研究生: |
江思瑩 CHIANG SZU YING |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
台灣教育改革以後國中教師教色變遷之研究 The Change of Junior High School Teachers’Role |
指導教授: |
潘淑滿
Pan, Shu-Man |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
社會教育學系 Department of Adult and Continuing Education |
論文出版年: | 2004 |
畢業學年度: | 92 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 122 |
中文關鍵詞: | 教育改革、教師角色、專業自主 |
英文關鍵詞: | Educational Reform、Roles Of Teachers、Offered Freedom To Teach In Their manner. |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:214 下載:0 |
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 |
臺灣教育改革以後國中教師角色變遷之研究
摘要
本研究旨在了解教育改革後國中教師角色變遷。主要分析不同教育團體領導人及輔導團員及老師對國中教師角色期望之相同點與相異處。同時對此波教改造成教師真正的影響與衝擊全面檢視。期就實務上困境、理論上應證過往教改理想、政府政策推動上該注意之處,及當前教育體制提出建設性意見與反思。分述如下:
一、 分析教育改革前後,教師角色的變遷及所謂好老師所應呈現的理想樣態。
二、 了解教育改革後,實際賦予教師的專業自主空間及教師所表現的專業情況。
三、 了解各組織領導人、輔導團員及老師對於教改的評價與看法。
四、 瞭解教育改革過程中,教師角色轉化所面臨的困境及行政與老師之間關係的變化。
五、 針對大環境的改造,瞭解真正造成阻力的因素,並進一步探討未來如何接續?
為達上述研究目的,首先藉蒐集研讀相關文獻及教改中政府相關配套措施,彙整出研究的立論基礎。為求更深入探討與了解教師及行政人員與家長的想法,故以質性研究深度訪談為考量。針對中央及縣市層級各教育組織領導人、輔導團員及基層教師等深入訪談,探討台灣教育改革以後國中教育角色之變遷。透過訪談資料分析,並結合前述理論探討和現況分析了解問題點。然後就所得歸納形成結論與建議。
本研究得到的結論如下:
一、 教改前後教師角色扮演有很大的落差。教改前重傳道授業少解惑,教改後要更專業更重溝通。
二、 教改前後好老師的界定也有很大落差。教改前敬業中規中矩,教改後要創新善於溝通。
三、 大部分人覺得教改改變太大,老師不知如何做,既困惑又憂心。
四、 教改理念很好但難敵升學文化。
五、 教改後教師滿意度減低,教學成效不佳。
六、 教改責任各自表述,行政、教師、家長、教育部與學者專家均難脫其責。
七、 教師專業自主空間加大,但成效不如預期。老師能力與自立有待提升。
八、 行政、教師、家長間形成校務運作良窳之關鍵。三者間的互動與溝通建立在尊重與互信上。
後現代主義與教改間之應證
一、 學生已成為教學中的主導者。
二、 老師日漸重視課程中的語言、知識、與權利對等問題。
三、 後現代強調自我,隱然存在於群體中。
四、 尊重多元,形塑在地文化特色。強調人權,組織效能面臨考驗。
五、 去自我中心化,建構自己新思維,搭好人我兼橋樑。
最後,依據上述結論,本研究提出對國民中學教師、對國中經營者、對家長、給中央或縣市政府教育局等政策擬定及推動者及未來研究者的相關建議。
關鍵字:教育改革、教師角色、專業自主
。
The Change of Junior High School Teachers’ Role
After Educational Reform in Taiwan
Abstract
This paper is to analyze the change of roles of junior high school teachers after educational reform in taiwan. A lot of effort is put into scrutinizing the comparisons and contrasts of the teachers’ role expectation made by various people, including some chiefs from different educational institutions, counselors, and teachers themselves. At the same time, the influence of educational reform on teachers is carefully reviewed in this paper. By practically surveying the idealism of educational reform, the flaws of educational policy, and the problems of educational system, I hope to provide some helpful opinions and thoughts. The goals of this paper can be listed as follows:
1. Analyzing the change of teachers’ role and the characteristics of good teachers before and after educational reform
2. Understanding teachers’ given freedom of teaching in their way and reviewing how well they make use of it
3. Interviewing chiefs from different educational institutions, counselors and teachers for their points of view on educational reform
4. Illuminating the difficulties teachers have to deal with and the change of the relationship between administrative staff and teachers
5. Explaining the defects of educational reform and the solutions to them.
To achieve the goals above, first of all, I look up the educational reform policies in the reference books as the basis of my thesis. Furthermore, I conduct some qualitative-analysis interviews in order to have a better understanding of diverse viewpoints on educational reform from teachers, administrative staff, and parents. Through interviews with chiefs from different educational institutions, counselors and teachers, I attempt to investigate the change of the function of junior high schools. After reviewing the interviews along with the theories, I come to have some conclusions and suggestions as follows:
1. There is a big change on the role of teachers before and after educational reform: before educational reform, teachers focus on one-way teaching instead of solving problems students may encounter: after it, teachers have to be more professional and communicative.
