬忠等著.参与.组织.发展[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2001.
[45]单中惠.现代教育的探索——杜威与实用主义教育思想[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2002.
[46]顾小清.面向信息化的教师专业发展研究——一个行动学习框架[D].华东师范大学,2004.
[47]贾旭东.基于扎根理论的中国城市基层政府公共服务外包研究[D].兰州大学,2010.
[48]邓文君.基于扎根理论的中国旅游业人员跨文化敏感性研究[D].浙江大学,2006.
[49]陈伟兰,谷昀,陈菲.行动学习法及其在我国的应用研究[N].福建行政学院报,2009(3),pp.15-20.
[50]张素玲.行动学习及其在我国领导人才培训中的应用研究[N].国家教育行政学院学报,2009(12),pp.32-35.
[51]江成承.保罗·弗莱雷的“对话式教学”及其现实意义[N].贵州教育学院学报(社会科学),2005(1),pp.16-18.
[52]仓平,王素芬.基于扎根理论的大学产业集群形成机理研究——以同济大学建筑规划产业集群为例[N].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2008(4),pp.115-124.
[53]王伟.组织学习理论研究述评[N].郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005(1),pp.68-71.
[54]孟娟.心理学扎根理论研究方法[N].吉首大学学报(社会科学版),2008(5),pp.170-174.
[55]黄健.工作-学习研究：教育的新疆域——西方工作-学习领域理论成果评述[J].开放教育杂志,2011(4),pp.60-67.
[56]杜翔云,钟秉林,Kolmos A..以问题为基础的学习理念及其启示[J].中国高等教育,2008(2),pp.20-24.
[57]Ronald L.Jacobs著,李宇晴译.个关于工作场所学习的建议性概念框架：对人力资源开发理论建设与研究的启示[J].中国职业技术教育,2010(6),pp.41-49.
[58]吴萍.工作场所学习初探[J].职业教育研究,2009(3),pp.143-144.
[59]张振新,吴庆麟.情境学习理论研究综述[J].心理科学,2005,28(1),pp.125-127.
[60]赵蒙成.工作场的学习：概念、认知基础与教学模式[J],比较教育研究,2008(1),pp.51-56.
[61]郭小兵,王勇,许庆瑞.组织学习理论：喧嚣中的蠕行[J].研究与发展管理,2003(8),pp.1-6.
[62]秦发盈.国外组织学习理论综述与本土应答[J].继续教育研究,2004(4),pp.11-16.
[63]魏静.成人质变学习理论述评[J].全球教育展望,2006(12),pp.66-69.
[64]朱敏.西方成人质变学习理论发展的比较研究[J].当代教师教育,2011(9),pp.82-85.
[65]翟学伟.人情、面子与权力的再生产——情理社会中的社会交换方式[J].社会学研究,2005(4),pp.48-57.
[66]翟学伟.个人地位：一个概念及其分析框架[J].中国社会科学,1999(4),pp.144-157.
[67]尹弘飚.专业场景中教师的面子：一项扎根理论的探索[J].当代教育与文化,2009(1),pp.81-84.
[68]于光君.费孝通的“差序格局”理论及其发展[J].社会科学论坛,2006(12),pp.51-54.
[69]冯生饶,谢瑶妮.扎根理论：一种新颖的质化研究方法[J].教育实验与评价[J],2001(6),pp.51-54.
[70]陈向明.扎根理论的思路和方法[J].教育研究与实验,1999(4),pp.58-63.
[71]费小冬.扎根理论研究方法：要素、研究程序和评判标准[J].公共行政评论,2008(5),pp.23-41.
[72]田霖.扎根理论评述及其实际应用[J].经济研究导刊,2012(10),pp.224-231.
[73]薛晶心.扎根理论方法与高等教育研究[J].大学教育科学,2011(10),pp.85-87.
[74]李志刚.扎根理论方法在科学研究中的运用分析[J].东方论坛,2007(4),pp.90-94.
