한·중 고등교육의 교육이념과 실천에 대한 내러티브 탐구 = A Narrative Comparative Study on the Transformation of Educational Ideals into Teaching Practice in Korean and Chinese Higher Education

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study employs narrative inquiry to explore how university teachers in South Korea and China understand, internalize, and translate their educational philosophies into teaching practice within their distinct cultural and institutional contexts. It investigates teachers’ pathways of philosophical cognition, strategic adaptation, and professional identity formation, focusing on the transformation between educational philosophy and teaching practice. The research is guided by three questions: What core philosophies do Korean and Chinese teachers uphold, and how do cultural and policy contexts shape their similarities and differences? What structural tensions arise during the process of transforming philosophy into practice, and what strategies do teachers use for reconciliation? How is teacher professionalism reconstructed through the dynamic interaction between philosophy and institutional context, and what future visions for higher education emerge from these experiences?
The study involved eight university teachers each from Korea and China, representing the humanities, social sciences, STEM, education, and the arts, with teaching experience ranging from 3 to 30 years. Data were collected through three rounds of in-depth interviews, analysis of course documents, and reflective writings. For analysis, Bourdieu’s theory of practice (field, capital, habitus) was integrated with Clandinin and Connelly’s three-dimensional narrative space (temporality, sociality, place) to construct a dynamic framework of culture, institution, and agency for coding and thematic interpretation.
The findings reveal three major insights:
First, although teachers in both countries emphasize student competence and learner agency, their approaches diverge along distinct cultural logics. Chinese teachers embed philosophy within a value–competence–discipline framework, legitimizing practice through systematic design and evidence of visible growth. Korean teachers follow a responsibility–competence–meaning logic, focusing on classroom participation and procedural fairness to preserve the intrinsic value of learning.
Second, in coping with institutional pressures, teachers demonstrate adaptive practical wisdom. Chinese teachers employ evidence-constructive strategies—dual-track teaching, layered task chains, and school–community collaboration—to expand agency within structural limits. Korean teachers favor procedural-integrative strategies, using flexible syllabus design and calibrated discretion to maintain balance between generative learning and systemic order.
Third, professional identity evolves into negotiated professionalism through three mechanisms: translating abstract values into actionable pedagogy, grafting cross-boundary resources, and evidencing processual growth. Teachers thereby transform from knowledge transmitters into educational designers, meaning facilitators, and ecological weavers.
Based on these findings, the study proposes a dynamic model linking cultural scripts, institutional fields, and teacher agency, demonstrating that the transformation of educational philosophy is a co-evolutionary process rather than a linear one. Theoretically, it integrates practice theory with narrative inquiry to offer a cross-cultural lens on teacher agency. Practically, it suggests a shift in higher education governance from reliance on individual resilience toward systemic empowerment—by institutionalizing flexible curriculum zones, reforming evaluation to value both qualitative and quantitative growth, and fostering sustainable support systems. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of how educational philosophies are enacted in Korean and Chinese higher education and provides narrative-based insights for faculty development and policy enhancement in the East Asian context.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• 1. 나의 삶과 교육 1
• 2. 연구의 필요성 및 의의 4
• 3. 선행연구 분석 7
• 4. 연구 퍼즐 12
• 5. 용어 정의 14
• 6. 연구의 경계와 방법론적 고려 16
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경 18
• 1. 고등 교육이념의 철학적 기초 18
• 2. 중국 고등 교육이념의 형성과 특성 23
• 3. 한국 고등 교육이념의 형성과 특성 26
• 4. 교육이념 전환의 이론적 토대 29
• 5. 교사의 전문성과 역할 31
• 6. 내러티브 탐구의 방법론 35
• Ⅲ. 연구 방법 40
• 1. 연구 설계 및 절차 41
• 2. 연구 참여자 선정 44
• 3. 자료 수집 및 분석 49
• 4. 연구 윤리 및 신뢰도 확보 58
• Ⅳ.한국 교원 내러티브 분석 60
• 1. 한국의 교육이념과 교원 역할 정체성 60
• 2. 수업 실천의 양상 및 도전 65
• 3. 제도적 긴장과 수업 조정 73
• 4. 교사 전문성의 재구성과 미래 비전 78
• 5. 한국 교원의 이념과 실천에 대한 의미 재구성 87
• Ⅴ.중국 교원 내러티브 분석 90
• 1. 중국의 교육이념과 교원 역할 정체성 90
• 2. 교수학습 실천의 모델과 도전 96
• 3. 교육이념과 제도적 긴장 103
• 4. 교사 전문성의 재구성과 정책적 기대 110
• 5. 중국 교원의 이념과 실천에 대한 의미 재구성 118
• Ⅵ. 한‧중 교원의 내러티브 분석결과 비교 121
• 1. 교육이념과 교원 역할 정체성의 비교 121
• 2. 수업 실천 및 대응 전략의 비교 124
• 3. 교육이념과 제도적 긴장의 비교 129
• 4. 교사 전문성의 재구성과 미래 비전의 비교 132
• 5. 종합 논의 135
• Ⅶ. 논의 및 결론 141
• 1. 논의 및 주요 결론 141
• 2. 교육적 시사점 144
• 3. 연구의 한계 및 향후 방향 149
• 참고문헌 153
• Abstract 157
• 부록 160