Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128987
題名: 國中導師與專任輔導教師在專業典範下的跨專業合作差異:導師觀點
A study of interprofessional collaborative difference between homeroom teachers and specialized counseling teachers under professional paradigms in junior high school: a perspective from tutoring teachers
作者: 戴芳儀
TAI, FANG YI
貢獻者: 陳婉真
戴芳儀
TAI, FANG YI
關鍵詞: 導師
輔導教師
專業典範
跨專業合作
homeroom teachers
professional paradigms
tutoring teachers
interprofessional collaborations
日期: 2019
上傳時間: 2-Mar-2020
摘要: 隨著社會變遷,家庭結構以及社會問題的改變,青少年的輔導議題日趨複雜,輔導教師已難以獨自工作,導師與輔導教師的合作更是輔導效能提升的重要關鍵。過去研究多探討導師與輔導教師合作關係的外顯因素,研究對象亦多以輔導教師的觀點為主,然而,導師的觀點與看法對於突破合作困境亦有其重要性。鑑於此,本研究以導師為研究對象,透過一對一的半結構式質性訪談,理解國中導師與專任輔導教師的合作現況與困境、導師與輔導教師專業典範的內涵及其差異以及導師觀點下的學生角色知覺對導師與輔導教師合作關係的影響。\n本研究結果如下\n一、導師與輔導教師的跨專業合作現況\n(一)學生輔導工作差異\n在個別輔導方面,導師及時發現學生問題並第一線輔導學生,輔導教師依學生狀況提供進一步輔導;在親師溝通方面,導師直接與家長聯繫並解決家長的挫折與困境,輔導教師提供導師諮詢,間接協助家長處理問題;在系統合作方面,導師協助學生尋找資源,輔導教師提供專業資源。\n(二)專業典範的差異\n導師以全體學生為單位;輔導教師以個別學生為單位;導師以班級規範為優先,輔導教師則關注學生心理狀態;導師重視資源引入,輔導教師則重視跨系統合作。\n(三)導師輔導學生的優劣勢\n1.導師能夠及時發現學生問題,導師與學生相處時間較長,對於學生狀況最為清楚。\n2.導師與家長較為熟悉,也較能信任導師。\n3.導師可以直接告訴學生自己的想法,不用擔心破壞關係。\n(四)導師輔導學生的劣勢\n1.導師班級學生眾多,時間有限,因而感到心有餘而力不足。\n2.導師需要一視同仁,難以給予學生常規的寬待。\n3.導師管教角色與輔導角色容易產生衝突。\n4.學生發生問題導師首當其衝,易受到各方責難。\n5.導師自認專業知能不足,難以直搗問題核心。\n二、導師知覺學生面對雙師所呈現的不同樣貌\n(一)導師知覺學生認為導師與輔導教師的專業場域不同\n導師認為受輔學生會認為自己與導師的校園生活圈太過重疊,擔心告訴導師自己的事情;輔導教師與受輔學生的生活圈較有距離,對學生而言也無利害關係,所以學生較不需擔心告訴輔導教師自己的秘密。\n(二)導師知覺學生認為導師與輔導教師的工作順序不同\n導師初步了解事發經過後,就會開始聯繫校方人員以及家長,以進行後續的行為處置以及管教的介入,因此學生對導師有所顧忌;輔導教師會先穩定學生的情緒,確認學生心理狀況並詢問學生事情的原委後再進行後續的處理,學生不用擔心會立即受到懲罰或處分,因此對輔導教師較能卸下心防。\n(三)導師知覺學生認為導師與輔導教師的角色功能不同\n導師認為當學生遇到學校生活瑣事或是課業、班級事務問題,會傾向請導師協助;如果遇到心理方面的困擾,就會尋求輔導教師的協助,以抒發自己的情緒並尋求後續的協助。\n(四)導師知覺學生對於導師與輔導教師的角色形象不同\n導師認為學生看待的導師角色形象如同父母:愛與管教兼具;看待輔導教師的角色形象則如同大姊姊:溫柔且無條件關懷。\n三、導師及輔導教師與學生關係差異\n(一)規矩嚴明的關係與規矩彈性的關係\n導師無法輕易調整班規並一再包容學生的違規行為,因此容易與學生發生衝突;輔導教師則能夠依照學生狀況給予常規的寬待,學生感到接納與包容。\n(二)一視同仁的關係與個別差異的關係\n導師以全體學生為優先,因此較無法滿足學生的個別需求,學生與導師關係較有距離;輔導教師更能關注學生的個別狀況,學生容易對輔導教師產生過度依賴。\n(三)約束管教的關係與情感支持的關係\n導師樹立權威嚴厲的形象以約束學生行為,學生對導師產生較多的防衛與擔心;輔導教師給予無條件的支持與關愛以穩固輔導關係,學生對輔導教師感到安心。\n最後,依據本研究之結果,對學校輔導實務及未來研究提出建議供參考。
With the changes of society, family structure and social problems, the counseling issues for teenagers are becoming more and more complicated. It is difficult for tutoring teachers to work alone. The cooperation between tutoring teachers and homeroom teachers is an important key to improve the effectiveness of counseling. In the past, most of the studies discussed the explicit factors of the cooperative relationship between tutoring teachers and homeroom teachers. In addition, most of the research objects focused on the perspectives of tutoring teachers. However, the opinions and views of homeroom teachers are also important for breaking through the difficulties of collaboration. Therefore, this study takes homeroom teachers as the research object. By the means of one-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews, it helps us to better understand the following points. First, the current situation and dilemma of collaboration between junior high school homeroom teachers and specialized counseling teachers. Second, the contents and differences of professional paradigms between homeroom teachers and tutoring teachers. Third, the impact of student roles perception on cooperative relationship between tutoring teachers and homeroom teachers from homeroom teachers’ point of view.