Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124851
題名: 從教育職場選取看自我身分認同的呈現與互動 ──以華語文教師為例
On the identity of TCASL teachers from the perspective of educational workplace selection - A case study of TCASL teachers
作者: 楊偉儀
Young, Wai-Yee
貢獻者: 黃怡萍
Huang, Yi-Ping
楊偉儀
Young, Wai-Yee
關鍵詞: 自我身分認同
統傳華人文化
生涯規劃
自我定位
華語教師
Identity
Positioning
TCASL teacher
Chinese culture
日期: 2019
上傳時間: 7-Aug-2019
摘要: 目前語言教育學界關於自我身分認同的主流研究仍然以歐美地區為主,即便是華人地區的相關研究大部分亦以英語教學為主流,華語教學在自我身分認同上的相關研究少之又少。故本研究嘗試從自我身分認同的角度出發,以質性研究的方式進行個案研究,旨在探討在台灣已取得教師資格的國語文老師,為開拓工作領域而投身華語文教學,在完成超過兩年的華語師資培訓後,卻沒有選擇投身華語教育領域的整個歷程,自我身分認同在當中所呈現的面貌。本研究透過敍事及深度訪談,從話語文本內容加以分類、歸納,編碼進行分析,從中瞭解職場中不同因素對研究參與者的意義,探討研究參與者最後考慮不投身華語文教育領域的觀點與想法。\n研究分析結果發現,在追尋成為國語文教師的過程中,研究參與者皆認為自己有責任傳承人生經驗與智慧,尤其是他們認同中華文化是傳統的智慧與美德,對於身為華人的這個身分及作為教師的角色,讓他們立志成為國文教師。但是,他們也同時覺得台灣的國文教育給他們的印象是刻板的、沉悶的、為了成績評量而被限制的;因為要配合學生升學的需求,普遍的教學多是照本宣科,或是只側重試題操練。所以他們希望透過進入華語文教育的領域,學習不同的教學方法,使他們在教學內容的設計上更有彈性,讓教授中文不再沉悶、刻板。然而,最後他們均放棄成為華語文教師,考慮不投身華語文教育之中,除了因為覺得華語文教學主要以語法作為教學進程的主軸,未能真正與學生探究甚至傳承中華文化的深層意義外,亦因為台灣社會普遍認為華語文教師並非一份「穩定」的職業。因為現時在台灣就華語教師的工作環境、工作模式、工作地點皆比照補教業的工作模式與待遇,在職涯發展上存在大眾認為的「不穩定」因素,個人的薪資福利皆不被保障。故此,他們對於身為教師以及華人文化傳承者這兩個自我身分認同,在每一個職場選擇的轉變上,都起了極其重要的作用。\n研究參與者在面對職業選取時多翻轉折的心路歷程,讓我們相信面對現今台灣華語文教育的職場發展,加強對華語教師的工作模式的保障和穩定性,以及調整教學內容,增加文化內容的比重,以及如何平衡語法、文化以致整個溝通模式的學習形式和方向,都是十分重要的。
Prior research on self-identity in the field of language education is mostly conducted in western countries. In the Greater Chinese region, relevant studies are mostly associated with English teaching. There is still very little research on self-identity in Chinese teaching. This study attempted to conduct a qualitative case study from the perspective of self-identification, aiming to explore the process in which qualified Chinese teachers in Taiwan chose to embark on the training in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language (TCASL henceforth) to advance their careers and how their self-identities played out during this process. However, they chose to return to the Chinese language education field instead of developing their career in TCASL. Adopting narratives and in-depth interviews, this study classified, summarized, and analyzed the textual contents of discourse and unpacked the meaning behind different factors in the workplace, eventually discussing the viewpoints of participants on their career choices.\nThe research results indicated that, in the process of pursuing a TCASL teacher, all research participants believed that they had the responsibility to inherit the experience and wisdom of life, with the communal recognition in Chinese culture as the traditional wisdom and virtue and their own roles as a Chinese as well as a teacher. However, they also perceived that Taiwan’s Chinese education as rigid, dull, and constrained by scoring and evaluation. In compliance with students’ demands for further studies, their teaching was mostly framed by textbooks or test drills. Therefore, they hoped to enter the field of TCASL so that they could access