Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125016| 題名: | 新北市立國民中學學校設施品質、教師創新教學與學生學習成效關係之研究 A study on the Relationships among the Quality of School Facilities, Innovative Teaching of Teachers and Student Learning Outcomes in Junior High School in New Taipei City |
作者: | 呂賢玲 Lu, Hsien-Lin |
貢獻者: | 湯志民 Tang, Chih-Min 呂賢玲 Lu, Hsien-Lin |
關鍵詞: | 學校設施品質 教師創新教學 學生學習成效 國民中學 The quality of school facilities Innovative teaching of teachers Student learning outcomes Junior high school |
日期: | 2019 | 上傳時間: | 7-Aug-2019 | 摘要: | 本研究旨在瞭解目前新北市國民中學學校設施品質、教師創新教學與學生學習成效的現況，分析不同背景變項之教師，知覺學校設施品質、教師創新教學與學生學習成效之差異情形，並探討三者間之關係，最後建構並驗證學校設施品質、教師創新教學與學生學習成效之結構方程模式。\n本研究採取問卷調查法，共計抽樣80所學校，發出888份問卷，回收792份有效問卷，問卷回收率達九成。問卷調查之結果以描述性統計、獨立樣本t檢定、單因子變異數分析、皮爾遜相關積差分析與結構方程模式分析等統計方法加以分析與探討。\n本研究獲致結論如下：\n一、新北市國民中學教育人員知覺學校設施品質現況達中高程度，以「完善的安全機能」表現最佳。\n二、新北市國民中學教育人員知覺教師創新教學現況達中高程度，以「教學理念創新」表現最佳。\n三、新北市國民中學教育人員知覺學生學習成效現況達中高程度，以「創造能力表現」表現最佳。\n四、新北市國民中學教育人員，在不同背景變項中（教師兼行政職務），在知覺學校設施品質上顯著較高。\n五、新北市國民中學教育人員，在不同背景變項中（女性教師、30歲以下、教師兼行政職務、5年以下服務年資），在知覺教師創新教學程度上顯著較高。\n六、新北市國民中學教育人員，在不同背景變項中（教師兼行政職務、小型與大型學校、一般地區）在知覺學生學習成效程度上顯著較高。\n七、學校設施品質、教師創新教學與學生學習成效之間呈現正相關。\n八、新北市國民中學學校設施品質透過教師創新教學影響學生學習成效，教師創新教學具有中介效果。\n\n最後，根據本研究結果，提出具體建議，供教育行政機關、學校行政及教育人員與未來研究之參考。 The purpose of this study is to understand the current conditions of New Taipei City junior high school among the quality of school facilities, innovative teaching of teachers, and student learning outcomes and further analyze the differences in the quality of school facilities, innovative teaching of teachers, and student learning outcomes under different background variables. Moreover, it attempts to explore the structural relationships among these three variables, and understand the influence of the quality of school facilities, innovative teaching of teachers on student learning outcomes.\nThis study conducted a questionnaire survey on 888 teachers from 80 public junior high schools in New Taipei City, and retrieved 792 valid questionnaires. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation and structural equation model (SEM). The conclusion of this study are as followed:\n(1)The current situations of the quality of school facilities perceived by teachers is good; (2)The current situations of innovative teaching of teachers perceived by teachers is good; (3)The current situations of student learning outcomes perceived by teachers is good; (4)Teachers who have administrative positions perceive the quality of school facilities to a greater extent; (5)Teachers who have administrative positions, female teachers, under 30 years old teachers, length of service less than five years perceive innovative teaching of teachers to a greater extent; (6)Teachers who have administrative positions, small-sized and large scale sized schools, teachers at junior high schools in general areas perceive student learning outcomes to a greater extent; (7) Quality of school facilities is positively correlated to innovative teaching of teachers and student learning outcomes; (8) The quality of school facilities in junior high Schools has influences on students learning outcomes through innovative teaching of teachers. Besides, innovative teaching of teachers has the mediating effect.\n\nAccording to the research findings, some suggestions are provided for the reference of education administrative units, junior high school principal and teachers, and research staff engaged in future related research. |