\nThe results of this study are as follows:\nI. the current situation of collaboration between homeroom teachers and tutoring teachers\n(I) the difference of student counselling\nIn terms of individual tutoring, homeroom teachers find students’ problems in time and are in the front line to counsel them. Tutoring teachers provide further assistance depends on students’ condition. In terms of teacher-parent communication, tutoring teachers contact parents directly. Meanwhile, they assist parents to conquer their setbacks and dilemmas. Homeroom teachers consult with tutoring teachers to help parents in handling problems indirectly. In terms of system collaboration, homeroom teachers assist students to find resources and tutoring teachers provide professional resources.\n(II) the differences of professional paradigms\nHomeroom teachers take all the students as a unit and tutoring teachers take individual students as a unit. Homeroom teachers take class norms as priority and tutoring teachers take students’ mentality as priority. Homeroom teachers place importance on introduction of resources and tutoring teachers place importance on cross-system cooperation.\n(III) advantages of homeroom teachers counseling students\n1. Homeroom teachers can find students’ problems in time. They spend more time with students and know their situation best.\n2. Parents are more familiar with homeroom teachers, so they are able to trust homeroom teachers more.\n3. Homeroom teachers can fully tell students their thoughts. There are no worries about destroying relationship.\n(IV) disadvantages of homeroom teachers counseling students\n1. Homeroom teachers have a large number of students and limited time, so they are unable to do as much as they wish to.\n2. Homeroom teachers need to give equal treatment to every student and it is hard to relax regulations for individual student.\n3. It easily produces conflicts between disciplining students and counseling students.\n4. When students get in trouble, homeroomteachers bear the brunt of the blame from all parties.\n5. Homeroom teachers consider that their professional knowledge is insufficient. Consequently, it is difficult to go straight to core of the problems.\nII. homeroom teachers perceive that students behave differently when facing dual teachers\n(I) homeroom teachers perceive that students believe the professional fields between homeroom teachers and tutoring teachers are different.\nHomeroom teachers think tutored students have the thoughts that their campus life circle overlaps too much with homeroom teachers. As a result, they worry about telling homeroom teachers about themselves. Instead, tutoring teachers’ life circle are farther from tutored students. And for students, there is no stake in between. That’s why students don’t have to worry about telling the tutoring teachers their own secrets.