國小教師專業學習社群參與量表編製之研究

Design of a Professional Learning Community Scale for Elementary School Teacher Participation

10.6251/BEP.202303_54(3).0004

蕭佳純(Chia-Chun Hsiao)

因素分析 ； 專業學習社群 ； 測量恆等性 ； factor analysis ； professional learning community ； measurement invariance

教育心理學報

54卷3期（2023 / 03 / 01）

583 - 607

繁體中文;英文

教師專業學習社群參與對自身的專業成長、教學實踐、教學效能等面向皆有相當大的助益，然而目前國內有關專業學習社群的量表，尚缺乏以教師個人角度出發，而多是從學校經營角度發展的專業學習社群量表。因此，本研究透過探索性因素分析、驗證性因素分析、聚斂效度、區別效度以及測量恆等性等步驟，編製教師個人實際參與專業學習社群的量表，量表內涵一共包含合作分享、反思回饋以及參與行動三個構面。在過程中，研究者以183名教師樣本進行量表預試分析與因素結構探索，而後以467名正式樣本進行量表之驗證性因素分析、聚斂效度、區別效度以及性別、社群測量恆等性等各項考驗。研究結果顯示，本量表建構的三因素斜交模式具有良好的契合度，且本量表模式更具有跨樣本的穩定性，同時適用國小男女教師、不同社群教師的分析比較，而且分析結果也顯示，不同社群的教師在參與專業學習社群的各面向上也有所差異。總結而言，本研究所發展之「教師專業學習社群參與量表」是一個符合實證的測量工具，可以提供未來研究和行政輔導上使用。

Teachers' participation in professional learning communities is beneficial to their professional growth and teaching effectiveness and provides teaching practice. Encouraging teachers' professional learning community participation, improving their professional skills, and promoting their professional development have become the focus of education research in Taiwan. Because the needs of teachers of different levels and at different schools vary, teachers should undergo professional development to enhance their teaching and management skills. Most of the professional learning community scale tools used are designed from the perspective of school management, and their development dimensions mostly address how to operate a professional learning community or measure the effectiveness of professional community operation. This is understandable because schools support teachers professionally. However, few professional learning community scales have been developed from the perspective of teachers as individuals. This research gap warrants attention. This study investigated the degree of individual teachers' authentic participation in professional learning communities; this investigation was conducted because the positive assessment of some school communities is based on the efforts and contribution of few members or the community convener and not on those of group members. Thus, this research designed the Teachers' Participation in Professional Learning Communities Scale as a practical tool to measure the degree of participation from the perspective of individual teachers. Many theories offer varied perspectives on professional learning communities; however, few have been adapted after deeper research and literature reviews. Four theorical frameworks exist that were suitable to contribute to this research. This study was based primarily on the integration of learning organizations, cooperative learning, social construction theory, situational learning theory, and practice community theory. The unique aspects of these theories were used to develop four scale dimensions, namely collaboration, observation and sharing, reflection and feedback, and participation in action. To confirm the suitability of the scale, 11 experts and scholars of professional learning communities were invited to evaluate its validity and appropriateness. Afterward, the invited experts and scholars assessed the adequacy of the assessment dimensions and their respective items. For items deemed inappropriate, the experts and scholars provided suggestions for adjustment. They also corrected and edited the language of sections of the items. The purpose of these measures was to establish the content validity and expert validity of the scale. This study enrolled 207 elementary school teachers in Tainan, Taiwan, who were invited to join professional learning communities. In the first survey stage, intentional sampling was employed; 183 teachers provided valid