[SSI Learning] 2022年春季学期工作会议（2022-03-09）
2022 Spring Semester Work Conference (03/09/2022)

2022年3月9日晚19:30-21:00，北京师范大学SSI-L项目团队在腾讯会议室举行在线会议，讨论了基地校研究进展、项目实践成果、项目实践难点、本学期工作思路与计划共四个方面的内容。SSI-L项目组负责人、北京师范大学中国基础教育质量监测协同创新中心科学提升部主任林静老师做会议报告。现将会议主要内容纪要如下：

1. 基地校研究进展

根据基地校发来的中期考核表，围绕共性和个性两方面的进展，会议总结了研究开展情况。从共性上讲，多数基地校的团队形成了基本架构，其中约一半基地校的项目团队教师是跨学科教师团队；建立了工作机制，以领取任务各自完成或集体备课的方式设计并实施社会性科学议题学习，很多教师从跨学科的交流中获益。从个性上讲，有些基地校积极用自己学校的项目参加本地科技节等活动，基于现有条件给予教师和学生锻炼、展示的机会。

根据此前基地校教师参加全国年段在线研讨活动的情况，基地校教师在跨学科大方向上已经有所收获，有意识地做好学科间融会贯通，在关联社会、设计驱动性问题、注重学生体验等方面也有非常可喜的变化。

2. 项目实践成果

会议总结了一年半来项目取得的科研成果，包括基地校开发出的四十余个议题、5个专题的24篇期刊文章、14个课题立项、29个获奖、专著出版等，这些成效的取得都是非常值得肯定的。这些成效的取得很大程度归功于学校领导的重视和整体机制的到位。

3. 项目实践难点

项目实施过程中的难点主要表现为五个方面。第一，关于SSI-L项目的定位问题（涉及学校项目机制）。本项目重在发展教师育人能力，通过促进教师发展来促进学生发展，而研究过程中产生的教科研成果是项目生成性成果；教师是项目的主体，应当承担起研究者的责任，主动设想和开展工作，主动与校领导沟通所需的各类支持，而非亦步亦趋地执行。第二，关于理念认识问题（SSI，SSI-L）。在AISL网站上放有专题沙龙公益讲座以及每一次在线活动纪要，可供教师们尽可能多理解SSI-L设计和实施，进一步理解SSI以及SSI-L的相关理念。第三，关于活动设计问题（议题，驱动性问题，学生合作探究）。教师应为学生探究尽可能提供全面的案例、数据、素材，让学生把学习的时间用于思考中，减少学生在收集资料等内容上消耗时间。要反复锤炼驱动性问题，让学生在合作解决驱动性问题的过程有效锻炼思维与情感。第四，研究学生“议”什么及怎么“议”。议题具有开放性，学生与学生、小组与小组之间应当大量合作、对话，让学生评议彼此的意见，而不是由教师来引导学生得出唯一答案。第五，关于评价研究。这一方面的研究有待于启动与加强。在课程设计时越细化学习目标，评价时才会越有效。

4. 本学期工作思路与计划

本学期的工作思路与计划定位为：由“面”的发动转向“点”的突破。

第一，变革在线研讨制度。不再催每一所合作校都要一一上线备课，而是帮助有意愿的学校进一步突破；不再停留于讨论议题设计，而是基于教学实践来展示与修订议题设计；力求每次在线会议聚焦某一难点进行剖析。在线研讨会更注重内容的新意，教师应避免只听不思考的无效参与，要基于自己的实践多思考多提问。

第二，打造示范基地校。根据需求，对部分合作学校，通过针对性的在线指导、专家下校指导等多种途径给予专业支持，同时也会有资源研发、专题研究等方面的帮助，打造示范校。

第三，区域联盟的活动内容形式有待于扩展，加强组织管理，定期开展在线备课活动。

期待各校在本学期进一步推进项目研究工作，突破一些难点问题，取得进一步的成效。

---

The SSI-L project team of Beijing Normal University held an online meeting via Tencent Rooms from 19:30-21:00pm, March 9, 2022, to discuss four issues, including the research progress of partner schools, practice outcomes, difficulties in project implementation, and work ideas and plans for this semester. Lin Jing, head of the SSI-L project and director of the Science Promotion Office of the Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment for Basic Education Quality at Beijing Normal University, made a presentation on the meeting. The meeting minutes are summarized below.