\n(II) homeroom teachers perceive that students believe the work order between homeroom teachers and tutoring teachers are different\nFirst, homeroom teachers have a preliminary understanding of the incident. Then they will begin to contact school staffs and students’ parents for the follow-up actions and intervention of discipline. Therefore, students have scruples about homeroom teachers. The first thing that tutoring teachers do is to stabilize students’ emotions and confirm their mental condition. After asking students about the origin of the incident, they will proceed with follow up. Students don’t have to worry about being punished or punished immediately, so they can better open their mind to tutoring teachers.\n(III) homeroom teachers perceive that students believe the character functions between homeroom teachers and tutoring teachers are different\nHomeroom teachers consider that when students encounter chores in school life, homework and class issues, they tend to ask homeroom teachers for help. If they encounter psychological difficulties, they seek assistance from tutoring teachers to express their emotions and seek follow-up support.\n(IV) homeroom teachers perceive that students believe the character images between homeroom teachers and tutoring teachers are different\nHomeroom teachers think that students view them as parents because they give students both love and discipline. Tutoring teachers are like older sisters because they are gentle and give students unconditional care.\nIII. Differences in the relationship between homeroom teachers and tutoring teachers with students\n(I) the relationship between strict rules and loose rules\nHomeroom teachers cannot easily adjust the class rules and repeatedly tolerate students’ violations. As a result, it is easy for them to conflict with students. However, tutoring teachers can relax regulations according to students’ condition. Therefore, students feel accepted and tolerant.\n(II) the relationship between equal treatment and individual differences\nHomeroom teachers give priority to all students, so they are less able to meet the individual needs of students. And the relationship between students and homeroom teachers is more distanced. Tutoring teachers can pay more attention to individual situation of students. Consequently, students are more likely to become too dependent on tutoring teachers.\n(III) the relationship between discipline and emotional support\nHomeroom teachers establish an authoritative and rigorous image to restrict students’ behavior. Accordingly, students have more defense and worry about homeroom teachers. Tutoring teachers give unconditional support and care to stabilize tutor-student relationship. Hence, students feel relieved at tutoring teachers.\nFinally, based on the results of this study, suggestions are made for school counseling practice and future research for reference.
參考文獻: 中文文獻\n王為國(1995)。國小教師專業自主:一所國小的個案研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺中師範學院初等教育研究所,臺中市。\n王為國(2007)。從實務社群談課程發展與教師專業發展。課程研究,2(2),41-63。\n王敏鈺(2010)。國中導師信念對學生運用社區資源之影響--以福安國中課後社團為例(未出版之碩士論文)。東吳大學社會工作學系研究所,臺北市。\n王麗斐、杜淑芬(2009)。臺北市國小輔導人員與諮商心理師之有效跨專業合作研究。教育心理學報,41,295-320。\n王麗斐、杜淑芬、羅明華、楊國如、卓瑛、謝曜任(2013)。生態合作取向的學校三級輔導體制:WISER 模式介紹。輔導季刊,49(2),4-11。\n王麗斐、林淑君(2010)。國內諮商與心理治療質性研究之研究方法與研究題材之初步性整合分析。教育心理學報,41(4),799-822。\n朱文雄(1992)。班級經營。高雄市:復文圖書。\n江麗蘭(2007)。從社會學的觀點探索師生衝突中教師的角色與任務。彰化縣九年一貫電子報,171,1-10。\n吳芝儀(2005)。我國中小學輔導與諮商工作的現況與挑戰。教育研究月刊,134,23-40。\n吳姿瑩(2005)。國民中學輔導教師角色認同與角色實踐之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系,臺北市。\n吳昭儀(2009)。國民中學輔導教師之角色實踐。輔導季刊,45(2),30-36。\n吳耀明(2005)。國小班級經營問題及其解決策略之研究。