參考文獻: | 壹、中文部分\n王如哲（2010）。解析「學生學習成效」。評鑑雙月刊，27，62-62。\ndoi:10.6445/EB.201009.0062\n王金國（2014）。提昇學習成效，從培養動機與建立自信著手。臺灣教育評論月刊，3(9)，46-47。\n田宜庭（2013）。我國大學學生學習成效評量指標建構之研究（未出版之\n碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n李素珍（2003）。臺北市國民中學無障礙校園環境之研究（未出版之碩士\n論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n吳清山、林天祐（1994）。全面品質管理及其在教育上的應用。初等教育\n學刊，3，1-28。\n吳清山（2002）。創意教學的重要理念與實施策略。臺灣教育，614，2-8。\n吳清山（2004）。學校創新經營理念與策略，教師天地，128，30-44。\n吳雪華（2005）。臺北縣國民小學教師創新教學能力與教學效能關係之研\n究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。\n吳明隆（2007）。結構方程模式: AMOS的操作與應用。臺北：五南。\n吳清山、賴協志（2007）。桃園縣國民中小學教育品質的研究－判斷指標、\n影響因素及提升途逕。當代教育研究，15(1)，1-38。\n吳珮青（2013）。國民小學教育空間品質評鑑指標建構之研究（未出版之\n碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n吳彥彣、楊慶麟（2016）。國民中學組織創新氣氛對教師創新教學影響之研究：以心理資本為中介。學校行政，106，52-82。\n余民寧（2006）。影響學習成就因素的探討。教育資料與研究雙月刊，73，\n11-24。\n余徹鵬（2012）。國民小學校長科技領導、教師科技素養與創新教學之研\n究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n何希慧、彭耀平（2016）。臺灣與中國大陸深圳地區大學生學習動機與學習成效發展之比較：以學習模式為中介變項。教育實踐與研究，29(1)，139-172。\n邱怡蓁（2017）。臺北市國小教師知覺學校創新氣氛與創新教學關係之研究。教育行政論壇，9(1)，28-48。\n林天祐（1998）。全面品質管理與學校行政革新。教育資料與研究，22，19-22。\n林偉文（2002）。國民中小學學校組織文化、教師創意教學潛能與創意教\n學之關係（未出版之博士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n林鍾沂（2004）。行政學。臺北：三民書局。\n林碧芳、邱皓政（2008）。創意教學自我效能感量表之編製與相關研究。教育研究與發展期刊，4，141-170。\n林俊瑩、劉佩雲、高台茜（2015）。兼顧「學生學習成效」導向的大學教學評鑑量表發展與課程實施效率之評估。課程與教學，18(4)，107-135。\n柯份（2014）。國民小學校長優質領導、學校環境營造與教師教學效能關係之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。\n姚麗英（2018）。高中校長正向領導與教師創新教學關係之研究。學校行政，114，109-134。\n郭紹儀（1973）。學校建築研究。臺中：臺灣省政府教育廳。\n秦夢群、濮世緯（2006）。學校創新經營理念與實施之研究。教育研究與發展，2(3)，123-150。\n馬世驊（2007）。臺北市國民小學教師創新教學實施現況之研究（未出版\n之碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學，臺北市。\n高苙騰（2010）。桃園縣校長教學領導與教師創新教學之研究（未出版之\n博士論文）。國立新竹教育大學，新竹市。\n馬蘭英（2016）。新北市國民中學科技領導與團隊合作學習成效之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n陳寬裕、王正華（2010）。論文統計分析：SPSS與AMOS的運用。臺北市：五南。\n陳曉彤（2018）。澳門私立中學教師知覺校長教學領導與創新教學關係之\n研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n教育部（2002）。創造力教育白皮書。臺北市：教育部顧問室。\n許忠棠（2010）新北市立國民中學校長變革領導與教師創新教學關係之研\n究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n莊雅雯（2014）。十二年國教政策下臺中市公立國中教師對於教師教學效\n能及學生學習成效之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。逢甲大學，臺中市。\n張芳全（2017）。幸福感與學習成就之跨國分析。教育研究與發展期刊，13(3)，31-66。DOI:10.3966/181665042017091303002\n張芳全（2019）。統計就是要這樣跑（第四版）。臺灣：心理。\n湯志民（2000）。學校空間革新的思維-「人-境」互動。載於中華民國學校建築研究學會（主編），二十一世紀的學校建築與設施（15-62頁）。臺北：作者。\n湯志民（2003）。優質學校環境規劃與問題探析。初等教育學刊，14，49-82。\n湯志民（2006）。學校建築與校園規畫（第三版）。臺北市：五南。\n湯志民（2006）。臺灣的學校建築（第二版）。臺北市：五南。\n湯志民（2008）。未來學校：學校建築規劃。敎育研究，165，63-80。\n湯志民（2009）。教育領導與學校環境。教育研究，181，16-28。\n湯志民（2011）。學校建築與規劃：未來10年的新脈絡與新策略。教育行\n政研究，1(1)，155-186。\n湯志民、吳珮青（2012）教育設施品質與學校效能：以OECD「國際評鑑教育空間品質前導方案」為例。教育人力與專業發展，29(5)，7-17。\n湯志民（2014）。校園規劃新論。臺北市：五南。\n黃芳銘（2002）。結構方程模式理論與應用。臺北市：五南。\n黃玉英（2004）。臺北市公立國民中學學校建築規劃現況與學生學業成就\n之相關研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n黃淑玲、池俊吉（2010）。如何評估學生學習成效－以加州州立大學長灘分校系所訪視與測量中心之經驗為例。評鑑雙月刊，28。\n游家政（2003）。創新教學方案的設計與評鑑－以統整主題單元為例。載\n於國立臺灣海洋大學（主編），創新教學理論與實務（179-209頁），\n臺北市：師大書苑。\n黃政仁、黃偉婷（2017）。家庭資源、學習態度、多元入學管道與學習成效關聯性之研究：以臺灣某大學為例。教育科學研究期刊，62(4)，117-143。doi:10.6209/JORIES.2017.62(4).05\n楊瑩（2011）。以學生學習成效為評量重點的歐盟高等教育品質保證政策。評鑑雙月刊，30，27-34。\n詹秀雯、張芳全（2014）。影響國中生學習成就因素之研究。臺中教育大學學報：教育類，28(1)，49-76。\n鄭鈺靜（2009）。高雄市國小教師專業承諾、教學創新與教學校能關係之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。\n鄭新輝、張珍緯、賴協志（2011）。十二年國教入學方式：高中高職及五專特色招生之研究兼論與創新教育、人才培育之關聯（教育部委辦計畫）。新北市：國家教育研究院。\n廖文靜（2010）。學校設施品質與教育成果關係之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n廖淑娟（2016）。雲嘉地區國民小學美感教育實施與學生學習成效之研究\n（未出版之碩士論文）。國立嘉義大學，嘉義市。\n蔡保田（1984）。學校建築的理論與實際之研究。臺北：陳玉芳文化。\n潘慧玲（2004）。緒論：轉變中的教育研究觀點。載於潘慧玲（主編），教師研究取徑—概念與應用（1–34頁）。臺北市：高等教育文化。\n蔡華華、張雅萍（2007）。學習動機對學習成效之影響－以領導行為為干擾變數。中華管理學報，8(4)，1-17。 doi:10.30053/CHJM.200712.0001\n賴協志、吳清山（2015）。國民中學學習領域召集人正向領導、教師教學省思與創新教學成效關係之研究。課程與教學季刊，18(4)，1-27。\n蕭佳純（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\n之階層線性分析。當代教育研究季刊，15(4)，57-92。\n戴慧冕（2017）新北市國民中學校長科技領導對學生學術樂觀之研究：以\n教師教學創新為中介變項（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。