體育課師生權力互動－以微觀政治觀點探討

Power interaction between teachers and students in physical education class: A study from a micropolitical view

10.6223/qcpe.202112_35(4).0001

陳履賢(Lu-Hsien Chen)；林靜萍(Ching-Ping Lin)

師生互動 ； 權力關係 ； 學生中心 ； teacher-student interaction ； power relations ； student centered

中華體育季刊

35卷4期（2021 / 12 / 01）

209 - 216

繁體中文

體育教學師生互動一直是被重視的議題，但主要以探討互動之外顯行為為主，較缺乏互動本身的脈絡。微觀政治則能描繪師生權力角逐的互動脈絡，詮釋真實的面向。本文綜整微觀政治理論基礎，藉由微觀政治觀點探討體育課師生權力互動。在微觀政治觀點下教師與學生會依據自身利益，以不同策略爭取權力擁有。而在學生中心素養導向概念下，師生權力也逐漸往學生為主、教師為輔的方向轉變。是故，每個師生互動都存在著複雜的權力政治行為。師生互動仍是未來高度關注的議題，可進一步探討其互動背後代表的意涵及素養導向影響下，師生間權力流轉的樣貌。

Teacher-student interaction in physical education has always been a topic valued by researchers. The research mainly to explore the apparent interactive behavior. In contrast, the context and purpose of the interaction itself, the deeper content and meaning behind it are less well understood. The micro-political theory can more clearly perceive the power competition between teachers and students, and interpret more real aspects of the course of interaction. This article summarizes the theoretical basis and definitions of micropolitics, and discusses the interaction of power between teachers and students in physical education from the viewpoint of micropolitics. From the micro-political viewpoint, teachers and students strive for the possession of power according to their own interests and needs, and adopt different strategies to achieve preset goals. Under the core concept of student-centered literacy orientation, the rotation of power between teachers and students has also begun to shift in the direction of student-oriented and teacher-assisted. Therefore, behind every interaction between teachers and students, there are complex political behaviors arising from the pursuit of power. The research on teacher-student interaction is still a topic that needs high attention in the future. The meaning, purpose, and formation of teacher-student interaction can be further explored, as well as the transformation of the flow of power between teachers and students under the influence of literacy orientation.

1. 林岱樵(2016)。以傅柯權力觀談網球雙打的權力現象。運動文化研究，29，7-28。
   連結：
2. 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。
   連結：
3. 許殷宏,武佳瀅(2011)。班級內教師權力運作的微觀政治分析。中等教育，62(3)，114-131。
   連結：
4. 陳履賢,林靜萍(2015)。體育課教室生態之探討。中華體育季刊，29(4)，257-264。
   連結：
5. 鄭漢,李翊誠(2020)。體育課實施合作學習教學模式學習成效之行動研究—以高雄某國中為例。靜宜體育，13，1-21。
   連結：
6. Barbara, E. G.,Gareth, T.,Jenny, S.,Felicity, A. S. B,Christine, C.,Nicola, M. K.(2020).The micro-politics of caring: Tinkering with person-centered rehabilitation.Disability and Rehabilitation,42(11),1529-1538.
7. Battro, A. M.,Calero, C. I.,Goldin, A. P.,Holper, L.,Pezzatti, L.,Shalóm, D. E.(2013).The cognitive neuroscience of the teacher-student interaction.Mind, Brain, and Education,7,177-181.
8. Blase, J.,Anderson, G.(1995).The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment.London, England:Cassell.
9. Blase, J.,Blase, J.(2002).The micropolitics of instructional supervision: A call for research.Educational Administration Quarterly,38(1),6-44.
10. Boyd, R.(1991).Realism, anti-foundationalism, and the enthusiasm for natural kinds.Philosophical Studies,61,127-148.
11. Day, C.,Elliot, B.,Kington, A.(2015).Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment.Teaching and Teacher Education,1(5),563-577.
12. Delamont, S.(1983).Interaction in the classroom.London:Methuen.
13. Doyle, W.(1977).Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness.Review of research in education,Itasca, IL: Peacock:
14. Fink, J.,Siedentop, D.(1989).The development of routines, rules, and expectations at the start of the school year.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,8,198-212.
15. Foucault, M.(1980).Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977.New York:Random House.
16. Giudici, A.(2021).Teacher politics bottom-up: Theorising the impact of micro-politics on policy generation.Journal of Education Policy,36(6),801-821.
17. Hastie, P. A.,Siedentop, D.(2006).The classroom ecology paradigm.The handbook of physical education,London:
18. Iannaccone, L.(1991).Micropolitics of education: What and why.Education and Urban Society,23(4)
19. Lindqvist, H.,Weurlander, M.,Wernerson, A.,Thornberg, R.(2020).Conflicts viewed through the micro-political lens: Beginning teachers’ coping strategies for emotionally challenging situations.Research Papers in Education,35(6),746-765.
20. McCaughtry, N.,Tischler, A.,Flory, S. B.(2008).The ecology of the gym: Reconceptualized and Extended.Quest,60,268-289.
21. Pradeep, R. J.(2017).Interaction of micropolitics and education quality in rural Karnataka.Journal of Educational Planning and Administration,31(3),225-242.
22. Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: Wiley. doi: 10.1037/11443-000
23. 卓冠維,王欣宜(2017)。特殊需求學生適應體育課程教學發展與現況。特殊教育與輔助科技，16，10-15。
24. 周新富(2018).教育社會學.臺北市:五南.
25. 林天祐(2004).教育政治學.臺北市:心理.
26. 林靜萍,許義雄(1993)。國中體育教學師生互動分析。體育學報，16，79-98。
27. 張威克(2000)。臺灣本土體育概念演進的系譜。運動文化研究，10，81-127。
28. 張蔣耀文,施登堯(2018)。學生中心教學之概念解析。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(7)，164-177。
29. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校健康與體育領域綱要。臺北市：教育部。
30. 陳正專(2019)。十二年國教學校體育課素養導向教學之因應策略。臺南大學體育學報，14，1-14。
31. 陳玉枝(1995)。體育課學生行為分析。體育學報，20，111-122。
32. 陳幸仁(2016)。國小校長推動特色學校之歷程：微觀政治領導矩陣之探究。教育學報，44(1)，79-102。
33. 羅玉枝(2017)。大學體育課師生互動行為之探討。人文社會科學研究，11(4)，50-65。

1. 陳履賢,金姵妏,王彥邦(2022)。遠距體育教學師生互動之概況。淡江體育學刊，25，33-45。
2. 潘敏,徐偉庭,林國華,吳伯龍(2023)。體育課三構面教師自主支持量表中文化與信效度檢驗。臺灣體育運動管理學報，23(2)，357-384。
3. (2024)。權力距離在教育領導領域的發展與實踐。學校行政，152，110-127。