師不能嚴，道亦難尊？當代華人「尊師」之雙重內涵、功能及轉化

Can Knowledge (Dao) Be Honored Whether or Not the Teacher Is Respected? The Dual Connotations, Function, and Transformation of Respect for Teachers in a Contemporary Confucian Society

10.6254/IPRCS.202212_(58).0002

簡晉龍(Chin-Lung Chien)；黃仲平(Chung-Ping Huang)；許詩淇(Shih-Chi Hsu)

畏師 ； 師生倫理 ； 師生關係 ； 尊師重道 ； 權威取向 ； authoritarian orientation ； fear of teachers ； teacher-student ethics ； teacher-student relationships

本土心理學研究

58期（2022 / 12 / 01）

61 - 117

繁體中文;英文

傳統儒家社會對「尊師」的推崇，並不只是為了鞏固上位者（老師）的權威，而是認為學生尊師後，才能有好的學習。時至今日，由於受到西方平等價值的影響，尊師面臨部分學者與民眾之批評，被認為是威權象徵，應予廢除。到底尊師是好是壞？要延續或廢除？當代社會有正反兩極反應。從學術角度提問，本研究問題意識為：表面的尊師口號或行為，其背後是否有更複雜的心理意涵？不同的內涵帶來哪些不同的功能？尊師帶來好的學習嗎？又尊師下的不同內涵是否有轉化之可能？以上提問，對當前社會對於尊師與否的爭議，提供不同視角。為了對尊師有系統性理解，本研究採「由上而下」與「由下而上」並行的策略：先從本土理論出發，由上而下對尊師做初步理論分析，接著進行質性研究，採個別深度訪談由下而上蒐集質性資料，最後透過上下的對話與調和，發展尊師之概念架構。在深度訪談13位學生，資料分析後發現：尊師具「敬重師長」（敬師）與「畏懼師長」（畏師）雙重內涵；其中，敬師包含「視如尊長」與「心存敬重」，畏師包含「負向期待」與「心生畏懼」。進一步深入探討後發現：敬師與畏師各有不同的社會文化與成長經驗的來源。值得注意的是，作為類似性格的結構，一般化的敬師與畏師或許不易改變，但透過師生互動中的特殊機制，學生對特定教師的「敬」與「畏」的確有轉化之可能。更重要的，敬師與畏師對師生互動與學生學習發揮著不同作用與功能。「敬師」對師生互動與學生學習發揮正面功能，而「畏師」較可能產生負面作用，這或許可回應社會對於尊師之爭議，也可回應：「師不能嚴，道亦難尊？」的問題。綜言之，本研究的尊師概念架構，包含「敬師」與「畏師」之雙重內涵，可釐清當代民眾對尊師的爭議。從兩種內涵對師生互動與學生學習之影響來看，尊師中的「敬師」或許是在當代社會值得保留的內涵，對學習有幫助，但尊師中的「畏師」則須加以轉化。因此，尊師拆成「敬師」與「畏師」兩個內涵，要反思批判的是尊師中的「畏師」帶來的負向結果，並非「尊師現象」本身。期盼本研究對現代台灣教育現狀能提供更深刻的理解架構。