different teaching methods and apply them to teaching contexts. In addition to cultural inheritance, their teacher role dominated their career changes. Despite the aforementioned efforts, they both gave up becoming TCASL teachers. One of them chose to return to Chinese language education while the other one quitted from the field of education because of the following two reasons. First, Chinese language teaching mainly looked at grammar as the instructional focus rather than the deep-level meaning of Chinese culture which dissatisfied these teachers. Second, The “unstable” factor in the TCASL profession the working environment, working mode and workplace of TCASL teachers in Taiwan are equivalent to those in the “shadow education” industry. Therefore, their self-identity as a teacher and an inheritor of Chinese culture played a crucial role in choosing their career path.\nOn the basis of the career choices of the research participants, the study suggests directions for potential development of Chinese language education in Taiwan, including the protection and stability of TCASLs` work, adjustment to the teaching contents, increase in ratio cultural input, balance of grammar, culture, and communication models.
參考文獻: 王秀槐 (2015)。從「以我為榮」到「證明自己」華人文化脈絡下知覺不同父母期待之大學生的生涯因應組型初探研究。輔導與諮商學報,37 (1),79-97\n王治理、藍莉蓉 (2013)。中國尋根之旅與文化認同及華文教育之關係。紹興文理學院學報,(33)5,112-116。\n王熙元 (1983)。國文教學的三個層面。教學與研究,5,147-152。\n王叢桂、羅國英 (2010)。華人工作價值與工作契合度對工作滿意度與組織承諾度的影響。應用心理研究,48,199-238.\n王叢桂、羅國英 (2010a)。自我發展與利他服務價值觀的融合:華人工作價值的變遷與發展。本土心理學研究,33,3-57。\n王叢桂、羅國英 (2009)。華人工作目的價值對個體面對生涯與家庭需求衝突時抉擇的影響。教育與心理研究,32 (1),81-109。\n田文彬、林月雲 (2003)。台灣歷年海外派遣管理研究分析。人力資源管理學報,3 (3),1-25。\n朱佩如 (2011)。看到韌性:歷經機構安置離院個案之自立生活經驗 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4a4745\n朱菀瑜、葉玉珠 (2003)。實習教師信念改變的影響因素之探討。師大學報,48 (1),41-65。\n何彩燕、黃源協 (2005)。社會工作師職涯轉換之研究─以縣市政府具轉任資格之社工師為例。臺灣社會工作學刊,4,78-109。\n余文森 (2006)。課堂教學有效性的探索。教育評論,6,46-48。\n吳俊憲、吳錦惠 (2015)。翻轉教室—啟動教室裡寧靜的革命。臺灣教育評論月刊,4 (6),174-178。\n吳蘭、秦薇 (2017)。“萬世師表”─孔子思想的探討。Chophayom Journal,28(3),332-341。\n李政賢(譯)(2006)。質性研究: 設計與計畫撰寫(原作者:Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B.)。臺北市:五南。(原著出版年: 1999)。\n李春慧 (2012)。異鄉夫子—華語教師。國立中興大學第23屆中興湖文學獎。取自ir.lib.nchu.edu.tw/bitstream/11455/87453/1/87417-41.pdf\n李盈瑩 (2014)。在臺華語教師與美籍華裔學生之文化認同印象對比探究 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3xhy6m\n李振清 (2005年6月)。華語文教學國際化的多元策略與實踐。「二十一世紀華語文中心營運策略與教學國際研討會」發表之論文,臺北臺灣師範大學國語教學中心。\n李振清 (2013)。全球中文熱趨勢─中華語教師培訓的國際化新思維。華文世界, 112,111-113。\n李菁菁 (2006)。華語熱與流浪教師的選擇─淺談華文教育類別與教師專業。師友月刊,466,21-26。\n李鴻文、劉慶湘與許哲昌 (2005年5月)。海外派遣人員之家庭因素對其海外適應之影響。「第一屆管理與決策2005年學術研討會」發表之論文,嘉義華南大學。\n汪光慧 (2010)。諮商師生涯轉換之質性研究:細說生命的轉彎處 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7mwa2g\n周祝瑛 (2009)。台灣地區師資培育政策之檢討與展望。中等教育,60 (3),8-20。\n孟樊 (2001)。後現代的認同政治。台北:揚智文化\n林佩璿 (2000)。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育研究所 (主編),質的研究方法。高雄市:麗文。\n林宜宏 (2012)。影響海外投資廠商員工接受派外意願之因素探討─以食品傳統產業投資亞洲為例 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4wy6x5\n林尚平、劉敏興、陳建龍 (2013)。