高中教師教學風格與教學效能之相關研究－以教師專業發展為中介變項、學校組織文化為調節變項

THE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' TEACHING STYLES AND TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS IN HIGH SCHOOLS-THE MEDIATING EFFECTS OF TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES OF SCHOOLS

10.6151/CERQ.201903_27(1).0002

邱憲義(Hsien-Yi Chiu)；蕭佳純(Chia-Chun Hsiao)

教師教學風格 ； 教師專業發展 ； 教師教學效能 ； 學校組織文化 ； teachers' teaching styles ； teachers' professional developments ； teachers' teaching effectiveness ； organizational cultures of schools

當代教育研究季刊

27卷1期（2019 / 03 / 31）

39 - 78

繁體中文

研究目的：本研究主要是以教師個體層次之教學風格、教師專業發展與學校層次之組織文化為自變項，綜合探討兩者對教師教學效能的影響，除了了解教師教學風格與學校組織文化對教師教學效能的直接效果外，更分析學校組織文化的調節效果以及教師專業發展的中介效果。研究設計／方法／取徑：在研究方法上，使用自編之「教師教學風格、教師專業發展、學校組織文化與教師教學效能關係之研究問卷」為研究工具，以臺中市30所高中共400位教師為研究對象進行問卷調查，並運用階層線性模式（HLM）來分析學校層次與教師個體層次間各變項的關係。研究發現或結論：研究結果發現，教師教學風格對於教師教學效能各構面均有直接正向的影響存在；教師教學風格對於教師專業發展各構面都有直接正向的影響存在；而教師專業發展對於教師教學效能各構面也有直接正向的影響存在；再者，教師教學風格則會透過教師專業發展不同的中介效果對教師教學效能產生間接影響；此外，學校組織文化對於教師教學效能具有影響存在，而學校組織文化更會在教師教學風格與教師教學效能間的關係產生調節效果。研究原創性／價值：過去研究鮮少有將教師教學風格、教師專業發展以及教師教學效能合併一起討論，更遑論是將教師專業發展視為中介變項來分析。另外，以統整角度檢驗這些因素彼此間的關係也不多見，所以，本研究以多層次角度分析學校組織文化對於教師教學風格與教學效能關係間之調節效果。教育政策建議／實務意涵：根據研究結果，本研究提出相關的討論與建議，包括：學校應該要強化高中教師對於教師教學風格的認知，更要重視教師的專業發展，以及塑造優質的學校組織文化，藉以提升教師的教學效能。最後，對未來研究提出若干建議，以供後續研究之參考。

Purpose: This study involved using teaching styles, professional developments of teachers and organizational cultures of schools as independent variables and investigating the effects of these two factors on teachers' teaching effectiveness. Additional analysis was conducted regarding the moderating effects of organizational cultures of schools as well as the mediating effects of teachers' professional developments. Design/methodology/approach: A total of 400 teachers at 30 high schools in Taichung City were investigated through teacher self-assessment; the employed questionnaires covered teaching styles, professional developments, organizational cultures of schools, and teachers' teaching effectiveness and contained four subscales. Hierarchical linear model (HLM) was used to analyze the relationships among variables. Findings/results: Teaching styles exert effects on the dimensions of teachers' teaching effectiveness; teaching styles exert effects on the dimensions of teachers' professional developments; teachers' professional developments exert effects on the dimensions of teachers' teaching effectiveness. Besides, teaching styles have indirect effects on teachers' teaching effectiveness through the different mediating effects of teachers' professional developments. Furthermore, organizational cultures of schools have effects on teachers' teaching effectiveness; organizational cultures of schools serve as the moderator between teaching styles and teachers' teaching effectiveness. Originality/Value: In the past few studies, teachers' teaching styles, teachers' professional developments, and teachers' teaching effectiveness were rarely discussed together, let alone analyzing teachers' professional developments as a mediating variable. In addition, the relationship among these factors is rarely examined from the integrated perspective. Therefore, this study analyzed the effects of organizational cultures of schools on the relationship between teachers' teaching styles and teaching effectiveness from a multilevel perspective. Suggestions/implications: Based on the research results, this study proposes some discussions and suggestions that schools should strengthen high school teachers' cognition of teachers' teaching style, promote the professional development of teachers and create a good school organizational culture so as to enhance teachers' teaching effectiveness. Finally, this study proposes some suggestions to the further future study.