questionnaires, of which 59 were men and 122 were women. Analysis indicated three common factors, and 26 questions were selected for further analysis. Following an expert assessment and analysis, the scale's original four dimensions were reduced to three. The study revealed that collaboration, observation, and sharing overlapped considerably. Thus, these factors were combined and renamed as cooperative sharing. This factor was investigated using 14 questions with an explained variance of 27.13%. The second factor, reflection and feedback, included seven questions with an explained variance of 30.89%. The third factor, participation in action, included five questions with an explained variance of 14.3%. The sum of the explained variance extracted was 72.33% with 26 questions in the scale. Cooperation and sharing was defined as collaborative exploration and sharing practices when teachers were actively engaged in a learning process in a professional learning community. It also included participation in public lectures, observations and discussion, seminars based on matters related to students' learning, further dialogue regarding teaching practice, and the exchange of opinions. Reflective feedback was defined as teachers who participated in a learning community thinking about their teaching needs and potential teaching areas to improve and providing appropriate feedback to their peers. Participation was defined as the frequency of and involvement in authentic participation by teachers in professional learning communities. During the second stage of distribution of the questionnaire, 467 formal samples were employed for confirmatory factor, convergent validity, discriminant validity, sex, and community identity analyses. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the three-factor measurement model of the Teachers' Participation in Professional Learning Communities Scale was applicable to both male and female teachers and teachers who participated in different types of communities. Finally, independent sample single-factor multivariate analysis indicated no difference in the degree of teachers' participation on the basis of sex. The Teachers' Participation in Professional Learning Communities Scale developed in this study is an evidence-based measurement tool that can be employed in future research and administration. The main purpose of this research was to construct a scale for elementary school teachers who participate in professional learning communities. Subjects taught differ considerably between elementary and middle schools. Therefore, the applicability of this scale to middle school teachers requires further investigation. Moreover, verification of the factors constructed in this study using qualitive observation would make this scale more valuable for reference. The second-order factor model constructed for the scale exhibited a favorable fit, and the scale model exhibited greater cross-sample stability, making it suitable for the analysis and comparison of male and female teachers at elementary schools and teachers in different communities. Analysis also demonstrated differences among teachers in various communities in participation in professional learning communities. The Teachers' Participation in Professional Learning Communities Scale developed in this study has been applied empirically and can be used to support future research and administration. Teachers' participation in professional learning communities substantially improves their professional development and teaching effectiveness and provides authentic practice. However, professional learning community scales developed from the perspective of individual teachers are lacking.

