题名

教學領導、分布式領導和學校氣氛對教師工作滿意的直接和調節作用：基於TALIS 2018臺灣國民中學資料之多層次分析

并列篇名

Direct and Moderating Effects of Instructional Leadership, Distributed Leadership, and School Climate on Teacher Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analysis of TALIS 2018 Data on Junior High Schools in Taiwan

DOI

10.6925/SCJ.202303_19(1).0002

作者

吳勁甫(Jin-Fu Wu)

关键词

2018教學與學習國際調查 ； 教學領導 ； 分布式領導 ； 教師工作滿意 ； 學校氣氛 ； TALIS 2018 ； instructional leadership ； distributed leadership ； teacher job satisfaction ； school climate

期刊名称

教育研究與發展期刊

卷期/出版年月

19卷1期（2023 / 03 / 31）

页次

31 - 70

内容语文

繁體中文;英文
中文摘要

「教學與學習國際調查」（Teaching and Learning International Survey, TALIS）為針對學校學習環境和教師工作情況之國際調查，臺灣係首度參與TALIS 2018之調查。迄今，國內在此方面的實徵研究仍相當有限，缺乏校長和教師知覺學校領導的不同觀點，以及多層次理論模式之檢證等研究成果。本研究即應用TALIS 2018臺灣國民中學資料，以多層次分析的架構，分析學校領導和學校氣氛對教師工作滿意之直接影響。此外，更採取多層次調節效果模式，檢測學校領導對教師工作滿意的影響受到學校氣氛之調節作用情形。資料經多層次結構方程模式分析後，所獲致之主要結論為：（一）校長知覺之教學領導和分布式領導對教師工作滿意不具直接影響力；（二）教師知覺之分布式領導對教師工作滿意之部分面向具有正向的直接影響力；（三）部分學校氣氛面向對教師工作滿意之部分面向具有正向或負向的直接影響力；（四）校長知覺之教學領導和分布式領導對教師工作滿意之直接影響力，此不受學校氣氛所調節；（五）教師知覺之分布式領導對教師工作滿意之直接影響力，此受部分學校氣氛面向（「學術強調」）所調節。最後，對於學校領導之實務意涵和未來研究提出相關建議。
英文摘要

