本研究以質性研究方法，探索一個男生幼兒小團體內的互動方式，以及當小團體內成員發生衝突時的因應方式。以公立幼稚園大班中的一個包含七個五歲以上男孩的小團體為焦點，在為期四個月的研究過程中，主要透過參與觀察、訪談和文件檔案來蒐集資料。
本研究發現小團體內在非衝突情境下與衝突發生時的互動方式隨著脈絡而改變。影響小團體內互動方式的主要脈絡可分為三大層面：一是小團體內的個人，包含領導者、成員個性、能力和舊經驗，二是小團體內的親疏關係，三是小團體外的環境，包含班規、遊戲或玩物特性和老師的介入。
小團體內在非衝突情境下的互動方式：1.其他成員主動親近領導者，領導者指揮其他成員。其次，遵守常規或專注遊戲的領導者常提醒或不理其他成員，其他成員配合領導者。2.能力高者幫助能力低者，成員支持能力高者，能力相等則互相指示。3.成員會互相討論舊經驗，尋求經驗豐富者的認同，舊經驗豐富者指示其他成員。4.親近成員間互動多、方式多樣且雙向；疏遠成員間互動少、方式單調且單向，3.親疏關係成員都有打鬧行為。5.班規的空間限制下，距離近的成員互動頻繁、親密，距離遠的成員也常主動靠近或默默注視。打掃常規下，成員趁機互相討論。6.遊戲規則性使成員幫助或指示，輸贏結果的遊戲中成員互相裁定，玩物稀少共用時互助。7.老師介入時，成員專注活動或注意老師，尤其是領導者影響最大。
小團體內發生衝突時的互動方式：1.牽涉與領導者的友誼關係時，成員常會妥協。領導者批評時成員默默承受，成員被領導者拒絕時，通常先爭論，然後向老師告狀，告狀無效後成員自動妥協於領導者。旁觀成員不理或跟領導者結盟。2.個性不同的成員在衝突時會有不同的因應方式。3.親近成員間的互動有利衝突解決，疏遠成員間的互動無益衝突解決，兩者都使用關係策略，但效果不同。4.玩物具吸引力及資源共用時易互相批評、歸咎或爭論，具規則性和輸贏結果的遊戲易引發爭論，但規則性低而簡單的猜拳遊戲反成為解決爭論的有利方式。5. 老師的介入使衝突立刻結束、不明顯、繼續和加劇

Abstract
This qualitative study explored the interaction in a peer group, and when the conflict has happened, how they interacted. Focuses on the peer group composed of seven boys in the preschool. Data were mainly gathered through observations, interviews and document acquisitions in a preschool classroom for 4months long. This study found the contexts can be divided into three aspect, one is individual in the peer group, include the leader, members’ character, ability and old experiences; two is the relation of familiar and not familiar in the peer group; three is environment beyond the peer group, include classroom regulations, the characteristic of games or toys and teachers’ intervention.
The interaction ways in the peer group in non-conflict situation are: 1.The other members often actively close to the leader or support the thoughts of leader, the leader often command the other members. Secondly, well-behaved and absorbed leader often ignore the other members or remind them to obey the classroom regulations, the other members often coordinate the leader 2.The higher-able members help the lower-able members, the other members support the higher-able members. The equal-able members mutually instruct.3.The members discuses old experiences mutually. The other members look the one has numerous old experiences for identification, and the one has numerous old experiences instructs the other members.4.There are much interactions between familiar members, the ways are manifold and double sided. There are few interactions between not familiar members, the ways are dull and unidirectional.5.In space restraint of classroom regulations, there are many interactions between short distance members, and touch each other intimately. Although there are few interactions between long distance members, but they also outskirt initiatively or silently look at the short distance members .In sweeping classroom regulations, members would take advantage of the occasion discussing common theme.6. In game with rules, the members mutually help or instruct. In game with win or loss result, the members adjudicate mutually. When the toys are few and must be shared, the members help each other.7.When teachers intervene, the members become concentrating inactivity or note what teacher saying, especially influence the leader at most.
