政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/49801

政大典藏 > College of Education > Graduate Institute of Educational Administration and Policy > Theses > Item 140.119/49801

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49801

Title:	國民中學校長分散式領導與學校教育成效關係之研究 The Research of the Relationships between Distributed Leadership and Educational Outcomes in Junior High Schools
Authors:	陳怡卉 Yi-Hui Chen
Contributors:	張奕華 Chang, I-Hua 陳怡卉 Yi-Hui Chen
Keywords:	國民中學分散式領導教育成效 junior high schools distributed leadership educational outcomes
Date:	2009
Issue Date:	2010-12-09 09:41:28 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本研究旨在瞭解國民中學校長分散式領導與學校教育成效現況，並探討國民中學校長分散式領導對學校教育成效之影響。本研究採用調查研究法，自編「分散式領導量表」與「學校教育成效量表」，以八個縣市的公立國民中學正式教師為研究對象，並另外發送校長版問卷以求得校長基本資料。藉由專家效度審查與預試回收有效教師問卷173份，進行項目分析、一階驗證性分析、二階驗證性分析以及信度分析，以形成正式問卷。正式問卷發送1000份教師問卷和100份校長版問卷，回收有效教師問卷567份，回收率為56.7%。本研究以描述性統計、單因子變異數分析、多變量變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關以及結構方程模式等統計方式，對回收資料進行分析。本研究獲致之結論如下：一、國民中學校長分散式領導實施現況，尚稱良好。二、校長分散式領導目前最需加強的是學校「情境」文化部分。三、校長分散式領導目前表現最好的前三項指標是「校長謙遜有禮」、「校長鼓勵團隊合作」、「校長有清楚的學校願景」。四、校長分散式領導目前表現最差的三項指標是「本校教職員工勇於嘗試學校新事物」、「本校會依同仁的實際表現來評鑑教職員工的績效」、「本校針對表現不佳的同仁會給予改善建議」。五、國民中學學校教育成效現況方面，教師部分尚稱良好，學生部分尚可。六、國民中學學校教育成效，教師成效表現最好的是「教師信任」，最差的是「教師學習」。七、國民中學學校教育成效方面，學生成效表現最好的是「學生教育機會均等」，最差是「學生學習」。八、教師因「教師擔任職務」不同，知覺校長分散式領導有顯著差異。九、教師因「教師性別、教師擔任職務」不同，知覺學校教育成效有顯著差異。十、教師因「學校規模、校史、學校地區」不同，知覺校長分散式領導有顯著差異。十一、教師因「學校規模、校史、學校地區」不同，知覺學校教育成效有顯著差異。十二、教師因「校長性別、校長曾經主要任教領域」不同，知覺校長分散式領導有顯著差異。十三、教師因「校長性別、校長年齡、校長最高教育程度、校長曾經主要任教領域」不同，知覺學校教育成效有顯著差異。十四、分散式領導與學校教育成效（學生、教師），均有高度正相關。十五、校長分散式領導可以有效的預測學校教育成效。根據研究結果分別提出對教育行政機關、校長以及未來研究的建議如下：一、對教育行政機關的建議 (一) 宜多辦理教育理念與教育革新議題的相關研習給教師進修。 (二) 舉辦分散式領導相關研習，鼓勵學校成員參與。 (三) 檢視校史達60年以上的學校之教師責任與教師信任。 (四) 建立更有效的學校成員績效評鑑機制。 (五) 加強鄉鎮地區的教育成效關注。 (六) 在學生教育機會均等的進步上，可以參考「導師」的建議。二、對校長的建議 (一) 校長宜增加與學校成員的互動機會。 (二) 校長可以多鼓勵學校成員嘗試學校新事務。 (三) 學校宜建立更專業發展的回饋機制。 (四) 鼓勵教師主動研究與學習。 (五) 提升學生學習動機。 (六) 關心學生自我概念與具備優良公民美德的能力。 (七) 支持學校成員團隊合作。三、未來研究的建議 (一) 研究對象：包括不同層級的校長、家長、學生對分散式領導的知覺均為可能的研究對象。 (二) 研究工具：針對不同研究對象發展不同的問卷。 (三) 研究變項：家長背景亦為可行之研究變項。 (四) 研究方法：加入質性研究加以後續探討。 (五) 統計方法：探討更複雜的分散式領導與各種教育內涵的線性關係。 The study was to understand the current status of the distributed leadership for junior high principals and effectiveness of school education and to probe into the influences of the distributed leadership for junior high principals on the effectiveness of school education. In this study, I adopted the investigation method, self-prepare the “Distributed Leadership Scale” and the “Effectiveness of School Education Scale”, and took the public junior high school formal teachers in 8 counties/cities as my research samples. Then, I additionally distributed questionnaires to principals for basic information. Through the expert review of validity and pretesting on 173 effective questionnaires, I conducted the item analysis, first order confirmatory factor analysis, second order confirmatory factor analysis, and the reliability analysis to construct the formal questionnaires. Then, 1000 formal questionnaires were issued to the teachers and another 100 questionnaires were issued to the principals with 567 effective teacher questionnaires returned, i.e., 56.7% return rate. Also in this study, I analyzed the returned data by using the descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance (or one-way ANOVA), multivariate analysis of variance (or MANOVA), Pearson`s correlation and simple linear regression and the structural equation models. The study concludes