服務主導邏輯（Service-Dominant Logic, SDL）於教育場域之研究多聚焦學生端，對教師作為共創行動者的主觀體驗缺乏系統探討。本研究改以教師視角為分析主體，探討華語教學互動中價值共創與共毀的生成歷程，及其對教師教學投入與專業認同之影響。研究採質性多重個案研究法，對四位不同教學場域之華語教師（其中三位為現職教師，一位為已退出教職之對比個案）進行半結構式、事件導向訪談，並依主題分析法進行跨個案詮釋。
研究發現，華語教師立基於語言學習信念、實踐條件與學習者回饋三項共通基礎，發展出教學設計、互動調節、關係建構與專業主體調適四項彼此連動的核心能力。在教師詮釋下，學生的正負向課室參與行為可被轉化為診斷互動落差、推動教學調整的訊號。據此，本研究將教師價值體驗依生成來源與作用方向，歸納為課室互動共創、課室互動摩擦、外部認可支持與外部結構制約四種面向，且這些體驗會持續累積，反過來作用於教師的課堂策略、職涯投入與專業認同。此外，研究亦揭示教師須在制度感受規則與真實情感的張力間持續進行情緒勞動，而此一歷程已超出個人情緒管理，構成其專業認同協商的一環。
根據上述發現，本研究提出「華語教學場域價值共創體驗的生成與回饋歷程」，補充 SDL 理論在教師視角研究之不足，並為華語師資培育與教學支持制度提供參考。

Research on Service-Dominant Logic (SDL) in education has concentrated on the student side, leaving the subjective experience of teachers as co-creating actors underexamined. Taking the teacher as its analytical subject, this study investigates how value co-creation and co-destruction are generated in Mandarin teaching interactions, and how they shape teachers' instructional engagement and professional identity. Adopting a qualitative multiple-case design, it conducted semi-structured, event-based interviews with four Mandarin teachers from different teaching contexts (three in-service and one contrasting case who had left the profession), analyzed through thematic analysis and cross-case interpretation.
The findings show that, grounded in three shared foundations: beliefs about language learning, practice conditions, and learner feedback, teachers develop four interlocking core capabilities: instructional design, interaction regulation, relationship building, and professional-self adaptation. Through teachers' interpretation, students' positive and negative classroom participation can be reframed as signals that diagnose interactional gaps and drive instructional adjustment. Teachers' value experiences are accordingly organized by generative source and valence into four dimensions, interactional co-creation, interactional friction, external affirmation, and external structural constraint, which continuously accumulate and, in turn, act back upon their classroom strategies, career engagement, and professional identity. The study further reveals that teachers must sustain emotional labor amid the tension between institutional feeling rules and authentic emotion, a process that reaches beyond individual emotion management to form part of the negotiation of their professional identity. Integrating these findings, the study proposes a Generation-and-Feedback Process of Value Co-creation Experience in the Mandarin Teaching Context, addressing the gap in teacher-perspective SDL research and informing Mandarin teacher education and instructional support.

中文文獻
王豐家, 鄭志富, & 鍾易瑋. (2024). 中文版電競情境價值共創體驗量表之信效度檢驗. 體育學報. https://doi.org/10.6222/pej.202411/PP.0005
吳啟誠 & 張瓊云. (2020). 主題分析在教育研究上的應用. 特殊教育發展期刊, (69). https://doi.org/10.7034/DSE.202006_(69).0003
林金定, 嚴嘉楓, & 陳美花. (2005). 質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析. 身心障礙研究季刊, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.30072/JDR.200506.0005
信世昌, 鍾宜庭, 孫璿雅, & 傅筱雯. (2021). 臺灣華語教師對於工作環境之滿意度變化－橫跨二十年的歷時調查. 臺灣華語教學研究, (23). https://doi.org/10.29748/TJCSL.202112_(23).0001
洪珮茹（2022）。COVID-19疫情下華語教師工作滿意度之訪談研究。﹝碩士論文。國立臺中教育大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/c3j6fz
陳振宇. (2014a). 華語文教育轉型為以知識與技能為產品元素的服務產業：一個新典範的探討. 華語文教學研究, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.201406_11(2).0005
陳振宇. (2020). 中華民國華語文政策芻議. 教育科學研究期刊, 65(1). https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202003_65(1).0002
黃柔溱、 信世昌. (2022). 華語中心隱性課程探討之個案研究──以臺灣中部某大學為例. 臺灣華語教學研究, (25). https://doi.org/10.29748/TJCSL.202212_(25).0003
葉至誠, & 葉立誠. (2011). 研究方法與論文寫作 / 葉至誠, 葉立誠著. (3版.). 商鼎文化出版社. https://lb30.libraryandbook.net/Book_detial/EB978986144088001
趙美淇. (2022). 職前華語教師轉職從業動機之個案研究. 政治大學學位論文. https://doi.org/10.6814/NCCU202201749
劉思嫺（2016）。初任華語教師遭遇的困擾與因應之個案研究。﹝碩士論文。國立政治大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9ffz67
蔡喬育. (2010). 華語文教師多元文化教育知能的初探. 華語文教學研究, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.201008.0091
蔡馥霙（2023）。台灣華語教師之勞動條件滿意度與組織政治知覺對留任意願之影響。﹝碩士論文。國立中山大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/hgqk2v
英文文獻
Bao, C., Zhang, L. J., & Dixon, H. R. (2022). Emotional Labor in Teaching Chinese as an Additional Language in a Family-Based Context in New Zealand: A Chinese Teacher’s Case. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 902700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.902700
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001
Benesch, Sarah. (2018). Emotions as agency: Feeling rules emotion labor, and English language teachers’ decision-making. System. 79. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.015.
Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creation in learning and teaching: The case for a whole-class approach in higher education. Higher Education, 79(6), 1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00453-w
Bovill, C., Cook‐Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: Implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.568690
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (Fifth edition). Oxford University Press.
Coldron, J., & Smith, R. (1999). Active location in teachers’ construction of their professional identities. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(6), 711–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799182954
Cruz, M. D. F., Alves, H., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2025). Teacher’s service-dominant orientation: Scale development and validation. Studies in Higher Education, 50(8), 1743–1761. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2398684
Díaz-Méndez, M., Paredes, M. R., & Saren, M. (2019). Improving Society by Improving Education through Service-Dominant Logic: Reframing the Role of Students in Higher Education. Sustainability, 11(19), 5292. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195292
Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.001
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00025-0
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/engagement_through_partnership.pdf
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2016). Students as Partners: Reflections on a Conceptual Model. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.2.3
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.
Jacob, S., & Furgerson, S. (2012). Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for Students New to the Field of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2012.1718
Järvi, H., Kähkönen, A.-K., & Torvinen, H. (2018). When value co-creation fails: Reasons that lead to value co-destruction. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.01.002
Judson, K. M., & Taylor, S. A. (2014). Moving from Marketization to Marketing of Higher Education: The Co-Creation of Value in Higher Education. Higher Education Studies, 4(1), p51. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n1p51
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Kariou, A., Koutsimani, P., Montgomery, A., & Lainidi, O. (2021). Emotional Labor and Burnout among Teachers: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), 12760. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312760
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X
Liang, J., & Long, Z. (2024). Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure College EFL Students’ Perceived Teacher Support. Sage Open, 14(4), 21582440241276983. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241276983
Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., & Bovill, C. (2023). Do students experience transformation through co-creating curriculum in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 28(7), 1744–1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1928060
Lumivalo, J., Tuunanen, T., & Salo, M. (2024). Value Co-Destruction: A Conceptual Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Service Research, 27(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705231177504
Martin-Alguacil, N., Avedillo, L., Mota-Blanco, R., & Gallego-Agundez, M. (2024). Student-Centered Learning: Some Issues and Recommendations for Its Implementation in a Traditional Curriculum Setting in Health Sciences. Education Sciences, 14(11), 1179. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111179
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A Systematic Literature Review of Students as Partners in Higher Education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119
Miller, E. R., & Gkonou, C. (2018). Language teacher agency, emotion labor and emotional rewards in tertiary-level English language programs. System, 79, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.002
Miller, J. (2009). Teacher Identity. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (1st ed., pp. 172–181). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139042710.023
Moriña, A. (2020). When people matter: The ethics of qualitative research in the health and social sciences. Health & Social Care in the Community, 29(5), 1559–1565. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13221
Ng, I. C. L., & Forbes, J. (2009). Education as Service: The Understanding of University Experience Through the Service Logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240902904703
Nguyen, P. N., Thu, T. P. T., Thi, A. P., & Thu, H. T. T. (2024). Co-Creation in Teaching and Learning at University of Hai Duong, Vietnam. Journal of Social and Political Sciences, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1991.07.04.524
Peng, W., Liu, Y., & Peng, J.-E. (2023). Feeling and acting in classroom teaching: The relationships between teachers’ emotional labor, commitment, and well-being. System, 116, 103093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103093
Plé, L., & Chumpitaz Cáceres, R. (2010). Not always co‐creation: Introducing interactional co‐destruction of value in service‐dominant logic. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011072546
Ragas, I. M., Pontillas, P. V., & Comon, J. D. (2024). Skills and Roles of Teachers in 21st Century Teaching: Basis for Professional Development Plan. European Modern Studies Journal, 8(4), 344–370. https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.8(4).2024.15
Resh, M. (2019). Value co-creation in education : A case study of Interspectral (Dissertation). Retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-388944
Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643
Subedi, M. (2023). Sampling and Trustworthiness Issues in Qualitative Research. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 61–64. https://doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v17i01.61146
Tarı Kasnakoğlu, B., & Mercan, H. (2022). Co-creating positive outcomes in higher education: Are students ready for co-creation? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 32(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1825031
Tronvoll, B. (2011). Negative emotions and their effect on customer complaint behaviour. Journal of Service Management, 22(1), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111106947
Tronvoll, B. (2012). A dynamic model of customer complaining behaviour from the perspective of service‐dominant logic. European Journal of Marketing, 46(1/2), 284–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211189338
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001
Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001
Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: Its measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-09-2014-0254
Wang, L., & Du, X. (2016). Chinese language teachers’ beliefs about their roles in the Danish context. System, 61, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.009
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. Jossey-Bass.
Xu, W., & Zammit, K. (2020). Applying Thematic Analysis to Education: A Hybrid Approach to Interpreting Data in Practitioner Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920918810. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920918810
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (Sixth edition). SAGE.
Zamora-Ramos, M. R., Chamorro-Mera, A., & Diaz-Mendez, M. (2023). Student Value Co-creation Behaviour in The Higher Education Service Ecosystem: An Empirical Exploration. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 14(4), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2023.4-10