台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

A Study of Teachers' Self-Efficacy of the Health and Physical Education Learning Field in the Elementary Schools in Taiwan

10.5297/ser.200509_7(3).0004

潘義祥(Yi-Hsiang Pan)

健康與體育 ； 教師自我效能 ； health and physical education ； teacher self-efficacy

大專體育學刊

7卷3期（2005 / 09 / 30）

51 - 59

繁體中文;英文

本研究主要是探討不同背景變項教師在健康與體育學習領域教師自我效能的差異，研究對象為臺、澎、金、馬地區國小教師，本研究以自編的國民小學健康與體育學習領域教師自我效能量表為工具，採取分層隨機叢集抽樣的方式，發出 2,100份問卷，有效問卷共1,604份（佔發出量76.38%），資料處理以MANOVA統計方法分析不同背景變項教師自我效能的差異情形，本研究結果發現如下：在性別方面，男性教師的教師自我效能感高於女性教師；在教學年資方面，資深教師較資淺教師為佳；在專業背景方面，體育衛教科系較一般科系為佳；在任教職務方面，健康與體育領域科任教師高於級任教師；在任教年級方面，四五六年級大於一二三年級教師；在研習進修方面，國民小學教師在健康與體育領域進修研習愈多者，其教師效能感也愈高。另外，本研究發現教師不因學歷高低、任教地區不同而有差異存在。本研究最後提出建議，作為健康與體育學習領域課程實施之參考。

This paper examines the distinction of teacher's self-efficacy for the health and physical education learning field in the elementary schools. This study chose such variables as sexes, years of the teaching, the professional backgrounds, the highest educational degree, the teaching official duty, the teaching grades, the teaching area and the education background level to understand the discrepancy of teachers' background variables in the teacher self-efficacy dimension. The subjects included teachers from the elementary schools in the districts of Taiwan, Pescadore, Quemoy and Matsu. This study adopted a self-made questionnaire as the measuring tool. Both stratified random sampling and cluster sampling were used to sample 2,100 teachers in the above four districts. 1,604 valid questionnaires (76.38%) were returned. The data was analyzed by the statistical methods of MANOVA. The following conclusions were as reached. The teachers' background variables resulted in significant differences on the teacher self-efficacy except the variables of the highest educational degree and the teaching area. Based on this study, the male teachers had higher self-efficacy than the female teachers. The teachers with more teaching years had higher self-efficacy than those with less experiences. The teachers from the professional department had a higher self-efficacy than the teachers with a general professional background. The health and physical education teachers had a higher self-efficacy than the classroom teachers; The teachers teaching higher graders had a higher self-efficacy than those teaching lower graders. The teachers attended more learning workshops had a more teacher self-efficacy than those who attended less. Finally, based on the results of this study, the researcher provided some recommendations in the health and physical education learning field as the references for future curriculum practice.

1. Bandura, A.(1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.NJ:Prentice-Hall.
2. Biddle, S.,Goudas, M.(1998).Physical education teacher efficacy: Scale development and relationship with cumcular goals.Journal of Sport Science,19,23-32.
3. Carver, L.(1988).Teacher efficacy: Its relationship to school level organizational conditions and teacher demographic characteristics.Dissertation Abstracts International,49(12),3536A.
4. Coladarci, T.(1992).Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching.Journal of Experimental Education,60,323-337.
5. Gibson, S.,Dambo, M. H.(1984).Teacher efficacy: A construct validation.Journal of Educational Psychology,76(4),569-582.
6. Graham, G.,Metzler, M.,Webster, G.(1991).Specialist and classroom teacher effectiveness in children's physical education: A 3-years study.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,10,323-324.
7. Greenwood, G. F.,Olejnik, S. R.,Parkay, F. W.(1990).Relationships between four teacher.23,102-106.
8. Henson, R. K.,Bennett, K. T.,Sienty, S. F.,Chambers, S. M.(2000).The relationship between means-end task analysis and context-specific and global self-efficacy in emergency certification teachers: exploring a new model of teacher efficacy.
9. Howard, S. P.(1996)..
10. Soodak, L. C.,Podell, D. M.(1996).Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multifaceted construct.Teaching and Teacher Education,12(4),401-411.
11. 王受榮(1992)。。
12. 吳璧如(2002)。教師效能感之理論分析。教育研究資訊，10(2)，45-64。
13. 李幸(2001)。。
14. 李復惠(2002)。。
15. 沈志強(2002)。九年一貫健康與體育領域教師專業能力現況調查研究。台北:台北市立師範學院。
16. 周惠民(1999)。。
17. 周新富(1991)。。
18. 林意苹(2002)。。
19. 孫志麟(1991)。。
20. 孫志麟(2002)。教師自我效能與教學行為的關係:實徵取向的分析。國立台北師範學院學報，14，109-140。
21. 張世慧(1998)。。
22. 張瑞村(2000)。行政院國家科學委員會專案研究報告。台北:國科會。
23. 郭明德(1999)。。
24. 郭淑珍(2002)。。
25. 潘義祥(1998)。。
26. 闕月清(2003)。行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫成果報告。台北:國科會。
27. 顏淑惠(1999)。。
28. 顏銘志(1996)。。

1. 陳俊瑋(2022)。「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。教育心理學報，53(4)，853-878。
2. 林慧敏(2013)。臺東縣國中小教師自我效能感之研究─背景變項透過中介變項對自我效能感之影響。學校行政，87，98-122。
3. 潘義祥(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。
4. 楊惠玲、黃奕清、高毓秀、李惠玲(2007)。臨床護理實習指導教師自我效能之研究。醫護科技學刊，9(3)，210-221。
5. 楊孟華(2015)。雲嘉地區中學體育教師自我效能、工作投入及創意教學表現之相關研究。台灣體育運動管理學報，15(2)，299-332。
6. 張家銘、孫美蓮、邱瀞瑩、林素婷(2018)。國高中體育教師之教師專業能力、自我效能感對幸福感之影響。運動休閒管理學報，15(4)，36-53。