教練的領導威權、體罰、管教與責備：零體罰的思考

Authoritarian, corporal punishment, discipline, and blame in coaching leadership: No more corporal punishment

高三福(San-Fu Kao) ； 李伯倫(Po-Lun Lee) ； 謝明輝(Ming-Hua Shieh)

《中華體育季刊》 30卷3期 (2016/09) Pp. 229-235

https://doi.org/10.3966/102473002016093003009

摘要

教育部已明文規定各級學校的身體活動與體能培訓不得以處罰或體罰為目的，但有關體育教師或教練的體罰新聞時有所聞。教練如何與時俱進，在現今的零體罰政策下正確教學發揮教育功能，是一值得探究的議題。本文從探討領導威權的意涵，探討支持與反對體罰的論點來釐清體罰的訓練效果，並提出管教與責備的建議。希望藉由以上的探討與澄清，啟發教練工作者在訓練與帶隊管理上的思考，提昇教練的訓練與指導技巧。

關鍵字

訓練與指導 ； 體育教育 ； 教練選手關係 ； 親師關係

並列摘要

The Ministry of Education announced the law that forbids using physical activity as punishment and corporal punishment in school in Taiwan. However, the news about corporal punishment in PE teachers and coaches showed up from time to time. The issue for no corporal punishment in sport was necessary for coaches to improve their teaching/instruction skills. First, we explored the meaning of authoritarian in coach. Second, we revealed the support-arguments and counter-arguments for corporal punishment to learn the pros and cons. Finally, we suggested to coaches how to discipline athletes at the current time, especially under the human right values. We hope this paper can hint coaches in their training and instruction skills in a more scientific track.

並列關鍵字

training and instruction ； physical education ； coach-athlete relationship ； student-athlete relationship

參考文獻

石家宜(2011)。零體罰時代，老師你該怎麼做。諮商與輔導。308，61-63。

吳萬福(2014)。思考體育運動時的體罰及暴力問題。國北教大體育。8，21-25。

李知芸、江欣惇(2015)。以新聞〈是體罰還是體訓？〉為例：探討體訓的適當性。身體文化學報。20，83-98。

周婉茹、鄭伯壎、連玉輝(2014)。威權領導：概念源起、現況檢討及未來方向。中華心理學刊。56，165-189。

高三福、呂政達、楊鎮瑭(2013)。家長式領導行為與信任教練：團隊價值觀的跨層次調節效果。體育學報。46，393-405。