1. Chou, C. T.(2013).Exploring English remedial instruction for freshmen at a technical college from the perspective of teaching effcacy.English Teaching & Learning,37(4),149-194.
   連結：
2. 丁雪華, H.-H.,徐超聖, C.-S.(2010)。臺北縣國小教師同儕課程領導與專業發展之相關研究。教育科學，9(2)，1-29。
   連結：
3. 吳和堂, H.-T.,鍾明翰, M.-H.(2011)。國小實習教師的角色知覺、工作投入與專業成長之因果關係研究。教育心理學報，43(2)，419-438。
   連結：
4. 李宜玫, Y.-M.,陳姵穎, P.-Y.(2010)。國小家庭作業類型的預測與中介效果：從教學風格到任務價值。教育科學研究，55(4)，187-213。
   連結：
5. 周昌柏, C.-P.(2007)。國小學校組織文化與教師組織承諾之研究。學校行政，49，84-106。
   連結：
6. 徐偉民, W.-M.,廖玉婷,Y.-T.(2012)。參與專業社群對國小教師數學教學的影響。彰化師大教育學報，22，1-24。
   連結：
7. 張和然, H.-R.,江俊龍, J.-L.(2011)。學校組織文化及教師工作價值觀對教學效能之研究。學校行政，73，83-102。
   連結：
8. 張媛甯, Y.-N.,岳美秀, M.-H.(2012)。臺南市公立幼兒園教師覺知專業成長與教學效能之研究。學校行政，82，70-89。
   連結：
9. 陳玉樹, Y.-S.,郭銘茜, M.-C.(2013)。四向度成就目標對教師創意教學表現之影響：創意自我效能的中介效果與團隊學習行為的跨層級調節效果檢定。教育科學研究，58(3)，85-120。
   連結：
10. 陳易芬, Y.-F.,陳慧如, H.-J.(2011)。教學思考風格量表編製與師生配對教學成效之探討。測驗統計年刊，19，29-50。
    連結：
11. 黃文三, W.-S.,沈碩彬, S.-P.(2012)。工作價值觀、工作投入與教學效能關係之研究：以高雄市國中教師為例。課程與教學，15(4)，161-188。
    連結：
12. 黃泓霖, H.-L.,劉唯玉, W.-Y.(2013)。我的麻吉實習輔導老師：實習輔導教師教學風格與實習教師學習風格關係之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展，6(1)，1-24。
    連結：
13. 黃建翔, C.-H.,吳清山, C.-S.(2013)。國民中學教師專業發展、專業承諾與教學效能關係之研究─以 TEPS 資料庫為例。師資培育與教師專業發展，6(2)，117-140。
    連結：
14. 楊致慧, C.-H.,蔡宗宏, C.-H.,吳明隆, M.-L.,何聖欣, S.(2013)。科技大學英文教師教學風格量表之編製。美和學報，32(2)，49-66。
    連結：
15. 溫福星, F.-H.,邱皓政, H.-J.(2009)。組織研究中的多層次調節式中介效果：以組織創新氣氛、組織承諾與工作滿意的實證研究為例。管理學報，26(2)，189-211。
    連結：
16. 廖文川, W.-C.,楊振昇, C.-S.(2014)。中部地區國民中學校長文化領導與學校組織變革關係之研究。教育理論與實踐學刊，30，149-181。
    連結：
17. 劉宗明, T.-M.,黃德祥, D.-H.(2008)。國中教師人格特質與教學效能之研究。臺北市立教育大學學報，39(2)，1-34。
    連結：
18. 蔣姿儀, T.-Y.,林亞萱, Y.-H.(2013)。中部地區幼兒教師參與學士後在職進修與教師專業發展之調查研究。師資培育與教師專業發展，6(2)，141-168。
    連結：
19. 羅巧玲, C.-L.,魏美惠, M.-H.(2013)。中部地區幼兒教師創造力人格特質與教學效能之相關研究。教育科學，12(1)，149-178。
    連結：
20. 羅玉枝,Y.-C.,曹健仲, C.-C.,黃志成, C.-C.(2015)。體育教師教學風格量表之編製。嘉大體育健康休閒，14(1)，213-221。
    連結：
21. Berry, B.,Daughtrey, A.,Wieder, A.(2010).,New York, NY:Teachers Network and the Center for Teaching Quality.
22. Bliese, P. D.(2000).Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis.Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions,and new directions,San Francisco, CA:
23. Borich, G. D.(2000).Effective teaching methods.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill.
24. Bryk, A. S.,Raudenbush, S. W.(1992).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
25. Cameron, K. S.,Quinn, R. E.(2006).Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
26. Chalofsky, N.(2008).Work-life programs and organizational culture: The essence of workplace community.Organization Development Journal,26(1),11-18.
27. Chang, D. Y.(2003).South Dakota,The University of South Dakota.
28. Chang, T. S.,Lin, H. H.,Song, M. M.(2011).College faculty perceptions of their teaching efficacy.Innovations in Education and Teaching International,48(1),49-60.
29. Conti, G. J.(1985).Assessing teaching style in continuing education: How and why.Lifelong learning,8(8),7-11.
30. Cooper, T. C.(2001).Foreign language teaching style and personality.Foreign language annals,34,301-317.
31. Denison, D. R.,Haaland, S.,Goelzer, P.(2003).Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness: Is Asia different from the rest of the world?.Organizational Dynamics,33(1),98-109.