臺東大學教育學報,16(1),113-147。\n呂如婷(2015)。國中輔導教師轉介學生接受精神醫療之歷程探究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學心理與諮商學系碩士班,臺北市。\n呂羿慧(2009)。從雙重關係談輔導教師在學校諮商中多重角色的困境。諮商與輔導,277,11-44。\n呂鳳鸞、翁雯惠、吳宗儒、黃馨瑩、吳芝儀(2015)。中小學學校輔導人員面臨的保密困境及因應策略。輔導季刊,51(3),58-67。\n宋湘玲、林幸台、鄭熙彥、謝麗紅(2008)。學校輔導工作的理論與實施增訂版。彰化:品高。\n李逢堅(2010)。國中導師對經常違規學生自我認同影響之研究。中華輔導與諮商學報,28,229-281。\n李新鄉、黃振恭(2009)。不同世代國民小學教師專業表現之相關研究。南台人文社會學報,1,1-30。\n李維倫、賴憶嫺(2009)。現象學方法論:存在行動的投入。中華輔導與諮商學報,25,275-321。\n杜淑芬、王淑玲(2014)。學校輔導教師與外部諮商心理師的團隊合作。諮商與輔導,337,4-7。\n周天賜(2006)。合作諮詢與融合。國民教育,47(1),20-30。\n周怡婷(2006)。國中資源班教師與普通班教師合作關係調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育所,臺北市。\n周麗玉(1997)。國中輔導模式初探。諮商與輔導,137,2-8。\n林佩君(2006)。學校社會工作師和教師專業合作歷程之研究-以臺北縣為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學社會工作學研究所,臺北市。\n林宜靜(2002)。影響國中導師尋求輔導諮詢相關因素之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所,高雄市。\n林金生(2003)。國民中學輔導教師工作壓力、因應策略與負向情緒經驗之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所,高雄市。\n林美珠(2000)。敘事研究:從生命故事出發。輔導季刊,36(4),27-34。\n林家興(2002)。中學輔導教師與專業輔導人員工作內容的時間分析。教育心理學報,33(2),23-39。\n林家興、洪雅琴(2001)。學校人員對國中輔導工作及專業輔導人員試辦方案之評估研究。教育心理學報,32(2),103-120。\n林容葵(2012)。國中兼任輔導教師在學校系統之合作經驗的困境與突破(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學心理與諮商學系所,臺北市。\n林清文(2007)。學校輔導。臺北市:雙葉書廊。\n林耀盛、蔡逸鈴(2012)。不可承受之重:癌末主要照顧者的心思經驗探究。教育與心理研究,35(3),37-66。\n邱小萍(1998)。國小級任教師輔導能力及相關因素之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺中師範學院國民教育研究所,臺中市。\n侯念佐(2001)。國中學生心目中優良教師特質之探討----以漫畫麻辣教師GTO為參照(未出版之碩士論文)。高雄國立師範大學教育所,高雄市。\n姚映如(2015)。國中教師對專任輔導教師角色知覺與角色期望之調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系所,彰化市。\n施青珍(2003)。從國中輔導室的角度談學校社會工作師對學生輔導的影響。學生輔導,85,96-105。\n洪莉竹(2001)。給理論一個家-理論在實務中的定位。諮商與輔導,185,a3。\n洪莉竹(2008)。中學輔導人員專業倫理困境與因應策略研究。教育心理學報, 39(3),451-472。\n洪薇嘉(2016)。國中初任專任輔導教師與學校教師個案輔導合作經驗之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系所,彰化縣。\n胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考。載於胡幼慧(主編),質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁141-158)。臺北市:巨流。\n郁雲龍(2011)。中輟之虞學生相關輔導人員之角色與協同合作經驗—以臺北市某國中為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北大學社會工作學系,新北市。\n夏敏(2000)。大學生對諮商服務的知覺暨影響求助意願因素之探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所,彰化市。\n徐芸萱(2015)。國中輔導教師如何突破與導師合作困境之經驗歷程研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學心理與諮商學系,臺北市。\n高淑清(2000)。現象學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(頁95-132)。高雄市:麗文文化。\n康秀月(2008)。國民中學輔導教師角色期望與角色實踐:輔導教師與一般教師之比較分析(未出版之碩士論文)。中原大學心理學研究所,桃園市。\n張佩娟(2004)。國中輔導教師社會支持與其輔導角色實踐相關之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所,高雄市。\n張芬芬(2002)。質性研究評鑑規準:各派觀點與發展趨勢。初等教育學刊,12,301-351。\n張芬芬(2005)。質性研究資料分析。臺北市:雙葉書廊。\n張芬芬(2010)。質性資料分析的五步驟:在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊,35,87-120。\n張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市:東華出版社。\n張臻萍(2010)。國中輔導教師與導師之溝通與衝突經驗的探究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系在職進修,臺北市。\n教育部(2004)。國民教育法施行細則。臺北市:教育部。\n教育部(2009)。教師法。臺北市:教育部。\n教育部(2012)。國民中小學聘任班級導師注意事項。臺北市:教育部。\n教育部(2013)。國民中學學校輔導工作參考手冊。臺北市:教育部。\n教育部(2014)。學生輔導法。臺北市:教育部。\n曹美蘭(2011)。國中班級導師對學校輔導人員之公眾形象知覺及其輔導諮詢經驗之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系所,彰化市。\n曹慧珠(2012)。導師制度與導師角色、工作內涵之探討。教育研究論壇,3(2)。\n許育光(2013)。國小輔導教師實務內涵初探:從困境與期待分析進行對話。中華輔導與諮商學報,38,57-90。\n許淑華、姜兆眉(2011)。諮商心理與社會工作在「家庭暴力暨性侵害防治中心」的跨專業合作經驗-從社工觀點反思諮商心理專業。中華輔導與諮商學報,30,24-53。\n許清練(2008)。