1. 丁一顧, Y.-K.(2011)。教師專業學習社群與教師集體效能感關係模式驗證之研究。屏東教育大學學報：教育類，37，1-25。
   連結：
2. 丁一顧, Y.-K.(2014)。教師專業學習社群之調查研究：「關注學生學習成效」為焦點。課程與教學，17(1)，209-232。
   連結：
3. 丁一顧, Y.-K.,丁儒徵, R.-J.(2014)。學校層級教師專業發展評鑑之「社會—情緒」支持系統建構初探。教育資料與研究，114，203-228。
   連結：
4. 丁一顧, Y.-K.,王淑麗, S.-L.,江姮姬, H.-C.(2019)。國小校長共創式領導與教師專業學習社群關係之研究：以教師信任為中介變項。教育科學研究期刊，64(3)，237-264。
   連結：
5. 孫志麟, C.-L.(2010)。專業學習社群：促進教師專業發展的平台。學校行政，69，138-158。
   連結：
6. 張淑宜, S.-I.,辛俊德, C.-T(2011)。學習社群與教師專業表現關係之研究。臺中教育大學學報：教育類，25(1)，83-103。
   連結：
7. 張媛甯, Y.-N.,張書鳳, S.-F.(2016)。臺南市國民中學教師參與教師專業學習社群與教師專業發展評鑑態度關係之研究。學校行政，102，175-200。
   連結：
8. 張富鈞, F.-C.(2008)。合作學習策略與精熟學習對不同能力學習者射箭技能學習成效與互動行為之研究。中正教育研究，6(2)，77-93。
   連結：
9. 張嘉容, C.-J.,張媛甯, Y.-N.(2018)。國小教師文化與教師專業學習社群發展之個案研究。學校行政，114，252-282。
   連結：
10. 梁金都, C.-T.,林明地, M.-D.(2015)。國小校長領導專業學習社群以發展學校集體智慧的策略。教育研究集刊，61(3)，1-46。
    連結：
11. 連倖誼, H.-Y.,張雅筑, Y.-C.(2017)。教師專業學習社群信念與教學效能之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，10(1)，75-104。
    連結：
12. 郭實渝, S.-Y(2008)。教學建構主義的哲學基礎。臺東大學教育學報，19(2)，119-142。
    連結：
13. 陳棟樑, T.-L.,黃明一, M.-Y.,周瓊瑤, C.-Y.(2017)。臺中市教師專業學習社群與教師專業發展之研究。管理資訊計算，6(S1)，34-43。
    連結：
14. 劉倚禔, Y.-T.,吳勁甫, J.-F.(2017)。教師專業學習社群與教師教學效能關係之後設分析。教育科學期刊，16(1)，157-169。
    連結：
15. 蕭佳純, C.-C.(2022)。創意自我效能、工作價值觀對教師創造力教學影響之研究：專業學習社群與教師信任的跨層次分析。教育科學研究期刊，67(1)，255-289。
    連結：
16. 蕭佳純, C.-C.(2020)。創意教學信念與創意教學行為關聯之研究：以參與專業學習社群的動機與情形為中介變項。當代教育研究季刊，28(1)，1-37。
    連結：
17. 蕭佳純, C.-C.,凃志賢, C.-H.(2012)。教師創造力教學行為量表之發展。課程與教學，15(2)，87-117。
    連結：
18. 謝幸吟, H.-Y.,張正平, C.-P.,郭俊麟, C.-L.(2017)。教師專業學習社群知識分享、創意教學與社群召集人轉型領導關係之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，10(2)，139-166。
    連結：
19. 鍾昀珊, Y.-S.,戰寶華, P.-H.(2015)。屏東縣偏遠地區國小教師專業學習社群、組織承諾與教學效能之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，8(2)，69-98。
    連結：
20. Brown, B. D.,Horn, R. S.,King, G.(2018).The effective implementation of professional learning communities.Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership,5,53-59.
21. Collins, A.,Brown, J. S.,Newman. S. E.(1989).Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching students the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics.Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser
22. DuFour, R.,DuFour, R.,Eaker, R.(2008).Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools.Solution Tree.
23. DuFour, R.,DuFour, R.,Eaker, R.,Many, T.(2006).Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work.Solution Tree.
24. Fred, H.,Pierre, V. M.,Ellen, R.,Marjan, V.(2020).How to enhance teachers’ professional learning by stimulating the development of professional learning communities: Operationalizing a comprehensive PLC concept for assessing its development in everyday educational practice.Professional Development in Education,46(5),751-769.
25. Glazer, E. M.,Hannafin, M. J.(2006).The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings.Teaching and Teacher Education,22(2),179-193.
26. Gordon, S. P.(2004).Professional development for school improvement: Empowering learning communities.Allyn & Bacon.
27. Greene, M.(2001).Educational purposes and teacher development.Teacher caught in the action: Professional development that matters
28. Hair, J. F., Jr.,Black, W. C.,Babin, B. J.,Anderson, R. E.(2009).Multivariate data analysis.Pearson.
