高中輔導教師焦點解決反思團隊督導歷程經驗與成果之研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討高中輔導教師參加焦點解決反思團隊督導的歷程經驗與成果。以滾雪球方式邀請到六名高中輔導老師為研究對象，招募條件為工作年資10年以上，曾接受焦點解決訓練18小時以上。本研究資料搜集方式為六次焦點解決反思團隊督導，每次90分鐘。每次團體依據焦點解決反思團隊督導流程進行，分有六階段（準備階段、報告階段、澄清階段、肯定階段、反思階段、統整階段），參與者在各階段採輪流發言的進行方式。每位參與者在六次團體中亦輪流擔任主持人、提案者與反思團隊成員三種角色。在第三次團體結束後和第六次團體結束後，邀請參與者接受一對一的半結構式訪談，以了解參與者中期歷程經驗與成果、整體歷程經驗與成果。資料分析階段，由研究者與一位具有質性分析訓練背景的協同研究者採取「主題分析法」進行資料歸納分析。研究結果以參與者個別歷程經驗與成果、中期歷程經驗與成果、整體歷程經驗與成果分別呈現。中期與整體歷程經驗與成果共同反映六大主題，包括（1）「提升成員積極參與的動機」，如團體氣氛、同儕背景、成員熟悉度、工作同盟、普同感、平等結構等影響成員參與動機的因素。（2）「團體六階段的歷程經驗與成果」，包含準備階段、報告階段、澄清階段、肯定階段、反思階段、統整階段的特徵與效果。（3）「輪流擔任三種角色歷程經驗與成果」，包含擔任主持人、提案者及反思團隊成員的學習、體驗與收穫。（4）「專業能力的學習與收穫」，如諮商歷程反思、多元觀點與介入策略、專業賦能感、焦點解決思維與技術的學習等。（5）「學校應用的經驗與成果」，如增進輔導教師自我反思、自我覺察、專業認同，和同校或跨校成員的經驗。以及（6）「應用建議」，如日後執行與推廣的注意事項與安排建議。以此六大主題架構，中期歷程經驗與成果包含25個次主題、細分為81個類別，整體歷程經驗與成果則包含29個次主題、細分為84個類別。研究討論分為八個部分，第一節為參與者歷程經驗的學習收穫與轉變。第二節到第六節則分別從參與程度、六階段歷程經驗與成果、三種角色歷程經驗與成果、專業能力的學習與收穫、學校實踐等五個面向，將參與者在焦點解決反思團隊督導中期歷程經驗與成果以及整體歷程經驗與成果進行對照，並討論其轉變。每節討論依照以下四個向度進行討論：（1）中期與後期持續出現的經驗向度、（2）中期出現在後期有程度上轉變的經驗向度、（3）僅中期出現的經驗向度、（4）僅後期出現的經驗向度。第七節依據本研究結果與文獻進行對話，即焦點解決反思團隊督導模式與一般團體督導、同儕團體督導、反思團隊督導、焦點解決督導、焦點解決反思團隊督導相關研究進行對話。第八節針對第一到第七節的研究發現進行綜合討論。最後，依據研究結果與討論提出本研究之結論以及對未來研究的建議，以期能提供未來在進行焦點解決反思團隊督導實務與研究之參考。This study aims to explore the experiences and outcome of high school guidance teachers participating in solution-focused reflecting team supervision (SFRTS). Using the snowball sampling method, six high school guidance teachers with over ten years of experience and a minimum of 18 hours of solution-focused brief therapy training were invited as research informants. Data collection involved six 90-minute SFRTS sessions, each following a six-stage process: Preparation, presenting, clarifying, affirming, reflecting, and closing. Participants rotated speaking roles during each stage and took turns as the process manager, the presenter, and team member throughout the sessions. Additionally, two one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted after the third and sixth sessions of SFRTS to gather mid-term and overall participation experiences and outcomes. A co-researcher with a training background in qualitative analysis was invited and thematic analysis was used when conducting the data analysis.The research results are presented in terms of individual participant processes experiences and outcomes, mid-term processes experiences and outcomes, and overall processes experiences andoutcomes. Both mid-term and overall processes experiences and outcomes reflect six major themes, which include:(1) Enhancing members' motivation for active participation: Factors included group atmosphere, peer background, familiarity among members, working alliances, a sense of universality/commonality, an egalitarian relational structure, and others. (2) Group processes and outcomes across the six stages: Characteristics and effects of each stage (ex. preparation, presenting, clarifying, affirming, reflecting, and closing) emerged. (3) Processes and outcomes derived from rotating three roles: Experiences and gains were noted from serving as the process manager, presenter, and reflecting team members.(4) Acquiring professional competency: This involved reflecting on the counseling process, considering diverse perspectives and intervention strategies, gaining a sense of professional empowerment, and acquiring solution-focused thinking and techniques.(5) Experiences and outcomes of school application: This facilitated school guidance counselors in self-reflection and self-awareness, and promoted their professional identity. Within- same-school and cross-schools experience were exchanged.(6) Suggestions for SFRTS application: Recommendations were made for future implementation and promotion SFRTS, including considerations and suggested arrangements.Under these six major themes, the mid-term experiences and outcomes included 25 sub-themes and 81 categories, while the overall process experiences and outcomes encompassed 29 sub-themes and 84 categories.The discussion is divided into eight sections. Section one discusses participants' growth and transformation. Sections two to sections six compare and contrast participants' mid-term and overall SFRTS experiences and outcomes, highlighting five dimensions: Participation level, process experiences and outcomes across six stages, experiences and gains in three roles, professional skillset building, and school practice. All comparing and contrasting follow four axes: (1) experiences recurring in both mid-term and later stages, (2) experiences occurring in mid-term but changingin later stages, (3) experiences occurring only in mid-term, and (4) experiences occurring only in later stages. Section seven compares the study's findings with existing literature on group supervision, peer group supervision, reflective team supervision, solution-focused supervision and SFRTS. Section eight reviews sections one to seven for an integrative discussion. Finally, conclusions and suggestions for future research are presented based on the study's findings and discussions. This aims to provide insights for future SFRTS implementation and research.