as follows： 1. The current implementation status of the distributed leadership for junior high principals was moderately good and what needs to be improved most is the “cultural environment” part. 2. The top 3 indexes of the distributed leadership for junior high principals were that “the principal is civil”, that “the principal encourages teamwork”, and that “the principal has a clear vision for the school” while the bottom 3 indexes were that “the faculty staff at this school are brave to try new things”, that “the faculty at this school evaluate each other’s performance based on reality”, and that “the school recommend improvement to the underperforming staff.” 3. For the current status of effectiveness of junior school education, it was moderately good for teachers and above average for the students; Teachers performed best at “teacher trust” but worst at “teacher learning” while students performed best at “equal educational opportunities for students” but worse at “student learning.” 4. For teachers, there was a significant difference in the consciousness of the distributed leadership for principals due to different “teachers positions”, “school size, history, and districts”, and “principal genders and main teaching fields in the past” while there was a significant difference in consciousness of the effectiveness of school education due to different “teacher genders and positions” and “principal genders, ages, and the highest levels of education.” 5. There was a high positive correlation between the distributed leadership and the effectiveness of school education (both for students and teachers) and through the distributed leadership for principals, I could effectively predict the effectiveness of school education. Recommendations for the educational administration, principal, and future research are as follows: Recommendations for the educational administration I recommend the educational administration conduct more workshops concerning further educational believes and innovations for teachers, hold the distributed leadership, encourage school members to participate in relevant workshops, review teacher responsibility and trust at the 60-year-old or older schools, build a more effective school member performance evaluation mechanism, enhance its focus on the educational effectiveness in the rural areas, and refer to “recommendations for the mentors” based on the equality of educational opportunities for the students. Recommendations for the principals I recommend the principals increase opportunities for school member interactions, encourage school members to try new things more, build a more professionally developed mechanism for the students, encourage the teachers to research and learn actively, promote students’ learning motivation, care about student self-concepts and virtues of citizens, and support teamwork at school. Recommendations for future research I recommend the future research include different levels of principals, parents, elder siblings, and students, and their consciousness in distributed leadership in research objects, develop various questionnaires for various research objects in research instruments, include parents and elder siblings in feasible research variables, supplement with qualitative research for further probe in research methods, and probe into the linear relationship between the distributed leadership of more complexity and all kinds of educational contents in statistical methods.
