研究生: |
湯億松 |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
我國國中處室行政人員教學領導之研究—以北部六縣市為例 The Research on Junior High School Administrators' Instructional Leadership |
指導教授: |
黃乃熒
Whang, Nai-Ying |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
教育學系 Department of Education |
論文出版年: | 2000 |
畢業學年度: | 88 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 192 |
中文關鍵詞: | 教學領導 、學校效能 、文獻分析法 、問卷調查法 、教師進階制度 、學習型組織 |
英文關鍵詞: | Instructional leadership, School effectiveness, Documentary research, Questionnaire survey, Career ladder, Learning organization |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:188 下載:42 |
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 |
本研究旨在探討我國國中處室行政人員教學領導的實施現況,並進而探求國中處室行政人員實施教學領導對學校效能的影響力;最後,再歸納研究發現,來規劃一套國中處室行政人員專屬的教學領導原則及實施綱要,據以供作國中處室行政人員實施教學領導時的參考。
為達上述研究目的,本研究兼採文獻分析法及問卷調查法。根據研究目的及文獻分析所得結果,編製「國民中學各處室教學領導任務調查問卷」,然後再依學校所在地區及學校規模大小,抽取臺灣省北部六縣市(含台北縣、桃園縣、新竹縣、台北市、基隆市及新竹市等)50所公立國民中學900位學校教職員(含校長、教務處、訓導處、輔導室等三處室行政人員,以及未兼行政工作的教師等)為對象,進行調查。再透過描述統計、t考驗、單因子變異數分析、雪費法、皮爾遜積差相關、逐步多元迴歸分析,及典型相關等統計方法,加以處理,而獲得結論如下:
一、國中處室行政人員實施教學領導的情形大致良好。唯在「公共關係的經營」之層面上,仍亟待加強。
二、性別不同的學校教職員在處室行政人員實施教學領導的認知上,有顯著的差異存在。為男性教職員所給予的評價明顯高於女性教職員。
三、學歷不同的學校教職員在處室行政人員實施教學領導的認知上,有顯著的差異存在。特別是專科或以下畢業的教職員所給予的評價明顯高於其他學歷畢業的教職員。
四、職務不同的學校教職員在處室行政人員實施教學領導的認知上,有顯著的差異存在。為學校行政人員所給予的評價明顯高於未兼任何行政工作的班級導師及專任教師。
五、年資不同的學校教職員在處室行政人員實施教學領導的認知上,有顯著的差異存在。特別是年資在16年以上的資深教職員所給予的評價明顯高於年資在15年以下較為資淺的教職員。
六、服務學校規模不同的學校教職員在處室行政人員實施「公共關係的經營」層面的認知上,有顯著的差異存在。為服務於36班以下的教職員所給予的評價明顯高於60班以上的教職員。
七、國中處室行政人員教學領導任務與學校效能呈高度正相關。
八、國中處室行政人員實施教學領導會影響「學生學習成就」。
九、國中處室行政人員實施教學領導會影響「教師教學效能」。
十、國中處室行政人員實施教學領導對「學校效能」有正面的影響。
十一、不同背景的學校教職員對國中處室行政人員實施教學領導,確實懷有高度的企盼與期待。
根據研究結果,提出以下數點原則性的建議,作為今後改進國中處室行政人員實施教學領導上的參考。
一、 對教育行政機關與師資培育機構的建議
(一) 在學校處室行政人員的養成教育過程中強化其對教學領導的 觀念。
(二) 提供與教學領導相關之進修研習機會。
(三) 增加各處室充分的員額編制。
(四) 徹底落實「教師進階制度」。
二、 對校長的建議
(一) 學校宜發展成一「學習型組織」。
(二) 校長領導風格有待重建。
(三) 建立學校各處室行政人員教學領導之工作指標。
(四) 加強處室行政人員績效評鑑。
三、 對學校各行政處室領導者的建議
(一) 積極與社區建立優質的伙伴關係。
(二) 拔擢更多女性教職員擔任學校行政主管。
(三) 強化學校各層級間的溝通互動。
四、 對未來進一步研究的建議
(一) 就研究對象而言:今後的研究,就量而言,或許可再就全省為取樣範圍,來進行研究。而就質而言,或許可以縱的方面來擴大範圍至國小、高中等;而也可以就橫向來擴大範圍至私立學校。此外,問卷施測對象,亦可將其餘如教育官員、學者專家、其餘處室成員、社區人士,甚或學生等相關人員加以納入。
(二) 就研究方法而言:今後的研究,或可兼採用訪談法,或直接採用質性研究之參與觀察法,以彌補問卷調查法之不足。
(三) 就研究內容而言:今後的研究,或許可就其餘學校處室,如總務處、人事室等,與本研究所取的三處室來進行一統整性的分析與討論,以彌補本研究「學校處室行政人員」之代表性的不足。
(四) 就研究變項而言:今後的研究,或許可再加入如任教地區、填答者個人進修頻率等。此外,就依變項的學校效能方面,本研究僅以其兩項基本之核心概念為主軸。今後的研究,或許亦可再將其細分如學校氣氛、適應力等,在據此進行研究。
The purposes of the study are: (a) to explore the condition of instructional leadership implemented by the school administrators, (b) to investigate the relationship between the school administrators’ instructional leadership behaviors and the school effectiveness, and (c) to conclude the investigating results to provide the school administrators with their own instructional leadership rules and programs.
