“教师研究”（teacher research）自20世纪70年代发端以来，逐渐成为全世界所公认的教师专业发展途径，“教师即研究者”“教师成为研究者”“中小学教师科研”“中小学教师的教育研究”等专业取向的口号和理念，逐渐在我国落地生根，并向外演化为一种政策要求与制度安排，向内转化为一线教师的研究性思维与能力，为在教育教学中进行实践探索与行动研究奠定基础。然而，由于我国中小学教师长期自居的“教书匠”角色，以及自身薄弱的研究素养，做研究成为了装点职业门面的“塑料花”，好看却不实用，成为了令教师头疼且畏惧的事情，可望却不可及，种种现实的桎梏令一线教师做研究陷入了困局。外部促进者作为支持教师做研究的有力帮手，可以为实践对接理论脉络，进而以研究改进实践问题提供解决方案，国外已有专门的概念去指称这些外部促进者——“教师研究指导者”（teacher research mentor）。本研究延续国内外已有相关研究的探讨，并在前人研究的基础上，选取一位大学教师教育者S作为个案，以深描、理解与诠释为取向，从教与学微观互动的视角出发，探究其如何指导一线教师做研究。本研究旨在回答三个问题：（1）该个案对“教师研究”赋予了怎样的意义？其秉持着怎样的教师研究观与指导观？（2）在典型指导情境中，该个案是如何教一线教师做研究的？在研究的各个环节中是如何进行诊断与指导的？背后的考量是什么？（3）透过典型的指导情境以及该个案的“教”，具体能透出一线教师在学着做研究时存在怎样的问题、困难与挑战，背后反映出他们怎样的思维偏误以及实践逻辑？在系统观察和分析该个案的指导现场，以及对个案和受其指导的教师进行回溯性访谈后，进行资料的整理与编码，综合利用类属分析、情境分析和隐喻分析，得出以下研究发现。
    首先，在该个案的教师研究观中，其所秉持的理想教师研究类型，是一种兼具教育性和研究性的行动研究，处于纯粹行动和标准学术研究的中间地带，在这一地带中整合工作实践与理论视野；在价值观上，对S而言教师做研究富有教育学意义，具体表现为促进工作中的创新实践、提升自我身份的理解以及生态改变的意义；在方法观上，教师做研究在外部流程上与一般研究的流程相似，而在具体的教育行动中，计划-行动-观察-反思内嵌于其中。在指导观中，S所认同并践行的角色是医生和翻译者，在作为医生的形象表征中，S通过“把脉”，厘清一线教师工作中存在的问题症结，开出的“药方”是针对个人的专业发展愿景。这样的临场推理与判断，依靠的是叙事和对话，此时S以翻译者的姿态现场“解码”与“转译”实践话语。S总体的指导特征表现为：针对性、现实性、激励性与转化性。
    其次，在典型的指导情境中，该个案教-教师做研究时渗透着其“教师研究”观与指导观。在对研究选题的诊断与指导中，意义是S在一线教师科研培训现场所首要考虑的事项，在S发出叙事的邀请后，于对话空间中想象并澄清教师所处的独特情境脉络，进而完成对选题的框定。这其中渗透着两条线索：研究线与教育线，研究线渗透研究性思维的逐步深入，教育线在负责在价值层面进行引导；在对文献综述的诊断与指导中，一线教师存在着大量经验性的本土概念，S以“换概念”的方式将其转译为学术概念，这背后是为将实践逻辑转换为研究逻辑，进而通过讲解文献综述的作用，调整文献综述的维度和方向，来用文献启发和指导教师的工作；在对研究设计的诊断与指导中，S强调对核心概念的操作性理解，在面对研究方法的乱象时，研究取向是S所追问的首要事项，并会进一步将理论基础向下落地；在对研究实施的诊断与指导中，面对一线教师的实践探索，S追问行动背后的育人意义，提议用概念引领实践、用探究线索整合实践、用质的描述证明行动效果、用主题和线索统整实践，这背后是考虑行动探索的育人意义，令行动变为教育的行动；在对研究成果的诊断与指导中，S通过“钻进去”来挖掘出工作成果中的亮点和独特性，通过“跳出来”让教师变为教师教育者，反思行动做法背后的理据，以将成果变为教师培训的资源，在“串起来”时，逻辑是统整大量碎片化实践工作的工具。
    最后，透过典型的指导情境以及S对一线教师做研究的诊断，本文所涉及的一线教师在学-做研究时存在着以下思维偏误与实践困境。在研究选题上，教师虽梳理出自身经验，却常忽略经验所指向的问题情境，降低了自身实践性知识的可迁移性。在政策呼吁下的实践探索中，“沉浸在事儿”中以致忽略了做法背后的育人意义；在文献综述上，经验主义导向下的工作概念难以对接学术脉络，查不到、读不懂、列不出文献综述；在研究设计上，对于核心概念浅层次理解，研究方法的工作逻辑，研究分析框架的空洞无物，让行动研究陷入无序；在研究实施上，“接下来该如何走”“为什么在实际走偏了”“如何证明行动的效果”是三个主要困惑；在研究成果上，成果的工作报告化，语言的诗意化和精致化，是教师在尝试平衡学术成果的正式性与专业性以及教师群体的阅读可接受性之间的张力。造成这些困境背后的原因，不仅在于教师繁重的教育教学工作和自身的研究能力，更是因为经验主义的思维方式以及任务导向下的工作逻辑，说到底，教育实务的实践逻辑不同于研究和学术的逻辑。
    在研究讨论中，跳出具体的指导现场，S指导一线教师做研究实质作为一场跨界指导活动，以“再脉络化”的视角下进行透视，发现S在协商性的情境下创设问题空间，边界物为进入对方的情境起到中介作用，最后在推理和推断下完成指导定向。“再脉络化”的视角可以弥合文化-历史活动理论在微观跨界活动中的理论解释力缺憾。最后，还须批判性地看待S的指导，作为一名非传统型的教师教育者，学科背景与指导对象的不匹配可能让指导建议难接受，教与学作为一种双边互动活动，作为学习者的受指导方，其学习做研究的悟性和研究话语的可接受性，以及学校制度情境的限制，都是对作为指导者的教师教育者的挑战。