32. Evans, C.(2004).Exploring the relationship between cognitive style and teaching style.Educational Psychology,24(4),509-530.
33. Evans, P. M.(2003).A principals dilemmas: Theory and reality of school redesign.Phi Delta Kappan,84(6),424-436.
34. Gabriel, J. G.(2005).How to thrive as a teacher leader.Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35. Galbraith, M. W.(Ed.)(2004).Adult learning methods.Malabar, FL:Krieger Publishing Company.
36. Glazer, E. M.,Hannafin, M. J.(2006).The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings.Teaching and Teacher Education,22,179-193.
37. Gordon, S. P.(2004).Professional development for school improvement.Boston, MA:Pearson Education.
38. Grasha, A. F.(2002).Teaching with styles: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles.Pittsburgh, PA:Alliance.
39. Guskey, T. R.(2000).Evaluating professional development.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
40. Hamilton, G. C.,Brown, J. E.(2003).Faculty development: What is faculty development?.Academic Emergency Medicine,10(12),1334-1336.
41. Harris, A.,Muijs, D.(2005).Improving schools through teacher leadership.New York, NY:Open University.
42. Heimlich, J. E.,Norland, E.(2002).Teaching style: Where are we now?.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,93,17-25.
43. Hosseini, A. S.,Watt, A. P.(2010).The effect of a teacher professional development in facilitating students’ creativity.Educational Research and Reviews,5(8),432-438.
44. Jarvis, P.(2004).Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice.London, England:Routledge Falmer.
45. Kreft, I. G. G.(1996).Kreft, I. G. G. (1996). Are multilevel techniques necessary? An overview, including simulation studies. Manuscript, California State University, Los Angeles, CA..
46. Krull, J. L.,MacKinnon, D. P.(1999).Multilevel mediation modeling in group-based intervention studies.Evaluation Revew,23,418-444.
47. Lieberman, A.(Ed.),Miller, L.(Ed.)(2001).Teacher caught in the action: Professional development that matters.New York, NY:Teacher College Press.
48. Lustick, D.,Sykes, G.(2006).National board certification as professional development: What are teachers learning ?.Education Policy Analysis Archives,14(5),1-46.
49. Maas, C. J. M.,Hox, J. J.(2005).Suffcient sample sizes for multilevel modeling.Methodology,1,86-92.
50. Mandelbaum, M. G.(2013).New York,Fordham university.
51. Mohanna, K.,Chambers, R.,Wall , D.(2007).Developing your teaching style: Increasing effectiveness in healthcare teaching.Post Graduate Medicine Journal,83,145-147.
52. Moller, G.,Pankake, A.(2006).Lead with me: A principal's guide to teacher leadership.Larchmont, NY:Eye On Education.
53. Muijs, D.,Reynolds, D.(2003).The effectiveness of the use of learning support assistants in improving the mathematics achievement of low achieving pupils in primary school.Educational Research,45(3),219-230.
54. Nir, A. E.,Bogler, R.(2008).The antecedents of teacher satisfaction with professional development program.Teaching and Teacher Education,24(2),337-386.
55. Rhodes, C.,Stokes, M.,Hampton, G.(2004).A practical guide to mentoring, coaching and peer-networking: Teacher professional development in schools and colleges.London, England:Routledge Falmer.