In order to accomplish these purposes, the researcher adopts both “documentary research” and “questionnaire survey”. According to the purposes of the study and the results concluded out of the literatures, a questionnaire called “The School Administrators’ Instructional Leadership Behavior Scale” is developed. And then, it is used to survey on 900 school staffs, including administrators and teachers, randomly selected from 50 junior high schools in the six counties in north Taiwan, including Taipei city, Keelung city, Hsin-Chu city, Taipei county, Taoyuan county, and Hsin-Chu county. Descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, Scheffe method, Pearson’s product-moment correlation, stepwise multiple regression, and canonical regression are the main treatments in data analysis. From the statistical analysis of the results, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. It is rather good for school administrators in junior high schools to implement instructional leadership. Only in the task, “ managing public relationship”, it still has to be paid much attention to.
2. In the cognition of school administrators’ instructional behaviors, there is a significant difference between males and females. The result is that the evaluation given by males is obviously higher than females.
3. In the cognition of school administrators’ instructional behaviors, there is a significant difference between different diplomas. Especially those staffs who graduated from academy, the evaluation given by them is obviously higher than other categories of diplomas.
4. In the cognition of school administrators’ instructional behaviors, there is a significant difference between different positions. The result is that the evaluation given by school administrators is obviously higher than teachers.
5. In the cognition of school administrators’ instructional behaviors, there is a significant difference between different seniority. Especially those staffs who are over 16 seniority, the evaluation given by them is obviously higher than those below 15 seniority.
6. In the cognition of school administrators’ instructional behaviors, there is a significant difference between different school size. The result is that the evaluation given by those staffs whose schools are less than 36 classes are obviously higher than more than 60 classes.
7. There is significant positive correlation between the school administrators’ instructional leadership behaviors and the school effectiveness.
8. The junior high school administrators’ instructional leadership behaviors can influence the students’ achievement obviously.
9. The junior high school administrators’ instructional leadership behaviors can influence the teaching efficiency obviously.
10. The junior high school administrators’ instructional leadership behaviors can influence the school effectiveness obviously.
11. Different ecological variables of school staffs are pleased to accept the concept of the school administrators’ instructional leadership.
Finally, base on the conclusion, the researcher proposes several principled suggestions below for junior high school administrators to implement instructional leadership.
1. For educational administrative agencies and pre-service teacher institutions:
(i) To reinforce the concept of instructional leadership in the process of school administrators’ faculty cultivation.
(ii) To provide the school administrators with the in-service programs related to instructional leadership.
(iii) To increase school administrators properly.
(iv) To provide a systematic career ladder for teachers.
2. For principals:
(i) To develop school as a learning organization.
(ii) To rebuild the leading style of principals.
(iii)To build up a set of guidelines school
administrators’instructional leadership tasks.
(iv) To reinforce the evaluation on the school
administrators’ performance.
3. For the leaders of the school administrative agencies:
(i) To develop a fit partnership between its belonging
community.
(ii) To provide more opportunities of being the leaders of
the school administrative agencies for females.
(iii)To reinforce the communication between different phases
of school staffs.
4. For the further research:
(i) To broaden the samples.
(ii) To adopt qualitative research.
(iii)To broaden the content of research.
(iv) To broaden the variables of research.
