臺日初等英語教育政策之比較研究—傅柯觀點

本研究以Michel Foucault的微觀權力觀點做為分析理論，對照鉅觀觀點的權力分析，對臺灣和日本的國小英語教育政策文本中之權力現象進行分析與批判以揭示臺日兩地國小英語教育列為正式課程的過程中，不同的論述建構了論述形構建構了權力關係，經由論述當中的知識論，生產了監督效果，規訓了國小教室的師生。本研究以Foucault的微觀權力概念為基礎，佐以Stephen Ball及T.S. Popkewitz對Foucault微觀權力的概念應用，發展微觀權力研究架構，運用論述分析、文本分析及貝瑞岱的比較方法，進行臺日國小英語教育政策文本的微觀權力分析與批判，經分析後得到如下結論：一、臺日英語教育政策在不同面向的論述有其異同，其中經濟、國際、教法及教材大致相符，其他面向則不盡相同。二、臺灣的國小英語教育政策中，在場域構面裡的論述使得國小英語的實踐成為可能，使之成為正式科目。在教育構面的論述，則全然受到英語教學知識論的宰制，規訓了臺灣國小教室中師生，進行英語的教與學。三、日本的國小英語教育政策中，場域構面論述的獨特性，強調了日語優先，使得英語教學的順序置於日語之後。教育構面的論述，日語論述同樣強勢，對日語和英語進行了內與外的分類。四、臺日國小英語教室中的師生，在不同構面論述的規訓下，成為柔順的個體，失去溝通的自由，並非依循自由意志與他人進行溝通，而是遵照英語教學知識論的規訓，進行與他人的溝通。依本文發現，本文建議依本研究提供之微觀權力架構進行英語教學的權力分析，並進行語言規劃的權力研究，從而對自身場域內的語言進行價值重估，給予每一種語言相同的權利。同時，經由微觀權力的政策分析，重估溝通的意義，重新檢視英語教育政策中的權力現象。

關鍵字

傅柯；國小英語教育政策；微觀權力；日本

並列摘要

Concept of Foucault’s micropower perspective is the analytic theory for this research to analyze and criticize power within English education policy text of Taiwan and Japan, comparing to power analysis from macorpower perspective. As Foucault has indicated, knowledge produced surveillance and discipline to teachers and students in the classroom. In addition to Foucault’s concepts of micropower, Ball’s and Popkewitz’s application to Foucault’s concepts also served to set up a micropower analytic construct for policy analysis. The research methods were discourse analysis, text analysis, and Bereday’s comparative method. The findings with a further analysis were as following: 1. Discourses of English elementary education policies varied between Taiwan and Japan. Discourses of economy, international relation, English teaching, and teaching material had something in common, but others differed. 2. Discourses of contextual construct produced practices of elementary English education in Taiwan, and discourses of educational construct, dominated by ELT, displined elementary school teachers and students in the classroom. 3. In Japan, priority of English teaching is after Japanese teaching due to influence of distinct discourses of contextual construct. Referring to educational construct, the situation remains the same. Japanese is prior to English because of inner/outer categorization of discourses. 4. Teachers and students in Taiwan and Japan are docile bodies of discursive discourses, and they have no freedom in choosing languages for communication. Rather than use their will to communicate to others, they are mostly to bodies of “communicate to will”. At last, this study provides a micropower analytic framework for researchers to explore power within elementary English education policy. Also, it is suggested to explore power research of language planning to protect language right of minor languages. Furthermore, researchers may evaluate power practices in English education policies to reconsider meaning of communication.