[75]吴刚,洪建中.一种新的学习隐喻：拓展性学习的研究——文化-历史活动理论视角[J].远程教育杂志,2012(3),pp.23-30.
[76]吴刚.拓展性学习中形成性干预的研究——文化-历史活动理论视角[J].远程教育杂志,2013(2).
[77]吴刚.活动理论视野下的成人学习变革研究[J].教育学术月刊,2012(6),pp.83-86.
[78]吴刚.基于问题式学习模式(PBL)述评.武汉理论大学(社会科学版)[N],2011(10),pp.54-63.
[1]Argyris C, Schon D. (1978). Organizational learning:a theory of action perspective [M]. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, Reading.
[2]Backman, K.& Kyngas, H.A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a Novice Researcher, Nursing and Health Sciences, (1):pp.147-153.
[3]Barrows, H.S.. Problem-Based Learning in Medicine and Beyond:A Brief Overview [J]. In Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education:Theory and Practice. By L.A. Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.), San Francisco:Jossey-Bass:pp.3-12.
[4]Barrows, H.& Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-Based Learning:An Approach to Medical Education [J]. New York:Springer.
[5]Barrows, H. S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the preclinical years [M]. New York:Springer.
[6]Barrett, T. (2005). Understanding problem-based learning [J]. In Handbook of Enquiry & Problem Based Learning. Barrett, T., Mac Labhrainn, I., Fallon, H. (Eds). Galway:CELT, pp.17.
[7]Bridges, E. M. (1992). Problem based learning for administrators [M]. Eugene, OR:ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon, pp.5-6.
[8]Benjamin E. M., Schneider M. S. and Hinchey K. T. (1999). Implementing practice guidelines for diabetes care using problem-based learning:A prospective controlled trial using firm systems [J]. Diabetes Care,22(10), pp.1672-1678.
[9]Blumer (1979). Comments on "George Herbert Mead and the Chicago tradition of sociology". Symbolic Interaction,2(2), pp.21-22.
[10]Barnett, R. (1999). Learning to work and working to learn. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp.29-44).London:Routledge.
[11]Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace:strategies for effective practice. Australia:Allen & Unwin,2001.
[12]Barrie, J.,& Pace, R.W.. Learning for organizational effectiveness:Philosophy of education and human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly,9,1998:pp.39-54.
[13]Bierema, L.L. (1996). Development of the individual leads to a more productive workplace. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace Learning:Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice (pp.21-28). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[14]Camp, G.. Problem-Based Learning:A Paradigm Shift or a Passing Fad? MEO 1:2, from http://www.med-ed-online.org/f0000003.htm
[15]Cooke, M.,& Alavi, C. (1995). Approaching problem-based learning [J]. In C. Alavi (Ed.), Problem-based learning in a health science curriculum. London:Routledge, pp.12-37.
[16]Crotty,M.(1998).The Foundations of Social Research:Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London:Sage,pp.4.
[17]Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J.A. Smith, R. Harre,& L.Van Langenhove (Eds.) Rethinking methods in psychology. London:Sage.pp.27-49.
[18]Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory. In N.K. Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.,). Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage, pp.509-535.
[19]Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory:A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage Publications.
[20]Creswell, (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design:Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
[21]Clarke, N. (2005). Workplace learning environment and its relationship with learning outcomes in health care organizations. Human Resource Development International,8(2),pp.185-205.
[22]Crossan, L. White. (1999). An organizational learning frame work:From intuition to institution [J]. Academy of Management Review,24 (3), pp.522-537.
[23]Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. [24]Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory. San Diego:Academic Press.
[25]Dirkx, J.M. (1997). Human resource development as adult education:Fostering the educative workplace. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace Learning:Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice (pp.41-47). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[26]David H. Jonassen & Susan M. Land (2000).Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp.37.
[27]Edens, Kellah M. (2000). Preparing Problem Solvers for the 21st Century through Problem-Based Learning [J].College Teaching, Spring2000, Vol.48 Issue 2, pp.55.