職涯功能定位與專業承諾之關係:以工作滿意度為仲介變項。觀光休閒學報,19 (2),179-205。\n林素珠 (2010)。專書評論:移民的身影—試論《偶然生為亞裔人》的身分認同【偶然生為亞裔人,劉柏川著,尹萍譯】。取自http://hdl.handle.net/11455/87643\n\n林清江 (1996)。教育社會學。臺北市:臺灣書店。\n林欽惠 (2016)。德國中文教學概況—海外視角下的師資培育。臺灣華語教學研究,12,67-98。\n邱凡芸 (2013)。美籍華裔生學習華語文過程之身分與文化認同研究。僑教與海外華人研究學報,1,127-138。\n邱憶惠、高忠增 (2009)。成為一位幼教教師:教師認同之敘說探究。台南科大學報,28,155-176\n邱憶惠 (2007)。教師認同之敘說探究:以一位幼教教師為例。屏東教育大學學報,29,1-34\n邵彤 (2011)。中西方社會文化差異在跨文化交際中的表現。瀋陽工業大學學報,4 (1),92-96。\n侯詩瑜 (2009)。國語日報華語教師文化教學現況調查與研討 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ap7258\n柳玉芬 (2009)。華語和越南語的名詞詞組與不定數詞的關係研究。中原華語文學報,4,161-183。\n柳玉芬 (2013)。海外華語文教師跨語言,跨文化的自我師資培訓。僑教與海外華人研究學報,2,131-143。\n洪佳音 (2013)。從華僑教育走向華文教育-以韓國大邱華僑小學為例 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/zwyqn5\n洪紹榮 (2004)。組織認同、領導風格與海外派遣員工工作投入關係之研究 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5whtuq\n紀慧君 (2002)。建構新聞事實:定位與權力 (博士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7zd9qg\n夏艷文 (2012)。日商日籍員工外派台灣及中國大陸的工作績效及其海外適應之探討及比較。商業現代化學刊,6 (3),117-142。\n孫二軍 (2011)。教師專業發展中的身分認同與認同危機。現代教育管理,2,87-89。\n翁秀琪 (1998)。 批判語言學、在地權力觀和新聞文本分析:宋楚瑜辭官事件中李宋會的新聞分析。新聞學研究,57,91-126。\n翁秀琪 (2001)。集體記憶與認同構塑-以美麗島事件為例。新聞學研究,68,117-149。\n高旭繁 (2013)。通往華人幸福之路:性格特質與文化價值的雙重作用。本土心理學研究,39,165-214。\n張文琳 (2013)。英格蘭中學中文教學助理之培訓及其角色探究 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3756z6\n張應強 (2009)。大學教師的社會角色及責任與使命。清華大學教育研究,30 (1),8-16。\n莊詩婷、陳致嘉 (2007)。必也[正名]乎─ 一位國中女教師追尋生命位置的敘說探究 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/azd9fs\n許功餘、王登峰、楊國樞 (2001)。台灣與大陸華人基本性格向度的比較。本土心理學研究,16,185-224。\n郭生玉 (1994)。影響教師工作心厭因素之分析研究。教育心理學報,27,63-79。\n郭宇濠 (2016)。從獅子山精神看財富不均現象:我們應否承傳獅子山精神?。文化研究@嶺南,55,2。\n郭學君 (2018)。教師領導的雙重身分認同。現代教育管理,3,71-76.\n陳木金、謝紫菱與邱馨儀 (2006)。國民小學的學校學習文化評鑑指標建構之研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊,1,51-81。\n陳木金、蔡文傑 (2013年5月)。學校效能評鑑的新觀點:組織有機化影響程度之研究。「永續發展的教育行政與評鑑學術研討會:教育評鑑 (二)論文集」發表之論文,臺北市立教育大學。\n陳木金 (1999)。從學校組織文化塑造談如何增進學校領導效能。學校行政,3,14-29。\n陳木金 (1999a)。學校組織變革壓力與抗力對學校行政之啟示。學校行政,2,14-27。\n陳木金 (2000年12月)。談混沌理論在新世紀教育行政研究上的應用。「邁向新世紀的教育研究研討會」發表之論文,台北市中國教育學會。\n陳木金 (2012年8月):優質學校行政管理新取向的核心技術探討,「優質典範學校─行政管理優質」研討會發表之論文,臺北市教師研習中心。\n陳泓穎 (2016)。多變職涯態度與生涯適應力關係之研究─全生活觀點之仲介效果 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/c2tg4m\n陳婉真 (2008)。諮商理論與技術。臺北市:三民。\n陳雪妮 (2015)。海外中文班之專業華語教學志工師資需求。僑教與海外華人研究學報,5,85-102。\n陳鏗任、吳建華 (2006)。是故鄉,還是異鄉?從東莞台校學生的學習經驗看臺商子女的身分認同意象。 師大學報,51,173-193。\n陸洛、張婷婷、張妤玥。 (2012)。工作與家庭的意義對因應職家衝突的影響─ 華人雙文化自我觀之展現。本土心理學研究,37,141-189。\n陸洛 (2012)。海外派遣與全球職涯發展之新挑戰。T&D 飛訊,144,1-29\n舒兆民 (2016)。華語文教學。台北:新學林。\n黃依萍 (2007)。全球化流動現象下跨文化教師身分認同之研究 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/fn5ht8\n黃偉 (2002)。研究性學習課程:教師角色如何定位。全球教育展望,31 (4),21-24。\n楊川德 (2011)。臺東縣國小教師人格特質、專業承諾與職涯滿足關係之研究 (碩士論文)。取自http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0045-2903201313502204\n楊其玉 (2016)。技專及大學院校餐旅業界教師職涯轉換歷程之研究 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4vs6pe\n楊振昇 (2003)。教學領導與教師專業發展。教育資料集刊,28,287-318。\n楊國樞、陸洛 (2005)。社會取向自我實現者與個人取向自我實現者的心理特徵:概念分析與實徵衡鑑。本土心理學研究,23,71-143。\n楊雅嵐 (2009)。