研究生: |
武佳瀅 Chia-Ying Wu |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
師生互動之微觀政治研究-以一所私立中學為例 A Study On Micropolitical Analysis of Teacher-pupil Interaction: An Example of Junior-high School |
指導教授: |
許殷宏
Hsu, Yin-Hung |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
教育學系 Department of Education |
論文出版年: | 2010 |
畢業學年度: | 98 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 161 |
中文關鍵詞: | 微觀政治 、師生互動 、權力 |
英文關鍵詞: | micropolitics, teacher-pupil interaction, power |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:225 下載:73 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
學校本身即為一種政治組織,由於利害關係人之間意識型態與利益分配所形成的差異與不均,在正式或非正式的政治協商歷程中,會產生各式衝突或合作行為。其中,教師站在制度或成人的立場領導學生達成組織的目標,學生亦擁有自身的價值與需求,師生在班級之中存有各自立場與情境定義,為了維持其最大化的利益狀態,雙方將會採行各種行動策略試圖控制班級的運作過程,由此可見,教師與學生運用各種權力策略來解決問題與爭奪資源之歷程勢必為班級微觀政治研究所應重視的議題。
本研究主要採用參與觀察、訪談與文件分析等質性研究方式,選擇臺灣北部一所私立中學作為對象,以班級為單位,進行實徵資料的蒐集與分析。本研究結論歸納如下:(一)師生關係的建構歷程具動態性,可分為試探期、變動期與趨緩期;(二)師生互動涉及家長和行政人員之利益考量;(三)升學考量形塑出金字塔般的權力位階;(四)社會位置的區隔影響了權力策略之選擇。
School is a political organization. Because stakeholders have different ideologies and interests, formal or informal political negotiation exists conflict or cooperative behaviors. Teachers are on the adults’ side to discipline students and lead students to achieve goals for organization, and students have their own values and demands. For maintaining the maximized interests, teachers and students will adopt a variety of action strategies to control the class. Therefore, exploring the teachers’ power are necessary for micropolitics. To fulfill the above-mentioned purposes, qualitative methods such as participant observation and interview are employed to collect empirical data from teachers and students in one junior high school class in north Taiwan. The major findings are as follows: (1) teacher-pupil relationship is dynamic; (2) teacher-pupil interaction involves the interests of the parents and administrators; (3) the ranks of power can be fortified with the ideology of education fanaticism; (4) the social position have an influence on selections of power strategies.
壹、中文部分
王文科(2000)。教育研究法。台北市:五南。
王美文(1995)。教師對成人學生的分類與互動策略:一個國小補校班級的質性研究。國立台灣師範大學社會教育學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
王麗雲(2007)。地方教育治理模式分析。教育政策論壇,10(1),189-228。
方德隆(1998)。班級社會體系。載於陳奎熹(主編),現代教育社會學(頁139-177)。台北市:師大書苑。
林天祐(2004)。教育政治學。台北市:心理。
李克難(1999)。國民中學校長政治模式領導策略之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育系碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
李英明(1986)。哈伯瑪斯。台北市:東大。
李錦旭譯(1987)。David Blackledge & Barry Hunt著。教育社會學理論(Sociological interpretations of education)。台北市:桂冠。
林君齡(2001)。國民中學校教師會運作之微觀政治個案研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育系碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
林曜聖(2003)。權力運作與衝突處理中的學校政治行為-校園微觀政治之概念、分析架構與方法。學校行政雙月刊,25,64-76。
吳清山(2000)。教育發展研究。台北市:元照。
吳麗雲(2001)。衝突情境中的師生互動。國立新竹師範學院,未出版,新竹市。
范傳馨(2002)。德語會話課師生互動研究—以輔大德語系會話課為例。私立輔仁大學德國語文學系,未出版,台北縣。
吳康寧(1998)。教育社會學。高雄市:復文。
單文經(1998)。班級經營策略研究(第三版)。台北市:師大書苑。
