题名

「中文版俄亥俄州教師效能感量表」於國小教師之驗證性研究

并列篇名

Confirmatory Research on the Chinese Version of the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale for Elementary School Teachers

DOI

10.6251/BEP.202206_53(4).0004

作者

陳俊瑋(Chun-Wei Chen)

关键词

中文版俄亥俄州教師效能感量表 ； 教師自我效能感 ； 驗證性因素分析 ； Chinese version of the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (C-OSTES) ； teacher self-efficacy ； confirmatory factor analysis

期刊名称

教育心理學報

卷期/出版年月

53卷4期（2022 / 06 / 01）

页次

853 - 878

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

本研究旨在探討使用「中文版俄亥俄州教師效能感量表」（Chinese version of the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale, C-OSTES）測量國小教師自我效能感的心理計量特質。C-OSTES包含「教學策略」、「班級經營」及「學生投入」三個分量表，一共有12個題項，題型為Likert式9等量表。本研究以臺灣本島1,021位公立國小教師為研究對象，先藉由項目分析檢核C-OSTES個別題項的適切性，接著藉由驗證性因素分析、Pearson積差相關分析、單因子多變量變異數分析及內部一致性分析分別檢核C-OSTES的構念效度、效標關聯效度、區別效度及信度。研究結果顯示，C-OSTES個別題項的適切性佳，使用C-OSTES測量國小教師自我效能感具有良好的構念效度、效標關聯效度及區別效度，同時C-OSTES三個分量表的Cronbach's α值介於.90至.93，總量表的α值為.94，顯示C-OSTES同樣具有良好的信度。整體而言，C-OSTES具有良好的效度與信度。
英文摘要

