臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

「談判」是管理者十項最常從事的工作之一。近數十年來，「談判」一詞也成為國人生活討論，媒體報導的主要內容。人際互動中所需用到的溝通、協調和說服等要素，也都是有效談判所必需具備的元素，凡此種種皆足以證明談判的無所不在。英文是國際共通語言，因國內英文教學有關談判之研究匱乏，本研究之主要目的乃在藉問卷調查之方式，探討台灣技職院校應用英語系所學生對英文談判態度之認知及對英文談判課程的需求與看法。問卷調查與研究設計旨在瞭解北部及南部科技大學應用英語系所學生，在解决衝突時所會採取的態度與認知，並進一步比較南北部學生在這方面之差異。

研究發現在解决衝突時，71％的學生會採取合作方式來處理；18.9％學生採妥協的方式；5％的學生採用調解方式;4.8％則會以逃避方式來處理。北部學生選擇合作之方式比南部學生高，南部學生採取掌控全盤之方式比北部學生高。遭遇衝突之選擇方式不會因年級或年齡層不同而有差別。研究也發現，男性遇到衝突時會選擇掌控全盤之機率比女性高。有工作經驗之學生，會比無工作經驗的學生選擇較為婉轉的方式來處理衝突。大多數學生認為英文談判是一門重要課程，對未來升學、發展、工作表現有很大影響。大部分學生認為英文談判課程應由大三以上學生修習為佳，以選修課程為主。老師上課方式應重視「說」與「談判策略與技巧」的能力，並需學習英文談判理論、方法與概念、分析問題的方法、擬定談判計畫，以及如何在逆境的談判中施展影響力和說服力。並需瞭解各國文化差異。

研究建議未來有必要作全國性研究。北部學生認同合作，而南部學生認同掌控全盤的談判方式，亦需進一步研究。談判方式也必須結合其它相關方式才能強化作用。而課程內容則需以學生需求為導向，使其獲益。

The key goal of education is preparing students to solve real-world problems. As an everyday vehicle for interpersonal interaction, negotiation should be an important component and integral part of Applied English curriculum for all technology universities in Taiwan. The research investigates the conflict management styles and the attitude and awareness toward English negotiation learning among 291 Applied English majors whose locations of study are in the Northern and Southern parts of Taiwan.

TKI results indicates that 71% of the students approach “collaborate” style, 18.9％ “compromise;” 5% “accommodate” and 4.8% “avoid.” Students in the North would approach the “collaborative” style, whereas students in the north approach “control” style. When encountering conflict, there is no specific style preference in terms of age and year of study. Result also shows that male students are more controlling than female students. Students with work experience know how to handle situations using proper negotiation styles. Students who deliver high ratings on questions belong to “collaborating” has positive correlation with compromising, high rates on all questions belong to “compromising” style tends to adopt accommodating, controlling and avoiding, “accommodating” style has positive correlation with “avoid”, and “control” with “avoid”.

A majority of students indicated that English negotiation is essential for further studies, career and job development. 85% of the respondents never took negotiation class before, and most Applied English majors think it is necessary to take such a course. The results show that they would like to take the course in junior year or above, as an elective for major. The emphasis on learning contents should be speaking, negotiation skills and techniques, theory, concept, problem analysis, planning, able to persuade, influence, and cross-cultural studies.
A national-wide research study is suggested to further understand what factors cause the differences in conflict management styles and the attitude and awareness toward English negotiation learning.

Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Table of Contents vii
Figure List x
Table List xi
Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 The Purpose of the Study 3
1.4 Objectives of the Study 4
1.5 Research Questions 4
1.6 Hypothesis 5
1.7 Significance of the Study 5
1.8 Delimitations of the Study 6
1.9 Definition of Terms 6
1.10 Organization of the Study 7
Chapter 2 8
Review of the Literature 8
2.1 Definition of Negotiation 8
2.2 Conflict Management Styles 10
2.2.1 Collaboration 11
2.2.2 Compromise 12
2.2.3 Accommodation 12
2.2.4 Control 13
2.2.5 Avoid 13
2.3 Student-centered Approach 15
2.4 Learning English Negotiations 17
2.5 Methods in Learning English Negotiation 19
2.5.1 Case Studies 20
2.5.2 Role plays 21
2.5.3 Discussion Learning 21
2.5.4 Other Learning Subjects or Materials 21
2.6 The English Negotiation Course in Taiwan 22
Chapter 3 24
Methodology 24
3.1 Population and Sample 25
3.2 Instruments 26
3.3 Procedures for Data Collection 28
3.3.1 Development and Validity of the Research 29
3.3.2 TKI Conflict Management Styles 30
3.3.3 English Negotiation Learning Course Content 30
3.4 Analysis of the Data 30
Chapter 4 32
Results of the Study 32
4.1 Analysis of Subjects 32
4.1.1 Location of Study 32
4.1.2 Year of Study 32
4.1.3 Age 33
4.1.4 Gender 33
4.1.5 Working Status 33
4.2 Results of the TKI Survey 35
4.2.1 Conflict management Style and Location of Schools 35
4.2.2 Conflict management Style and Students’ Year of Study 36
4.2.3 Conflict Management Style and Students’ Age 38
4.2.4 Conflict Management Style among Gender 39
4.2.5 Conflict Management Style and Working Status 39
4.2.6 Pearson’s Correlation Test on Conflict Management Styles 40
4.3 Results of the English Negotiation Learning Survey 41
4.3.1 The Awareness of Learning English Negotiations 42
4.3.2 The Attitude towards Learning English Negotiations 45
4.3.3 The Experience in Learning Negotiations 47
4.3.4 Suggestion and Opinions in Learning English Negotiations 49
4.3.5 Student-oriented perspectives towards English negotiations 55
4.4 Analysis of Awareness 58
4.4.1 Analysis of the Variance in the Attitude and Awareness 58
4.5 Comments Collected from the Survey 61
4.5.1 The Unnecessarily to Learn English Negotiation 62
4.5.2 Topics of Interest in English Negotiation Learning 62
4.5.3 Other Comments 64
Chapter 5 65
Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations and Problems for Further Research 65
5.1 Summary 65
5.2 Conclusions 66
5.2.1 Conclusions Generated through the TKI 66
5.2.2 Conclusions Generated through the English Negotiation Learning Survey 67
5.2.3 Conclusions Drawn from Pearson’s Correlation Test on Conflict Management Styles 69
5.3 Recommendations for Further Research 69
Reference List 71
Appendix A 75

Reference List
1.AAHE (1998). Powerful partnerships: A Shared Responsibility for Learning. American Association for higher Education. Retrieved March 25, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.aahe.org/teaching/tsk_frce.htm

2.Aaronsohn, Elizabeth. (1996). Going Against the Grain: Supporting the Student-Centered Teacher. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

3.Aspy, D. N. (1972). Toward a Technology for Humanizing Education. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press Company.

4.Beng, Chua Siew (2003). Staying Motivated in Your Studies: The Importance of a Positive Learning Attitude Human Resource Management Specialist. School of Business.

5.Benson, P., & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.

6.Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social Construction of knowledge—A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books. Doubleday. New York.

7.Biggs. J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at University. Buckingham: Society for research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

8.Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Victoria.

9.Campbell, C. & H. Kryszewska (1992). Learner-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10.Cannon, R. (2000). Guide to support the implementation of the learning and teaching plan. ACUE The University of Adelaide.

11.Carnevale, Peter J. & Carsten K.W. De Dreu (2004). Methods of Negotiation Research: Introduction Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in the Netherlands

12.Cohen, H. (1980). You Can Negotiate Anything. New York: Bantam Books.

13.Deller, S. (1990). Lessons from the Learner. Harlow: Longman

14.Donna, Sylvie (2000). Teach Business English. Cambridge University Press.

15.Ellis, M. & Johnson, C. (1994). Teaching Business English. Oxford University Press.

16.Fells, R. E. (2001). Teaching a subject like negotiation: How might we encourage deep learning?. In A. Herrmann and M. M. Kulski (Eds), Expanding Horizons in Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 7-9 February 2001. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved from World Wide Web: http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/fells.html

17.Fells, R. E. (2000). Negotiating Strategically. In Travaglioni, T. & Marshall, V. (Eds), Human Resource Strategies: An Applied Approach. McGraw-Hill, Sydney.

18.Fells, R. E. (1993). Some aspects of teaching negotiation. AIRAANZ Review.

19.Fisher, Roger, Ury, William, Patton & Bruce (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in. 2nd / by Fisher, Ury, and Patton. Edition Houghton Mifflin (Boston)

20.Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes. Penguin, New York.