The interaction ways in the peer group when the conflict happened are: 1.Involving in the relationship with the leader, the other members usually broke down. When the leader criticizes the other members, the other members usually sustain silently. When the leader rejects the other members to participate the game, they mutually argue at first, then the other members tell the teacher. But this strategy is invalid, so the other members actively again participate leader’s game. The members looking on the conflict ignore conflict or ally the leader.2.The members who have different character would have different interaction ways in the conflict.3.The interactions between familiar members advantage mostly the solution of the conflict. The interactions between not familiar members nearly advantage the solution of the conflict. Although both sides use relation strategy, but the effect is different.4.Tthe toys full of attraction and shared, the members criticize, impeach or argue mutually. In game with rules and win or loss result , the members argue with each other, but the finger guessing game, instead becomes the advantageous ways to solve argument.5.When teachers intervene, the effect can be divided into three levels，include ends at the moment , become not obvious, continues or aggravate in the conflict.

Keywords: peer group; peer interaction; conflict; qualitative study

參考文獻
中文部分
王柏壽（1986）。幼兒同儕關係之研究。嘉義師專學報 ，16，179-208。
王珮玲（1995）。氣質類型與幼兒社會行為。臺北市立師範學院學報，30，415-430。
王怡云、林育瑋（民85）從家庭環境和幼稚園環境看幼兒的同儕互動－以一個個案為例。國立台灣師範大學家政教育系，未出版碩士論文。
田俊龍（1997）國小學生同儕團體與兩性關係。國立高雄師範大學教育學系研究所，未出版碩士論文。
李駱遜（1997）。結交新朋友的歷程：貝莉的故事。國教學報，9，117-137。
李駱遜（2000）。四歲幼兒利社會行為之研究：以一個幼稚園小班為例。國教學報，12，307-338。
李英瑄（2003）衝突情境中的幼兒社會互動。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
宋鎮照（2000）。團體動力學。台北市：五南。
林芳如（2003）幼兒領導者與其團體成員的互動－以幼稚園的兩個同儕團體為例。國立新竹師範學院幼兒教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
林清江（1991）。教育社會學。台北市：台灣。
周淑娟（1997）國小班級同儕團體互動之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學類研究所，未出版碩士論文。
胡幼慧主編（1997）。質性研究~理論方法及本土女性研究實例。台北市：巨流。
徐綺穗、蘇建文同撰（1992）角色取替能力、溝通能力與幼兒同儕地位關係之研究。家政教育，12（1），48-56。
陳湘筑（2003）幼兒攻擊行為初探－以一個幼稚園中班為例。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
陳玲玲（1991）。兒童友伴選擇、友誼概念與友誼知覺之相關研究。國立臺灣師範大學家政教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
陳怡伶（2003）探討幼兒園所班級中之小領導者。國立實踐大學家庭研究與兒童發展研究所，未出版碩士論文。
張明麗（1995）。幼兒同儕互動之研究－－以一個幼稚園大班為例。國立屏東師範學院「幼兒教育」學術研討會實錄。
馮惠偵（2003）。描繪一張友誼的圖：三個國小一年級女生與朋友互動之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
黃博靖（1994）同輩團體的功能及教育意義。訓育研究，33（3），37-42。
黃瑞琴（1991）。質的教育研究方法。台北市：心理。
黃政傑等（1996）。質的教育研究：方法與實例。台北市：漢文。
詹棟樑著（1995）兒童人類學-兒童發展。台北市：五南。
楊玉琪（2002）教室中的「三國誌」-六年級男生同儕團體互動之敘說研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
蔡淑苓（1998）。幼兒同儕互動之研究－以一個幼稚園大班為例。台南女子技術學院學報，17，169-189。
蔡敏玲（2002）。教育質性研究歷程的展現：尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏。台北市：心理。
潘正德編著（1995）。團體動力學。台北市：心理。
謝怡珮（2000）。國小一年級同儕衝突歷程研究：ㄧ種敘說分析。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
簡偉娟（1999）一班國小二年級兒童的秘密世界。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
簡淑真（1989）。學前兒童社會能力與其同儕團體社會地位之研究。臺東師院學報，2，209-277。
劉劭純（2003）。進入國小二年級兒童的友誼世界。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所，未出版碩士論文。
劉金花主編（1999）。兒童發展心理學。臺北市：五南。
李丹主編（1989）。兒童發展。臺北市：五南。