The theoretical backgrounds for the development of quantitative scales for measuring teacher self-efficacy include the locus of control theory (Rotter, 1966) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977). Although scales based on the locus of control theory were the first to emerge, these scales are now rarely used. By contrast, the scales developed on the basis of self-efficacy theory, including the teacher efficacy scale (TES; Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), are commonly used (Chen & Wu, 2011). The short form OSTES comprises 12 items and exhibits excellent reliability and validity for evaluating elementary and middle school teachers. At the elementary and middle school level, increasing student engagement through instructional strategies and classroom management is a key goal for teachers (Chen & Wu, 2011). The research value of using the OSTES to evaluate teacher self-efficacy stems from its relevance to that goal. Related studies have employed the OSTES to measure the self-efficacy of elementary and middle school teachers in the United States (Harper et al., 2018; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2008), Canada (Ross & Bruce, 2007), the United Kingdom (Woodcock et al., 2019), Scotland (Brady & Woolfson, 2008), Italy (Lent et al., 2011), Iran (Mohamadi & Asadzadeh, 2012; Rastegar & Memarpour, 2009), South Korea (Choi et al., 2019; Klassen et al., 2009), and Singapore (Chong et al., 2010; Klassen et al., 2009; Klassen et al., 2008). By using factor analysis, studies have mostly supported the viewpoint of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, who have suggested dividing the OSTES into the three factors of instructional strategies, classroom management, and student engagement. Chen and Wu (2011) collaborated on the Chinese translation of the OSTES (C-OSTES) and recruited middle school teachers to be research participants to explore its psychometric properties. Their findings revealed satisfactory fit for the individual items in the C-OSTES. The factor structure of the C-OSTES is identical to that of the original OSTES, and the C-OSTES demonstrated excellent construct validity, discriminant validity, and reliability when used to measure the self-efficacy of middle school teachers. However, Cheung (2008) performed an exploratory factor analysis of the Hong Kong and Shanghai versions of the OSTES and revealed that the scales had a single-factor structure and a two-factor structure, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the OSTES had poor fit in measuring the self-efficacy of teachers in The Republic of Cyprus and South Korea (Klassen et al., 2009). The C-OSTES exhibited adequate validity and reliability for measuring the self-efficacy of Taiwanese middle school teachers (Chen & Wu, 2011). The current study explored the psychometric properties of the C-OSTES for measuring the self-efficacy of Taiwanese elementary school teachers, the appropriateness of each C-OSTES item, and whether the C-OSTES has adequate validity and reliability. A total of 1,021 Taiwanese public elementary school teachers were recruited as research participants for this study. First, item analysis and assessment were performed on each C-OSTES item to determine its fit. CFA, Pearson product-movement correlation analysis, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and internal consistency analysis were subsequently performed to evaluate construct validity, criterion-related validity, discriminant validity, and reliability. In terms of construct validity, the CFA results indicated that the overall model fit, preliminary fit, and fit of the internal structure model of the three-factor correlated factor model were satisfactory, suggesting that the C-OSTES had adequate construct validity. In terms of criterion-related validity, the C-OSTES subscales and the overall scale exhibited positive correlations with three criteria, namely affective organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. This finding indicated that the C-OSTES had adequate criterion-related validity. This study applied the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) to perform an evaluation of discriminant validity and determined that the C-OSTES exhibited satisfactory discriminant validity. We further employed MANOVA to inspect the differences in C-OSTES scores across elementary school teachers of varying education levels and teaching positions. Our results revealed significant differences in C-OSTES scores across education levels and teaching positions. In particular, teachers with a master's degree or above scored higher in the instructional strategies and student engagement subscales than did those with a college education level or lower. Teachers holding a concurrent position as supervisor, director, or homeroom teacher scored higher in classroom management than did subject-area teachers. Teachers holding a concurrent position as supervisor or director scored higher in student engagement than