21.Fischer, C. G., & Grant, G. E. (1983). Intellectual levels in college classrooms. In C. L. Ellner & C. P. Barnes (Eds.), Studies of college teaching. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

22.Gardner, R. & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, Mass. Mass.: Newbury House.

23.Gillespie, J. J., Thompson, L. L, Loewenstein, J. & Genter, D. (1999). Lessons from Analogical Reasoning in the Teaching of Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 15(4), 363-371.

24.Gilson, C. H. J. (1986). Bargaining exercises beyond simulation: A touch of reality. Relations Industrielles, 41, 390-396.

25.Glendon, A. I. & Ingleton, C. C. P. (1979). Training in Pay Negotiations: A role playing exercise. In Pettman, B. C. and Dobbins, R. (Eds), Industrial Relations. MCB Publications, Bradford.

26.Goodman, A. E. (1990). Teaching Strategy in Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 6(2), 185-188.

27.Harvey, Barbara Z., Sirna, Richard T., & Houlihan, Margaret B. (1999). Hands-On Learning. The American School Board Journal.

28.Herman, E. E. (1992). The Teaching of Collective Bargaining: The Simulation Approach. Paper presented at the 9th World Congress, International Industrial Relations Association: Sydney.

29.Hiltrop, J-M., & Udall, S. (1995). The Essence of Negotiation. London and New York: Prentice Hall
30.Jonassen D.H. (2000). Revisiting Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing a Student-centered Learning Environment. In D.H. Jonassen & S.M. Land (Eds), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 89-121). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlabum Associates.

31.Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

32.Kain, D. J. (2003). Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered: Balancing Constraint and Theory in the Composition Classroom. Pedagogy - Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 104-108. Duke University Press

33.Karp, D. A., & Yoels, W. C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meaning of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60, 421-439.

34.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

35.From Experiential Learning: Experiences as the Source of Learning and Development (p.21), by D.A. Klob, 1984, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

36.Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1984). Organizational Psychology: An Experiential Approach to Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

37.Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J.W. (1999). Negotiation, 3rd Edition. San Francisco: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

38.Lewicki, R. J., Hiam, A., & Olander, K. W. (1996). Think Before You Speak. John Wiley, New York.

39.Lewicki, R. J., & Hiam, A. (1999). The fast forward MBA in negotiating and deal making. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

40.Lewicki, R. J. (1986). Challenges of teaching negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 2(1), 15-27.

41.McCombs, B., & Whistler, J.S. (1997). The Learner-Centered Classroom and School: Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and Achievement. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.

42.Mercado, S. A. (2000). Pre-managerial Business Education: a role for role-plays? Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group Volume 24, Number 1.

43.Merriam-Webster (1985). Webster's new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, Mass.

44.Murningham, J. K. (1991). The Dynamics of Bargaining Games. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

45."Negotiation," International Online Training Program on Intractable Conflict, Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, available at: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/negotn.htm

46.Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Routledge, London.

47.Cattell, R. (1950). Definition of attitude. For the treatment of attitudes in the psychological field, see Chapter 20 of The Dynamic Psychological Field.

48.Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80’s. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.

49.Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg H.J. (1994). Freedom to learn, 3rd Edition. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.

50.Ramsden. P. (1992). Learning to teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

51.Stark, P. B. & Flaherty, J. (2003). The Only Negotiating Guide you’ll ever need: 101 Ways to Win Every Time in Any Situation. Broadway.

52.Tracy, L. & Peterson, R. B. (1975). Classroom collective bargaining simulation: How close to the real thing? Relations Industrielles, 30, 98-111.

53.Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in science teacher’s approach to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-78.

54.Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE Instrument, with Kenneth W. Thomas (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1974). See Kilmann, R. H., and K. W. Thomas, "Developing a Forced-Choice Measure of Conflict-Handling Behavior: The mode Instrument," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 37, No. 2 (1977), 309-325.

55.Van Ments, M. (1989). The Effective Use of Role-Play. London: Kogan Page.

56.Volkema, R. J. (1999). Negotiation Toolkit: How to Get Exactly What You Want in Any Business or Personal Situation.

57.Watkins, M. (1999). Negotiating in a complex world. Negotiation Journal, 15(3), 245-270.

58.Williams, G. (1993). Styles and effectiveness in negotiation. In Hall, L. (Ed), Negotiation Strategies for Mutual Gain. Sage Newbury Park, pp.151-174.