1.Research progress of base schools

The meeting summarized research progress around two aspects of generality and individuality based to the mid-term assessment forms sent by base schools. In terms of generality, project teams from most partner schools have set up a basic framework, among which approximately half are teams with interdisciplinary teachers. A working mechanism is also established to design and implement SSI-L issue activities by completing tasks individually or preparing courses collectively. Many of the teachers benefited from interdisciplinary exchanges. As for individuality, some partner schools actively use their own school projects to participate in local science and technology festivals and other activities, and provide teachers and students opportunities for practice and presentation based on their existing conditions.

As is shown by their previous participation in the annual national online seminars, teachers at partner schools have gained a lot in the general direction of becoming interdisciplinary. They have engaged consciously in interdisciplinary integration, and various welcome changes have undergone in connecting to society, designing motivating questions, focusing on student experience, etc.

2.Project practice outcomes

This meeting also summarized the project research output in the past year and a half, including over 40 SSI-L issues developed by partner schools, 24 journal articles on 5 special issues, 14 proposed projects, 29 awards, book publications and others. These achievements are laudable. It is largely attributed to the attention school leaders have invested and the overall mechanisms that have been put in place.

3.Difficulties in project implementation

The difficulties in project implementation are mainly manifested in five aspects. The first is the positioning of SSI-L project, which involves the school project mechanisms. SSI-L project focuses on developing teachers’ capability of cultivating students and facilitating students’ development by promoting teachers’ development. However, the teaching and research output during the implementation process is project-generated results. Teachers are supposed to be the principal actor for the project. They should assume researchers’ responsibility, taking a proactive role to design and carry out research, as well as communicating with the school leaders of all kinds of support needed, rather than just following orders step by step. The second is about conceptual understanding (SSI, SSI-L). The AISL website offers public salon lectures on specific issues and minutes of each online activity, so that teachers can understand SSI-L design and implementation as much as possible and have a better grasp of SSI and SSI-L related concepts. The third is about activity design, including issues, motivating questions and students’ collaborative inquiry. Teachers should provide students with comprehensive cases, data, and materials as many as possible. In so doing, students can make the best of their time in thinking, and reduce time spent on data collection and others. It is necessary to repeatedly refine motivating questions, which allows effective training for students’ thinking and emotions in the process of cooperatively resolving those questions. The fourth aspect is to study what and how students “discuss”. SSI-L issues should be open-ended. There should be great amount of cooperation and dialogue between students and groups. Students are encouraged to comment on each other’s opinions, rather than letting teachers lead them to the only answer. The fifth is on the research of evaluation. Research in this aspect needs to be initiated and strengthened. The more detailed the learning objectives are in the course design, the more effective the evaluation will be.

4.Work ideas and plans for this semester

Work ideas and plans for this semester are positioned as: from the initial launch of “surface” to breakthroughs of “point”. First, reforming the online seminar system. Instead of urging each partner school to prepare courses from online, we will help those who are voluntary make further breakthroughs. We no longer remain at discussing SSI-L issue design, but further demonstrate and revise issue design based on teaching practice. We’ll focus on a certain difficult point for analysis on each one of the online meetings. Online seminars will shift more attention to innovative content, on which teachers should avoid ineffective participation by merely listening without thinking, and think hard and raise more questions based on their own practice.

Second, building model base schools. We will provide professional support to some partner schools through targeted online guidance, on-site expert guidance and other channels based on their needs. Meanwhile there will be assistance in research and development, special subject research and other aspects to build model schools.

Third, the content and forms of regional alliance activities need to be expanded. We will strengthen our organization and management approach and carry out online course preparation activities on a regular basis.

In this semester, we look forward to further advancing SSI-L project research in each school, making breakthroughs on some difficult issues, and obtaining more achievements.