[28]Eaves, Y.D. (2001). A Synthesis Technique for Grounded Theory Data Analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing,35(5), pp.663.
[29]Engestrom, Y. (2008). From Teams to Knots:Activity Theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University press, pp.100-101.
[30]Evans, K.& Rainbird, H. (2002). The significance of workplace learning for a'learning society'. In K. Evans, P. Hodkinson.& L. Unwin (Eds.). Working to Learn (pp.7-28).London:KoganPage.
[31]Fox, S. (1997). Situated learning theory versus traditional cognitive learning theory:why management education should not ignore management learning, Systems Practice,10(6), pp.727-747.
[32]Fogarty, R. (1997). Problem-based learning and other curriculum models for the multiple intelligences classroom [J]. Arlington Heights, IL:IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc:pp.160.
[33]Festinger, L., Schachter, S.,& Back, k. (1950).Social pressure in informal groups:A study of human factors in housing. New York:Harper & Row.
[34]Glaser, B.G and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory:Strategies for Qualitative Research, New York:Aldine Publishing Company.
[35]Glaser, B.G (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity:Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, Mill Valley, CA:Sociology Press.
[36]Glaser, B. G (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis:Emergence vs. Forcing, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
[37]Glaser, B.& Holton, J. (2007). The Grounded Theory Seminar Reader. Mill Valley:Sociology Press.
[38]Holton, E.F., Ⅲ. (1999). An integrated model of performance:Bounding the theory and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resource Development,1, pp.26-46.
[39]Holton, E.F.,& Kaiser, S.M. (2000).Relationship between learning organization strategies and performance driver outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Meeting, Raleigh, NC. Baton Rouge, LA:AHRD.
[40]Jonassen, D.H.,& Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
[41]Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning:Experience as the Source of Learning and Development [M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall. pp.113.
[42]Kolmos. A. (2009). Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning:Institutional and Global Change[J],In:University Science and Mathematics Education in Transition, O. Skovsmose et al. (eds.), Springer, pp.261-279.
[43]Kolmos, A.& Graaff, E. (2003). Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning [J]. International Journal of Engineering Education,17(5), pp.657-662.
[44]KnowIes, M.S. (1968). The Modern Practice of Adult Education:Andragogy versus Pedagogy. Chicago:Follett.
[45]Knowles, M (1975). Self-directed learning:A guide for learners and teachers [M]. Toronto:The Adult Education Company, pp.18.
[46]Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F.,& Swanson, R.A. (1998). The Adult Learner:The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. (5th ed.) Houston:Gulf.
[47]Klein, K.J., Tosi, H., & Cannella, A.A., Jr. (1999). Multilevel theory building:Benefits, barriers, and new developments. Academy of Management Review,2, pp.243-248.
[48]Kaplan, R.S.,& Norton, D.P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
[49]Kim, D.H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning [J].Sloan Management Review, (Fall), pp.37-50.
[50]Kutti, A. (1996).Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B., Anardi (Ed.), context and consciousness:Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, pp.17-44.
[51]Lofland, J.& Lofland, L.H. (1995).analyzing social settings (3rd ed.).Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
[52]Layder (1998).Sociological practice:Linking theory and social research. London:Sage.
[53]Long, N. (2001). Development sociology:Actor perspectives [M]. London, UK:Routledge.pp233.
[54]MaCallin, A.M. (2003). Designing a grounded theory study:some practicalities. Nursing in Critical Care,8(5):pp.203-208.
[55]Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult education, pp.3-24.
[56]Mezirow.J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning [M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. pp.167.
[57]Marquardt, M J. (1996).Building the Learning Organization [M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
[58]Marquardt, M.J. (1999). Action learning in action. Palo Alto, California:Davies-Black Publishing, (4).
[59]Mansfield, R. (1991). Deriving Standars of Competence. In E. Fennel (Ea), Development of Assessable Standards for National Certification. London:Department for Education and Employment, pp.80-86.