In traditional Confucian society, values emphasizing respect for teachers was not only important for solidifying the authority of the upper class (including teachers), people also believed that students can only learn well by respecting teachers. Essentially, respect for teachers was hierarchical and reverential. In modern times, some scholars and members of the public have applied the Western value of equality to criticize the traditional emphasis on respect for teachers. They regard respect for teachers as a symbol of authoritarianism that should be abolished. Numerous Confucian societies around East Asia may be facing the question of identifying the modern benefits and drawbacks of the traditional emphasis on respect for teachers. In this article, we examine several academic questions surrounding respect for teachers: Does the superficial phenomenon of the controversy over respect for teachers have more complex psychological implications and connotations? If so, what are the different functions corresponding to the different connotations? Does respect for teachers result in better learning? Is it possible to transform respect for teachers? Examining these questions can shed light on the current controversy over whether or not government policy should support the traditional values emphasizing respect for teachers. Most current teacher-student relationship theories originate from Western cultures. They cannot explain local phenomenon or controversies arising from the traditional emphasis on respect for teachers in Confucian societies. A culture-compatible theoretical conceptual framework is needed. We adopted parallel theoretical top-down and data-driven bottom-up strategies to develop such a framework. Starting with indigenous constructs and theories such as the principle of respecting the superior, authoritarian orientation, and the distinction between obligatory and actual affection, we conducted a preliminary theoretical top down analysis of respect for teachers. This analysis provided initial insight into respect for teachers. Next, we conducted qualitative individual in-depth interviews with 13 students (6 male and 7 female). Their mean age was 23.4. Template analysis of the transcripts revealed that respect for teachers contains the dual connotations of "reverence for teachers" and "fear of teachers." Each connotation encompassed two aspects: Reverence included regarding teachers as respectful elders, and treating teachers with reverence. Fear included a negative expectation of teacher-student interaction, and a feeling of dread toward teachers. Reverence and Fear stem from socio-cultural influences and personal experiences. With reverence for teachers, students regard teachers as respected elders or seniors in their family and treat them with due respect, which is a type of obligatory affection. Fear of teachers is developed through interactional experiences accumulated over time. It entails forming negative expectations of interaction with teachers and spontaneous fear, which is a type of actual (negative) affection. As a trait-like structure, generalized reverence for teachers and fear of teachers may be difficult to change. However, through specific mechanisms during teacher-student interaction, it is possible that a student's reverence for or fear of a particular teacher may be transformed. For example, if the teacher fulfills their teaching role, the student's respect for the teacher may grow from obligatory into actual affection. If the teacher treats students well and truly cares about them, students' fear will diminish. It is noteworthy that reverence for teachers may bring out the positive functions of teacher-student interaction and student learning, but fear of teachers may have a negative impact. In summary, in order to clarify the controversy over respect for teachers in contemporary society, we established a conceptual framework of respect for teachers that encompasses the dual connotations of reverence for teachers and fear of teachers. Based on the different impacts of each of these connotations on teacher-student interaction and student learning, the reverence component may be helpful for learning and worth preserving in contemporary society, but the fear component should be transformed. It is the fear component of respect for teachers that brings negative impact rather than the global phenomenon of respect for teachers. This study offers a more profound understanding of teacher-student relationships in Taiwan.

