研究生: |
簡良倩 Chien, Liang-Chien |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
南投縣國民中學校長授能領導對兼職行政教師工作滿意度影響之研究 The Impact of the Principles’ Empowerment Leadership on Working Satisfaction for the Public Junior High School Teachers with Administrative Position in Nantou Couty |
指導教授: |
游進年
Yu, Chin-Nien |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
教育政策與行政研究所 Graduate Institute of Educational Policy and Administration |
論文出版年: | 2017 |
畢業學年度: | 105 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 123 |
中文關鍵詞: | 兼職行政教師 、校長授能領導 、工作滿意度 |
英文關鍵詞: | teachers with administrative position, principles’ empowerment leadership, working satisfaction |
DOI URL: | https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202202790 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:126 下載:3 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究旨在探究南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師在校長授能領導與工作滿意度的現況,了解不同背景之兼職行政教師在校長授能領導及工作滿意度的差異情形,並探討兩者間的相關性,以及分析校長授能領導對兼職行政教師工作滿意度的預測力。
本研究以105學年度服務於南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師為對象進行問卷調查,以描述性統計、獨立樣本t考驗、單因子變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關以及多元迴歸分析統計方法進行資料分析,並獲得以下結論:
壹、南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師在整體校長授能領導的知覺上介於普通至同意之間;其中在「權責賦予及共同參與管理」面向的知覺感受較多,在「激勵與凝聚」面向的知覺感受則較少。
貳、南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師整體工作滿意度介於不滿意至普通之間的程度;其中在「工作壓力與負荷」層面的工作滿意度最低。
參、不同性別、年齡及行政職務之南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師在知覺校長授能領導的程度上有明顯的差別。
肆、不同性別、年齡及行政職務之南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師在工作滿意度中的「組織與領導」向度上有明顯的差別。
伍、不同年齡及在校服務年資之南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師在工作滿意度中的「待遇與福利」「工作壓力與負荷」向度上有明顯的差別。
陸、南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師知覺校長授能領導越高,則工作滿意度越高,兩者的感受程度是有正向關係的影響。
柒、南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師知覺校長授能領導對工作滿意度的預測力極小,推測影響南投縣國民中學兼職行政教師工作滿意度尚還有其他因素。
最後根據歸納研究結果,並提出建議以供教育行政單位、學校及未來研究參考。
This study is aimed to explore the perception of principles’ empowerment leadership and working satisfaction for Nantou public junior high school teachers with the administractive position. Furthormore, in order to take the prediction of the working satisfaction of the teachers with administrative positions, the study also investigate the correlationship between the above variables from various backgrounds of the teachers.
The subjects were targeted at Nantou junior high school teachers with administrative positions in the academic year of 2016. The questionnaire survey method was adopted. Descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation, and Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis were utilized to analyze the data. According to the aforementioned findings, some conclusions were as follows:
1.The degree of the overall perception of the principles’ empowerment leadership of the junior high school teachers with administrative position in Nantou fell in the range between medium and agreement. Besides, the degree of “empowerment and collective participatory management” was ranked the highest, and the degree of “encouragement and cohesion” was rated the lowest.
2.The degree of the overall working satisfaction of the junior high school teachers with administrative position in Nantou fell in the range between dissatisfaction and medium. Besides, the degree of “working pressure and loading” was ranked the highest.
3.The junior high school teachers’ background demographics, i.e., gender, age, and working position, borne significant difference toward the perception of the principles’ empowerment leadership.
4.Gender, age, and working position made a significant difference on the “organization and leadership” of the working satisfaction toward the public high school teachers with administrative position in Nantou.
5.The public high school teachers’ age and service year with administrative position in Nantou made a significant difference on “treatment and benefits” and “working pressure and loading”
6.The perception of the principles' empowerment leadership had a positive relationship with the working satisfaction toward the public high school teachers with administrative position in Nantou.
7.The perception from the principles' empowerment leadership took slight prediction for the working satisfaction of the junior high school teachers with administrative position, showing that there are some other variables might have explanation to the working satisfaction.
Based on the conclusions, some suggestions are offered for the educational administrative authorities, school, and futher researchers respectively.