   Since its inception in the 1970s, "teacher research" has gradually become a recognized path for teacher professional development worldwide. The slogans and concepts of professional orientation such as "teacher is researcher", "teacher becomes researcher", "scientific research of primary and secondary school teachers", and "educational research of primary and secondary school teachers" have gradually taken root in China and evolved into a policy requirement and institutional arrangement. Internally, they have transformed into the research-oriented thinking and ability of frontline teachers, laying the foundation for practical exploration and action research in education and teaching. However, due to the long-term self proclaimed role of "teaching craftsman" among primary and secondary school teachers in our country, as well as their weak research literacy, conducting research has become a "plastic flower" that embellishes the facade of their profession. It is beautiful but not practical, and has become a headache and fear for teachers. It is expected but unattainable, and various practical constraints have put teachers in a dilemma when conducting research. External facilitators, as powerful helpers to support teachers in conducting research, can connect theory with practice and provide solutions to research and improve practical problems. There is a specialized concept abroad to refer to these external facilitators as "teacher research mentors". This study continues the exploration of relevant research both domestically and internationally, and based on previous research, selects a university teacher educator S as a case study. With a focus on deep description, understanding, and interpretation, it explores how it guides frontline teachers to conduct research from the perspective of micro interaction between teaching and learning. This study aims to answer three questions: (1) What significance does this case give to "teacher research"? What kind of "teacher research view" and guidance view does it uphold? (2) How did this case teach teachers to conduct research in a typical guidance scenario? How is diagnosis and guidance carried out in various stages of research? What are the considerations behind it? (3) Through typical guidance scenarios and the teaching of this case, it is possible to reveal the problems, difficulties, and challenges that frontline teachers face when learning to conduct research, as well as their thinking biases and practical logic? After observing and analyzing the guidance site of the case in the system, as well as conducting retrospective interviews with the case and the teachers who were guided by it, data was organized and coded. By comprehensively utilizing category analysis, situational analysis, and metaphor analysis, the following research findings were obtained.