1. 杜永泰,洪莉竹(2008)。國小導師與學生關係分類指標之建構——以儒家關係主義理論為基礎。中華輔導與諮商學報，24，71-106。
   連結：
2. 林金定,嚴嘉楓,陳美花(2005)。質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊，3，122-136。
   連結：
3. 徐文鈺(2013)。影響大學生課堂主動發言的因素。當代教育研究季刊，21，41-80。
   連結：
4. 許詩淇,簡晉龍,陳貽照(2020)。只問盡義，不求享權？華人親子角色義務對權利正當性之影響。本土心理學研究，53，55-101。
   連結：
5. 陳舜文,魏嘉瑩(2013)。大學生學習動機之「雙因素模式」：學業認同與角色認同之功能。中華心理學刊，55，41-55。
   連結：
6. 楊中芳(1999)。人際關係與人際情感的構念化。本土心理學研究，12，105-179。
   連結：
7. 劉政宏(2009)。對學習行為最有影響力的動機成分？雙核心動機模式之初探。教育心理學報，41，361-384。
   連結：
8. 賴光祺(2008)。「輔導與管教辦法注意事項」修訂過程評析。中等教育，59，100-113。
   連結：
9. 簡晉龍,黃囇莉(2015)。華人權威取向之內涵與形成歷程。本土心理學研究，43，55-123。
   連結：
10. Ang, R. P.(2005).Development and validation of the teacher-student relationship inventory using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.The Journal of Experimental Education,74,55-73.
11. Birks, Y.,Roger, D.(2000).Identifying components of type-A behavior: “Toxic” and “non-toxic” achieving.Personality and Individual Differences,28,1093-1105.
12. Bogdan, R. C.,Biklen, S. K.(1998).Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods.Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
13. Chien、 C.-L.(2016).Beyond authoritarian personality: The culture-inclusive theory of Chinese authoritarian orientation.Frontiers in Psychology,7,924.
14. Chien、 C.-L.,Huang, L.-L.(2010).The social representations of students’ rights and obligations in Taiwan.10 International Conference on Social Representations,Tunis (Gammarth), Tunisia:
15. Chuang、 Y.-C.(1998).The cognitive structure of role norms in Taiwan.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,1,239-251.
16. Cook, W. L.,Kenny, D. A.(2005).The actor-partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies.International Journal of Behavioral Development,29,101-109.
17. Davis, H. A.(2003).Conceptualizing the role and influence of student teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development.Educational Psychologist,38(4),207-234.
18. den Brok, P.,Brekelmans, M.,Wubbels, T.(2004).Interpersonal teacher behavior and student outcomes.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,15,407-442.
19. den Brok, P.,van Tartwijk, J.,Wubbels, T.,Veldman, I.(2010).The differential effect of the teacher-student interpersonal relationship on student outcomes for students with different ethic backgrounds.British Journal of Educational Psychology,80,199-221.
20. Dolton, P.,Marcenaro, O.,de Vries, R.,She, P.-W.(2018).Global teacher status index 2018.UK:Varkey Foundation.
21. Fiske, S. T.,Berdahl, J.(2007).Social power.Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles,New York:
22. Han、 K.-H.(2016).The feeling of “face” in Confucian society: From a perspective of psychosocial equilibrium.Frontiers in Psychology,7,1055.
23. Huang、 H.-T.,Hsu, C.-C.,Chen, S.-W.(2015).Identification with social role obligations, possible selves, and L2 motivation in foreign language learning.System,51,28-38.
24. Hughes, J. N.,Luo, W.,Kwok, O.-M.,Loyd, L. K.(2008).Teacher-student support, effort engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study.Journal of Educational Psychology,100,1-14.
25. Hwang、 K.-K.(2015).Cultural system vs. pan-cultural dimensions: Philosophical reflection on approaches for indigenous psychology.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,45(1),2-25.
26. Hwang、 K.-K.(2015).Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interaction: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,45(1),40-63.
27. Jen, T.-H.,Lee, C.-D.,Chien, C.-L.,Hsu, Y.-S.,Chen, K.-M.(2013).Perceived social relationships and science learning outcomes for Taiwanese eighth graders: Structural equation modeling with a complex sampling consideration.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,11,575-600.
28. Miller, W. L.,Crabtree, B. F.(1999).Doing qualitative research.London:Sage.
29. Minichiello, V.,Aroni, R.,Timewell, E.,Alexander, L.(1995).In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis.London:Longman.