2. The standard of good teachers differs before and after educational reform: good teachers are supposed to be modest before educational reform; but they are asked to be creative and communicative after it.
3. Most people think educational reform is too complicated. Teachers have no idea what to do, feeling confused and worried.
4. The thought of educational reform is proper, but the reform itself has no influence on the old educational system.
5. Teachers are not satisfied with educational reform and the outcome of it is not satisfying either.
6. Administrative staff, teachers, parents, Education Department staff, and scholars claim different opinions on educational reform and they all are responsible for the unsuccessful reform.
7. Though teachers are offered freedom to teach in their manner, they don’t teach as well as expected.
8. Administrative staff, teachers, and parents form a tug-of-war triangle. The balance of the triangle is based on communication, respect and trust among them.
Post-modernism vs Education Reform
1. Students become the most important part in
2. Teachers come to make a point of language, knowledge and rights.
3. Individualism, characteristic of post-modernism, can be noticed in groups.
4. Minorities are respected, for they can create local cultures. Human rights are emphasized. Lack of proficiency becomes a big problem.
5. Egoism should be avoided in order to develop new thinking and new relationship.
At last, on the basis of the conclusions listed above, this paper is to offer some suggestions for teachers, principals, parents, government officers, and people who want to do research on educational reform in the future.
Key Words:
Educational Reform、Roles Of Teachers、Offered Freedom To Teach In Their manner.
參考目錄
天下雜誌(1997)。海闊天空─教育的美麗新世界。臺北市:天下雜誌股份有限公司。
王素芸(2000)。教師課程自主性之探究。教育與心理研究,23,235-254。
方永泉(2001)。教師作為一種轉化的知識份子:教育史角度的考察。2001年12月5日取自http://www.ncnu.edu.tw/~ycfang/newpage3.htm。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(1996)。教育改革總諮議報告書。
李美華等譯(1998)。社會科學研究方法。台北市:時英。
沈姍姍(1998)。學校教育改革中教師的角色調整。教育資料與研究,22,8-9。
林清江(1971)。教師角色理論與師範教育改革動向之比較研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所集刊,13,45-176。
林清江(1996)。教育理念與教育發展。臺北市:五南圖書出版有限公司。
林生傳(1990)。教育社會學。高雄市:復文圖書出版社
林幸姿(1997)。國小階段教師參與課程發展的研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
林新發(2001)。跨世紀臺灣小學教育改革動向:背景、理念與評析。國立臺北師範學院學報,14,75-108。
吳坤銓(1997)。後現代主義社會的課程。臺北市:作者設計。教育資料與研究,17,63-67。
周佩儀(1997)。後現代思潮衝擊下的教育研究,教育研究集刊,38,37-63。
周愚文(2000)。影響我國近百年教育發展的重要教育改革評述。載於中國教育學會(主編),跨世紀教育的回顧與前瞻(23-32頁)。臺北視:揚智。
周愚文(2000)。影響我國近百年教育發展的重要教育改革評述。載於中國教育學會(主編),跨世紀教育的回顧與前瞻(65-81頁)。臺北市:揚智。
姜添輝(2002)。九年一貫課程政策影響教師專業自主權之研究。國教月刊,48(2),157-107。
高強華(1996)。師資培育問題研究。臺北市:師大書苑。
高強華(2002)。實施九年一貫課程建構學習型社區。
海克、威廉斯(1999)。教師角色(桂冠前瞻教育叢書編輯組譯)。臺北市:桂冠。
郭丁熒(1995)。我國國民中小學教師角色知覺發展之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士學位論文,未出版,高雄市。
郭為藩(1996)。教育改革的共識與歧議。高市文教,56,4-7。
張文軍(1999)。後現代教育。嘉義市:揚智。
郭秀緞(2001)。中日教育改革動向之比較。教育研究,9,167-176。
郭至和(2002)。誰抓得住我─課程改革中的教師角色與地位。花蓮師院學報,14,1-24。
陳順和(1996)。淺釋教師法。教育資料與研究,10,34-37。
陳伯璋(1999)。九年一貫課程的理念與理論分析。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會(主編),邁向課程新世紀(10-18頁)。臺北縣:中華民國教材研究發展學會
陳伯璋(1999)。九年一貫新課程綱要修訂的背景及內涵。教育研究資訊,7(1),1-13。
陳伯璋(2002)。教師角色的再定位。教育資料與研究,17,84-90。
許朝信(2001)。現階段教育改革中資深國小教師之教育態度改變歷程分析。國教學報13,185-207。
許永熹(2002)。教師效能感的機制及其強化策略。初等教育學刊,12,273-288。
莊淑琴(2002)。從文化霸權與意識型態反思教育改革。初等教育學刊,11,195-318。
舒緒瑋(1998)。師資培育法制訂過程及其內涵之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育系博士論文,未出版,臺北市。
黃武雄(1995)。臺灣教育的重建。臺北市:遠流。
黃政傑(2000)。臺灣教育改革的政策方向。教育政策論壇,3(1),26-49。
黃桂芝(2001)。林玉体院長淺談跨世紀教師之圖像。教育研究月刊,81-82,4-7。
張德鋭(1999)。現代教師在學習型學校應扮演的角色。教育資料與研究,27,13-16。
張曉萍(2001)。我和蘇菲有個約會─專訪陳伯璋校長。教育研究月刊,81-82,7-11。
張碩玲(2001)。跨世紀教師角色的省思多元、創意、團隊合作─專訪吳靜吉教授。教育研究月刊,81-82,12-1
張鈿富(2001)。2001年台灣地區教育政策與實施成效調查。教育政策論壇,5(1),1-20。
湯瑞雪(2001)。國中教師角色轉變之研究─國家權力與教師專業自主的關係。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
塗絲宜。學校本位課程─談教師角色之轉換與困境。2001年12月1日取自www.chtes.tpc.edu.tw/react8916.htm。