歐用生（1999）。俗民誌及其在教育研究上的意義。現代教育，7（7），34-63。
佳美、新佳美幼稚園老師、家長合著（1995）。走入幼兒的世界。台北市。光佑文化。
王鍾和編譯（1980）。兒童發展。台北市：大洋。
胡海國編譯（1976）。發展心理學。台北市：華新。
Charles A.S.（1982/1994）。Promoting the social development of young children。呂翠夏譯。兒童的社會發展-策略與活動。台北市：桂冠。
Donald L. Jr. ＆ Suzanne K.（1975 /2000）。Sociology。林義男譯。社會學（上冊）（原文）。台北市：巨流。
Judith R. H.（2000 /2000）。The nurture assumption ~why children turn out the way they do？。洪蘭譯。教養的迷思~父母的教養能不能決定孩子的人格發展?。台北市：商周、城邦、農學社。
Newman, B., ＆Newman, P.（1975 /1993）。Development Through Life A psychosocial Approach。郭敬晃、吳幸玲譯。兒童發展-心理社會理論與實務。台北市：揚智。
Joseph A. M.（1996/2001）。Qualitative Research Design：An Interactive Approach。高薰芳等譯。質化研究設計-一種互動取向的方法。台北市：心理。
Sally W. Olds, ＆Diane E. Papalia（1980 /1990）。Human Development（Third edition） 。黃慧真譯。發展心理學。台北市：桂冠。
Shaffer, D. R.（1994/1995）。Social and personality development, 3rd ed.。林翠湄譯。社會與人格發展。台北市：心理。

英文部分
Avgitidou, S.（2001）Peer Culture and Friendship Relationships as Contexts for the Development of Young Children’s Pro-social Behavior. International Journal of Early Years Education ,9（2）,145-152.
Berk, L. E.（2003）Development of Sex Differences and Gender Roles Child development（6th ed.）, 519-535.
Benenson, J. f., ＆Apostoleris, N.H., ＆Parnass, J.（1997）Age and Sex Differences in Dyadic and Group Interaction.Development Psychology, 33（3）, 538-543.
Benenson, J. f., ＆Apostoleris, N.H., ＆Parnass, J.（1998）The Organization of Children’s Same-Sex Peer Relationships. New Directions For Child Development, 80, 5-21.
Caplan, M. and Vespo, J. and Pedersen J. and Hay D.F.（1991）Conflict and It Resolution in Small Group of One-and Two-Year-Olds.Child Development, 62,1513-1524.
Cairns, R., ＆ Xie, H.＆Leung, M. C.（1998）The Popularity of Friendship and the Neglect of Social Networks：Toward a New Balance. New Directions For Child Development,80 , 25-53.
Corsaro, W. A.（1985）Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years. Ablex Publishing.
Corsaro, W. A.（1997） The Sociology of Childhood. Thousand Oaks, Calif : Pine Forge Press.
Doyle,A.B., Connolly J.,＆Rivest L.P.（1980） The Effect of Playmate Familiarity on the Social Interactions ofYoung Children. Child Development ,51（1）,217-223.
Eisenberg, A., ＆Garvey, C.（1981）Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts.Discourse Processes,4,149-170.
Elgas P. M.,KleinE. L., Kantor R.,＆Fernie D. E.（1988）Play and the Peer Culture：Play Styles and Object Use. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,3（2）,142-153.
Erickson F.（1984）What makes school ethnography？Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 15（1）, 51-66.
Farver, J. A .M.（1996）. Aggressive Behavior in Preschoolers’ Social Networks：Do Birds of a Feather Block Together？ Early Childhood Research Quarterly,11 , 333-350.
Fernie D. E., Kantor R.,Klein E. L.,Meyer C.,＆Elgas P. M.（1988）Becoming Students and Becoming Ethnographers in a Preschool. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,3（2）,132-141.
Hatch, J. A.（1985）Children’s Social Goals in Kindergarten Peer Interactions. （ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED254350）.
Hatch, J. A.（1985） Child-to-Child Interactions： Findings and Implications from a Naturalistic Study in Kindergarten.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED264030）.