一、 中文部份
王文科(民84)。教育研究法,台北市:五南。
王昭惠(民85)。國中訓導人員執行學生常規管理之研究:一個國中訓導
處的觀察,國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
呂木琳(民87)。教學視導—理論與實務,台北市:五南。
李 珀(民85)。改進教學品質最有效的方法—教學視導。載於國語日
報,民國85年7月9日13版。
李安明(民85)。領導與管理之差異及其在學校行政上之應用。教育研究
資訊,4卷5期,頁56-73。
李安明(民87)。我國國小校長教學領導之研究與省思。教育研究資訊,
6卷6期,頁121-46。
吳清山(民86)。學校行政,台北市:心理。
吳明隆(民82)。視導人員的角色職責。教育資料文摘,32卷1期,頁
124-34。
吳明隆(民89)。SPSS統計應用實務,台北市:松岡。
林明地(民88)。校長教學領導實際:一所國小的參與觀察,教育行政論
壇第五次研討會,頁83-110。
林清山(民81)。心理與教育統計學,台北市:東華。
邱錦昌(民80)。教學視導之理論與實際,台北市:五南。
徐孝恭(民86)。論學校教學視導與教學革新,教師新思維論文選輯,台
北市:國立臺灣師範大學,頁178-200。
教育部(民66)。教育部人事法規釋例彙編,台北市:教育部人事處。
教育部(民88)。國教司法令規章。[WWWpage] URL
http://www.edu.tw/rules/index.htm
教育部(民88)。統計處八十七學年度主要統計表。
[WWWpage] URL http://www.edu.tw/statistics/index.htm
黃乃熒(民85)。從「教學領導」談學校教育革新。中等教育,47卷6
期,頁50-57。
黃振球(民81)。績優學校,台北市:師苑。
黃嘉雄(民89)。落實學校本位課程發展的行政領導策略。教育資料與
研究,33期,頁19-25。
黃錦惠、吳海山(民77)。學校效能研究,臺灣省政府教育廳編印。
莊智芳(民82)。教學視導模式之介紹。教育資料文摘,32卷1期,頁
110-23。
張碧娟(民88)。國中校長教學領導、學校教學氣氛與教師教學效能
關係之研究,國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版。
張德銳(民84)。教育行政研究,台北市:五南。
張慈娟(民86)。國民小學校長教學領導與學校效能之研究,國立新竹師
範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版
陳奎熹(民79)。教育社會學研究,台北市:師苑。
陳金進(民65)。國中校長的教學視導任務,國立臺灣師範大學教育研究
所碩士論文,未出版。
陳幸仁(民85)。學校文化與學校效能關係的探討。國民教育,36卷5
期,頁56-61。
陳美言(民87)。國民小學校長教學領導與教師教學自我效能關係之研
究,台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
陳春雄(民74)。國中教務主任角色之研究,國立臺灣師範大學教育研究
所碩士論文,未出版。
葉振學(民85)。國民小學校長教學視導方式與教師效能關係之研究,國
立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
楊振昇(民88)。邁向二十一世紀落實教學領導之省思,教育行政論壇第
五次研討會,頁111-35。
趙廣林(民85)。國民小學校長教學領導之研究,國立屏東師範學院國民
教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
魯先華(民83)。國中校長教學領導之研究,國立臺灣師範大學教育
研究所碩士論文,未出版。
鄭彩鳳(民87)。學校行政—理論與實務,高雄市:麗文。
歐用生(民85)。課程與教學革新,台北市:師苑。
蔡培林(民82)。國中學校管理型態與學校效能關係之研究,國立臺
灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
蔡進雄(民86)。改進校內教學視導的有效途徑,教師新思維論文選輯,
台北市:國立臺灣師範大學,頁154-72。
蔡秀媛(民87)。國民小學校長教學領導及其影響因素之研究,國立臺灣
師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
謝小岑(民77)。好學校的必備條件。教育資料文摘,126期,頁4-13。
謝文全(民82)。學校行政,台北市:五南。
謝文全(民82)。教育行政:理論與實務,台北市:五南。
謝文全(民87)。教育行政:理論與實務,台北市:五南。
二、 英文部份
Alfonso, R. J., Firth, G. R. &. Neville, R. F. (1981).
Instructional supervision : A behavior system. Boston :
Allyn and Bacon.
Andrews, R. L. (1987). On leadership and student achievement:
A conversation with Richard Andrews. Educational
Leadership, 45(1), 9-16.
Beach, D. M. & Reinhartz, J. (1989). Supervision: Focus on
instructional. NY: Harper and Row.
Black, S. (1998). A different kind of leader. American School
Board Journal, 185(6), 32-35.
Bullard, P. & Taylor, B. O. (1993). Making school reform
happen. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Cawelti, G. (1987). How effective instructional leaders get
results.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 328
935).
