| 摘要: | 本研究采用比較研究法。對兩岸的台灣師範大學與南京師範大學兩所大學心理輔導中心進行實地走訪，透過對兩所機構工作人員半結構式訪談，了解兩岸大學心理輔導中心的管理機制、工作職能、專業制度等方面的發展現況。另外，通過立意取樣，分別抽取學生填答「大學生心理輔導中心使用情況調查問卷」，南師大獲取有效樣本301人、台師大獲取有效樣本318人，共計有效樣本619人，將調查結果進行描述性統計與卡方檢定。
經過對訪談結果的整理與對調查結果的分析，本研究的成果如下：
一、兩岸大學心理輔導中心發展現況之比較：
（一）發展概況之比較
1.兩岸大學心理輔導中心目前處在不同的歷史發展階段。台灣的大學心理輔導中心現已進入成熟完善期；大陸則尚處在成長發展期。
2.兩岸目前官方對大學心理輔導中心的制度政策差異很大。台灣目前已有詳盡的法律對其作出要求與規範，大陸目前尚無強制性的法規要求。
3.兩岸大學對心理輔導中心硬體投入相當，在設施、設備、經費方面的投入，並不存在太大差異。
4.兩岸大學在心理輔導中心軟體建設方面差距明顯，台灣的大學心理輔導中心顯著優於大陸。
（二）管理機制之比較
1.兩岸大學心理輔導中心行政位置表面相似，但由於兩岸大學制度不同，兩岸大學心理輔導中心的實質定位也有所不同：在台灣單純為心理輔導機構，在大陸則同時是學生思想政治工作的一環。
2.兩岸大學心理輔導中心人員組織形式差異很大，台灣大學心理輔導中心通常專任人力的人數多於大陸，專任人力的專業性也高於大陸。
（三）工作職能比較
1.兩岸心理輔導中心在心理健康宣傳推廣活動上形式越來越創新、內容越來越深入，並且均重視線上宣傳推廣的發展。線上方面台灣更偏向建設官方網站，大陸更偏向建設如微信（WeChat）公眾號的社交媒體平台。
2.兩岸心理輔導中心在諮商專業服務方面仍存在相當大的差距。相比大陸，台灣的大學心理輔導中心能夠提供更多專業服務的項目與時段，以及專業性更強的諮商服務。
（四）制度建設比較
台灣心理輔導中心的制度建立已相當完備，絕大多數工作已有標準作業程序；大陸心理輔導中心的制度尚不完備，很多工作依然靠工作人員自身的經驗開展，尚未建立標準作業程序。
二、兩岸大學心理輔導中心學生使用之比較：
1.兩岸大學生對學校心理輔導中心熟悉度有顯著差異，台灣大學生對心理輔導中心的熟悉度顯著高於大陸。
2.兩岸大學生對學校心理輔導中心的使用意願無顯著差異，但在關注度、關注項目、期待的幫助、存在的顧慮等具體方面，有所不同。
3.兩岸大學生對學校心理輔導中心的實際使用頻率無顯著差異，但台灣大學生更多使用個別諮商服務，大陸大學生更多使用團體輔導。使用過的學生在滿意度、再使用意願、推薦度方面也無顯著差異。
This research conducts a systematic comparative study based on the development status and student’s usage of college counseling center of Taiwan and Mainland China.
The comparative method is used in this study. This study reveals the development of the administrative mechanism, job functions and professional systems of the college counseling center by physically visiting the center at National Taiwan University and Nanjing Normal University respectively and conducting semi-structured interviews with the employees of those two centers. Further, this study use purposive sampling and extract respondents from the students of both universities to complete ‘the use of college counseling center by students Survey’. Consequently, there are totally 619 valid samples, of which, 301 valid samples are from Nanjing Normal University, and 318 valid samples are from National Taiwan University. Descriptive statistical analysis, as well as Chi-square verification will be performed on the results.
The outcomes are as below by summarizing the interview results and analyzing the survey results.
I The comparison of development status of two centers.
1.The comparison of development profiles
1)The two centers are at different historical stages. The center of National Taiwan University is currently towards the stage of full maturity, whereas the center of Mainland is still in the growth period.
2)There is a wide range of official policy differences between the two sides. Taiwan has detailed policies regulating the center, whereas the mainland has no mandatory regulatory requirements at the current stage.
3)Both universities have equivalent capital contribution and economic input on their centers and no obvious difference are observed by comparing both centers.
4)The software gap is significant between the two centers, as the center of National Taiwan University has notable advantages over the center of mainland.
2.The comparison of administrative mechanism
1)On the surface, the administrative positions of two centers are similar. However, the positions are actually varied due to the difference of system of the two universities. The center in mainland is also a part of ideological and political works rather than purely a mental health service station, which is the sole function of center in Taiwan.
2)The organization forms are significantly different between the two centers, and the center in Taiwan has notable advantages on the numbers and professionalism of professional manpower.
3.The comparison of job functions
1)The two centers are more increasingly innovate their forms of mental health promotion campaigns, as well as developing increasingly deeper contents, at the same time, attaching importance on the online-promotion. The online-promotion in Taiwan center more favors the official university website, compared with the social network platforms which are the developing approaches of the mainland center, such as WeChat Public Platform.
2)The counseling professional services are varies in both centers. Taiwan center shows comparative advantage on number of service provided, time bucket and expertness, etc.
4.The comparison of system construction
The establishment of the Taiwan’s center is relatively complete, and majority jobs are equipped with Standard Operating Procedures. In the contrast, the system of mainland center is comparatively incomplete, large number of work is still carried out by using the previous experiences of the employees without establishing a Standard Operating Procedure.
II The comparison of the use by students of the two centers.
1)There are significant differences in the degree of familiarity between the students of two sides, a higher degree is observed among Taiwanese students compared with students of mainland.
2)There is no significant difference in the willingness between the students from both sides. However, it shows differences on specific aspects, such as attentions, concerned items, expected helps, and existing concerns, etc.
3)There is no significant difference in the percentage of actual usage between the students from both sides. Nevertheless, individual counseling service illustrates a higher volume of usage among the students of Taiwan compared with group counseling service in mainland center. Besides, no difference detected on satisfaction, return willingness, and recommendation among the students from two sides. |