Hatch, J. A.（1986）Alone in a Crowd:Analysis of Covert Interactions in a Kindergarten. （ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED272278）
Hann, D.D. ＆ Singer, E.（2001）Young Children’s Language of Togetherness. Internation Journal of Early Years Education,9（2）, 117-124.
Hartup, W. W.,Laursen, B.,Stewart, M. I.,＆Eastenson, A.（1988）Conflict and the Friendship Relations of Young Children. Child Development, 59, 1590-1600.
Hartup, W. W.（1988）Early Peer Relations:Developmental Significance and Prognostic Implications. （ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED297885）.
Hay, D. F. ＆ Ross, H.S.（1982） The Social Nature of Early Conflict. Child Development, 53 , 105-113.
Hannikainen, M.（2001）Playful Actions as a Sign of Togetherness in Day Care Centers. International Journal of Early Years Education,9（2）,125-134.
Hawley, P.H.（1999）The Ontogenesis of Social Dominance：a Strategy-Based Evolutionary Perspective.Dvelopmental Review,19,97-132.
Jennifer, E. Lansford ＆ Jeffrey G. Parker（1999）Children’s Interactions in Triads:Behavioral Profiles and Effects of Gender and Patterns of Friendships Among Members. Developmental Psychology ,35（1）,80-93.
Kantor, R.,＆Elgas, P. M., Fernie, D. E.（1993）Cultural Knowledge and Social Competence With a Preschool Peer Culture Group. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,8,125-147.
Kyratzis , A.（2001）Gender , Emotion , and Ideology：Language Socialization in Peer Groups in the Classroom. Proceedings of Making More Effective via Curriculum Design and Teaching Improvement, 527-550.
Laursen, B.（1993）.Conflict Management among Close Peers. New Directions For Child Development, 60, 39-54.
Laursen, B., ＆Hartup, W. W.（1989）The dynamics of preschool children’s conflicts.Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 35,281-297.
McLoyd, V. C.＆Thomas, E. A. C.＆Warren, D.（1984） The Short-Term Dynamics of Social Organization in Preschool Triads. Child Development, 55, 1051-1070.
Oers, B. V., ＆Hannikainen, M.（2001）.Some Thought About Togetherness：an introduction . International Journal of Early Year Education,9（2）, 101-108.
Rayna, S.（2001）.The Very Beginnings of Togetherness in Shared Play Among Young Children. International Journal of Early Year Education, 9（2）, 109-115.
Rourke, M.T., Wozniak, R. H., Cassidy, K. W.,＆College, B. M.（1999）The Social Sensitivity of Preschoolers in Peer Conflicts：Do Child Act Differently Different Peer？Early Education & Development 10（2）,209-225.
Robyn,M. Holmes（1998）Field work with children.Sage Publications.Inc.
Sandelowski, M.（1995）Focus on Qualitative Methods Qualitative Analysis：What It Is and How to Begin.Research in Nursing ＆ Health, 18,371-375.
Sackin, S.,＆Thelen, E.（1984）An ethological study of peaceful associative outcomes to conflict in Preschool Children. Child Development, 55 , 1098-1102.
Sanchez Medina, J.A.,LozanoV.M.＆Goudena,P.P.(2001)Conflict Management in Pre-schoolers:a cross-cultural perspective.International Journal of Early Years Education, 9（2）,153-160.
Shantz, D. W., ＆Shantz, C. U.（1982）.Conflict between children and social-cognitive development.Paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington,DC.
Shantz,C. U.（1987）Conflicts between Children . Child Development, 58 , 283-305
Strayer,F. F., & Strayer, J.（1976）An Ethological Analysis of Social Agonism and Dominance Relations among Preschool Children. Child Development, 47, 980-989.
Ting , H.Y.（1995）Who Are We？Social Relationships and Peer Interactions In A Multilingual/Multicultural Preschool Classroom.Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Ting, H. Y. (1998) Getting into children’s peer social world. In Graue, M. E., & Walsh D. J. (Eds.), Studying Children in Context: Theories, Methods, and Ethics.（pp. 146-157） Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wheeler, E. J.（1994） Peer Conflicts in the Classroom：Drawing Implications from Research. Childhood Education, 70 , 296-299.
Wilson, K. E.（1988）Development of Conflicts and conflict Resolution among Preschool Children.（ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED304211）.