教师知识共享行为是如何发生的？

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2026.07.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

教师知识共享对提升教书育人能力、提高教育质量至关重要，但实践中教师知识共享的水平并不尽如人意。研究根据动机—机会—能力理论框架，基于3483份中小学教师问卷，采用结构方程模型，分析个体与备课组因素如何影响教师知识共享行为的发生。结果表明：第一，在控制了教师背景变量后，教师个体的知识共享动机、能力均对知识共享行为有显著正向影响，而时间压力显著负向影响知识共享行为，且共享能力的影响程度在所有变量中最大；第二，备课组的知识共建与知识冲突对知识共享行为的影响程度仅次于共享能力，且知识共建在备课组凝聚力与知识共享行为之间起完全中介作用，知识冲突在知识距离与知识共享行为之间起完全中介作用；第三，从个体与群体因素的交互来看，备课组凝聚力在个体知识共享动机和能力与知识共享行为的关系中起增强调节作用，备课组凝聚力与知识距离分别在个体时间压力与知识共享行为的关系中起缓冲调节作用。鉴于此，学校应强化知识共享能力培训，提升知识转化效能；加强备课组凝聚力建设，深化群体知识共建；构建阶梯型师资队伍，实现知识冲突的创造性转化。

关键词: 教师知识共享, 动机—机会—能力理论, 个体因素, 群体因素

Abstract:

Teacher knowledge sharing is crucial for enhancing teaching abilities and improving educational quality, but the level of teacher knowledge sharing in practice is not satisfactory. Based on the motivation-opportunity-ability (MOA) theory framework, this study analyzes how individual and lesson-preparation group factors influence the occurrence of teacher knowledge-sharing behavior using a structural equation model with data from 3,483 questionnaires of primary and secondary school teachers. The results indicate that, first, after controlling for teacher background variables, both individual knowledge-sharing motivation and ability have a significant positive impact on knowledge-sharing behavior, while time pressure has a significant negative impact, with sharing ability having the greatest influence among all variables. Second, the impact of lesson preparation group knowledge co-construction and knowledge conflict on knowledge-sharing behavior is second only to sharing ability, and knowledge co-construction fully mediates the relationship between lesson preparation group cohesion and knowledge-sharing behavior, while knowledge conflict fully mediates the relationship between knowledge distance and knowledge-sharing behavior. Finally, in terms of the interaction between individual and group factors, lesson preparation group cohesion enhances the relationship between individual motivation and ability and knowledge-sharing behavior, and both lesson preparation group cohesion and knowledge distance buffer the relationship between individual time pressure and knowledge-sharing behavior. In view of this, schools should strengthen training in shared capability to enhance knowledge transformation efficiency, reinforce the cohesion of lesson preparation groups to deepen collective knowledge co-construction, and establish a tiered faculty development system to achieve the creative transformation of knowledge conflicts.

Key words: teacher knowledge sharing, motivation-opportunity-ability theory, individual factors, group factors

魏晓宇, 苏娜. 教师知识共享行为是如何发生的？[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(7): 97-110.

Xiaoyu Wei, Na Su. How Does Teacher Knowledge-Sharing Behavior Occur?[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2026, 44(7): 97-110.