偶發事件對流浪教師生涯決定影響之敘說研究 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/j85ekv\n鄒靜珊 (2012)。台灣海外實習學生之人格特質及工作價值觀之探討─以新加坡旅館實習為例。明新學報,38 (2),215-226。\n廖瑞鳳 (2005)。人格特質、情緒智力對工作績效的影響 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5sskd4\n熊德明、董澤芳 (2010)。高校教師專業發展的目標追求。現代教育管理,8,99-101。\n潘韻琪 (2013)。前進加拿大—從國小流浪教師到華語教師生命歷程之敘事研究 (碩士論文)。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/2retd3\n盧怡君 (2004)。尋找跨文化外語教學的理論模式-從認知觀點探討語言與文化之關係。臺德學刊,6,39-60。\n蕭惠之 (2013)。全球化下的華語學習潮─以在台外籍生為例 (碩士論文)。取自http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?docid=U0002-1410201316513600\n謝淑海、熊梅 (2014)。職前教師專業身分認同的理論發展與研究展望。教師教育學報,1 (6),10-17。\nAustin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford.\nBauman, R. (2000). Language, identity, performance. Pragmatics, 10 (1), 1-6.\nBurr, V. (1995). An introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.\nCastanheira, M. L., Green, J., Dixon, C., & Yeagerb, B. (2007). (Re) Formulating identities in the face of fluid modernity: An interactional ethnographic approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 46 (3), 172-189.\nCreswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39 (3), 124-130.\nDavies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20 (1), 43-63.\nDavies, R. (1989). Signing Away Canada’s Soul: Culture, Identity, and the Free Trade Agreement. Harper`s, 278 (1664), 43-7.\nDewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan.\nDewey, J. (1966). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan.\nFitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2014). Language ideologies of Arizona voters, language managers, and teachers. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13 (1), 34-52.\nGergen, K. J. (1999). An Invitation to Social Construction. London: Sage.\nGergen, K. J. (2001). Social Construction in Context. London: Sage.\nGlaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1-19.\nHall, S. (1996). Who needs identity?. Questions of Cultural Identity. 16 (2), 1-17.\nHarré, R., & Slocum, N. (2003). Disputes as complex social events: On the uses of positioning theory. Common Knowledge, 9 (1), 100-118.\nHenriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C. V., Venn, C. (1984). C. & Walkerdine, V. (1984). Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity. London: Routledge.\nKaravas, E., & Drossou, M. (2010). How amenable are student teacher beliefs to change? A study of EFL student teacher beliefs before and after teaching practice. Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers, 261-276.\nKeesing, R. M. (1974). Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3 (1), 73-97.\nLiddicoat, A. J. (2004). Modern Languages: Learning and Teaching in an Intercultural Field. [Review of the book by Alison P. & Gonzales, M.]. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, Vol.6 (3), p.250-253.\nLincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing Trustworthiness. Naturalistic Inquiry, London: Sage. 289 – 331.\nMaslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370.\nMerriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\nMiles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage.\nMoore, E. L. (2012). Language and Social Identity Construction: A Study of a Russian Heritage Language Orthodox Christian School. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6c84k7t5\nOchs, E. (1993). Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (3), 287-306.\nOrtaçtepe, D. (2015). EFL Teachers’ identity (re) construction as teachers of intercultural competence: A language socialization approach. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14 (2), 96-112.\nOrtner, S. B. (1972). Is female to male as nature is to culture?. Feminist Studies, 1 (2), 5-31.\nPatton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: Sage.\nPeirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 9-31.\nPotter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.\nSchwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values - Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, 1-65.\nStritikus, T. T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of a teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2 (1), 29-52.\nTaylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.\nTollefson, J. W. (2004). Theory and action in language policy and planning. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 3 (2), 150-155.\nTrent, J. (2010). “My Two Masters”: Conflict, contestation, and identity construction within a teaching practicum. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (7), 1.\nTrent, J. (2010). Teacher education as identity construction: Insights from action research. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36 (2), 153-168.\nTrent, J. (2015). " Inclusive and Different?" Discourse, Conflict, and the Identity Construction Experiences of Preservice Teachers of English Language Learners in Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (10), 7.\nTrent, J., Gao, X., & Gu, M. (2013). Language teacher education in a multilingual context: Experiences from Hong Kong . Springer Science & Business Media, (10), 978-94.\nVarghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4 (1), 21-44.\nWeedon, C. (1987). Discourse, power, and resistance. Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, 107-135.\nWenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.\nWenner, J. A. & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 87 (1), 134-171.\nWetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 168–183). London: Sage.\nYork- Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004), What do we know about teacher leadership? findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74 (3), 255-316.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
103161001
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103161001
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
100101.pdf2.04 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.