    Firstly, in the perspective of "teacher research" in this case, the ideal type of teacher research it upholds is an action research that combines educational and research aspects, situated in the middle of pure action and standard academic research, integrating work practice and theoretical perspectives in this area; In terms of values, for S, conducting research by teachers is of educational significance, specifically manifested in promoting professional development, enhancing understanding of self-identity, and the significance of ecological change; In terms of methodology, the external process of teacher research is similar to that of general research, while in specific educational actions, planning action observation reflection is embedded within it. In the guiding philosophy, S identifies and practices the roles of doctors and translators. As a representation of the image of a doctor, S clarifies the problems and crux in the work of frontline teachers by "feeling the pulse", and prescribes a "prescription" aimed at the individual's professional development vision. This kind of on-site reasoning and judgment relies on narrative and dialogue, and at this point, S acts as a translator to "decode" and "translate" practical discourse on site. The overall guiding characteristics of S are targeted, realistic, motivating, and transformative.
    Secondly, in a typical guidance scenario, the teacher in this case is imbued with their views on "teacher research" and guidance when conducting research. In the diagnosis and guidance of research topics, significance is the primary consideration for S at the teacher research training site. After S sends out a narrative invitation, he imagines and clarifies the unique contextual context of the teacher in the dialogue space, and then completes the framing of the topic. There are two clues permeating this: the research line and the education line. The research line permeates the gradual deepening of research-oriented thinking, while the education line is responsible for guiding at the value level; In the diagnosis and guidance of literature review, teachers have a large number of empirical local concepts. S translates them into academic concepts through "conceptual exchange", which is a way to transform practical logic into research logic. By explaining the role of literature review, adjusting the dimensions and direction of literature review, and using literature to inspire and guide teachers' work; In the diagnosis and guidance of research design, S emphasizes the operational understanding of core concepts. When facing the chaos of research methods, research orientation is the primary issue that S questions, and will further implement the theoretical foundation; In the diagnosis and guidance of research implementation, facing the practical exploration of frontline teachers, S questions the educational significance behind the action, proposes using concepts to guide practice, integrating practice with exploration clues, proving the effectiveness of action with qualitative descriptions, and integrating practice with themes and clues. Behind this is the consideration of the educational significance of action exploration, making action an educational action; In the diagnosis and guidance of research results, S excavates the highlights and uniqueness of the work results by "drilling in", transforms teachers into teacher educators by "jumping out", reflects on the rationale behind action methods, and turns the results into resources for teacher training. When "strung together", logic is a tool for integrating a large amount of fragmented practical work.
    Finally, through typical guidance scenarios and diagnosis of S's research on teachers, it is found that the teachers involved in this article have the following thinking biases and practical difficulties in learning and conducting research. In terms of research topic selection, although teachers summarize their own experiences, they often overlook the problem situations pointed by their experiences, which reduces the transferability of their practical knowledge. In the practical exploration under the policy call, "immersing oneself in matters" has led to the neglect of the educational significance behind the approach; In terms of literature review, the work concept guided by empiricism is difficult to connect with the academic context, and cannot be found, understood, or listed in the literature review; In terms of research design, shallow understanding of core concepts, working logic of research methods, and emptiness of research analysis frameworks lead to action research falling into disorder; In terms of research implementation, the three main confusions are "how to proceed next", "why did we deviate in practice", and "how to prove the effectiveness of actions"; In terms of research results, the reporting of results, the poetic and refined language, are the tension that teachers attempt to balance the formality and professionalism of academic achievements, as well as the readability of the teacher community. The reasons behind these difficulties are not only due to the heavy educational and teaching work of teachers and their own research abilities, but also due to the empirical thinking style and task oriented work logic. In the end, the practical logic of educational practice is different from the logic of research and academia.
In the research discussion, S guided teachers to conduct research as a cross-border guidance activity, and conducted in-depth research from the perspective of "re contextualization". It was found that S created a problem space in a consultative context, and boundary objects played a mediating role in entering the other party's context. Finally, guidance direction was completed through reasoning and inference. The perspective of "re contextualization" can bridge the gap in the theoretical explanatory power of cultural historical activity theory in micro cross-border activities. Finally, it is necessary to approach S's guidance critically. As a non-traditional teacher educator, the mismatch between the disciplinary background and the target audience may make it difficult to accept guidance suggestions. As a bilateral interactive activity, teaching and learning, as the learners being guided, pose challenges to their understanding of learning and research, the acceptability of research discourse, and the limitations of school institutional contexts.