图/表 5

表 1

表 2

表 3

表 4

图 1

参考文献

	陈群波. (2016). 基于师徒制的教师知识转移研究 (博士论文). 华东师范大学.
	崔宇, 王凡一. (2020). 基于结构方程模型的教师知识共享影响因素研究. 教育学报, (4), 64- 71.
	石艳, 董虹伶. (2022). 人际信任对教师知识共享的影响研究——基于整体网分析. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版), (2), 49- 60.
	魏晓宇. (2021). 教师知识共享的行为与过程——基于动态性的视角. 基础教育, (6), 61- 71.
	温格. (2018). 实践共同体: 学习、意义和身份(李茂荣, 欧阳忠明, 任鑫, 芮金金译). 南昌: 江西人民出版社.
	杨烁, 余凯. (2019). 组织信任对教师知识共享的影响研究——心理安全感的中介作用及沟通满意度的调节作用. 教育研究与实验, (2), 39- 45.
	野中郁次郎. (1999). 知识创新型企业. 彼得·德鲁克等著. 知识管理(杨开峰译). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
	张博林, 阮守华, 孟彦, 等. (2022). 中小学高学历教师队伍建设的挑战与突围. 中小学管理, (9), 39- 42.
	张莉, 和金生. (2009). 知识距离与组织内知识转移效率. 现代管理科学, (3), 43- 44.
	郑建君, 付晓洁. (2018). 中小学教师职业成长机会与知识共享的关系. 教育研究, (7), 111- 119+134.
	郑建君, 高妍春, 付晓洁. (2023). 主动性人格对中小学教师知识共享的影响机制——基于工作投入和组织创新气氛的作用分析. 教师教育研究, (3), 66- 73.
	中共中央, 国务院. (2024). 中共中央国务院关于弘扬教育家精神加强新时代高素质专业化教师队伍建设的意见. https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/2024/issue_11566/202409/content_6973187.html.
	Andreeva, T., & Sergeeva, A. (2016). The more the better… or is it? The contradictory effects of HR practices on knowledge‐sharing motivation and behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal, 26 (2), 151- 171.
	Asher, D., & Popper, M. (2019). Tacit knowledge as a multilayer phenomenon: the “onion” model. The Learning Organization, 26 (3), 264- 275.
	Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31 (1), 71- 88.
	Casey‐Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion–performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11 (2), 223- 246.
	Cheng, E. C. (2021). Knowledge management for improving school strategic planning. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49 (5), 824- 840.
	Connelly, C. E., Ford, D. P., Turel, O., Gallupe, B., & Zweig, D. (2014). ‘I’m busy (and competitive)!’Antecedents of knowledge sharing under pressure. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12 (1), 74- 85.
	Cui, X., Lai, V. S., Lowry, P. B., & Lei, Y. (2020). The effects of bidder factors on online bidding strategies: A motivation-opportunity-ability (MOA) model. Decision Support Systems, 138, 113397.
	Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B. S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20 (1-2), 39- 68.
	Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 350- 383.
	Foss, N. J., Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., & Reinholt, M. (2009). Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: How job design matters. Human Resource Management, 48 (6), 871- 893.
	Kang, M., & Kim, B. (2017). Motivation, opportunity, and ability in knowledge transfer: a social network approach. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15 (2), 214- 224.
	König, J., Santagata, R., Scheiner, T., Adleff, A. K., Yang, X., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Teacher noticing: A systematic literature review of conceptualizations, research designs, and findings on learning to notice. Educational Research Review, 36, 100453.
	Lai, H. M., Hsiao, Y. L., & Hsieh, P. J. (2018). The role of motivation, ability, and opportunity in university teachers’ continuance use intention for flipped teaching. Computers & Education, 124, 37- 50.
	MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53 (4), 1- 23.
	MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing consumers’ motivation, ability, and opportunity to process brand information from ads: Conceptual framework and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 55 (1), 32- 53.
	Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115 (2), 210- 227.
	Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. Knowledge in organisations (pp. 135-146). Routledge.
	Rulke, D. L., & Zaheer, S. (2000). Shared and unshared transactive knowledge in complex organizations: An exploratory study. Organizational Cognition: Computation and Interpretation, 83-100.
	Runhaar, P., & Sanders, K. (2016). Promoting teachers’ knowledge sharing. The fostering roles of occupational self-efficacy and Human Resources Management. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(5), 794-813.
	Sargent, L. D., & Sue-Chan, C. (2001). Does diversity affect group efficacy? The intervening role of cohesion and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 32 (4), 426- 450.
	Seyyed Kalan, S. M., Zirak, R., Azad, R., & Golparvar, B. (2016). Determining the relationship between organizational learning mechanisms and teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior and professional development ability. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 5, 218- 130.
	Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2008). How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of Operations Management, 26 (3), 426- 445.
	Škerlavaj, M., Connelly, C. E., Cerne, M., & Dysvik, A. (2018). Tell me if you can: time pressure, prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22 (7), 1489- 1509.
	Turner, S. F., Bettis, R. A., & Burton, R. M. (2002). Exploring depth versus breadth in knowledge management strategies. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 8, 49- 73.
	Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37 (5), 490- 521.
	Van Offenbeek, M. (2001). Processes and outcomes of team learning. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (3), 303- 317.
	Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., & Raes, E. (2016). Team learning in teacher teams: Team entitativity as a bridge between teams-in-theory and teams-in-practice. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 275- 298.
	Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17- 40.
	Wang, Z., Zhao, L., Song, H., Du, J., & Wang, Y. (2022). Linking empowering leadership with older teachers’ knowledge-sharing behaviour: the roles of organization-based self-esteem and organizational status. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 44 (4), 807- 824.
	Xie, S., Chen, X., Peng, S., & Zhang, S. (2023, April). Pre-Service Teachers' Behavioral Intention for AI-Integrated Instruction: A Path Analysis of the Theory of Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA). In 2023 5th International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
	Yu, W. M. (2018). Critical incidents as a reflective tool for professional development: An experience with in-service teachers. Reflective Practice, 19 (6), 763- 776.
	Zeinabadi, H. (2022). Principals' role in teachers' knowledge-sharing beliefs, intention and behaviour in Iranian schools: exploring the impact of knowledge-sharing leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 60 (5), 493- 510.
	Zeinabadi, H. (2023). Breaking down the walls of weak knowledge-sharing among Iranian teachers: Investigating a less-considered leadership role of principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51 (1), 176- 197.
	Zeinabadi, H., & Abbasian, H. (2024). Principal's leadership and teacher-to-teacher knowledge-sharing in Iranian schools: Developing and validating a multi-dimensional scale. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52 (3), 711- 739.
	Zhang, J., & Pang, N. S. K. (2016). Exploring the characteristics of professional learning communities in China: A mixed-method study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 11- 21.
	Zhang, J., Zhou, M., & Zhang, J. (2016). The interactive effects of personality and burnout on knowledge sharing among teachers. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44 (8), 1267- 1280.
	Zhu, Y. Q., Chiu, H., & Infante Holguin-Veras, E. J. (2018). It is more blessed to give than to receive: examining the impact of knowledge sharing on sharers and recipients. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22 (1), 76- 91.