30. Pintrich, P. R.,Schunk, D. H.(2002).Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall Merrill.
31. Reeve, J.(2009).Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive.Educational Psychologist,44(3),159-175.
32. Roorda, D. L.,Koomen, H. M. Y.,Spilt, J. L.,Oort, F. J.(2011).The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach.Review of Educational Research,81,493-529.
33. Ryan, R. M.,Deci, E. L.(2000).Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American Psychologist,55(1),68-78.
34. Schlosser, L. Z.,Gelso, C. J.(2005).The advisory working alliance inventory—advisor version: Scale development and validation.Journal of Counseling Psychology,52,650-654.
35. Schlosser, L. Z.,Gelso, C. J.(2001).Measuring the working alliance in advisor-advisee relationships in graduate school.Journal of Counseling Psychology,48,157-167.
36. Schlosser, L. Z.,Lyons, H. Z.,Talleyrand, R. M.,Kim, B. S. K.,Johnson, W. B.(2011).A multiculturally infused model of graduate advising relationships.Journal of Career Development,38,44-61.
37. Spencer-Oatey, H.(1997).Unequal relationships in high and low power distance societies: A comparative study of tutor-student role relations in Britain and China.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,28,284-302.
38. Strauss, A.,Corbin, J.(1998).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
39. Turman, P. D.,Schrodt, P.(2006).Student perceptions of teacher power as a function of perceived teacher confirmation.Communication Education,55(3),265-279.
40. Wigfield, A.,Eccles, J. S.(2000).Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology,25,68-81.
41. Wubbels, T.,Brekelmans, M.(2005).Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class.International Journal of Educational Research,43,6-24.
42. Zayas, V.,Shoda, Y.,Ayduk, O. N.(2002).Personality in context: An interpersonal systems perspective.Journal of Personality,70(6),851-900.
43. 王邦雄(1983)。論師道尊嚴。鵝湖月刊，99，1。
44. 王淑俐(2008)。陪我看日出，牽手師生情。台灣教育，651，16-18。
45. 王爾敏(2010)。中國古代師道典範與尊師規儀。歷史教育，16，1-15。
46. 吳清基(2010)。老師，我愛您。師友，513，50-54。
47. 吳麗芬(2013)。跟老師溝通，不要怕！。人本教育札記，290
48. 巫淑華(2013)。中小學教師工作負荷量與待遇正常化。臺灣教育評論月刊，2，62-64。
49. 李星蕾,劉云生(2010)。傳統中國「師徒如父子」隱喻及其倫理關聯——師生關係之傳統塑造及現代轉型。十堰職業技術學報，23，15-19。
50. 林文瑛,王震武(1995)。中國父母的教養觀：嚴教觀或打罵觀？。本土心理學研究，3，2-92。
51. 林秀珍(2006)。文化傳統與現代師道。鵝湖月刊，376，5-13。
52. 林佳範(2004)。校園裡憲法的守護神——「尊師重道」新解。學生輔導，91，146-149。
53. 林欣宜(2015)。論中華文化倫理中之權力關係與距離。南台人文社會學報，14，141-166。
54. 俞懿嫻（2000）：〈人師〉。摘自國家教育研究院「雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網」，http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1301550/?index=18。
55. 姜得勝(2013)。當前校園倫理的危機、新思維與學校因應策略。台灣教育，683，2-11。
56. 徐梓(2008)。天地君親師源流考。歷史月刊，243，108-116。
57. 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。
58. 梁福鎮(2013)。當前我國校園倫理的挑戰與對策。台灣教育，683，12-18。
59. 莊慧秋(1987)。戰勝自己內心的敵人——剖析害怕權威的心理因素。中國人的面具性格——人情與面子，台北:
60. 許詩淇(2015)。臺灣大學心理學研究所。
61. 陳怡如(2015)。我國零體罰政策的影響。臺灣教育評論月刊，4，124-127。
62. 陶希聖(1981)。中國的家族與倫理——並論五倫與三綱之根本主義。東方雜誌，14，5-9。
63. 傅木龍(2011)。談「學生管教與師生關係」。中等教育，62，8-19。
64. 黃光國(2009).儒家關係主義──哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究.台北:心理出版社.
65. 楊中芳(2005)。本土化心理學的研究策略。華人本土心理學（上），台北:
66. 楊家瑜(2015)。高雄醫學大學心理學系。
67. 楊國樞(1993)。中國人的社會取向：社會互動的觀點。中國人的心理與行為——理念及方法篇（一九九二），台北:
68. 楊國樞(1997)。心理學研究的本土契合性及其相關問題。本土心理學研究，8，75-120。
69. 葉光輝(2017).從親子關係脈絡看華人性格的養成.台北:五南圖書公司.
70. 葉啟政(1984)。「傳統」概念的社會學分析。社會、文化和知識份子，台北:
71. 管中祥（2015）：〈「尊師重道」不是這樣搞的啦〉。摘自公民行動影音紀錄資料庫，https://www.civilmedia.tw/archives/36483。
72. 劉仲矩,陳秀育(1998)。從師生雙向觀點談師生關係之改進。技術及職業教育學報，1，197-211。
73. 劉厚琴(1994)。論儒學與兩漢師生關係。山東大學學報（哲學社會科學版），1994(1)，133-173。
74. 劉真(2019)。中國的師道。師道，台北:
75. 劉真(2019)。中國的教育思想。師道，台北:
76. 蔡榮貴,林士乾(2006)。國小五年級課堂內師生權力關係之研究。臺灣教育社會學研究，6(1)，109-147。
77. 蔡鎮戎(2007)。淺談尊師重道的精神。師友，477，34-36。
78. 錢濤(1971)。論經師與人師。師友，48，28。
79. 閻鴻中(1996)。臺灣大學歷史學研究所。
80. 簡茂發(2005)。亦師亦友和藹長者。師大校友月刊，326，5。
81. 簡晉龍(2013)。政治大學心理學研究所。
82. 關鍵評論（2015）：〈台灣無法創新的源頭：太過「尊師重道」〉。摘自關鍵評論網，https://www.thenewslens.com/article/25260。