The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) is an international survey of school leaders and teachers about their working conditions and learning environments, and TALIS 2018 was the first in which Taiwan participated. The quantity of TALIS-related empirical data pertaining to Taiwan remains limited. In addition, few studies have explored the perspectives of principals and teachers on school leadership through multilevel model testing. This study used the Taiwan-related data from TALIS 2018 to analyze the multilevel direct effects of school leadership and school climate on teacher job satisfaction. A multilevel moderation model was used to determine whether school climate moderated the effects of school leadership on teacher job satisfaction. After the data were analyzed through multilevel structural equation modeling, several conclusions were drawn. (1) The perceived instructional leadership and distributed leadership of principals did not directly influence teacher job satisfaction. (2) The perceived distributed leadership of teachers positively and directly influenced several dimensions of teacher job satisfaction. (3) Several school climate dimensions had direct positive or negative effects on several dimensions of teacher job satisfaction. (4) The direct effects of the perceived instructional leadership and distributed leadership of principals on teacher job satisfaction were not moderated by school climate. (5) The direct effects of the perceived distributed leadership of teachers on teacher job satisfaction were partially moderated by school climate (academic pressure). This study also provides suggestions and the practical implications of the results for school leadership and future research.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 吳勁甫（2011）。校長領導對學校效能影響模式之探析。教育經營與管理集刊，7，1-25。https://doi.org/10.6713/BEEM.201101_(7).0001
    連結：
  2. 吳璧如、陳俊瑋（2022）。國小教師工作壓力與工作滿意度之關係研究：教師自我效能感的中介效果。教育研究與發展期刊，18（2），51-92。https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.202206_18(2).0002
    連結：
  3. 紀惠英、胡中平、范熾文（2018）。國小女性校長領導風格與學校組織氣氛之相關研究。學校行政雙月刊，116，1-21。https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.201807_(116).0001
    連結：
  4. 孫志麟（2022）。證據說了什麼？國民中小學教師專業發展的樣貌。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，15（1），1-27。https://doi.org/10.53106/207136492022041501001
    連結：
  5. 廖梅君（2022）。分布式領導、正向學校氣候與教師工作滿意度的關係之研究：以TALIS 2018 臺灣資料為例。學校行政，138，105-125。https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.202203_(138).0005
    連結：
  6. 謝傳崇、翁暄睿（2019）。TALIS 2018 年臺灣國小校長分布式領導調查結果之分析。學校行政，124，1-20。https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.201911_(124).0001
    連結：
  7. 蘇淑媛、賴志峰（2019）。臺中市國民小學教師知覺校長學習領導與組織氣氛關係之研究。學校行政，120，35-60。https://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.201903_(120).0002
    連結：
  8. 方杰、溫忠麟、吳艷（2018）。基於結構方程模型的多層調節效應。心理科學進展，26（5），781-788。https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00781
  9. 吳勁甫（2021）。從 PISA 2012 臺灣資料探究校長領導、學校氣氛對學生數學素養之直接和間接影響作用：多層次結構方程模式之分析。教育政策論壇，24（2），33-73。https://doi.org/10.3966/156082982021052402002
  10. 李家安、郭昭佑（2014）。教師工作滿意度的新觀點―從第三域的視角出發。臺灣教育評論月刊，3（2），101-105。
  11. 林俊瑩、謝亞恆、曹靜麗、蕭明潔（2009）。工作特性、組織氣氛對學前教師工作滿意度與工作倦怠的影響：以花蓮地區為例。教育與多元文化研究，1，217-258。
  12. 邱皓政（2017）。多層次模式與縱貫資料分析：Mplus 8 解析應用。五南。
  13. 柯華葳、陳明蕾、李俊仁、陳冠銘（2019a）。2018 教學與學習國際調查臺灣報告：國民中學。國家教育研究院。
  14. 柯華葳、陳明蕾、李俊仁、陳冠銘（2019b）。2018 教學與學習國際調查臺灣報告：綜整報告。國家教育研究院。
  15. 秦夢群（2019）。教育領導：理論與應用（第三版）。五南。
  16. 張芳全（2021）。國小教師工作滿意度因素之多層次分析：2018 臺灣參與 TALIS資料為例。教育與心理研究，44（2），25-61。https://doi.org/10.3966/102498852021064402002
  17. 郭晏輔、陳佩英（2019）。臺灣校長領導作為之國際比較：TALIS 調查資料之應用。教育研究月刊，308，4-16。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602019120308001
  18. 黃嘉莉（2018）。TALIS 2013 韓國教師工作滿意度影響因素之階層線性模型分析。比較教育，85，1-40。https://doi.org/10.3966/160957582018110085001
  19. 溫忠麟、劉紅雲（2020）。中介效應和調節效應：方法及應用。教育科學。
  20. 臺灣 TALIS 國家研究中心（2019a）。TALIS 2018 中文問卷。11 月 15 日，2019 年，取自 https://talis.naer.edu.tw/news#n19
  21. 臺灣 TALIS 國家研究中心（2019b）。TALIS 2018 受訪學校行政協助事項。11 月15 日，2019 年，取自 https://talis.naer.edu.tw/news
  22. 臺灣 TALIS 國家研究中心（2019c）。計畫簡介。11 月 15 日，2019 年，取自 https://talis.naer.edu.tw/news#n19
  23. 賴志峰（2008）。分佈式領導理論之探究―學校領導者、追隨者和情境的交互作用。國民教育研究學報，20，87-113。
  24. 賴志峰（2021）。不一樣的學校領導：追尋成功典範（第三版）。高等教育。
  25. 賴志峰（2022）。學校領導：理念、脈絡與實踐。元照。
  26. 謝文全（2021）。教育行政學（第七版）。高等教育。
  27. 謝傳崇、戴紹恩、李慧潔（2022）。知識圖譜下分布式領導研究之國際趨勢：以核心教育期刊為例。教育政策論壇，25（1），31-57。https://doi.org/10.53106/156082982022022501002
  28. 羅勝強、姜嬿（2018）。調節變量和中介變量。載於陳曉萍、沈偉（主編），組織與管理研究的實證方法（第三版，頁 490-517）。北京大學。
  29. Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 conceptual framework. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/799337c2-en
  30. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
  31. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  32. Dewitt, P. M. (2018). School climate: Leading with collective efficacy. Corwin.
  33. Duyar, I, Gumus, S., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: The influence of principal leadership and teacher collaboration. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(7), 700-719. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-0107
  34. Enders, C. K. (2022). Applied missing data analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford.
  35. Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
  36. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessment of methodological progress, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Weaver-Hart (Eds.), The international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 723-783). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1573-2_22
  37. Hallinger, P., Wang, W. C., Chen, C. W., & Li, D. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional management rating scale. Springer.
  38. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford.
  39. Heck, R. H., & Thomas, S. L. (2020). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approach (4th ed.). Routledge.
  40. Hox, J., van Buuren, S., & Jolani, S. (2015). Incomplete multilevel data: Problems and solutions. In J. R. Harring, L. M. Stapleton, & S. N. Beretvas (Eds.), Advances in multilevel modeling for educational data: Addressing practical issues found in real-world applications (pp. 39-62). Information Age.
  41. Katsantonis, I. G. (2020). Investigation of the impact of school climate and teachers’ self- efficacy on job satisfaction: A cross-cultural approach. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education, 10(1), 119-133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10010011
  42. Liu, Y., Bellibas, M. S., & Gümüş, S. (2021). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 430-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438
  43. Liu, Y., Bellibas, M. S., & Printy, S. (2018). How school context and educator characteristics predict distributed leadership: A hierarchical structural equation model with 2013 TALIS data. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 401-423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216665839
  44. Liu, Y., & Werblow, J. (2019). The operation of distributed leadership and the relationship with organizational commitment and job satisfaction of principals and teachers: A multi-level model and meta-analysis using the 2013 TALIS data. International Journal of Educational Research, 96, 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.05.005
  45. Muijs, D., & Brookman, A. (2016). Quantitative methods. In C. Chapman, D. Muijs, D. Reynolds, P. Sammons, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of educational effectiveness and improvement: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 171-201). Routledge.
  46. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2019). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
  47. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en
  48. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019a). TALIS 2018 and TALIS starting strong 2018 user guide. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018-TALIS_Starting_Strong_2018_User_Guide.pdf
  49. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019b). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
  50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019c). TALIS 2018 technical report. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018_Technical_Report.pdf
  51. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019d). OECD TALIS 2018 data. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/talis-2018-data.htm
  52. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en
  53. Pinter, N. J. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 99-122). Longman.
  54. Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2016). Multilevel structural equation models for assessing moderation within and across levels of analysis. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000052
  55. Reynolds, D., Chapman, C., Clarke, P., Muijs, D., Sammons, P., & Teddlie, C. (2016). Conclusions: The future of educational effectiveness and improvement research, and some suggestions and speculations. In C. Chapman, D. Muijs, D. Reynolds, P. Sammons, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of educational effectiveness and improvement: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 408-439). Routledge.
  56. Schneider, B., & Barbera, K. M. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture. Oxford University Press.
  57. Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (2007). A distributed perspective on and in practice. In J. P. Spillane & J. B. Diamond (Eds.), Distributed leadership in practice (pp. 146-166). Teachers College.
  58. Sun, A., & Xia, J. (2018). Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 TALIS data. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006
  59. Urick, A. (2018). Secondary data analysis in the field of educational leadership and policy studies. In C. R. Lochmiller (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 143-171). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_8
print cancel