维度	题项	估计值	标准误	CR	AVE	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
被解释变量
知识共享行为	KSB1	0.696	0.017	0.892	0.583	0.974	0.957	0.073	0.022
	KSB3	0.788	0.013
	KSB4	0.851	0.01
	KSB5	0.832	0.013
	KSB6	0.755	0.016
	KSB7	0.635	0.02
解释变量：个体层解释变量
知识共享动机	KSM1	0.888	0.013	0.958	0.85	0.994	0.983	0.044	0.005
	KSM2	0.94	0.01
	KSM3	0.941	0.008
	KSM4	0.918	0.009
时间压力	TP1	0.871	0.013	0.897	0.688	1	1	0	0.004
	TP2	0.931	0.008
	TP3	0.804	0.017
	TP4	0.692	0.016
知识共享能力	KC2	0.811	0.017	0.925	0.805	1	1	0	0
	KC3	0.938	0.01
	KC4	0.936	0.01
解释变量：群体层解释变量
备课组凝聚力	TC2	0.929	0.008	0.969	0.886	0.996	0.988	0.039	0.005
	TC3	0.966	0.005
	TC4	0.955	0.007
	TC5	0.915	0.01
知识距离	KD1	0.861	0.013	0.935	0.783	0.995	0.986	0.046	0.008
	KD2	0.954	0.007
	KD3	0.884	0.011
	KD4	0.837	0.013
知识共建	KCO1	0.848	0.013	0.947	0.816	0.999	0.992	0.073	0.004
	KCO2	0.907	0.01
	KCO3	0.942	0.008
	KCO4	0.914	0.009
知识冲突	KCF1	0.86	0.01	0.882	0.713	1	1	0	0
	KCF2	0.837	0.01
	KCF3	0.836	0.01