范慶鐘(2008)。一所參與教師專業發展評鑑試辦計畫學校的微觀政治分析。教育科學期刊,7(2),45-67。
洪麗雯(2009)。一所大學學生會的微觀政治研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
胡士琳(2003)。學校行政體系之微觀政治現象研究–以一所國民中學為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育系碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
席榮維(2005)。以微觀政治觀點分析校長的教學視導。學校行政雙月刊,36,17-25。
姜添輝(2002)。資本社會中的社會流動與學校體系。台北市:高等教育。
秦夢群(1997)。教育行政–理論部分。台北市:五南。
許殷宏(1999)。師生互動策略探究。中等教育,50(6),62-80。
許籐繼(2001)。學校組織權力重建。台北市:五南。
陳文彥(2002)。教師與家長之微觀政治學分析。教育研究資訊,10(2),183-198。
陳向明(2000)。質的研究法與社會科學研究。北京市:教育科學。
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。台北市:五南。
陳伯璋(1993)。意識型態與教育。台北市:師大書苑。
陳伯璋(2000)。質性研究方法的理論基礎。載於中正大學教育學研究(主編),質的研究方法(頁25-50)。高雄市:麗文。
陳幸仁(2007)。微觀政治學:一個學校行政的新興研究領域。教育行政與評鑑學刊,3,67-86。
陳幸仁(2008a)。學校教師會運作之微觀政治分析:一所小學之個案研究。屏東教育大學學報–教育類,30,23-54。
陳幸仁(2008b)。家長參與校務決策之微觀政治分析。國民教育研究學報,21,91-114。
陳幸仁(2008c)。學校組織行為之微觀政治探究。教育理論與實踐學刊,17,1-25。
陳秀碧(1993)。中學生人際策略之研究–以建立對教師關係為例。國立政治大學教育學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
高慈孺(2004)。干擾性行為疾患學童於師生互動之社會訊息處理歷程研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
黃德祥、陳奎熹、王淑俐、單文經(1996)。師生關係與班級經營。台北市:三民。
高玉潔(1998)。學生文化之研究–以桃園縣一所中學學生為例。國立師範大學教育學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
黃宗顯(2008)。學校行政對話研究–組織中影響力行為的微觀探討。台北市:五南。
張明輝(1999)。學校教育與行政革新研究。台北市:師大書苑。
張育嫻(2003)。中學實習教師師生互動策略之質性研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
張建成(2002)。批判的教育社會學研究。台北市:學富。
黃乃熒(2001)。教育決策權力的正當性:決策倫理及其典範的討論。師大學報,46(1),頁1-19。
黃政傑(1977)。團體歷程理論及其在教育上的應用。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所集刊,22,563-567。
黃瑞琴(1994)。質的教育研究方法。台北市: 心理。
黃楸萍(2001)。良好的班級經營與師生互動。國教新知,47(3),70-76。
歐用生(1999)。質的研究。台北市:師大書苑。
蔡璧煌(2008)。教育政治學。台北市:五南。
謝文全(2004)。教育行政學。台北市:高等教育。
潘慧玲(2003)。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊,11(1),115-143。
甄曉蘭(2004)。課程理論與實務–解構與重建。台北市:高等教育。
鍾蔚起(1989)。簡介符號互動論及其在教育上之應用。教育文粹,18,18-29。
貳、英文部分
Anderson, G. L. (1991). Cognitive politics of principals and teachers. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp.120-138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bacharach, S. B., & Mundell, B. L. (1995). Organizational politics in schools: Micro, macro, and logics of action. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 423-452.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947-952.
Ball, S. (1980). Initial encounters in the classroom and the process of establishment. In P. Woods (Ed.), Pupil strategies. London: Croom Helm
Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Toward a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.
Blase, J. (1989). The micropolitics of the school: The everyday political orientation of teacher toward open school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 377-407.
Blase, J. (1991). Everyday political perspectives of teachers toward students: The dynamics of diplomacy. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 185-206). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., & Anderson, G. L. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. London: Cassell.