did subject-area teachers and teachers holding a concurrent position as homeroom teacher. These results indicated that the C-OSTES exhibited adequate discriminant validity. Finally, in terms of reliability, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) recruited 255 US teachers as participants and performed reliability analysis of the OSTES. Their results revealed that the Cronbach's α of the instructional strategy, classroom management, and student engagement subscales was .81-.86. Chen and Wu (2011) recruited 747 Taiwanese middle school teachers as research participants and analyzed the reliability of the C-OSTES; they determined that the Cronbach's α of the three subscales was .86-.93 and that of the overall scale was .92. Our reliability analysis results indicated that the Cronbach's α of the three subscales was .90-.93 and that of the overall scale was .94. Our obtained reliability coefficient values were higher than those of Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy as well as Chen and Wu. In summary, the C-OSTES has adequate validity and reliability and is suitable for measuring the self-efficacy of elementary school students. Klassen et al. (2011) reviewed 218 empirical studies on teacher self-efficacy published between 1998 and 2009 and suggested using the OSTES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) to measure teacher self-efficacy. As also determined by Chen and Wu (2011), the present study concludes that the C-OSTES has suitable validity and reliability. Accordingly, future relevant studies should be conducted to verify the use of the C-OSTES for measuring self-efficacy in teachers. However, our CFA results on the use of the C-OSTES to evaluate Taiwanese elementary school teachers revealed that the three-factor correlated factor model exhibited favorable fit. This result differs from that of Cheung (2008), who revealed that the Hong Kong and Shanghai versions of the OSTES had a single-factor and two-factor structure, respectively. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Shanghai use Chinese as their official language. However, Taiwan's education system and policies are completely different from those of Hong Kong and Shanghai, which have similar education systems and policies but some distinct cultural traits. Future studies should conduct cross-national comparisons to explore the psychometric properties of the C-OSTES for measuring self-efficacy in Hong Kong and Shanghai teachers. These studies should examine whether the validity of the C-OSTES holds under different scenarios, and they should determine whether the validity of the C-OSTES can be generalized. In Taiwan, many tools have been developed to measure teacher (teaching) self-efficacy (Pan, 2005, 2007; Sun, 1995, 2001, 2003, 2005). Future studies should perform measurements and analyses using both the C-OSTES and other teacher (teaching) self-efficacy scales developed in Taiwan to verify their convergent validity. Additionally, studies on the long form OSTES, which comprises 24 items, may include localized items developed to measure teacher self-efficacy. In the process of creating a teacher self-efficacy scale, researchers may develop a new theoretical structure. With respect to the results of the validity analysis, the American Psychological Association (APA), American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) jointly published the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests in 1974. According to these standards, validity was divided into criterion-related validity, content validity, and construct validity (American Psychological Association et al., 1974). In the subsequent three editions, the word ＂tests＂ in the title was changed to ＂testing.＂ In the 1985 edition of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing jointly published by the APA, AERA, and NCME, validity was divided into construct-related evidence, content-related evidence, and criterion-related evidence. However, in the 1999 edition, the validity classification system described in the 1985 edition was discontinued; instead, the 1999 edition discussed five types of validity evidence: evidence based on test content, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and evidence based on consequences of testing. The 2014 edition retained the four types of validity evidence and included an additional fifth type, namely evidence for validity and consequences of testing (American Educational Research Association et al., 1985, 1999, 2014). Most Taiwanese empirical studies that have developed, established, and verified scales have referenced the validity classification method proposed in the 1974 edition of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests when discussing their validity analysis results (Chen et al., 2020; Guo, 2021; Hsieh, 2020; Lee, 2020; Lee & Hong, 2021; Liu & Chen, 2020; Wang et al., 2019; Wang & Lee, 2020; Wu, 2020). However, future empirical studies aiming to develop, establish, and verify scales relevant to the field should reference the five types of validity evidence proposed in the 2014 edition of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (jointly published by the APA, AERA, and NCME) to explain their validity analysis results.