Reference:	壹、中文部分丁文祺（2007）。國民中學校長教學領導、教師社群互動、教師專業實踐與學校效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所博士論文，未出版，高雄市。王夢玲（2006）。台北縣國中女性校長領導特質之個案研究。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。朱經明（2002）。教育統計學。臺北市：五南。金瑛（2007）。分散式領導力理論博奕我國高級中學校長負責制。北京教育學院學報，21（2），75-78。行政院經濟建設委員會（2008）。都市及區域發展統計彙編。2009年3月，取自：http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0000486&key=&ex=2&ic=0000153 江美滿（譯）（2003）。默默領導（Badaracco原著，Leading quietly）。臺北市：天下雜誌。江滿堂（2003）。國民小學校長領導策略與學校氣氛對教師知識分享意願影響之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。呂錘卿（1999）。國民小學教師專業成長的指標及其規劃模式之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，高雄市。何建霖（2009）。國民小學學校分佈式領導、教師同僚專業互享與學生學習表現之研究。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。巫有鎰（2004）。學校與非學校因素對台東縣國小學生學業成就的影響：結合教育機會均等與學校效能研究的分析模式。國立屏東師範學院教育行政研究所博士論文，未出版，屏東縣。吳明隆（2008）。結構方程模式SIMPLIS的應用。臺北市：五南。吳明隆（2009）。SPSS操作與應用－多變量分析實務。臺北市：五南。吳清山、林天祐（2007）。教育e辭書。臺北市：高等教育。李茂能（2008）。SEM 適配度指標的潛藏問題：最佳模式難求。測驗統計年刊，16，17-30 李坤章（2007）。國民中學學生學習差異之研究-以彰化縣偏遠及市鎮學校為例。大葉大學設計研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，彰化縣。李建宏（2005）。由Amy Gutmann的「民主教育」理論省思臺灣的民主教育。東吳大學哲學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。林水波（2008）。參與式領導。人事月刊，47（4），2-14 。林春慧（2003）。國民小學團隊學習與教師專業成長之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。邱皓政（2009）。量化研究與統計分析。臺北市：五南。邱皓政（2008）。結構方程模式： LISREL的理論、技術與應用。臺北市：雙葉書廊。莊明貞（1998）。教育與性別。載於陳奎熹（主編），現代教育社會學。臺北市：師大書苑。曾俊凱（2006）。臺灣地區在家自行教育制度規劃與學生學習成效指標建構之研究。國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。徐玉珊（2006）。國內國民小學教師學習型組織、教師專業成長與學校效能關係之研究。銘傳大學應用統計資訊學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。徐吉春（2008）。分散式領導。載於黃宗顯（主編），學校領導：新理論與實踐（63-88頁）。臺北市：五南。秦夢群（2005）。教育領導新理論與研究取向之分析。教育研究月刊，136，106-118。梁東榮、張豔敏（2007）。英美澳分散式領導研究透視及其啟示。比較教育研究，28 （7），22-26。郭維哲（2008）分散式領導。載於黃宗顯（主編），學校領導：新理論與實踐（183-202頁）。臺北市：五南。張美滿（2004）。學習型組織文化對教師學習與學生學習之影響。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。張祝芬（2009）。高中課程領導之研究: 分佈式領導取向。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺北市。張嘉亨（2004）。學校組織領導對教師團隊學習與學生學習之影響。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。張嘉寧（2008）。教育上數位落差之探討。網路社會學通訊，68。陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵（2009）。多變量分析方法：統計軟體應用。臺北市：五南陳奕安（2002）。基隆市國民中小學教師文化與教師專業成長態度之研究。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。陳若寧（2002）。台灣、中國及香港之知識經濟發展與比較。國立中山大學大陸學研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。陳恩茂（2004）。宜蘭縣國民中小學校務評鑑之實施成效研究。國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，花蓮縣。陳佩英、焦傳金（2009）。分散式領導與專業學習社群之建構：一所高中教學創新計畫的個案研究。教育科學研究期刊，54（1），55-86。黃玉梅（1999）。國中校長教育領導、教師工作承諾與學校教育成效關係之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺北市。黃芳銘（2002）。結構方程式理論與應用。臺北市：五南。楊振昇（2007）。教育機會均等的理念與省思。2009年8月，取自：http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!fatg8l2XQUfF9CDkPW4BZw--/article?mid=3293 教育部（2008）。教育研究委員會。2009年8月，取自： http://140.111.34.34/main/common/index.php?z=426&id=687 教育部統計處（2008）。主要統計表。2009年3月，取自： http://www.edu.tw/statistics/content.aspx?site_content_sn=8869 鄭明宗（2008）分散式領導。載於黃宗顯（主編），學校領導：新理論與實踐（113-134頁）。臺北市：五南。臺北市（2004）。臺北市優質學校經營手冊。2009年3月，取自：http://www3.nccu.edu.tw/~mujinc/teaching/9-102leadership/excellentschool9-102- 5-5.pdf 賴志峰（2008）。分散式領導的意義、構面與主張。教育研究月刊，171，28-40。謝明俸（2003）。國民小學教師文化與教師教學效能關係之研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。魏俊卿（2003）。領導。2010年2月20日，引自，http://w3.cyu.edu.tw/ccwei/93Bmanage/Ch05.pdf 貳、英文部分 Arrowsmith, T. (2005). Distributed leadership: Three questions, two answers a review of the Hay Group. MiE, 19(2), 30-34. Burch, P. (2007). School leadership practice and the school subject: The Baxter case. In Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). Distributed leadership in practice (pp.129-145). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Brooks, J. S., Marie G. J., Normore, A. H., & Hodgins, D. W. ( 2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 408. Coldren, A. F. (2007). Spanning the boundary between school leadership and classroom instruction at Hillside elementary school. In Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). Distributed leadership in practice (pp.16-34). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Diamond, J. B. (2007). Cultivating high expectations in an urban elementary school: The case of Kelly School. In Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). Distributed leadership in practice (pp.63-84). