國民中學校長文化領導、教師心理契約、教師社群互動與學校效能關係之研究

The Study of Relationship among Principals' Cultural Leadership, Teachers' Psychological Contract, Teachers' Community Interaction and School Effectiveness in Junior High School in Taiwan

10.6423/HHHC.201905_(121).0003

陳怡潔(I-Chieh Chen)

校長文化領導 ； 教師心理契約 ； 教師社群互動 ； 學校效能 ； principals' cultural leadership ； school effectiveness ； teachers' community interaction ； teachers' psychological contract

學校行政

121期（2019 / 05 / 16）

53 - 89

繁體中文

本研究旨在探究台灣國民中學校長文化領導、教師心理契約、教師社群互動與學校效能的關係，了解國民中學校長文化領導、教師心理契約、教師社群互動與學校效能的現況，變項間的相關性和對學校效能的預測力。以問卷調查法進行實證資料之收集，自編「國民中學校長文化領導、教師心理契約、教師社群互動與學校效能調查問卷」，並以此為工具，依地理區域、學校規模，採分層隨機取樣方式，共計發出650份問卷，回收有效問卷數為598份，有效回收率為92%。問卷回收後以描述性統計、積差相關分析及逐步多元迴歸分析，進行研究分析。本研究結論如下：一、國民中學校長文化領導為中高程度，文化形塑優於文化創新與文化維護二、國民中學教師心理契約為中高程度，以專業維護最高，興革參與最低。三、國民中學教師社群互動為中高程度，以共享願景最高，行動研究最低。四、國民中學學校效能為中高程度，教師專業和外界支援並列最高，行政績效最低。五、國民中學校長文化領導感知越佳、教師心理契約感受越深、教師社群互動越高，學校效能表現越好，彼此間均有顯著正向關聯。六、行政績效、教學專業、學生表現、外界支援皆有最佳預測變項，因而影響整體學校效能最重要者為興革參與。最後提出研究建議如下：一、強化校長養成及進修機制，透過提升校長文化領導知能和孰悉教師心理契約內涵，促進學校整體效能。二、校長應致力於形塑學校文化，讓所有教師擁有共同的文化願景和藍圖，同心齊力一起提升學校效能。三、校長應鼓勵教師參與專業社群，讓教師們能透過專業對話、分享交流，提升教師教學成效，並促進整體學校效能四、教師應積極參與學校興革措施，藉由校長的文化形塑和文化維護，凝聚教師情感，齊心投入學校發展，將有助於整體學校效能的提升。五、未來研究可針對現有的研究限制進行修正，如全國性樣本數不足、缺少背景變項的差異性考驗及預測與相關研究取向的同質性太高等。並且可在未來研究中進一步探討四者之間的結構關係。

The aim of the study is to explore the relationship among four variables, including principals' cultural leadership, teachers' psychological contract, teachers' community interaction and school effectiveness in junior high school in Taiwan. Not only to understand the real situation among principals' cultural leadership, teachers' psychological contract, teachers' community interaction and school effectiveness, but also to find the correlations with the variables and prediction toward school effectiveness. The survey is carried out with a self-made questionnaire ＂Sense of principals' cultural leadership, teachers' psychological contract, teachers' community interaction and school effectiveness for junior high school teachers in Taiwan.＂ The questionnaire consists of 4 parts, including ＂principals' cultural leadership for teachers＂, ＂teachers' psychological contract for teachers＂, ＂teachers' community interaction for teachers＂, ＂school effectiveness for teachers.＂ The samples were selected by stratified random selection by geo-location and the scale of schools. There are 598 valid samples collected. The response rate is 92%. The data is analyzed using Description Statistics, Pearson Correlation Analysis and Multiple Regression Analysis. The conclusions for the study can be summarized as below. 1. For the principals' cultural leadership measures of the sample, the rating for cultural shaping is higher than meaning of cultural innovation, and cultural maintenance. 2. For the teachers' psychological contract measures of the sample, the rating for profession maintenance is the highest and evolution participation is the lowest. 3. For the teachers' community interaction measures of the sample, the rating for sharing vision is the highest and action research is the lowest. 4. For the school effectiveness measures of the sample, the rating for teacher profession and social resources are both the highest and administration effectiveness is the lowest. 5. There exists a positive correlation between principals' cultural leadership, teachers' psychological contract, teachers' community interaction and school effectiveness. 6. There exist predictors for administration effectiveness, teaching profession, student performance and social resources. The factor that influence the overall school effectiveness most is evolution participation. Last, the suggestions can be provided as below. 1. Strengthen the principal's development and learning mechanism, and promote the school's overall effectiveness by enhancing the principal's cultural leadership and understanding the teacher's psychological contract. 2. The principal should be committed to shaping the school culture so that all teachers have a common cultural vision and blueprint and work together to improve school performance. 3. The principal should encourage teachers to participate in the professional community so that teachers can enhance the effectiveness of teachers' teaching and promote overall school effectiveness through professional dialogue and sharing of exchanges. 4. Teachers should actively participate in the school's measures for the development of the school. With the cultural shaping and cultural maintenance of the principal, concentrating the teachers' emotions and concentrating on the development of the school will contribute to the improvement of the overall school performance. 5. Future research can be revised for existing research constraints, such as insufficient national sample size, lack of background variables, and high homogeneity of predictions and related research orientations. And the structural relationship between the four can be further explored in future research.