	模型(1)	模型(2)	模型(3)
教师背景变量
性别	−0.011	−0.009	−0.011
	（0.017）	(0.017)	(0.017)
教龄	−0.035	−0.036	−0.034
	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.017)
是否为备课组长	0.06*	0.057*	0.046*
	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.017)
个体变量
知识共享动机	0.190*	0.164*	0.058*
	(0.023)	（0.026)	(0.027)
时间压力	−0.073*	−0.088*	−0.084*
	(0.018)	(0.019)	(0.018)
知识共享能力	0.328*	0.298*	0.243*
	(0.023)	(0.025)	(0.024)
群体变量
备课组凝聚力		0.075*	0.005
		(0.024)	(0.025)
知识距离		0.044*	−0.029
		(0.02)	(0.021)
知识共建			0.232*
			(0.026)
知识冲突			0.19*
			(0.021)
R²	0.22	0.224	0.288
CFI	0.921	0.933	0.923
TLI	0.909	0.924	0.914
RMSEA	0.079	0.067	0.064
SRMR	0.053	0.053	0.053

	路径	效应值	标准误	效应值/标准误	P值	百分位数置信区间（95%）
	路径	效应值	标准误	效应值/标准误	P值	Lower 2.5%	Upper 2.5%
模型(1)	直接效应	0.005	0.027	0.188	0.851	−0.039	0.051
	中介效应：凝聚力→知识共建→共享行为	0.069	0.012	2.874	0.004	0.051	0.089
	总效应	0.074	0.026	2.874	0.004	0.030	0.116
模型(2)	直接效应	−0.029	0.022	−1.308	0.191	−0.065	0.005
	中介效应：知识距离→知识冲突→共享行为	0.082	0.011	7.79	0.000	0.066	0.100
	总效应	0.053	0.021	2.563	0.010	0.020	0.085

	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5
教师背景变量
性别	−0.015	−0.011	−0.013	−0.012	−0.016
	0.022	0.022	0.022	0.022	0.022
教龄	−0.002	−0.002*	−0.002*	−0.002*	−0.001
	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001
是否为备课组长	0.024*	0.024*	0.022*	0.024*	0.024*
	0.009	0.009	0.009	0.009	0.009
个体变量
知识共享动机	0.04*	0.05*	0.044*	0.047*	0.039
	0.019	0.023	0.022	0.022	0.022
时间压力	−0.047*	−0.044*	−0.058*	−0.045*	−0.035*
	0.010	0.011	0.011	0.011	0.011
知识共享能力	0.183*	0.179*	0.185*	0.167*	0.176*
	0.019	0.021	0.021	0.021	0.021
群体变量
备课组凝聚力	0.003	0.031	0.012	0.033	−0.001
	0.017	0.021	0.019	0.022	0.019
知识距离	−0.016	−0.009	−0.016	−0.011	−0.029*
	0.012	0.013	0.013	0.013	0.013
知识共建	0.158*	0.153*	0.158*	0.158*	0.159*
	0.018	0.023	0.023	0.023	0.023
知识冲突	0.107*	0.106*	0.105*	0.105*	0.105*
	0.012	0.013	0.013	0.013	0.013
动机×备课组凝聚力		0.094*
		0.019
时间压力×备课组凝聚力			0.063*
			0.017
能力×备课组凝聚力				0.096*
				0.022
时间压力×知识距离					0.041*
					0.012
R²	0.22	0.321	0.303	0.31	0.28
AIC	190673.34	190627.76	190649.94	190635.72	190658.22
H0	−95209.67	−95185.88	−95196.97	−95189.86	−95201.11
自由参数	127	128	128	128	128
AIC comparison results		45.57	23.40	37.62	15.11
H0 comparison results		0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000