葉淑花(1998)。國民中小學教師文化之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
楊益風(2001)。國民中小學教師在九年一貫課程改革中之角色衝突及其因應。國立臺北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
鄭世仁(1984)。國民中學教師角色衝突研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
鄭博真(2000)。國中教師對學校本位課程發展認知與態度之探討。教育研究,8,99-109。
鄭燿男(2001)。台南市國中小教師對九年一貫課程試辦階段問題之研究。國民教育研究集刊,9,117-135。
劉雅婷(2000)。學校本位管理教師角色知覺之研究─以臺北縣國民中小學為例。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市
蔡文山(2002)。學校本位課程發展之個案研究─從國小教師的觀點來探討。國教學報,14,217-243。
饒見維(1999)。九年一貫課程與教學革新。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會(主編),邁向課程改革與新紀元─九年一貫課程與教學革新(347-367頁)。臺北縣:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
Earl Babbie(1998)。社會科研究方法。臺北市:時英出版社。
Adams, R.S. (1970). Analyzing the teacher’s role. Educational Research, 56, 75-86.
Ashton, P. T. (1984). Teacher’s efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education.
Choi, Y. (1988) A teacher’s Role in England and Taiwan: A Comparative Study of The Two Societies. Ph. D. dissertation of Sheffield University.
Eisner, J. (1992). Curriculum ideologies. In P. W. Jackson(ED.), Handbook of research on curriculum(302-326). NY: Macmillan.
Friedman, I. A. & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self concept as a predictor of teacher burnout. Journal of Education Research, 86(1),145-254.
Fullan, M. & Park, P. (1981). Curriculum Implementation: A Resource booklet, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and school: A critical reader. Colorado: Westview Press.
Good, T. L. (1990). Building the Knowledge base of teaching. In Dill, D. D. (Ed) What Teacher Need To Know. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hargreaves,A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. TW: Rewood Books.Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C.G. (1987). Education administration-Theory, research, and practice (3rd). New York: Random House.
Hoy, W. & Ree, R. (1977). The bureaucratic socialization of student teacher. Journal of Teacher Education,84(5),723-765.
Hoyle, E. (1969). The Role of The Teacher. London: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.
Hoyle, E., & John,P.D.(1995). Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice. Cassell, Villies House.
Kyriakids,L.(1997).Influences on primary teachers’ practice : Some problems for curriculum change theory. British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 39-46.
Morrow, P. C., & Goetz, J. F. (1988). Professionalism as a form of work commitment. Journal of Vocational behavior,55(3),23-66.
Morrow & Torres (1995). Education, Fragmentation of Domination, and Postmodernism on Social Theory and Education: A Critique of Theories of Social and Cultural Reproduction. State university of New York Press.
Murphy, J. (1992). Restructuring American's schools: An overview. In C. E. Finn & T. Rebarber (Eds.), Education reform in the '90s ( 3-22). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Murphy, J.(1997). Restructuring through school-base management:insights for improving tomorrows schools. California:Corwin Press.
Owens, R. G. (1995). Organizational behavior in education. (5th Ed.) Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Prasch, J. (1990). Why School-Based Management? How to organize for school; Based Management (4-7,24-25). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No.ED 328944)
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1995). The Principal ship --A reflective practice perspective (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Torres, A.C. (1999). State and Education: Towards a Political Sociology of Education on the 2nd Taiwan Forum on Sociology of Education. National Taiwan Normal University.
Twyman, T. P. & Biddle, B. J. (1963). Role conflict of publish school teachers. The Journal of Psychology, 55,183-198.
Tyree, A. K. Jr. (1991). Analyzing Teaching Commitment: Theoretical and Empirical Dimensions.