1. Peterson, K. D.(2005).School culture, school effectiveness and school leadership.Chung Cheng Educational Studies,4(s),63-103.
   連結：
2. 吳清山(2004).學校行政.台北市:心理.
   連結：
3. 施錦村(2010)。學校員工類別對組織公平、違反心理契約與員工負向行為關聯的干擾效果：以北部技職院校為例。教育科學期刊，9(2)，77-100。
   連結：
4. 張奕華,張敏章(2010)。台北縣國民小學校長科技領導對學校效能影響之研究。學校行政，66，30-50。
   連結：
5. 張奕華,蔡瑞倫(2009)。國民中學校長科技領導與學校效能關係之研究。學校行政，65，33-53。
   連結：
6. 謝文貴,黃旭鈞(2016)。國民小學分布式領導對學校效能影響之研究—以資料導向為中介變項。學校行政雙月刊，105，63-84。
   連結：
7. Argyris, C.(1960).Understanding organizational behavior.Homewood, IL:Dorsey Press, Inc..
8. Bennis, W.,Nanus, B.(2003).Leaders: Strategies for taking charge.New York:HarperCollins.
9. Berlinger-Gustafson (2004). Building professional learning communities. In Cathy Berlinger-Gustafson, In support of the Florida Professional Development System Evaluation Protocol. Retrieved December 28. 2009, from http://www.teachinflorida.com/teachertoolkit/PLC.htm
10. Beyer, J. M.,Browning ,L .D.(1999).Transforming an industr y in crisis:Charisma,routinization, and supportive cultural leadership.Leadership Quarterly,10(3),483-521.
11. Deal, T. E.,Peterson K. D.(2009).Shaping School Culture: Pitfalls, Paradoxes, &Promises.San Francisco:John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
12. Glanz, J.(2006).What every principal should know about cultural leadership.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin.
13. Huffman, J. B.,Hipp, K. K.(2003).Reculturing schools as professional learning com-munities.Oxford:Scarecrow Education.
14. Ihinger, B. J. W.(1988).N. J.,Texas Tech University.
15. Karakose, T.(2008).The perceptions of primary school teachers on principal cultural leadership behaviors.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,8(2),569-579.
16. Lane, B.A.(1992).Cultural leaders in effective schools: The builders And brokers of excellence.NASSP Bulletin,76(541),85-96.
17. Little, J. W.(2002).Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: open-ing up problems of analysis in records of everyday work.Teaching and Teacher Education,18(8),917-946.
18. Louis, K. S.,Kruse, S. D.(1995).Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools.CA:Corwin.
19. Lu, Y.L.,Lin, Y.C.(2016).How to identify effective schools in the new period: Use the fuzzy correlation coefficient of distributed leadership and school effectiveness.International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics,9(4),347-359.
20. Macneil, I. R.(1985).Relational contract: What we do and do not know.Wisconsin Law Review,3(3),483-525.
21. Massachusetts ASCD (2004). Learning communities: A new definition of professional development. Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://www.mascd.org/docs/ foc-win04.htm
22. McDonald, D. J.,Makin, P. J.(2002).The psychological contract, organizational com-mitment and job satisfaction of temporary staff.Leadership and Organization Development Journal,21(1/2),84-92.
23. Miskel, C.G.,Miskel, C.G.(2005).Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice.New York:McGraw-Hill.
24. Rousseau, D. M.(1995).Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding writ-ten and unwritten agreements.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