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4), 338-356. Edvantia Inc. (2005). Module 1--Shared Leadership. School Improvement Specialist Training Materials: Performance Standards, Improving Schools, and Literature Review. Feburary 20, 2010, retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/b8/40.pdf Hallett, T. (2007). The leadership struggle: The case of Costen elementary school. In Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). Distributed leadership in practice (pp.85-105). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Halverson, R. R. (2007). Systems of practice and professional community: The Adams case. In Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). Distributed leadership in practice (pp.35-62). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Harris, A. (2005a). Distributed leadership. In Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). The essentials of school leadership (pp.160-172). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Harris, A. (2005b). Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement. Journal of curriculum studies, 37(3), 255–265. Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172-188. Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 202–214. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1998). Distributed leadership and student engagement in school. Persented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associations, San Diego, CA, April, 13-17. Jameson, J. (2006). Leadership in post compulsory education: Inspiring leaders of the future. London: David Fulton. Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214-228. Miller, R (2008). A Mixed Methods Study of Shared Leadership in a K-12 School District Enhanced by a Case Study of the Former Superintendent’s Role. Lebanon, OH: Corban College. Polite, M. M. (1993, April ). A case of distributed leadership: Middle school transformation beyond initial transition. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, GA. Ritchie , R., & Woods, P. A. (2007). Degrees of distribution: Towards an understanding of variations in the nature of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management, 27(4), 363-381. Robinson, V. M. J. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241-256. Sherer, J. Z. (2007). The practice of leadership in mathematics and language arts: The Adams case. In Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). Distributed leadership in practice (pp.106-128). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Snipes, J. C., Holton, G. I., Doolittle, F., & Sztejnberg, L. (2006). Striving for student success. New York: MDRC. Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., & Pareja, A. S. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school principal`s work day. Leadership and Policy in schools, 6, 103-125. Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Stevenson, K. R. (2006). School size and its relationship to student outcomes and school climate: A review and analysis of eight South Carolina state-wide studies. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/size_outcomes.pdf Timperley, H. S. (2005). Developing theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395–420. Wallach, C. A.; Lambert, M. B.; Copland, M.; Lowry, L. K. (2005). Distributing Leadership: Moving from High School Hierarchy to Shared Responsibility. (Small Schools Project). 2010, 2, 20 retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/44/65/60.pdf Wright, L. L. (2008). Merits and limitations of distributed leadership: Experiences and understandings of school principals. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 69, 1-33. Ysseldyke, J., Krentz, J., Elliott, J., Thurlow, M., Thompson, S., & Moore, M. (1998). NCEO framework for educational accountability: Post-school outcomes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Ysseldyke, J., & Thurlow, M. (1993). Self-study guide to the development of educational outcomes and indicators. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學教育行政與政策研究所 95171016 98
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0951710161
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Educational Administration and Policy] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
016101.pdf	2269Kb	Adobe PDF2	1539	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...