主题分类 社會科學 > 心理學
社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 王玉珍, Y.-C.,李宜玫, Y.-M.,吳清麟, C.-L.(2019)。青少年優勢力量表之發展研究。教育心理學報，50，503-528。
    連結：
  2. 王承諺, C.-Y.,李明憲, M.-S.(2020)。社群網站網路霸凌和網路攻擊辨識量表之發展。測驗學刊，67，61-94。
    連結：
  3. 吳淑禎, S.-C.(2020)。技職教師生涯素養量表之編製。教育科學研究期刊，65(4)，241-273。
    連結：
  4. 吳璧如, P.-J.(2004)。幼稚園職前教師效能感之測量。教育心理學報，36，165-184。
    連結：
  5. 李佩珊, P.-S.,洪瑞兒, Z.-R.(2021)。臺灣中小學輔導人員施為量表發展與效化研究。教育心理學報，52，545-570。
    連結：
  6. 李琪明, A. C.-M.(2020)。多面向道德情意量表之發展與信效度考驗。教育心理學報，51，561-583。
    連結：
  7. 邱紹一, S.-I.,洪福源, F.-Y.(2015)。高中師生自我效能、集體效能與學校效能研究模式之建立：自我效能中介效果、集體效能調節效果研究。教育心理學報，46，333-355。
    連結：
  8. 孫志麟, C.-L.(2003)。教師自我效能的概念與測量。教育心理學報，34，139-156。
    連結：
  9. 郭丁熒, D.-Y.(2021)。高中學生角色期望量表之編製。教育科學研究期刊，66(1)，141-171。
    連結：
  10. 陳俊瑋, C.-W.(2010)。國中教師集體效能感、教師自我效能感及教師組織公民行為關聯之研究：多層次中介效果之分析。當代教育研究季刊，18(2)，29-69。
    連結：
  11. 陳姵臻, P.-Z.,黃博聖, P.-S.,陳學志, H.-C.,林緯倫, W.-L.(2020)。青少年封閉式創造力潛能測量：「青少年版中文詞彙遠距聯想測驗」之編製及信、效度研究。測驗學刊，67，167-190。
    連結：
  12. 陳婉真, W.-C.,余穎柔, Y.-J.,吳柏瑩, P.-Y.,江守峻, S.-C.,洪雅鳳, Y.-F.,彭秀玲, H.-L.(2020)。「國中輔導教師輔導倫理困境量表」編製之研究。測驗學刊，67，31-59。
    連結：
  13. 劉彥君, Y.-C.,陳燕諭, Y.-Y.(2020)。臺灣懷孕婦女身心健康適應問卷之發展研究。教育心理學報，51，531-560。
    連結：
  14. 潘義祥, Y.-H.(2007)。國民小學健康與體育學習領域教師自我效能與教學承諾關係之研究。臺灣運動心理學報，10，37-55。
    連結：
  15. 潘義祥, Y.-H.(2005)。臺灣地區國民小學健康與體育學習領域教師自我效能之研究。大專體育學刊，7(3)，51-59。
    連結：
  16. 謝曼盈, M.-Y.(2020)。簡版社交技巧提升系統青少年評量表的信度與效度研究。教育心理學報，51，505-529。
    連結：
  17. 顏弘欽, H.-C.(2013)。心有餘，而力不足？「家庭對工作衝突」對教師組織公民行為的影響。教育經營與管理研究集刊，9，61-90。
    連結：
  18. Allen, N. J.,Meyer, J. P.(1990).The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,63,1-18.
  19. American Educational Research Association,American Psychological Association,National Council on Measurement in Education(2014).Standards for educational and psychological testing.American Educational Research Association.
  20. American Educational Research Association,American Psychological Association,National Council on Measurement in Education(1999).Standards for educational and psychological testing.American Educational Research Association.
  21. American Educational Research Association,American Psychological Association,National Council on Measurement in Education(1985).Standards for educational and psychological testing.American Psychological Association.
  22. American Psychological Association,American Educational Research Association,National Council on Measurement in Education(1974).Standards for educational & psychological tests.American Psychological Association.
  23. Ashton, P. T.,Webb, R. B.(1986).Making a difference: Teacher’s sense of efficacy and student achievement.Longman.
  24. Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science,16,74-94.
  25. Bandura, A.(1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Prentice-Hall.
  26. Bandura, A.(1977).Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review,84,191-215.
  27. Bandura, A.(1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.W. H. Freeman.
  28. Beard, K. S.,Hoy, W. K.,Woolfolk Hoy, A.(2010).Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct.Teaching and Teacher Education,26,1136-1144.
  29. Bentler, P. M.(1982).Confirmatory factor analysis via noniterative estimation: A fast inexpensive method.Journal of Marketing Research,19,417-424.
  30. Bentler, P. M.(1990).Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin,107,238-246.
  31. Bentler, P. M.,Bonett, D. G.(1980).Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.Psychological Bulletin,88,588-606.
  32. Bogler, R.,Somech, A.(2004).Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools.Teaching and Teacher Education,20,277-289.
  33. Brady, K.,Woolfson, L.(2008).What teacher factors influence their attributions for children’s difficulties in learning?.British Journal of Educational Psychology,78,527-544.
  34. Brouwers, A.,Tomic, W.(2003).A test of the factorial validity of the teacher efficacy scale.Research in Education,69,67-79.
  35. Bruce, C. D.,Esmonde, I.,Ross, J.,Dookie, L.,Beatty, R.(2010).The effects of sustained classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student achievement.Teaching and Teacher Education,26,1598-1608.
  36. Canrinus, E. T.,Helms-Lorenz, M.,Beijaard, D.,Buitink, J.,Hofman, A.(2012).Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity.European Journal of Psychology of Education,27,115-132.
  37. Caprara, G. V.,Barbaranelli, C.,Borgogni, L.,Steca, P.(2003).Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction.Journal of Educational Psychology,95,821-832.
  38. Caprara, G. V.,Barbaranelli, C.,Steca, P.,Malone, P. S.(2006).Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level.Journal of School Psychology,44,473-490.
  39. Cheung, H. Y.(2008).Teacher efficacy: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Shanghai primary in-service teachers.The Australian Educational Researcher,35,103-123.