56. Sachs, J.(2003).The activist teaching profession.Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
57. Schein, E. H.(2004).Organizational culture and leadership.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
58. Silvermail, D. L.(1986).Teaching styles as related to student achievement.Washington, DC:National Education Association.
59. Wallach, E. J.(1983).Individuals and organization: The culture match.Training and Development Journal,12,28-36.
60. Whitcomb, J.,Borko, H.,Liston, D.(2009).Promising professional development models and practices.Journal of Teacher Education,60(3),207-212.
61. Wong, Y. H. P.(2010).Kindergarten teachers’ perceived school culture and well-being: A comparison of non-proft-making and profit-making kindergartens.Early Child Development and Care,180(3),271-278.
62. Yoshida, F.(2014).Development of an instrument to measure teaching style in Japan: The teaching style assessment scale.Journal of Adult Education,43(1),11-18.
63. 王曉華（譯）, H. H.(trans.),向于峰（譯）, Y. F.(trans.),錢麗欣（譯）, L. H.(trans.),Darling-Hammond, L.(2006).美國教師專業發展學校.北京市=Bejing, China:中國輕工業=China Light Industry.
64. 吳明隆, M.-L.(2011).論文寫作與量化研究.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wunan.
65. 吳勁甫, J.-F.(2009)。競值架構應用在國民小學學校組織文化之衡量。教育研究與發展，5(3)，37-72。
66. 吳清山, C.-S.,林天祐, T.-Y.(2005).教育新辭書.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:高等教育=Higher Education.
67. 邱皓政（譯）, H. J.(trans.),Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J.(2009).多層次模型分析導論.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wunan.
68. 冼秀麗, X.-L.,黃友, Y.(2011)。教師風格化發展：教師專業發展的追求目標。教育與教學研究，25(7)，20-25。
69. 徐志文, C.-W.,張雨霖, Y.-L.,巫宜錚, I-C.,許芳彬, F.-P.(2011)。以階層線性模式分析學校組織創新氣氛、教師教學效能對創造力教學之影響。創造學刊，2(2)，87-112。
70. 張奕華, I-H.,吳怡佳, Y.-C.(2008)。校長科技領導與教師教學效能關係之研究。教育研究與發展，4(1)，171-194。
71. 張清濱, C.-P.(2001).學校教育改革─課程與教學.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wunan.
72. 張淑芳, S.-F.,劉宏舟, H.-C.,張熙君, H.-C.(2012)。專業化發展視角下的教師教學風格論析。保定學院學報，25(3)，111-114。
73. 張慶勳, C.-S.(2006).學校組織文化與領導.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wunan.
74. 陳志科, C.-K.(2012)。教學風格追求與教師專業發展。教育學術月刊，8，72-74。
75. 陳聰文, T.-W.,鍾舒萍, S.-P.(2009)。臺中市國中教師教學動機、學校組織文化與創意教學關係之研究。東海教育評論，3，1-42。
76. 傅亞強, Y.-Q.,徐麗華, L.-H.(2007)。中小學教師教學風格調查表的研製。教師教育研究，19(2)，54-57。
77. 馮莉雅, L.-Y.(2002)。影響國中教師教學效能相關因素之研究。文藻學報，16，123-142。
78. 劉鎮寧, J.-N.(2015)。國民小學校長領導行為、教師專業表現與學校組織文化之關聯性研究。屏東教育大學學報，42，67-102。
79. 蔡俊傑, J.-J.,劉威德, W.-T.,羅鴻仁, H.-J.(2012)。職業學校教導型組織文化與教師創新教學關係之探討。教師專業研究，4，53-80。
80. 鄭燕祥, Y.-C.(2006).教育範式轉變：效能保證.上海市=Shanghai, China:上海教育=Shanghai Education.
81. 鄭燿男, J.-N.(2013)。,未出版
82. 蕭佳純, C.-C.(2007)。教師內在動機以及知識分享合作對創意教學行為關聯性之階層線性分析。當代教育研究，15(4)，57-92。
83. 羅寶鳳, P.-F.,張德勝, T.-S.(2012)。大學教師教學風格與教學自我效能之研究。教育與多元文化研究，6，93-121。

1. 陳致澄,余尚芸,王瑞壎(2021)。教學推理模式觀點下小學職前教師設計資訊科技融入數學教學活動之探究。教育傳播與科技研究，126，39-55。
2. 黃靖文,張韶蘭,康永昌(2023)。內部行銷、教學信念與教學效能之研究－教師專業發展之中介角色。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，16(2)，1-26。
3. 廖珮妏(2022)。從分散式領導角色探討大學社會責任形塑個案科大特色亮點之創新組織特性研究。修平學報，43，165-193。
4. 邱麗家(2021)。大專院校實施共通核心職能課程的反思與實踐：提升大學生之自我探索能力。通識學刊：理念與實務，9(2)，149-190。
5. (2019)。高級中等學校教師組織公民行為對學生自主學習影響之研究：以教師教學風格為中介變項。中正教育研究，18(1)，89-128。