高中職輔導教師接受焦點解決督導訓練方案之成效研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討高中職輔導教師接受焦點解決督導方案之成效，研究目的有：（1）以Kirkpatrick的四層次教育訓練成效評估模式（four-level evaluation model）為架構，瞭解受訓者的課後反應（reaction）、學習效果（learning）、實際行為（behavior）與訓練成果（results）；以及（2）瞭解受訓者對於本訓練方案之相關建議。 研究於初步訓練方案內容形成後，進行專家會議與前導研究，逐漸修正並確定正式方案，最後進行正式研究。正式方案目的為培訓受訓者成為高中職輔導教師焦點解決督導員，進行時間共八日半（51小時），內容主要包括四面向：（1）督導基本概念；（2）學校輔導教師工作內容與學校輔導教師督導三層面；（3）焦點解決督導；以及（4）焦點解決督導應用於高中職輔導教師等相關主題。 研究取向採質化為主、量化為輔，正式研究參與者為15位高中職輔導教師，訓練方案的過程中採用問卷調查（單元課後滿意度問卷、學習效果自陳問卷、準備度評估問卷）、量表（諮商督導能力評量表）測量等方式蒐集量化資料；並採受督者回饋表蒐集質化資料；而於訓練方案結束後，以焦點團體訪談與個別訪談等方式蒐集質化資料。研究資料以t考驗、描述統計與典型一般質化方式進行分析，得出研究結果如下： 一、課後反應：質化結果與量化結果相呼應，顯示受訓者滿意本訓練方案，質化結果進一步探討受訓者滿意課程之緣故，包含（1）講師因素：授課生動且專業豐富；（2）課程內容與形式因素：循序漸進且結合多元形式；以及（3）同儕互動因素：提供支持與互助。 二、學習效果：量化結果顯示顯示受訓者所學與訓練方案目標相符程度高，並支持訓練方案對於受訓者諮商督導能力（包含認知、情意、技能）有統計上的顯著提升。質化結果呼應並進一步顯示受訓者已習得焦點解決督導的相關知能、提升擔任高中職輔導教師焦點解決督導員準備度、重新瞭解並正視輔導教師專業職能與角色定位、瞭解欲擔任高中職輔導教師焦點解決督導員所需知能條件、認同輔導教師接受督導的重要性與重溫焦點解決短期諮商理論與技術。 三、實際行為：受訓者已落實改變於工作領域（實踐焦點解決督導/諮詢，蘊含督導對話與行動的改變、應用焦點解決概念於輔導工作中，提升輔導效能）；以及個人領域（力行焦點解決概念於個人生活，改變原有之生活模式）。 四、訓練成果：學校整體輔導工作效率與人力資源的提升（校內個案服務量穩定成長、行政效率提升與夥伴關係增進、校內系統中夥伴獲得賦能，滾雪球帶動系統中的相互動力、校內教師輔導效能增加帶動案主的正向改變、增加校內焦點解決督導人力） 五、對訓練方案之建議：受訓者對於訓練方案內容、延續訓練方案、課後作業與受訓者先備條件提出相關建議。 研究討論先針對四層次間的關係作探討，共四個部分：（1）相互檢驗、相得益彰—量化與質化結果的綜合討論；（2）觸媒或抑制—影響方案訓練成效之因素；（3）知到行的距離—自學習效果至實際行為間的差異；以及（4）春花秋實、生根發芽—從實際行為到訓練成果。 討論的第二部分為從實踐中探討訓練方案之效益、調整與延伸，亦有四部分：（1）實踐—焦點解決督導的學習與學校輔導教師效能的增進；（2）效益—焦點解決督導與學校文化之適配；（3）調整—從受訓者回饋更貼近實際需要；以及（4）延伸—學校輔導教師督導與教師專業發展評鑑的比較與結合。 最後根據研究結果與討論，對學校輔導教師焦點解決督導方案規劃、高中職學校督導實務、教育當局相關政策以及未來研究四方面提出建議。

關鍵詞：四層次教育訓練成效評估、焦點解決督導、督導員訓練、學校輔導教師督導

The purposes of this study were to (a) examine a Solution-Focused Supervision (SFS) training program using Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model of Training Evaluation; and (b) make suggestions for program improvements. This study used a mixed method design with an emphasis on qualitative analyses. 15 senior high school counselors underwent SFS training and then completed questionnaires (a reaction sheet, learning self-report inventory, readiness assessment sheet, and a supervisee's feedback sheet), and the Supervisory Competence Scale. To evaluate the outcome of the program using the Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model, all 15 attended two focus-group interviews. To solicit more detailed feedback, 4 counselors participated in semi-structured interviews. The qualitative interviews found improvements at all four levels of Kirkpatrick’s model. For Reaction level, trainees reported overall satisfaction with the program, and especially appreciated the content and format. For Learning level, trainees demonstrated clear, positive outcomes. Trainees’ readiness to supervise school counselors and ability to conduct self-supervision also increased. Participants successfully reviewed the principles of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) and school counselor competencies. This program was helpful in promoting the identity and the professional function of school counselors. For Behavior level, trainees implemented SFS as a supervisor and applied SFBT as a school counselor. They also used SFBT and SFS concepts in their personal lives. Finally, for Results level, both the trainees and their supervisees achieved their supervision goals and felt empowered. Reports showed that clients also felt empowered and mentioned positive changes, indicating the school guidance work became more efficacious. During the semi-structured interviews, a common pattern of suggestions appeared. First, trainees suggested that the director of counseling should attend this program. Second, the program should have two-levels of training, the first to review prior knowledge, and the second to teach SFS. Finally, the trainees also commented that the program could be extended to include additional sessions and provide supervision for trainees’ use of SFS. The t-test supported the interviews’ Learning results. There was a significant difference in the scores for the Supervisory Competence Scale showing that the trainees improved their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors at the Learning level. The descriptive statistics results supported the qualitative results for both the Reaction and Learning levels. The following were discussed based on the results of the study: (a) the facilitating and non-facilitating factors for the trainees to become a SFS supervisor of high school counselors, (b) the suggestions of the trainees for how to revise the training program, and (c) the plausibility of combining the government policy Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development with this SFS training program.

Keywords: school counselor supervision, Solution-Focused Supervision, Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation model, supervisors' training