輔導教師與導師合作歷程下的班級經營之行動研究~以三個國中班級為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學輔導與諮商研究所,高雄市。\n許維素(1998a)。學校輔導人員角色認定困境的突破。諮商與輔導,145,2-7。\n許維素(1998b)。輔導教師專業角色發展歷程之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所,臺北市。\n許維素(2001)。高中輔導教師推展學校輔導工作的行動發展歷程分析。暨大學報,5(1),1-29。\n許維素(2005)。輔導教師學校系統觀的重要性。輔導季刊,41(3),72-74。\n郭丁熒(1995)。我國國民小學教師角色知覺發展之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立高雄師範大學教育學系,高雄市。\n郭清榮(2002)。國民中學導師時間管理之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣師範大學教育學系在職進修,臺北市。\n陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市:五南。\n陳幸宜(2012)。導師如何知覺與輔導教師在學生輔導上的成功合作歷程(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學心理與諮商學系所,臺北市。\n陳秉華、程玲玲(2002)。學校輔導人員工作綱領之分析研究。教育部訓育委員會研究報告。\n陳金燕(2003)。自我覺察在諮商專業中之意涵:兼論自我覺察督導模式。應用心理研究,18,59-87。\n彭天福(2002)。回歸問題與專業的學校輔導工作。諮商與輔導,200,51-55。\n曾雅蘋(2016)。教師參與人際歷程取向諮詢之經驗分析(未出版之碩士論文)。中原大學教育研究所,桃園縣。\n程小蘋、林杏足(2003)。國中輔導教師對青少年個案身心特徵、晤談問題及諮商作法之知覺分析。彰化師大輔導學報,25,133-173。\n黃月霞(1991)。團體諮商。臺北市:五南。\n黃慧妮(2003)。國民小學導師角色期望與角色實踐之調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系,高雄市。\n楊宜蓁(2003)。國小教師人格特質與班級經營效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立東華大學教育行政與管理學系,花蓮縣。\n楊欣翰(2010)。中學輔導教師在學校系統的工作經驗探究—以新手教師為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系所,彰化縣。\n楊雅筑(2017)。臺北市國民中學輔導教師角色認同與角色實踐之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立大學教育行政與評鑑研究所教育行政碩士在職專班,臺北市。\n葉俞潔(2017)。國小專任輔導教師與導師合作之研究─利害關係人觀點(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學諮商與應用心理學系,臺中市。\n詹于璇(2018)。國小導師知覺雙師合作之調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。中原大學教育研究所,桃園縣。\n廖盈盈(2016)。雙師合作!雙司或雙失?專任輔導教師與導師合作經驗之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系,臺北市。\n趙文滔(2015)。中小學輔導教師跨系統合作之成功經驗探究。家庭教育與諮商學刊,19,1-31。\n趙祥和、陳秉華(2004)。發展大學輔導教師在校園合作輔導個案的工作架構。彰化師大輔導學報,26(2),17-36。\n趙慧芳(2010)。國民中學輔導教師專業承諾與工作滿意度之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系在職進修碩士班,臺北市。\n齊力、林本炫(2005)。質性研究方法與資料分析。嘉義縣:南華大學教育社會學研究所。\n劉芳綺(2011)。國中輔導教師人格特質、自我照顧與專業承諾之相關研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學心理與諮商學系,臺北市。\n劉春榮(1995)。一般大學選修教育學程與師範校院學生在教育專業認知及任教意願研究。臺北市:國立教育資料館。\n劉春榮(1995)。教師專業自主權與學生受教權的關聯。現代教育論壇-師生權利與義務研討會,臺北市立師院國教所。\n潘淑滿 (2003)。質性研究-理論與應用。臺北市:心理。\n蔡秀玲(2005)。我國大學相關人員對於優良導師評選看法之研究∼以銘傳大學為例(未出版之碩士論文)。銘傳大學公共事務學系碩士在職專班,臺北市。\n鄭安伶(2002)。國小教師對學校輔導工作及學生輔導觀點之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導研究所,屏東縣。\n鄭君紋(2009)。存在哲學的教育觀在國中班級經營上的運用。教師之友,50(5),27-38。\n賴怡妏(2006)。情緒教育融入綜合活動課程對國中七年級學生情緒智慧、同儕人際關係之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系,臺北市。\n謝欣霓(2011)。國中輔導教師透露晤談內容行動對晤談關係的影響及因應研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學心理與諮商學系,臺北市。\n羅清水(1998)。終生教育在國小教師專業發展的意義。研習資訊,15(4),1-7。\n蘇淑茹(2007)。普通班教師對與特教教師合作之觀點(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學特殊教育研究所,臺北市。\n \n英文文獻\nBronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.\nBrown, C., Dahlbeck, D. T., & Sparkman-Barnes, L. (2006). Collaborative relationships: School counselors and non-school mental health professionals working together to improve the mental health needs of students. Professional School Counseling, 9, 332-335.\nBrown, M. B. (2006). School‐based health centers: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84(2), 187-191.\nCarney, T. F. (1990). Collaborative inquiry methodology. Ontario, Canada: University of Windsor, Division for Instructional Development.