本土婚姻教育方案之推展與評估：以「牽手戀家」家庭共學方案為例

The Promotion and Evaluation of the Marriage Education Program in Taiwan: A Case of the ＂Holding Hands＂ Family Program

10.53106/172851862022050064001

蕭英玲(Ying-Ling Hsiao)；利翠珊(Tsui-Shan Li)

台灣夫妻 ； 「牽手戀家」家庭共學方案 ； 婚姻教育 ； ＂Holding Hands＂ family program ； marriage education ； Taiwanese couples

中華輔導與諮商學報

64期（2022 / 05 / 01）

1 - 34

繁體中文

背景與目的：「牽手戀家」家庭共學方案是一個以台灣夫妻互動特色為設計主軸的婚姻教育方案。本研究的目的有二：（1）評估「牽手戀家」家庭共學方案本土性、趣味性、私密性、及專業性特色之呈現；（2）評估「牽手戀家」家庭共學方案關係增溫之成效。方法：本研究採用問卷調查法、焦點團體及個別訪談三種方法收集相關資料，本方案共有17對夫妻全程參與並完整填寫問卷，有7對夫妻參與焦點團體或進行深入訪談。結果：在呈現方案特色方面，77.8%的參與者學習到切合台灣夫妻的互動方式，呈現本方案的本土性；88.9%的參與者學習到趣味性的課程，呈現本方案的趣味性；76.5%的參與者滿意本方案提供夫妻獨處的時光，呈現本方案的私密性；77.8%的參與者學習到專業知識內容，呈現本方案的專業性。在評估夫妻關係增溫的成效方面，本研究結果顯示，在七對參與訪談的夫妻中，三對夫妻的婚姻品質上升，有三對夫妻其中一位婚姻品質上升，另一位婚姻品質下降，有一對夫妻婚姻品質沒有改變，可看出方案似乎對大部分的參與者有產生活化伴侶關係的效果。結論與建議：究竟婚姻教育方案如何讓夫妻關係增溫？在本研究質性資料中初步發現，其中的機制或許是透過課程設計，讓夫妻覺察到之前被忽略之處，讓他們更了解對方；對關係發展產生新的觀點，重新思考配偶行為背後的意義；學習轉念，進而調整自己的作法。最後，研究者提出對未來婚姻教育方案推廣及評估的建議。

Context and Object: The ＂Holding Hands＂ family program is a marriage education program that focuses on interactional characteristics of Taiwanese couples, emphasizes the enjoyability of shared activities, and pays attention to individual privacy and differences between husband and wife. The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to evaluate the ＂Holding Hands＂ family program across four major characteristics: localization, enjoyability, privacy, and professionalism; (2) to assess the effects of the ＂Holding Hands＂ family program in enriching marital relationships. Method: Survey, focus groups, and individual interviews were employed to collect relevant data in this study. The survey included items for examining the degree of learning and satisfaction that couples felt towards the program. It also investigated changes in the quality of marriage before and after couples participated in the program. Focus groups and individual interviews were used to understand the feelings of the couples towards the characteristics of the program and to explore the processes of how marital relationships improve over time. A total of 17 couples participated in the program and completed the questionnaire. Seven couples participated in focus groups or in-depth interviews. Results: In evaluating this program, 78% of participants felt that the interaction method they learned was suitable for Taiwanese couples, showing the localization of the program; 89% of participants found the activities to be entertaining, showing the enjoyability of the program; 77% of participants were satisfied that the program provided alone time for couples, demonstrating the privacy of the program; and 78% of participants acquired professional knowledge about marriage, reflecting the professionalism of the program. In assessing the impact of this program, the results showed that among seven couples who completed pretest and posttest questionnaires, three couples' marital quality increased over time, three couples showed different patterns between husbands and wives in marital quality changes (one's marital quality increased and the other's marital quality decreased), and one couple's marital quality remained the same as before. It seemed that the program had the effect of revitalizing the partnership for most of the participants. How exactly did the ＂Holding Hands＂ family program enrich the relationship between husband and wife? The qualitative findings showed that this marital education program promoted marital quality by designing courses that (1) allowed the couples to realize what was previously overlooked and to understand each other better, (2) generated new perspectives on relationship development and rethought the meanings behind their spousal behaviors, and (3) allowed for couples to change their thoughts and then adjust their approaches. Conclusion and Suggestions: This program achieved breakthroughs and demonstrated strength across the four major characteristics. The program also provided activities for couples' children to enable couples to participate. By emphasizing enjoyability and privacy, the program appealed to participants in various groups and genders. The concepts for this program were all derived from the results of localized research, which was tailored to the life experiences and ways of communications among Taiwanese couples. Future marriage education research may consider combining activities with the husband and wife, children, and even the whole family, which should increase couples' participation and acceptance of marriage education. To promote future marriage education, government and non-governmental organizations can combine resources from the industry, government, and academia sources to examine the effect of marriage education currently implemented in Taiwan, understand the main mechanism by which marriage education improves marital relationship, and explore the applicability of marriage education programs to couples at different phases of family life.

