國民小學教師工作壓力與休閒調適之研究

A Study on the Relationship between Work Pressure and Leisure Coping of Elementary School Teachers

10.29423/JSRR.201306_7(4).0009

陳綉香(Hsiu-Hsiang Chen)；許志賢(Chih-Hsien Hsu)；黃于庭(Yu-Ting Huang)

國民小學教師 ； 工作壓力 ； 休閒調適 ； Elementary-school teacher ； work stress ； leisure coping

運動與遊憩研究

7卷4期（2013 / 06 / 01）

138 - 159

繁體中文

本研究旨在調查國民小學教師工作壓力與休閒調適之情形，研究結果可供主管教育行政機關制定政策及推廣休閒活動，作為改善休閒調適策略之參考。本研究以南投縣600名國民小學教師為對象，採問卷調查法，以「國民小學教師工作壓力與休閒調適之研究問卷」為研究工具，內容包含：個人基本資料、工作壓力量表及休閒調適量表，共發出問卷600份，回收544份，有效問卷514份，有效問卷回收率為85.66％。為達本研究目的及考驗假設之需，本研究將回收之有效樣本以描述性統計、項目分析、因素分析、信度分析、獨立樣本t 檢定、單因子變異數分析、薛費事後分析等統計方法進行資料分析，結果發現：一、不同背景變項的教師在工作壓力各因素構面上，其感受程度並不相同。不同性別的教師，在工作負荷及變革適應有顯著差異；不同職務的教師，在行政支持、變革適應有顯著差異；不同教學年資的教師，在工作負荷、人際關係、學生行為、行政支持、變革適應有顯著差異；不同教育背景的教師，在專業知能、變革適應有顯著差異；不同婚姻狀況的教師，在學生行為有顯著差異。二、不同背景變項的教師在休閒調適各因素構面上，均無顯著差異存在。國民小學教師在休閒調適的整體構面中，以「提升正面情緒」的感受性最大，「舒緩身心」的感受性最小。

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between work pressure and leisure coping of elementary-school teachers. The research findings were provided for educational administrative organizations as references of developing leisure coping strategies to make policies and extend leisure activities. In this study, elementary-school teachers were the major objects. The research was conducted by questionnaire survey. With the questionnaire titled, ”The relationship between work pressure and leisure coping of elementary-school teachers.” It included three dimensions: personal data, work pressure and leisure coping. Through stratified random sampling, questionnaires were distributed to 600 teachers. After 544 returned questionnaires were filtered, 514 samples were valid. The overall valid questionnaire percentage was up to 85.66%. In order to achieve the purpose of research and the test of hypothesis, the researcher adopted descriptive statistics, item analysis, factor analysis, reliability analysis, independent sample t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Scheffe's method to analyze data. The conclusions were drawn as follows: 1. The teachers with diverse background variables had different feelings among the dimensions of work pressure. Teachers of diverse genders were significantly different in the aspect of ”work load” and ”reformation accommodation.” And the teachers on diverse job positions were also different in the aspect of ”administrators’ support” and ”reformation accommodation.” As for the teachers with diverse teaching ages, the differences were statistically significant in the aspect of ”work load”, ”interpersonal relationship”, ”students’ behavior”, ”administrators’ support” and ”reformation accommodation.” In addition, the teachers from diverse educational backgrounds had obvious difference in the aspect of ”professional knowledge” and ”reformation accommodation.” Moreover, the teachers of diverse situations of marriage differed in the aspect of ”students’ behavior.” 2. The teachers of diverse background variables were not obviously different among the dimensions of leisure coping. Among the whole dimensions of leisure coping, the highest average score of leisure coping is to promote positive emotion; to relax body and mind got the lowest average score.

1. Coleman, D.(1993).Leisure based social support, leisure dispositions and health.Journal of Leisure Research,25(4),350-361.
2. Coleman, D.,Iso-Ahola, S. E.(1993).Leisure and health: The role of social support and self-determination.Journal of Leisure Research,25(2),111-128.
3. Dean, A.,Kolody, B.,Wood, P.(1984).Effects of social support from various sources on depression in elderly persons.Journal of Health and Social Behavior,31(June),148-161.
4. Ivancevich,Mattson(1980).Occupational stress, strain and coping across the life span.Journal of Vocational Behavior,27,98-108.
5. Iwasaki, Y.(2001).Testing an optimal matching hypothesis of stress, coping and health: Leisure and general coping.Society and Leisure,24,163-203.
6. Iwasaki, Y.,Mannell, R. C.(2000).Hierarchical dimensions of leisure stress-coping.Leisure Sciences,22(3),163-181.
7. Lazarus, R. S.,Folkman, S.(1984).Stress, Appraisal and Coping.New York:Springer.
8. Lin, N.,Gina, L.(1995).Urban stress in China.Social Science and Medicine,41(8),1311-1145.
9. Svendsen, R.,Bemey. C.(1980).Teacher stress: Sources and consequences.Journal of School Health,50,96-99.
10. 吳毓琦(1992)。教師工作壓力之探討。國教園地，42，21-25。
11. 周玉慧(1998)。晚年生活壓力、社會支持與老人身心健康。人文及社會科學集刊，10(2)，227-265。
12. 林佳蓉(2002)。屏東，國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所。
13. 張白玉(2003)。新竹，國立新竹師範學院輔導教學碩士班。
14. 許志賢(2002)。台中，國立台灣體育學院體育研究所。
15. 陳質采(2002)。抗壓大作戰、Bye-Bye憂鬱。台北市:董氏基金會。
16. 單小琳(1988)。台北，國立政治大學教育研究所。
17. 蔡璧煌(1989)。國民中小學教師壓力之研究。國立台灣師範大學學報，34，75-114。
18. 鄭志成(2008)。台中，亞洲大學國際企業學系。
19. 鄭育文(2008)。台北，國立臺北教育大學國民教育學系。

1. 黃偉倫(2016)。角色認知與組織承諾關係之結構模式研究--以工作壓力為中介變數。義守大學工業管理學系學位論文。2016。1-87。
2. 林茂淋(2017)。軍訓教官選擇服務學校意願及影響因素之研究-以高雄市高中職軍訓教官為例。義守大學資訊管理學系學位論文。2017。1-92。