29. Hipp, K. K.,Huffman, J. B.,Pankake, A. M.,Olivier, D. F.(2008).Sustaining professional learning communities: Case studies.Journal of Educational Change,9(2),173-195.
30. Hord, S. M.(1997).,ERIC.
31. Hord, S. M.,Roussin, J. L.,Sommers, W. A.(2010).Guiding professional learning communities: Inspiration, challenge, surprise, and meaning.Corwin Press.
32. Hord, S. M.,Sommers, W. A.(2008).Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and practice.Corwin Press.
33. Illeris, K.(Ed.)(2009).Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists ... in their own words.Routledge.
34. Lustick, D.,Sykes, G.(2006).National board certification as professional development: What are teachers learning?.Education Policy Analysis Archives,14(5)
35. Martin-Kniep, G. O.(2004).Developing learning communities through teacher expertise.Corwin Press.
36. Meredith, W.(1993).Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance.Psychometrika,58(4),525-543.
37. Senge, P.(2000).Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education.Doubleday.
38. Sergiovanni, T. J.(2000).The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community, and personal meaning in our schools.ERIC.
39. Timperly, H. S.(2015).Continuing professional development.International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences
40. Wang, J.-C.,Wang, X.-Q.(2012).Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus.John Wiley & Sons.
41. Wenger, E.,McDermott, R. A.,Snyder, W. M.(2002).Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge.Harvard Business Press.
42. Whitcomb, J.,Borko, H.,Liston, D.(2009).Growing talent: Promising professional development models and practices.Journal of Teacher Education,60(3),207-212.
43. Wilson, A.(2016).From professional practice to practical leader: Teacher leadership in professional learning communities.International Journal of Teacher Leadership,7(2),45-62.
44. 丁一顧, Y.-K.,張德銳, D.-R.(2010)。臺北市教學導師教師領導與專業學習社群關係之研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊，10，55-83。
45. 吳清山, Q.-S.,林天祐, T.-Y.(2003).教育小辭書.五南=Wu-Nan.
46. 李珮育, P.-Y.,楊玉珍, Y.-Z.(2018)。國小中年級教師專業學習社群推動國語文課程共備模式之省思。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(4)，108-111。
47. 林新發, H.-F.,黃秋鑾, Q.-L.(2014)。推動校長教學領導以提升教師專業學習社群互動之策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，3(1)，43-62。
48. 林曉芳, H.-F.(2013)。合作學習教學策略在成人教育之應用。教育學術彙刊，5(1)，83-102。
49. 邱皓政, H.-J.(2011).結構方程模式：LISREL 的理論、技術與應用.雙葉書廊=Yeh Yeh Book Gallery.
50. 秦夢群, M.-C.,簡瑋成, W.-C.,張義雄, I.-H.(2018)。國中校長學習領導、教師專業學習社群與學生學習表現關係之研究。教育與心理研究，41(1)，1-30。
51. 張春興, C.-H.(2013).教育心理學──三化取向的理論與實踐.東華=Tung Hua.
52. 張新仁, S.-J.,馮莉雅, L.-Y.,潘道仁, T.-J.,王瓊珠, C.-C.(2011)。臺灣教師專業學習社群的啟動。教育研究月刊，201，5-27。
53. 張德銳（編）, D.-R.(Ed.),李俊達（編）, C.-T.(Ed.)(2017).專業發展導向教師評鑑：理論與實務.五南=Wu-Nan.
54. 教育部=Department of Education(2009).中小學教師專業學習社群手冊.
55. 陳繁興, F.-S.,蔡吉郎, J.-L.,翁福元, F.-Y.(2017)。技術型高中校長學習領導、教師專業學習社群與教學效能關係之研究。教育政策論壇，20(4)，63-106。
56. 馮莉雅, L.-Y.,徐昌慧, C.-H.(2010)。教師專業發展評鑑與專業學習社群發展之研究：以高雄市國小為例。國民教育學報，7，139-162。
57. 潘慧玲, H.-L.,陳佩英, P.-I.,張素貞, S.-C.,鄭淑惠, S.-H.,陳文彥, W.-Y.(2014)。從學習領導論析學習共同體的概念與實踐。市北教育學刊，45，1-28。
58. 蔡孟樺, M.-H.,蔡孟寧, M.-N.,陳學志, H.-C.,湯凱筑, K.-C.(2020)。專業學習社群態度及參與學習社群頻率對國小教師創意教學自我效能之影響。創造學刊，10(2)，29-51。