1. 利翠珊, T. S.(2012)。夫妻關係間的忍與婚姻滿意度之關連。中華心理衛生學刊，25(3)，447-475。
   連結：
2. 利翠珊, T. S.,蕭英玲, Y. L.(2016)。夫妻內隱情感經驗：感恩、忍與婚姻滿意度。本土心理研究，45，93-128。
   連結：
3. 利翠珊, T. S.,蕭英玲, Y. L.,陳富美, F. M.,鄧皓引, H. Y.,丁品瑄, P. H.(2018)。本土夫妻共識形成與情感增溫—以參與式行動研究深化家庭理論建構與教育實踐。本土心理研究，49，207-276。
   連結：
4. 李新民, H. M.,陳蜜桃, M. T.(2006)。實用智能、緣分信念與心理健康、工作表現之相關：以幼兒教師為例。中華心理學刊，48(2)，183-202。
   連結：
5. 林明傑, M. C.,陳慧女, H. N.,許正昊, C. H.,黃淑貞, S. J.,王招蘭, Z. L.,陳靖佩, D. P.(2016)。集團結婚之新人對參與簡易婚姻教育方案成效之研究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，12，45-80。
   連結：
6. 蕭英玲, Y. L.,黃芳銘, F. M.(2010)。婚姻滿意度與憂鬱傾向：貫時性對偶分析。中華心理學刊，52(4)，377-396。
   連結：
7. 謝麗紅, L. H.,林明傑, M. C.,詹媛雲, Y. Y.,李意婕, Y. C.,陳建霖, C. L.(2017)。婚姻登記中簡易婚姻教育試辦方案之成果與分析—以彰化縣為例。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，13，87-112。
   連結：
8. 簡文吟, W. Y.,伊慶春, C. C.(2004)。共識與歧見：夫妻配對研究的重要性。臺灣社會學，7，89-122。
   連結：
9. 法務部全國法規資料庫（2019）：家庭教育法。[Ministry of Justice, Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (2019). Family education act. https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0080050]
10. Commerford, J.,Hunter, C.(2016).Marriage and relationship education: Recent research findings.Family Matters,97,55-66.
11. Doherty, W. J.(1999).Postmodernism and family theory.Handbook of marriage and the family
12. Doss, B. D.,Rhoades, G. K.,Stanley, S. M.,Markman, H. J.(2009).The effect of transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96(3),601-619.
13. Fawcett, E. B.,Hawkins, A. J.,Blanchard, V. L.,Carrol, J. S.(2010).Do premarital education programs really work? A meta-analytic study.Family Relations,59,232-239.
14. Fincham, F. D.,Beach, S. R. H.(2010).Marriage in the New Millennium: A decade in review.Journal of Marriage and Family,72,630-649.
15. Fincham, F. D.,Stanley, S. M.,Beach, S. R. H.(2007).Transformative processes in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends.Journal of Marriage and Family,69,275-292.
16. Gottman, J. M.,Levenson, R. W.(2000).The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period.Journal of Marriage and the Family,62,737-745.
17. Harley, W.(2013).His needs, her needs: Building an affair-proof marriage.Baker Publishing Group.
18. Hawkins, A. J.,Blanchard, V. L.,Baldwin, S. A.,Fawcett, E. B.(2008).Does marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,76,723-734.
19. Hawkins, A. J.,Carroll, J. S.,Doherty, W. J.,Willoughby, B.(2004).A comprehensive framework for marriage education.Family Relations,53(5),547-558.
20. Jenkins, J.,Simpson, A.,Dunn, J.,Rasbash, J.,O' Connor, T. G.(2005).Mutual influence of marital conflict and children' s behavior problems: Shared and nonshared family risks.Child Development,76,24-39.