Blumer, H. (1972). Symbolic interaction: perspectives and method. In J. P. Spradley (Ed.), Cultures and cognition(pp. 65-74). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Bloome, D., & Willett, J. (1991). Toward a micropolitics of classroom interaction. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 207-236). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organization: Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, T. (1961). Micropolitics: Mechanisms of institutional change. Administration Science Quarterly, 6, 257-281.
Denscombe, M. (1985). Classroom control: A sociological perspective. London: Allen & Unwin.
Delamont, S (1983). Interaction in the classroom (2nd ed). London & New York: Routledge.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Furlong, V. J. (1976). Interaction sets in the classroom:towards a study of pupil knowledge. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Ed.), Life in school: the sociology of pupil culture (pp.145-160). Bristol: Open University Press.
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217- 223.
Hargreaves, A. (1984). The significance of classroom coping strategies. In A. Hargreaves & P. Woods (Eds.), Classrooms and staffrooms: The sociology of teachers and teaching (pp. 64-85). Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Hammersley, M., & Turner, G. (1980). Conformist pupils? In P. Woods (Ed.), Pupil strategies (pp. 29-49). London: Croom Helm.
Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of educational organizations. Educational Management and Administration, 10(2), 87-98.
Hoyle, E. (1986). The politics of school management. London: Hodder and Stroughton.
Hoyle, E. (1988). Micropolitics of educational organization. In A. Westoby (Ed.), Culture and power in educational organizations (pp. 255-269). Philadelphia: Knopf.
Iannaccone, L. (1991). Micropolitics of education, what and why. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 465-471.
Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Keddie, N. (1971). Classroom knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education (pp. 133-160). London: Collier-Macmillan.
Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics: The case of the policy on quality control in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Education Policy, 22(4), 471-491.
Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teacher. London: Methuen.
Lemke, J. K. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lieblich, A., Mashiach, R. T., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative research: Reading, analysis, and interpretation. London: Sage.
Lindle, J. C. (1999). What can the study of micropolitics contribute to the practice of leadership in reforming schools? School Leadership and Management, 19(2), 171-178.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan Press.
Malen, B. (1995). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in school politics. In J. D. Scribner & D. H. Layton (Eds.), The study of educational politics (pp. 147-167). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Manke, M. P. (1997). Classroom power relations: Understanding student-teacher interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marshall, C., & Scribner, J. D. (1991). “It’s all political.” Inquiry into the micropolitics of education. Education and Urban Society, 23(4),347-355.
Mawhinney, H. B. (1999). Reappraisal: the problems and prospects of studying the micropolitics of leadership in reforming schools. School Leadership and Management, 19(2), 159-170.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Philip, J. (1979). Life in classrooms. In A. Pollard & J. Bourne (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the primary school (pp.113-118). London: Routledge.
Pollard, A. (1980). Teacher interests and changing situation of survival threat in primary school classrooms. In P. Woods (Ed.), Teacher strategies (pp. 34-60). London: Croom Helm.
Pollard, A. (1982). A model of classroom coping strategies. British journal of Sociology of Education, 3(1), 19-37.
Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. London: Sage.
Robbin, A. (1992). Teaching strategies. In A. Pollard & J. Bourne (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the primary school (pp.142-156). London: Routledge.
Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Spaulding, A. M. (1995, April). A qualitative case study of teacher-student micropolitical interaction: The strategies, goals, and consequences of student resistance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific management. New York: Harper.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (T. Parsons, trans.) New York: Free Press.
West, M. (1999). Micropolitics, leadership and all that… The need to increase the micropolitical awareness and skills of school leaders. School Leadership and Management, 19(2), 189-195.
Woods, P. (1980). Strategies in teaching and learning. In P. Woods (Ed.), Teacher strategies: Exploration in the sociology of the school. London: Croom Helm.
Willower, D. J. (1991). Micropolitics and the sociology of school organizations. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 442-454.
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2001). The political dynamics of American education. (2nd ed.). Richmond, CA: McCutchan.