壹、中文部分
王國浩(2009)。臺北市國民中學兼任行政職務教師角色壓力與工作滿意之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。
王派土 (2004)。桃園縣國民小學組織文化與教師工作滿意度相關之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學,新竹市。
田欽文(2008)。國民中學兼任行政教師工作滿意度與組織承諾關係之研究-以台北縣為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
朱哲宏(2011)。國中兼任行政職務教師留任意願之研究-以高雄市為例(未出版之碩士論文)。樹德科技大學,高雄縣。
沈娟娟(2012)。國民中學校長授能領導與兼任行政職務教師組織承諾關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
余燕萍(2013)。國立高級中學教師兼任行政職務工作滿意度與留任意願相關之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
李立泰(2006)。臺北縣立完全中學兼任行政工作教師角色壓力、組織承諾與工作滿意度關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
李慧雯(2009)。完全中學兼任行政教師行政辭卸傾向之研究:以工作滿意、工作壓力、生涯規劃為探討變項(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
李新民(1995)。國小校長授權行為。初等教育學報,8,299-326。
林天祐(2003)。教育行政學。臺北市:心理出版社。
林杏芳(2016)。臺北市立國民中學教師兼任行政職務角色衝突與辭卸行政職務傾向的關係之探討(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北科技大學,臺北市。
吳正成(1999)。臺東縣國民小學校長授能行為之探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立東華大學,花蓮縣。
吳珮瑩、施登堯(2015)。少子化現象對學校的影響─從教師兼任行政人員視角出發。臺灣教育評論月刊,4(11),221-237。
吳清基(1989)教育與行政。臺北市:師大書苑。
吳清山、林天祐(2005)。教育新辭書。臺北市:五南。
許瑞芳(2001)。國民小學啟聰教育教師工作滿意度調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。
南投縣政府教育處(2016)。南投縣各級學校國中小基本資料列表。未出版之統計數據。取自http://163.22.168.146/NewPerson/SchoolBase.aspx
梁丁財(民91)。國民小學校長轉型領導與教師工作滿意度關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台中師範學院,臺中市。
陳名昱(2011)。南投縣偏遠地區國民中學校長授能領導與教師領導之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
陳佩英(2005)。轉型領導的學校經營:以一位女校長的領導經驗為例。當代教育研究,13(2),1-35。
陳記隆(2013)。兼行政職國中教師工作壓力與因應策略之探討-以臺中市豐原區為例(未出版之碩士論文)。南華大學,嘉義縣。
陳振益(2014)。學校行政運作的現況與人員的培育。臺灣教育評論月刊,3(4),8-10。
陳啟榮(2014)。臺灣中小學教師兼任行政工作議題之探析。臺灣教育,686,44-48。
陳淑蘭(2001)。國民小學教師參與學校行政工作意願之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中師範學院,臺中市。
周昌柏(2005)。國小校長轉型領導、交易領導與教師工作滿意度關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立花蓮師範學院,花蓮縣。
張心怡(2001)。授能領導-學校行政領導之新面向。學校行政,13,61-71。
張春興(1989)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市:東華。
張德銳(2000)。教育行政研究。臺北市:五南。
張菁媛(2008)。屏東縣國小校長授能行為、教師組織承諾與學校效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學,屏東縣。
翁敏芳、賴志峰(2014)臺中市國民小學兼任行政教師工作壓力與組織承諾相關之研究。學校行政雙月刊,93,210-232。
秦夢群(1997)。教育行政-理論部分。臺北市:五南圖書。
秦夢群(1998)。教育行政-理論部分(第二版)。臺北市:五南。
郭子毓(2012)。桃園縣國民中學兼任行政職務教師工作壓力、因應策略與工作滿意度關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。中原大學,中壢市。
教育部部史全國資訊網(2016)。教育大事年表。未出版之年表。取自http://history.moe.gov.tw/milestone.asp?YearStart=81&YearEnd=90&page=12。
黃金茂(2005)。國小校長溝通行為與學校組織氣氛及關係之研究教師工作滿意度(未出版之碩士論文)。屏東師範學院,屏東市。
黃哲彬(2004)。國民小學校長賦權增能行為與學校效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺南大學,臺南市。
黃哲彬(2011)。國民中學校長賦權增能領導行為、組織創新經營與學校效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
黃雪華(2005)。授權賦能理論及學校運作。教師之友,46(5),69-77。
黃盈彰(2002a)。中小學教師工作滿意度特性之研究─與高層專業人員等職業類別做比較。教育與心理研究,25,149-177。
楊智雄(2007)。國民中學校長授能領導與組織學習之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
劉家安(2009)。國小校長轉型領導概念之研究-以苗栗縣教師工作滿意度為例(未出版之碩士論文)。玄奘大學,新竹市。
蔡仁政、翁福元(2014)。小校悲歌:教師兼行政人員的困境、因應與展望。臺灣教育評論月刊,3(4),15-19。
蔡進雄(2005)。學校領導理論研究。臺北市:師大書苑。
趙士瑩(2012)。國民中學兼任行政教師行政專業成長之探討。學校行政雙月刊,545,66-67。
潘慧玲(2001,6月)。學校革新研究的構想與做法。論文發表於國立臺灣師範大學教育學系舉辦之「學校革新」研討會,臺北市。
潘慧玲(2002)。種子與土壤:校長與教師在學校革新中的角色與作法。載於潘慧玲(主編),學校革新-理念與實踐(102-127頁)。臺北市:學富。
潘慧玲(2004)。形構變革年代中學校領導的權力論述。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC94-2412-H-003-001)。臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學教育學系。
謝傳崇(2011)。校長正向領導:理念、研究與實踐。臺北市:高等教育。
蘇品如(2012)。桃園縣國民中學校長授能領導與教師組織公民行為關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
蘇育濱(2014)。臺中市國民小學校長授能領導與兼任行政教師工作滿意度相關之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
貳、英文部分
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. R. (1994). Empowering teachers: What successful principals do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blanchard, K., Carlos, J. P., & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment: Takes more than a minute. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bonder, S. L. (2005). Design and empirical analysis of a model of empowering leadership. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), The University of North Texas, Texas.