  40. Choi, J.,Lee, J.-H.,Kim, B.(2019).How does learner-centered education affect teacher self-efficacy? The case of project-based learning in Korea.Teaching and Teacher Education,85,45-57.
  41. Chong, W. H.,Klassen, R. M.,Huan, V. S.,Wong, I.,Kates, A. D.(2010).The relationships among school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate: Perspective from Asian middle schools.The Journal of Educational Research,103,183-190.
  42. Ciani, K. D.,Summers, J. J.,Easter, M. A.(2008).A ‘‘top-down’’ analysis of high school teacher motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology,33,533-560.
  43. Coladarci, T.(1992).Teacher’s sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching.Journal of Experimental Education,60,323-337.
  44. Curran, P. J.,West, S. G.,Finch, J. F.(1996).The robustness of test statics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis.Psychological Methods,1,16-29.
  45. Dembo, M. H.,Gibson, S.(1985).Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement.The Elementary School Journal,86,173-184.
  46. Denzine, G. M.,Cooney, J. B.,McKenzie, R.(2005).Confirmatory factor analysis of the Teacher Efficacy Scale for prospective teachers.British Journal of Educational Psychology,75,689-708.
  47. Dou, D.,Devos, G.,Valcke, M.(2016).The effects of autonomy gap in personnel policy, principal leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy on their organizational commitment.Asia Pacific Education Review,17,339-353.
  48. Fornell, C.,Larcker, D. F.(1981).Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research,18,39-50.
  49. Gibson, S.,Dembo, M. H.(1984).Teacher efficacy: A construct validation.Journal of Educational Psychology,76,569-582.
  50. Hair, J. F., Jr.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.,Black, W. C.(1998).Multivariate data analysis.Pearson.
  51. Harper, A. L.,Duffin, L. C.,Cribbs, J. D.(2018).Developing the teacher sense of efficacy for secondary literacy instruction scale.Teaching and Teacher Education,75,268-277.
  52. Hoelter, J. W.(1983).The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices.Sociological Methods and Research,11,325-344.
  53. Hu, L.,Bentler, P. M.(1999).Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6,1-55.
  54. Huang, X.,Lee, J. C.-K.,Dong, X.(2019).Mapping the factors influencing creative teaching in mainland China: An exploratory study.Thinking Skills and Creativity,31,79-90.
  55. Huk, O.,Terjesen, M. D.,Cherkasova, L.(2019).Predicting teacher burnout as a function of school characteristics and irrational beliefs.Psychology in the Schools,56,792-808.
  56. Jennings, P. A.,Doyle, S.,Oh, Y.,Rasheed, D.,Frank, J. L.,Brown, J. L.(2019).Long-term impacts of the CARE program on teachers’ self-reported social and emotional competence and well-being.Journal of School Psychology,76,186-202.
  57. Kim, K. R.,Seo, E. H.(2018).The relationship between teacher efficacy and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.Social Behavior and Personality,46,529-540.
  58. Kıran, D.,Sungur, S.,Yerdelen, S.(2019).Predicting science engagement with motivation and teacher characteristics: A multilevel investigation.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,17,67-88.
  59. Klassen, R. M.,Chiu, M. M.(2010).Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress.Journal of Educational Psychology,102,741-756.
  60. Klassen, R. M.,Chong, W. H.,Huan, V. S.,Wong, I.,Kates, A.,Hannok, W.(2008).Motivation beliefs of secondary school teachers in Canada and Singapore: A mixed methods study.Teaching and Teacher Education,24,1919-1934.
  61. Klassen, R. M.,Tze, V. M. C.,Betts, S. M.,Gordon, K. A.(2011).Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise?.Educational Psychology Review,23,21-43.
  62. Klassen, R. M,Bong, M.,Usher, E. L.,Chong, W. H.,Huan, V. S.,Wong, I. Y. F.,Georgiou, T.(2009).Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries.Contemporary Educational Psychology,34,67-76.
  63. Lent, R. W.,Nota, L.,Soresi, S.,Ginevra, M. C.,Duffy, R. D.,Brown, S. D.(2011).Predicting the job and life satisfaction of Italian teachers: Test of a social cognitive model.Journal of Vocational Behavior,79,91-97.
  64. McDonald, R. P.,Marsh, H. W.(1990).Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit.Psychological Bulletin,107,247-255.
  65. Mohamadi, F. S.,Asadzadeh, H.(2012).Testing the mediating role of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in the relationship between sources of efficacy information and students achievement.Asia Pacific Education Review,13,427-433.
  66. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS): Teacher questionnaire. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS-2013-Teacher-questionnaire.pdf
  67. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS): Teacher questionnaire. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS-2018-MS-Teacher-Questionnaire-ENG.pdf