\nClark, M. A., & Breman, J. C. (2009). School counselor inclusion: A collaborative model to provide academic and social‐emotional support in the classroom setting. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(1), 6-11.\nCollins, N., & Knowles, A. D. (1995). Adolescents` attitudes towards confidentiality between the school counsellor and the adolescent client. Australian Psychologist, 30(3), 179-182.\nConnell, W. P. (2012). Secondary school administrators’ attitudes toward confidentiality in school counseling. NASSP Bulletin, 96(4), 350-363.\nFarmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: an application of role identity theory. The 69 Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.\nFrench Jr, J. R., Israel, J., & As, D. (1960). An experiment on participation in a Norwegian factory: Interpersonal dimensions of decision-making. Human Relations, 13(1), 3-19.\nGlaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Co.\nGuba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\nGuba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), 105.\nHenderson, P., & Gysbers, N. C. (2006). Providing administrative and counseling supervision for school counselors. VISTAS: Compelling perspectives on counseling, 161-163.\nHenwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (1994). Beyond the qualitative paradigm: A framework for introducing diversity within qualitative psychology. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4(4), 225-238.\nHowieson, C., & Semple, S. (2000). The evaluation of guidance: Listening to pupils` views. British journal of guidance & counselling, 28(3), 373-387.\nHui, E. K. (1998). Guidance in Hong Kong schools: Students` and teachers` beliefs. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 26(3), 435-448.\nIdol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (2000). Collaborative consultation. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.\nIdol, L., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1995). The collaborative consultation model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 6(4), 329-346.\nKeys, S. G., & Bemak, F. (1997). School—family—community linked services: A school counseling role for changing times. The School Counselor, 44(4), 255-263.\nLepak, J. L. (2008). Teacher perceptions of school counselor effectiveness. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin.\nMallory, B. J., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). Balancing the load: How to engage counselors in school improvement. Principal Leadership, 7(8), 34-37.\nMcLaren, E. M., Bausch, M. E., & Ault, M. J. (2007). Collaboration strategies reported by teachers providing assistive technology services. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(4), 16-29.\nMcCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1966). Identities and interactions. New York, NY: Free Press.\nMead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.\nNigro, T. (2004). Counselors` experiences with problematic dual relationships. Ethics & Behavior, 14(1), 51-64.\nNigro, G., Comi, L. I., Politano, L., & Nigro, G. (2004). Cardiomyopathies associated with Muscular Dystrophies. In A. Engel & C. Franzini-Armstrong (Eds.), Myology (pp. 1239-1256). New York, NY: Mac Graw-Hill.