21. Markman, H. J.,Rhoades, G. K.(2012).Relationship education research: Current status and future directions.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,38(1),169-200.
22. McAllister, S.,Duncan, S. F.,Hawkins, A. J.(2012).Examining the early evidence for selfdirected marriage and relationship education: A meta-analytic study.Family Relations,61
23. Patton、 M. Q.,吳芝儀（譯）, Z. Y.(Trans.),李奉儒（譯）, F. R.(Trans.)(1995).質的評鑑與研究.桂冠圖書=Laureate.
24. Proulx, C. M.,Helms, H. M.,Buehler, C.(2007).Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta analysis.Journal of Marriage and Family,69,576-593.
25. Rauer, A. J.,Adler-Baeder, F.,Lucier-Greer, M.,Skuban, E.,Ketring, S.A.,Smith, T.(2014).Exploring processes of change in couple relationship education: Predictors of change in relationship quality.Journal of Family Psychology,28(1),65-76.
26. Schumm, W. R.,Paff-Bergen, L. A.,Hatch, R. C.,Obiorah, F. C.,Copeland, J. M.,Meens, L. D.,Bugaighis, M. A.(1986).Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas marital satisfaction scale.Journal of Marriage and Family,48(2),381-387.
27. Wadsworth, M. E.,Markman, H. J.(2012).Where' s the action? Understanding what works and why in relationship education.Behavior Therapy,43,99-112.
28. Whisman, M. A.(2001).The association between depression and marital dissatisfaction.Marital and family processes in depression: A scientific foundation for clinical practice
29. 中華民國家庭教育學會（編）=R.O.C. Family Education Association (Ed.)(2001).家庭生活教育.師大書院=Shtabook.
30. 內政部（2022）：內政統計月報。[Ministry of the Interior, R.O.C. (Taiwan) (2022). Monthly bulletin of interior statistics. https://www.moi.gov.tw/files/site_stuff/321/1/month/month.html]
31. 王淑娟, S. Y.(2000)。輔仁大學=Fu-Jen Catholic University。
32. 林如萍, J. P.(2008)。姻緣天註定？！大學生的關係信念對姻教育態度之影響。中華家政學刊，43，43-59。
33. 馬永年, Y. N.(2009)。國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。
34. 教育部=Ministry of Education(2017)。教育部（2017）：教育部一○五年度地方教育事務統合視導報告。教育部。[Ministry of Education (2017). The ministry of education's report on the integration of local educational affairs. Ministry of Education]。
35. 陳若琳, R. L.,王以仁, Y. R.(2019)。教育部委託之研究報告教育部委託之研究報告,教育部=Ministry of Education。
36. 黃維仁, W. R.(2012).親密之旅帶領人手冊.財團法人愛家文化事業基金會=Loving family.
37. 楊國樞, K. S.(1997)。行政院國家科學委員會專題計畫行政院國家科學委員會專題計畫,行政院國家科學委員會=National Science Council。
38. 蕭英玲, Y. L.,曾秀雲, H. Y.(2018)。台灣婚姻品質量表之發展。第五屆亞洲家庭治療學院年會「亞洲家庭治療的發展、生態與未來：文化、培訓、對話」，臺北，臺灣=Taipei City, Taiwan:
39. 簡楚瑤, C. Y.(2011)。本土婚姻與家庭現況及婚姻教育推廣課程之探討。家庭教育雙月刊，31，6-19。