25. Schein, E.H.(2004).Organizational culture and leadership.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
26. Schwahn, C. J.,Spady, W. G.(1998).Total leaders: Applying the best future-focused change strategies to education.Arlington, VA:American Association of School Administration.
27. Sergiovanni, T. J.(1995).The principalship: A reflective practice perspective.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
28. Sheive, L. T.(ed.),Schoenheit, M. B.(ed.)(1987).Leadership: Examining the elusive.Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
29. Sweetland, S. R.,Hoy, W. K.(2000).School characteristics and educational outcomes:Toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools.EducationalAdministration Quarterly,36(5),703-729.
30. Trice, H. M.,Beyer, J. M.(1991).Cultural leadership in organizational.Organizational Science,2(2),149-169.
31. Trice, H.M.,Beyer, J.M.(1993).The culture of work organizations.Englewood Coiffs, New Jersey:
32. Uline C. L.,Miler D. M.,Tschannen-Moran, Megan(1998).School effectiveness: The underlying dimensions.Educational Administration Quarterly,34(4),462-483.
33. 丁文祺(2008)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學。
34. 王淑娟(2005)。屏東縣，國立屏東師範學院。
35. 田福連(2009)。文化領導創新思維啟發—以高雄市國小校長為例。實踐博雅學報，12，25-57。
36. 江美英(2018)。台南市，私立南台科技大學。
37. 江滿堂(2008)。屏東市，國立屏東教育大學。
38. 吳明隆(2003).SPSS統計應用學習實務—問卷分析與應用統計.台北市:知城數位科技.
39. 吳明隆(2011).論文寫作與量化研究.台北市:五南.
40. 吳采容(2016)。新竹市，私立中華科技大學。
41. 吳金香(2000).學校組織行為與管理.台北市:五南.
42. 吳政達,湯家偉,羅清水(2007)。心理契約，組織公平，組織信任與組織公民行為結構關係之驗證：以台北地區國民中學學校組織為例。教育政策論壇，10(1)，133-159。
43. 吳春明(2008)。台北市，私立輔仁大學。
44. 呂美惠(2008)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學。
45. 李芃葵(2010)。台中市，私立亞洲大學。
46. 李健慧(2010)。南投縣，國立暨南大學。
47. 周美慧(2014)。南投縣，國立暨南大學。
48. 林孝治(2015)。彰化市，私立建國科技大學。
49. 林邦傑,陳美娟(2006)。學校組織與教職人員心理契約量表的建構。教育研究與發展期刊，2(4)，39-68。
50. 邱侶文(2008)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學。
51. 施詠齡(2009)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學。
52. 柳雅梅（譯）(2006).學校是專業的學習社群—專業發展的合作活動與策略.台北市:心理.
53. 范熾文(2002)。台北市，國立台灣師範大學。
54. 夏慶華(2007)。屏東縣，國立屏東科技大學。
55. 張國強(2010)。台中市，國立台中教育大學。
56. 張惠治(2011)。桃園縣，私立中原大學。
57. 張智凱(2009)。彰化縣，國立彰化師範大學。
58. 張新仁（編）,王瓊珠（編）,馮莉雅（編）(2009).中小學教師專業學習社群手冊.台北市:教育部.
59. 張韶蘭,黃靖文(2016)。國民小學創新經營與學校效能關係之探討—學校行銷之調節效果。教育研究學報，50(1)，43-66。
60. 張慶勳(2001)。學習型學校組織文化與領導。學校行政，14，29-41。
61. 張慶勳(2001).國小校長轉化、互易領導影響學校組織文化特性與組織效能之研究.高雄市:復文.
62. 張慶勳(2006).學校組織文化與領導.台北:五南.
63. 郭慶發(2001)。台北市，國立台北師範學院。
64. 陳其樑(2008)。高雄市，國立中山大學。
65. 陳秋珊(2015)。嘉義縣，國立中正大學。
66. 陳清濱(2016)。南投縣，國立暨南國際大學。
67. 黃秀霞(2013)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學。
68. 黃坤謨(2008)。台北市，國立台北教育大學。
69. 黃美芳(2009)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學。
70. 黃裕婷(2015)。彰化市，私立大葉大學。
71. 黃靖雅(2018)。台北市，台北市立大學。
72. 黃韻如(2016)。台北市，國立政治大學。
73. 楊振富（譯）(2002).學習型學校（上）.台北市:天下遠見.
74. 楊智先(2007)。台北市，國立政治大學。
75. 詹曉雯(2017)。台中市，私立逢甲大學。
76. 廖裕月(1998)。台北市，國立台北師範學院。
77. 劉秀枝(2012)。台南市，國立台南大學。
78. 歐陽岷(2010)。台北市，台北市立教育大學。
79. 潘玳玉(2001)。花蓮縣，國立東華大學。
80. 蔡炳坤(2007)。台北市，國立政治大學。
81. 蔡韻瓊(2007)。高雄市，國立高雄師範大學。
82. 鄭燕祥(2001).學校效能及校本管理：發展的機制.台北市:心理.
83. 謝文全(2007).教育行政學.台北市:高等教育.
84. 鍾孟君(2015)。台中市，私立中台科技大學。
85. 鄺執中(1988)。文化領導—塑造組織生命力的新型領導法。教育資料文摘，41(6)，170-182。
86. 鐘巧如(2016)。台北市，國立政治大學。

1. 謝為任,謝文英(2021)。國中小校長多元架構領導對學校效能影響之研究－以教師組織承諾為中介變項。學校行政，135，74-94。
2. (2020)。國民小學校長文化領導實踐策略之探究。教育研究月刊，318，104-122。