Carter, C. J. & Klotz, J.(1990). What principals must know
better assuming the role of instructional leaders. NASSP
Bulletin, 74(525), 36-41.
Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A.(1983). Culture and school
performance. Educational Leadership, 40(5), 14-45.
Debevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on principal as
instructional leadership. Educational leadership, 41(5),
14-20.
Duke, D. L.(1982). What can principals do? Leadership
functions and instructional effectiveness. NASSP
Bulletin, 65(456), 1-12.
Dull, L. W. (1981). Supervision: School leadership handbook.
Ohio: C. E. Merrill.
Dwyer, D. C. (1986). Understanding the principal’s
contribution to instruction. Peabody Journal of
Education, 63(1), 3-18.
Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effectiveness schools for the urban
poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-27.
English, F. W., Frase, L. E. & Arhar, J. M. (1992). Leading
into the 21st century. California: Corwin Press.
Firestone, W. A. & Harriott, R. (1982). Prescriptions for
effective elementary schools don’t fit secondary school.
Educational Leadership, 40(3), 51-53.
Gaynes, C. (1990). The “who” and “what” of instructional
leadership. Thrust, 19(7), 40-42.
Gersten, R., Carnine, D. & Green, S. (1982). The principal as
instructional leader: A second Look. Educational
Leadership, 40(3), 47-50.
Greenfield, W. (1987). Instructional leadership: concepts,
issues, and controversies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Guralnik & David B. (1961). Webster’s new world dictionary.
NY: Macmillan.
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. F.(1987). Approaches to
administrative training in education. Albany : State
University of New York Press.
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. F.(1987). Assessing and developing
principal instructional leadership, Educational
Leadership, 45(1), 54-61.
Harrison, R. H. (1968). Supervisory leadership in education.
NY: Litton Educational Publishing.
Harris, B. M. (1985). Supervisory behavior in education. NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hostrip, R. W. & Associates (1990). The effective school
administrator. USA: ETC (Effective Teaching Center)
Publication.
Ibrahim, A. S. (1985). Instructional leadership behaviors of
high school principals, department heads and other
administrative staff as perceived by teachers and
principals. Mich.: UMI.
James, H. T. (1969). The schools and the challenge of
innovation. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Keefe, J. W. & Jenkins, J. M. (1984). Instructional leadership
handbook. Virginia: NASSP.
Keefe, J. W. & Jenkins, J. M. (1991). Instructional leadership
handbook. Virginia: NASSP.
Koger, P. C. (1987). The instructional leadership activities,
beliefs and characteristics of principals of effective
secondary schools. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI.
Madaus, G. F., Airasian, P. W. & Kellaghan (1980). School
effectiveness. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Marsh, D. (1992). School principals as instructional
leadership: The impact of California school leadership
academy. Education and Urban Society, May.
Mattes, W. A. (1987). School effectiveness: the teachers’
perspective. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED
418 496).
McEwan, E. K. (1998). Seven steps to effective instructional
leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED
418 496).
Michigan State Board of Education (1990). School
effectiveness: Eight variables that make a difference.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 322 570).
Pantelides, J. R. (1991). An exploration of the relationship
between specific instructional leadership behaviors of
elementary principals and student achievement. Mich.: UMI.
Reitzug, U. C. (1997). Images of principal instructional
leadership: from super-vision to collaborative inquiry.
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(4), 324-43.
Reynolds, D. et al. (1996). Making good school: Linking school
effectiveness and school improvement. London and New
York: Routledge.
Richard A. Gorton & Gail Thierbach-Schneider (1991). School- based leadership challenges and opportunities. Iowa: Wm.
C. Brown Publishers.
Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations : Rational, natural, and
open Systems. N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J. (1988). Supervision:
Human perspectives. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Smith W. F. (1989). Instructional leadership: how principals
make a difference. Virginia: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of
organizational commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, 44-56.
Stronge, J. H. (1988). The elementary school principalship: A
position in transition. Principal, 67(5), 32-23.
Weber, J. R. (1987). Instructional leadership: Context and
challenges. (ERIC Document Reproductive Service NO. ED
288 261)
Wildy, H. & Dimmock, C. (1993). Instructional leadership in
primary and secondary schools in Western Australia.
Journal of Educational Administration, 31(2), 43-62.
Wiles, J. & Bondi J. (1996). Supervision : A guide to
practice. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wiles, K. & Lovell, J. T. (1975). Supervision for better
schools. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wilson, P. S. (1971). Interest and discipline in education.
London: Routledge Kegan Paul.