  68. Rastegar, M.,Memarpour, S.(2009).The relationship between emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Iranian EFL teachers.System,37,700-707.
  69. Ross, J.,Bruce, C.(2007).Professional development effects on teacher efficacy: Results of randomized field trial.The Journal of Educational Research,101,50-60.
  70. Rotter, J. B.(1966).Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs: General and Applied,80,1-28.
  71. Skaalvik, E. M.,Skaalvik, S.(2017).Motivated for teaching? Associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion.Teaching and Teacher education,67,152-160.
  72. Skaalvik, E. M.,Skaalvik, S.(2007).Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout.Journal of Educational Psychology,99,611-625.
  73. Smul, M. D.,Heirweg, S.,Van Keer, H.,Devos, G.,Vandevelde, S.(2018).How competent do teachers feel instructing self-regulated learning strategies? Development and validation of the teacher self-efficacy scale to implement self-regulated learning.Teaching and Teacher Education,71,214-225.
  74. Somech, A.,Drach-Zahavy, A.(2000).Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior.Teaching and Teacher Education,16,649-659.
  75. Somech, A.,Ron, I.(2007).Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools: The impact of individual and organizational characteristics.Educational Administration Quarterly,43,38-66.
  76. Soodak, L. C.,Podell, D. M.(1996).Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct.Teaching and Teacher Education,12,401-411.
  77. Swanson, P.(2014).The power of belief: Spanish teachers’ sense of efficacy and student performance on the national Spanish examinations.Hispania,97,5-20.
  78. Troesch, L. M.,Bauer, C. E.(2017).Second career teachers: Job satisfaction, job stress, and the role of self-efficacy.Teaching and Teacher Education,67,389-398.
  79. Tschannen-Moran, M.,Johnson, D.(2011).Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Potential sources at play.Teaching and Teacher Education,27,751-761.
  80. Tschannen-Moran, M.,Woolfolk Hoy, A.(2001).Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.Teaching and Teacher Education,17,783-805.
  81. Tschannen-Moran, M.,Woolfolk Hoy, A.,Hoy, W. K.(1998).Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.Review of Educational Research,68,202-248.
  82. van Daal, T.,Donche, V.,Maeyer, S. D.(2014).The impact of personality, goal orientation and self-efficacy on participation of high school teachers in learning activities in the workplace.Vocations and Learning,7,21-40.
  83. Woodcock, S.,Hitches, E.,Jones, G.(2019).It’s not you, it’s me: Teachers’ self-efficacy and attributional beliefs towards students with specific learning difficulties.International Journal of Educational Research,97,107-118.
  84. Woolfolk Hoy, A.,Hoy, W. K.,Kurz, N. M.(2008).Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct.Teaching and Teacher Education,24,821-835.
  85. Woolfolk, A. E.,Hoy, W. K.(1990).Prospective teacher’s sense of efficacy and beliefs about control.Journal of Educational Psychology,82,81-91.
  86. Yerdelen, S.,Sungur, S.(2019).Multilevel investigation of students’ self-regulation processes in learning science: Classroom learning environment and teacher effectiveness.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,17,89-110.
  87. Zee, M.,Koomen, H. M. Y.,de Jong, P. F.(2018).How different levels of conceptualization and measurement affect the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and students’ academic achievement.Contemporary Educational Psychology,55,189-200.
  88. 吳璧如, P.-J.(2005)。教師效能感的縱貫性研究：以幼教職前教師為例。教育與心理研究，28，383-408。
  89. 吳璧如, P.-J.(2000)。教師效能感之內涵分析。研習資訊，17(5)，57-66。
  90. 吳璧如, P.-J.(2001)。幼稚園職前教師效能感的發展及相關因素之研究。幼兒教育年刊，13，117-138。
  91. 邱懷萱, H.-H.,李麗日, L.-J.(2012)。教師工作壓力與自我效能感之相關研究：以苗栗縣國民小學教師為例。區域與社會發展研究，3，193-244。
  92. 孫志麟, C.-L.(2001)。教師自我效能與教學行為的關係：實徵取向的分析。國立臺北師範學院學報，14，109-140。
  93. 孫志麟, C.-L.(2005)。跨越科層：學校組織對教師自我效能的影響。國立臺北師範學院學報，18(1)，29-62。
  94. 孫志麟, C.-L.(1995)。國民小學教師自我效能之研究。教育與心理研究，18，165-192。
  95. 教育部統計處（2020）：《101 學年度縣市統計指標－各縣市國小概況統計》。https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/city/101/101citye.xls [Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education. (2020). The statistical indicators for counties and cities in the academic year 2012: The overview statistical among elementary schools for counties and cities. https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/city/101/101citye.xls]
  96. 陳俊瑋, C.-W.,吳璧如, P.-J.(2010)。國中教師自我效能感與集體效能感的關係。教育政策論壇，13(3)，127-154。
  97. 陳俊瑋, C.-W.,吳璧如, P.-J.(2011)。運用「俄亥俄州教師效能感量表」於國中教師之試探性與驗證性研究。教育學刊，36，1-34。
  98. 陳俊瑋, C.-W.,吳璧如, P.-J.(2014)。解析個人層次的教師集體效能感、組織層次的教師集體效能感與教師自我效能感的關係。教育學報，42(1)，27-52。
  99. 鄭英耀, Y.-Y.,黃正鵠, C.-K.(1996)。教師自我效能相關因素之研究。教育學刊，12，219-244。
  100. 顏弘欽, H.-C.(2016)。知覺組織支持、情感性組織承諾與工作角色行為之關聯性：不同職務別教師的多群組分析。教育學刊，46，103-143。
  101. 魏方亭, F.-T.(2001)。國立中正大學=National Chung Cheng University。
被引用次数
  1. 吳璧如(Pi-Ju Wu);陳俊瑋(Chun-Wei Chen)(2022)。國小教師工作壓力與工作滿意度之關係研究：教師自我效能感的中介效果。教育研究與發展期刊。18(2)。51-92。 
print cancel