[60]Midgley, G (2000). Systemic intervention:Philosophy, methodology, and practice [M].New York: Kluwer, pp.113
[61]Peter Schwartz, Stewart Mennin and Graham Webb. (2001). Problem-based learning:case studies, experience and practice [J]. London:Kogan, pp.2.
[62]Prince, M.J.& Felder, R.M. (2006). Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods:Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases [J]. Journal of Engineering Education,95(2):pp.123-138.
[63]Pedler, M. (1992). Action learning in Practice (2nd edition) [M]. Aldershot:Grower Publishing Company Limited.
[64]Pettigrew, S.F. (2000). Ethnography and Grounded Theory:a Happy Marriage? Advances in Consumer Research,27, pp.256-260.
[65]Revans R. (1982).The origin and growth of action learning [M]. Bromley:Chartwell Bratt.
[66]Ruona, W.E.A. (2000). Core beliefs in human resource development. In W.E.A. Ruona,& GA. Roth (Issue Eds.), Advances in Developing Human Resources:Philosophical Foundations of Human Resource Development Practice. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.
[67]Rauner, F.L (2002). Em-und Arbeitsaufgaben fur einegestaltungsorientierte Berufsbildung. Berufsbildung und Innovation, (1).
[68]Swanson, R.A.,& Arnold, D.E. (1997). The purpose of HRD is to improve performance. In R. Rowden (Ed.), Workplace Learning:Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice (pp.13-19). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[69]Swanson, R.A.& Holton, E.F.(2001). Foundation of human resource development [M] Berrett-Koehler.
[70]Schmidt, H. and Moust, J. (2000).Factors Affecting Small Group Tutorial Learning:A review of Research[M]. Problem-based Learning:A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions. Evenson D. and Hmelo.C. (eds.), London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[71]Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors:what grounded theory is not, Academy of Management Journal. 49(4), pp.633-642.
[72]Shah, S.K. and Corley, K.G (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide, Journal of Management Studies,43(8), pp.1825-1835.
[73]Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge:Cambridge university press, pp5.
[74]Strauss&Corbin. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques [M]. Newbury Park:Sage.
[75]Silverman, (2001). Interpreting qualitative data:Methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction. (2nd ed.). London:Sage.
[76]Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not [J]. Academy of Management Journal, (49): pp.633-642.
[77]Schmidt, H. and Moust, J. (2000). Factors Affecting Small Group Tutorial Learning:A review of Research [M]. Problem-based Learning:A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions. Evenson D. and Hmelo.C. (eds.), London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[78]Smith, M.C.,& Pourchot, T. (Eds.). (1998). Adult Learning and Development:perspectives from Educational Psychology. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
[79]Stata,R.(1989).Organizational Learning-The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review,pp.63-74.
[80]Sambrook, S. (2005). Factors influencing the context and process of work-related learning: synthesizing findings from two research projects. Human Resource Development International, 8(1),pp .101-119.
[81]Senge, P.M. (1990).The Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization [M]. New York:Doubleday/Currency.
[82]Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and Adult Learning. London:Routledge.
[83]Toohey, S. (1999). Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham:SRHE/Open University Press.
[84]Woei Hung. (2009). The 9-step problem design process for problem-based learning:Application of the 3C3R model [J]. Educational Research Review, (4):pp.118-141.
[85]Walton, H.& Matthews, M. (1989). Essentials of problem-based learning [J]. Medical Education,23, pp542-558.
[86]Wilson, H. S. and Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Methodological mistakes in grounded theory, Nursing Research,45(2), pp.122-24.
[87]Watkins, K.E.,& Marsick, V.J. (1993).Sculpting the Learning Organization:Lessons in the Art and Science of Systematic Change [M]. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
[88]Watkins, K.E.,& Marsick, V.J.. The case for learning. In E.F. HoltonⅢ (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Conference. Baton Rouge, LA:Academy of Human Resource Development,1995.
[89]Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice:learning, meaning and identity [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |