研究生: |
林君齡 |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
國民中學學校教師會運作之微觀政治個案研究 |
指導教授: |
潘慧玲
Pan, Hui-Ling 王麗雲 Wang, Li-Yun |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
教育學系 Department of Education |
論文出版年: | 2001 |
畢業學年度: | 89 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 175 |
中文關鍵詞: | 學校教師會 、微觀政治 |
英文關鍵詞: | School Teachers' Association, micropolitics |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:188 下載:54 |
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 |
學校教師會的成立對校長、行政單位或整個學校組織生態都產生很大的衝擊,為深入探討學校教師會對學校所產生的影響或細微的改變,本研究以微觀政治的角度,希望瞭解國中學校教師會與行政單位間實際互動的情形、從實務面來分析教師會與行政單位間的權力關係,雙方互動時,各自所運用的權力策略,以及影響學校教師會與行政單位互動的因素。
本研究採質性個案研究,以一所國民中學為研究對象,以訪談、觀察及文件資料分析的方法來蒐集資料回答研究問題。我從民國八十九年十一月開始進行前導研究,並開始進入現場蒐集資料,一直到九十年五月退出現場。期間訪談十六位受訪者,包括行政人員、非行政人員,此外,平均每一星期有一次的現場觀察。在過程中,亦會蒐集各類相關的文件,以作為資料分析的參考。
本研究發現大順國中在教師會初成立時,因教師想要改變學校過去由上而下的運作模式,再加上雙方剛接觸,對於溝通的方式或技巧都不熟悉,因此造成彼此的衝突,也因此影響學校內的組織氣氛。經過一段時間的衝突,受到關鍵人物-校長以及第三屆教師會會長的引導,而漸漸地改變教師會與行政單位間緊張的氣氛。最後,透過教師會與行政單位間不斷的溝通、磋商,使得行政單位改變權力支配的觀念,逐漸地以權力分享的態度來看待教師會的存在。
本研究的發現臚列如下:
一、個案學校教師會的成立使學校生態產生衝突逐漸過渡至穩定的轉變。
二、透過不斷地磋商互動,教師會與學校行政單位改變權力支配的關係,逐漸走向權力分享的關係。
三、不同時期的互動關係,影響教師會與行政單位所運用的權力策略。
四、教師本身對教師會存在的態度與認知影響教師會與行政單位間的互動。
依據研究發現,提出對學校教師會、行政單位以及後續研究的建議:
一、對學校教師會的建議
(一)改變教師的認知,增加教師對教師會的認同與參與。
(二)教師會應訂定短期、中期、長期的具體運作目標。
(三)加強教師的法學與學校革新專業素養。
(四)教師會爭取教師權益時,應以學生權益為優先考量。
二、對學校行政單位的建議
(一)校長及行政人員應改變過去威權的領導方式。
(二)學校應改變以往集權式的決策歷程,開放教師會參與學校不同類型的會議,以減少紛爭並確保決策品質。
(三)行政單位應建立與教師會間的溝通方式,逐漸培養雙方認同的互動模式。
三、對後續研究的建議
(一)研究對象與研究主題方面
1. 以不同地區、層級,或不同運作情形的學校或教師會作為研究對象。
2. 探討學校中不同的團體,如家長會。
3. 以教育革新為研究主題。
(二)研究觀點
1. 繼續以微觀政治的角度來探討。
2. 以組織生命史的角度來探討。
The establishment of School Teachers Association had great impact on school principals, the administrative system and the ecology. In order to investigak the effects of School Teachers Association, this study employed the perspective of micropolitics to explore the interaction between School Teachers Association and the administrative system in a junior high school. The aim of the research was to analyze the micropolitics of power relation and the tactics employed in the school and to single out the factors that may affect the interaction.
To unravel the intricate relationship between School Teachers Association and the administrative system and to have a holistic picture of the impact it exerts on schools and the minor changes it causes, the research employed a qualitative case study, choosing one junior high school, Da-Shung, as the study subject and used methods such as interview and observation to collect data. The researcher spent roughly half an year in the field, from November 2000 to May 2001, interviewing sixteen famlty, including administrators and teachers, and observing once a week. Besides, relevant documents were collected..
After the half-an-year-long research, the researcher has the following findings:
Ⅰ. The establishment of School Teachers Association triggered a clash between members of School Teachers Association and the administrative system in the initial stage, which was later overcome. Then the school gradually stabilized.
Ⅱ. The power relationship between School Teachers Association and the administrative system, through constant negotiation, changed from power over toward power with.
Ⅲ. Ways of interaction during various phases influence the tactics employed by School Teachers Association and the administrative system.
Ⅳ. Teachers’ attitudes towards School Teachers Association had an influence on the interaction between School Teachers Association and the administrative system.
Below are some suggestions for School Teachers Association, the administrative system and further studies.
Ⅰ. For School Teachers Association
ⅰ(i) To change the mindset of teachers to earn their recognition and support.
(ii) To set short-term, medium-term and long-term goals which are concrete and attainable.
(iii) To strengthen teachers’ knowledge in laws as well as their professional ability to innovate schools.
(iv) Students’ rights should always come first while School Teachers Association tries to pursue interests for teachers.
Ⅱ. For the administrative system
(i) Principals and administrators should abandon the authoritarian approach to leading.
(ii) Schools should alter the authoritarian decision-making process, opening more seats in various meetings for members of School Teachers Association to eliminate conflicts and ensure the quality of decisions.
(iii) The administrative system should set up and lubricate a channel for communication with School Teachers Association and build a model for interaction.
Ⅲ. For further studies
ⅰ(i) With regard to participants and main theme:
(a) To recruit participating school or School Teachers Association of different areas, school levels or operating systems.
(b) To study various interest groups in schools like Parents Association.
(c) To take educational innovation as the main theme.
(ii) With regard to research perspective:
(a) To explore the theme in the light of micropolitics further.
(b) To analyze the situation from the angle of the history of organization life.
丁志權(1996)。「教師法三會」的設計與評析。台灣教育,544,6-10。
方鴻鳴(1998)。教育向前行:教師會功能及運作問卷調查。教師天地,94,58-63。
王麗雲、潘慧玲(2000)。教師彰權益能的概念與實施策略。教育研究集刊,44,173-199。
王麗雲、潘慧玲(2001年4月)。以彰權益能觀點檢核學校教師會運作。發表於台灣師範大學主辦:學校革新研討會,台北。
白世文(1997)。台北市國民小學教師會參與學校行政決定之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所,未出版。
朱監章主譯、黃紀、陳忠慶和譯,Isaak, A. C.著(1990)。政治學的分析法。幼獅文化事業公司。
朱輝章 (1998)。我國學校組織之研究—以教師會為中心。高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
吳芝儀、李奉儒譯,Patton, M. Q.著(1995)。質的評鑑與研究。台北:桂冠。
吳清山 (1996a)。大家一齊來關心學校教師會的成長。北縣教育,15,12-14.
吳清山 (1996b)。教師權力的定位與展望。教師人權,76,20-26。
汪明生、朱斌妤(1999)。衝突管理。台北:五南。
李建興 (1996)。教師會及其因應之道。台灣教育,544,2-5。
李貴山 (1996)。教師會的定位探討。北縣教育,15,26-29。
李錦旭譯(1987)。教育社會學理論。台北:桂冠。
林佩璇(2000)。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究主編:質的研究方法(頁199-221)。高雄:麗文。
林海清 (1998)。教師會組織的角色定位及其運作之探討。台中師院學報,12,191-208。
林美玲(1993)。象徵互動論及其在教育上的應用。教育資料文摘,186,142-162。
林姿伶(2000年7月21日)。教師會,可怕嗎?自由時報,15版。
馬起華(1981)。政治社會學。台北:正中。
胡幼慧(1999)。質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北:巨流。
胡愛玲(1989)。淺析符號互動論。民意月刊,142,3-22。
姜得勝(1997)。符號互動論初探。教育資料文摘,40(6),172-178。
高玉潔(1998)。學生次文化之研究—以桃園縣一所國中學生為例。國立師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
高義展 (1998a)。中、美、英三國教師組織之比較研究。教育研究,6,223-241。
高義展(1998b)。國民小學學校教師會組織功能、影響型態與學校效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
涂慶隆 (1998)。國民小學學校教師會集體協商功能及其運作歷程之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
徐江敏、李姚軍(1992)。日常生活中的自我表演。台北:桂冠。
許籐繼(2000)。學校組織權力建構之研究。國立台灣師範大學博士論文,未出版。
曹學仁(1997)。高級中學校長權力運用之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
梁文蓁(2001)。中學女性校長權力運用之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
黃旭鈞、楊益風 (1996)。我國教師組織的困境與突破。教育資料與研究,8,28-32。
黃宗顯(1999)。學校行政對話研究—組織中影響力行為的微觀探討。台北:五南。
黃瑞琴(1996)。質的教育研究方法。台北:心理。
黃政傑、張芬芬、蔡敏玲、黃瑞琴、孫敏芝、熊召弟、陳添球、方德隆、劉蔚枝、曾惠敏及王錦珍(1998)。質的教育研究:方法與實例。台北:漢文。
張明輝(1998)。學校行政革新專輯。台北:國立台灣師範大學。
張明輝(2000)。學校組織的變革及其因應策略。[www page]URL http://web.cc.ntnu.edu.tw/minfei/(2000.11.1下載)。
張慶勳(1996)。學校組織行為。台北:五南。
張輝山(2000)。教師會組織的修訂。全國教師會,[www page]URL http://www.nta.tp.edu.tw(2000.10.31下載)。
張容雪 (1999)。學校教師會運作情形之研究—以台北縣學校為例。台灣師範大學教育系碩士班論文,未出版。
張馨怡(2000)。學校行政對話權力及其對學校革新影響之研究。台灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
張純英 (1998)。「教師會」何去、何從。教師天地,94,54-55。
陳平和、周新富 (1999)。教師會的功能、任務與運作方式。教育資料文摘,235,92-110。
陳年、黃恩齡、李翠蓉(1996)。推著教師會向前跑—北高兩市與省得三大關鍵力量。師說,99,24-28。
陳文燦(1997)。我國國民小學教師對教師會組織之態度研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所,未出版。
陳月秀 (1996)。教師會的組織與功能研討座談會紀實。北縣教育,15,32-41。
陳建銘(1995)。高雄地區國民小學團體動力之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
陳鵬飛(1999)。高雄縣市國民小學教師會現況及其相關因素之調查研究。台南師範學院國民教育研究所,未出版。
陳奎喜(1997)。教育社會學研究。台北:師大書苑。
陳奎喜(1998)。現代教育社會學。台北:師大書苑。
彭富源 (1997)。學校教師會與教師專業自主。台灣師範大學教育系碩士論文,未出版。
馮蘋 (1996)。從教師法談教師專業自主與學校教師會。教師實習輔導季刊,3(2),33-36。
蔣興儀 (1997)。權力、溝通與責任—教師會組織運動之研究。政治大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
蔡麗英 (1998)。淺談教師會困境二三事。教師天地,94,48-50。
蔡麟譯(1980)。權力、政治與組織。台北:巨流。
蔡培村(1985)。國民中小學校長領導特質、權力基礎、學校組織結構及組織氣候與教師工作滿足之比較研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
蔡東鐘(1999)。符號互動論在教育上的應用之探討。國教之聲,34(4),33-45。
劉軍寧(1992)。權力現象。台北:台灣商務。
賴金河、何福明 (1996)。從教師法看教師會的功能與運作。北縣教育,15,17-20。
謝文全(1997)。教育行政-理論與實務。台北:文景。
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。
藜明、張愈敏等 (1996)。校園新三角關係—教師會、家長會愈學校行政部門的互動專刊。師說,99,19-23。
羅虞村(1990)。權力的意義、類型與用法。人事月刊,10(6),8-15。
Anderson, G. L. (1991). Cognitive politics of principals and teachers: Ideological control in an elementary school. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation(pp.120-138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Toward a theory of school organization. London: Methuen.