Chen, P. I. (2008). Strategies leadership and school reform in Taiwan. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 293-318.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of management review, 12(3), 471-482.
Domer, D. E. (1983). Understanding educational satisfaction. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No.ED 232 600).
Duff, B. K. (2013). Differences in assessments of organizational school climate between teachers and administrators. Doctoral dissertation. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (UMI No. 3559002).
Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N., & Soetanto, R. (2007). Understanding empowerment from an employee perspective. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 39-55.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Harris, H., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. Maidenhead,UK: Open University.
Heller, M. J., & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 68-56.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Company.
Khany, R., & Tazik, K. (2016). On the relationship between psychological empowerment, trust, and Iranian EFL teachers’ job satisfaction-The case of secondary school teachers. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(1), 112-129.
Lee, A. N., & Nie, Y. (2013). Development and validation of the school leader empowering behaviours (SLEB) scale. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 485-495.
Lee, A. N., & Nie, Y. (2014). Understanding teacher empowerment: Teachers’ perceptions of principal’s and immediate supervisor’s empowerment behaviours, psychological empowerment and work-related outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 67-79.
Malik, N. I. (2011). Level of job satisfaction among university and college men and women teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(3), 750–758.
Marsh, D. D. (2000). Educational leadership for the twenty-first century: Integrating three essential perspectives. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership, ed. M. Fullan, 126-45. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maxfield, C. R., & Flumerfelt, S. (2009). The empowerment principal: Leadership behaviors needed by effective principals as indentied by emerging leaders and principals. Inthernational Journal of Teacher Leadership, 2(2), 39-48.
Mertler, C. A. (2002). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. In C. Boston (Ed.), Understanding scoring rubrics: A guide for teachers (pp.72–81). College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
Ngimbuzi, F. W. (2009). Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in Tanzania: The case of Njombe district. (Master’s thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Finland).Retrieved from:https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/25482/URN%3ANBN%3Afi%3Ajyu-201010152985.pdf?sequence=1.
Painter, S., Haladyna, T., & Hurwitz, S. (2007). Attracting beginning teachers: The incentives and organizational characteristics that matter. Planning and Changing, 38(1/2), 108-128.
Pan, H. L. W., & Chen, P. (2011). Challenges and research agenda of school leadership in Taiwan. School Leadership & Management, 31(4), 339-353.
Pan, H. L., & Yu, C. (1999). Educational reforms with their impacts on school effectiveness and school improvement in Taiwan. School Effectiveness and School Reform, 10(1), 72–85.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
Pardo del Val, M., & Llyod, B. (2002). Measuring empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 102-108.
Reitzug, U. C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 283-307.
Robinson, T. (2010). Examining the impact of leadership style and school climate on student achievement. Doctoral dissertation. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (UMI No. 3209981).
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The Principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Bosten.MA: Alyn and Bacon.
Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Tsemach, S. (2014). Psychological empowerment as a mediator between teachers’ perceptions of authentic leadership and their withdrawal and citizenship behaviors. Educational administration quarterly, 50(4), 675-712.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago,IL: Rand McNally.
Stride, C., Wall, T. D., & Catley, N. (2007). Measuring of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, mental health and job-related well-being: A benchmarking manual (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: application, assessment, causes and consequences. London,UK: SAGE.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 383-504.
Srivastava, A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239-1251.
Vanourek, R. A. (1995). Servant-leadership and the future. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 298-308). New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of measurement of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129-148.
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193-210.
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site autonomy. Educational evaluation, 14(1), 69-83.
Yost, D. S. (2006). Reflection and self-efficacy: Enhancing the retention of qualified teachers from a teacher education perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 59-74.
Zhang, X. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. The Academy of Management Journal 53(1), 107 – 128.