\nO’Connell, W. P. (2012). Secondary school administrators’ attitudes toward confidentiality in school counseling. NASSP bulletin, 96(4), 350-363.\nOwens, R. G. (1987). Organizational behavior in education (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.\nPayzant, T. W. (1992). New beginnings in San Diego: Developing a strategy for interagency collaboration. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 139-139.\nPledge, D. S. (2004). Counseling adolescents and children: Developing your clinical style. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.\nRayle, A. D. (2006). Mattering to others: Implications for the counseling relationship. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84(4), 483-487.\nSarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting" The culture of the school and the problem of change". New York, NY: Teachers College Press\nSchultheiss, D. E. P. (2005). University-urban school collaboration in school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 330-336.\nSoodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1994). Teachers` thinking about difficult-to-teach students. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 44-51.\nStuder, J. R. (2008). The school counselor as an emerging professional in the Japanese educational system. International education, 37(2), 5.\nStuder, J. R., & Allton, J. A. (1996). The professional school counselor: Supporting and understanding the role of the guidance program. NASSP Bulletin, 80(581), 53-60.\nTauber, R. T. (1995). Classroom management: Theorand practice. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.\nTermini, A. M. (1991). Ecologically based interventions in residential and school facilities: Theory or practice? Adolescence, 26(102), 386-398.\nTodd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Homer, R. H. (2008). The effects of a targeted intervention to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 46-55.\nTompkins, L., & Mehring, T. (1993). Client privacy and the school counselor: Privilege, ethics, and employer policies. The School Counselor, 40(5), 335-342.\nWeist, M. D., Grady Ambrose, M., & Lewis, C. P. (2006). Expanded school mental health: A collaborative community-school example. Children & Schools, 28(1), 45-50.\nWest, J. F., & Idol, L. (1987). School consultation (part 1): An interdisciplinary perspective on theory, models, and research. Journal of learning disabilities, 20(7), 388-408.\nWeinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003). Culturally responsive classroom management: Awareness into action. Theory into practice, 42(4), 269-276.\nWhiston, S. C. (2004). Counseling psychology and school counseling: Can a stronger partnership be forged? The Counseling Psychologist, 32(2), 270-277.\nWilliams, R. L., & Wehrman, J. D. (2010). Collaboration and confidentiality: Not a paradox but an understanding between principals and school counselors. NASSP Bulletin, 94(2), 107-119.\nWood, J. T. (2002). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.\n 
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
輔導與諮商碩士學位學程
105172006
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105172006
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
200601.pdf1.4 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.