Blasé, J. (1987). Politics interactions among teachers: Sociocultural context in the school. Urban Education, 22, 286-309.
Blasé, J. (1989). The micropolitics of the school: The everyday political orientation of teacher toward open school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 377-407.
Blasé, J. (1991). The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Blasé, J. & Anderson, G. L. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York: Teachers College Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cilo, D. C. (1994). Micropolitics: Empowering principals to accomplish goal. Nassp Bulletin, 78(564), 89-96.
Chu, Zi-Chun (1998). Micropolitical behaviors of principals and the effect on student achievement in Taipei junior high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas.
Corbett, H. D. (1991). Community influence and school micropolitics: A case example. In J. Blasé. (Eds.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 73-95). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dahl, R. A. (1963). Modern political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement and their correlates. New York: The Free Press.
Everhart, R. B. (1991). Unraveling micropolitical mystiques. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 455-464.
Fayol, H.(1949). General and industrial management. London: Sir Isaac Pitman.
French, J. R. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In C. Wright (Ed.), Studies in social power(pp.118-149). New York: The University of Michign Press.
Getzels, J. & Guba, E. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process. The School review, 65, 423-441.
Greenfield, W. D. (1991). The microploitics of leadership in an urban elementary school. In J. Blease (Ed.), The politics of life in school: Power, conflict, and cooperation ( pp. 161-184). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gougeon, T. D., Hutton, S. I., & McPherson, J. L. (1993, April). A phenomenological study of leadership: Social control theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Reasearch Association, Boston.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior. London: Prentice-Hall.
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.
Hoyle, E. (1999). The two faces of micropolitics. School Leadership & Mgement, 19(2), 213-223.
Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In J. Blasé. (Eds.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 46-72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hall, P. M. (1972). A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of Politics. Sociological Inquiry, 42(3), 35-75.
Innaccone, L. (1991). Micropolitics of education, what and why. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 465-471.
Lindle, J.C. (1996). Q & A on surviving school micropolitics. Curriculum Review, 95(7), 5-6.
Lortie, S. (1974). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lukes, S. (1980). Power: A radical view. Haung Kong: Macmillan Press.
Malen, B. (1995). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in school polities. In J. D. Scribner & D. H. Layton (Eds.), The study of politics: the 1994 commemorative yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (1969-1994)(pp. 147-168). London: The Falmer Press.
Marshall, C., and Scribner, J. D. (1991). “It’s all political.” Inquiry into the micropolitics of education. Education and Urban Society, 23 (4), 347-355.
Marshall, C. & Mitchell, B. A. (1991). The assumptive worlds of fledgling administrators. Education and Urban Society, 23, 396-415.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mangham, I. (1979). The politics of organizational change. London: Assiated Business Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1995). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(2nd ed.)(吳芝儀、李奉儒譯,質的評鑑與研究).台北:桂冠。(Original work published 1990)
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Patrick, B. L. (1995). Perceptions of teachers’ micropolitical behavior during change: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Miami.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pounder, D. G. & Blasé, J. ( 1988). Principal favoritism: Explanations, effects, and implications for practice. Planning and Changing, 19, 3-7.
Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational behavior (8th ed.)(李青芬、李雅婷、趙慕芬譯,組織行為學).台北:華泰。(Original work published 1989)
Riseborough, G. H. (1981). Teacher careers and comprehensive schooling: An empirical study. Sociology, 15, 352-380.
Smelser, N. J. (1995). Sociology(4th ed.) (陳光中、秦文立、周愫嫻譯,社會學). 台北:桂冠。(Original work published 1991)
Smylie, M. A. & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals: Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational Aderministration Quarterly, 28, 150-184.
Stake, R. E.(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific management. New York: Harper.
Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Willower, D. J. (1991). Micropolitics and the sociology of school organizations. Education & Urban Society, 23(4), 442-454.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. 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 & Management, 19(2), 189-195.
Wartenberg, T. E. (1990). The forms of power: From domination to transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.