\n羅綸新（2003）。創造力與創意教學活動之探討與實務。載於國立臺灣海\n洋大學教育研究所（主編），創新教學理論與實務（3-27頁），臺北市：師大書苑。\n\n貳、西文部分\nAdam, S. (2004). Using learning outcomes: A consideration of the nature, role, and implications for European education of employing learning outcomes at the local, national and international levels. Retrived from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh Conference Centre website: http://www.aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/Bologna/Bol_semin/Edinburgh/S_Adam_Bacgrerep_presentation.pdf\nAdeolu, J. A. (2017). Teachers’ classroom management and quality assurance of students’ learning outcome in secondary schools in ondo state, Nigeria. Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, 4(2), 166-180. doi: 10.1453/jsas.v4i2.1312\nAl-Zyoud, M. S. (2015). Educational leaders and the prospective responsiveness to the vast drastic educational changes in the Abu Dhabi Emirate. International Education Studies, 8(2), 1-7.\nAmabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview.\nAtkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van\nNostrand.\nAbend, A., Ornstein, S. W., Baltas, E., de la Garza, J., Watson, C., Lange, K., & von Ahlefeld, H. (2006). Evaluating quality in educational facilities. The Journal of the OECD Programme on Educational Building, 57, 12-13.\nAlbers-Miller, N., Straughan, R. D., & Prenshaw, P. J. (2001). Exploring innovative teaching among marketing educators: Perceptions of innovative activities and existing reward and support programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 249-259.\nAmabile, T.M., Contti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. and Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.\nAnderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.\nAppiah-Brempong, E., Harris, M. J., Newton, S., & Gulis, G. (2018). Examining school-based hygiene facilities: A quantitative assessment in a ghanaian municipality. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 581. doi:10.1186/s12889-018-5491-9\nAriza, E. F., & Poole, P. M. (2018). Creating a teacher development program linked to curriculum renewal. Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(2), 249-266.\nBafadal, I. (2009). Proses perubahan di sekolah: Study multisitus pada tiga sekolah dasar yang baik di sumekar. Ilmu Pendidikan: Jurnal Kajian Teori Dan Praktik Kependidikan, 23(1), 1-10.\nBanky, G. P. (2018). Back to basics, again and again and again: A longitudinal investigation of the effects problem-based tutorial sessions have on student learning outcomes. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(5), 830-835.\nBeghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity. The Educational Forum, 69(3), 254-263. doi:10.1080/00131720508984694\nBharadwaj, S. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: Individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(6), 424-434. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(00)00057-6.\nBosch, S. J. (2004). Identifying relevant variables for understanding how school facilities affect educational outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.\nBurch, A. L. (1994). Middle school facilities for the twenty-first century: An identification of critical design elements by selected architects, administrators and teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). A&M University, Texas.\nBagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y.(1988). On the evaluation for Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.\nBarrett, PS., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Optimal learning spaces: design implications for primary schools. Manuscript submitted for publication.\nBiglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.doi:10.1037/h0034701\nBollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.\nBarrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building & Environment, 59, 678-689.\nBendixen, L. D., & Hartley, K. (2003). Successful learning with Hypermedia: The role of epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 15-30. doi: 10.2190/2Y7C-KRDV-5U01-UJGA\nBollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20(1), 115-140.\nBuckley, J., Schneider, M. & Shang, Y. (2004). Los Angeles unified school district school facilities and academic performance. Retrived from National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC. website: http://www.ncef.org/pubs/teacherretention.pdf\nBravo, E., Enache, M., Fernandez, V., & Simo, P. (2010). An innovative teaching practice based on online channels: A qualitative approach. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2(2), 113-123.\nBuckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2005). Fix it and they might stay: School facility quality and teacher retention in Washington, D.C. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1107-1123.\nByrne, B. M. (2010). Multivariate applications series. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.\nCash, C. S. (1993). Building condition and student achievement and behavior (Doctoral dissertation). Retrived from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/29200/LD5655.V856_1993.C379.pdf?sequence=1\nColeman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.\nCash, C., & Twiford, T. (2009). Improving student achievement and school facilities in a time of limited funding. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4(2), 1-9.\nChen, S., Hsiao, H., Chang, J., Shen, C., & Chou, C. (2010). School organizational innovative indicators for technical universities and institutes. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(7), 43-50.\nChoudhary, R. & Choudhary, J.R. (2013). Use of ICTs to promote good teaching and learning practices in higher education management. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 3(6), 288-294.\nChe Nidzam, C.A., Shaharim, S.A., & Mohd Faizal Nizam, L.A. (2017). Teacher-student interactions, learning commitment, learning environment and their relationship with student learning comfort. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(1). 57-72.\nChrisant, F. L., Ibrahim, N., & Tumurang, H. (2018). Effectiveness of learning method contextual teaching learning for increasing learning outcomes of entrepreneurship education. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 8(2), 41-50.\nCullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Victor, B. (2003). The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: A two-study analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 127-141.\nDamanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42, 693-716.\ndoi:10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693\nDegeng, I.N.S. (2013). Ilmu pembelajaran: Klasifikasi variabel untuk pengembangan teori dan penelitian. Bandung: Kalam Hidup & Aras Media.\nDeHaan, R. L. (2005). The impending revolution in undergraduate science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(2), 253-269.\nEarthman, G., & Lemasters, K. (2009). Teacher attitudes about classroom conditions. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 323-335.\nEdith, H (2019). Aristotle’s Way: How Ancient Wisdom Can Change Your Life. London, England: Penguin Press.\nErhardt, R. P. (2014). The process of creating a learning-teaching style assessment: A checklist for documenting observations and teaching strategies. Comprehensive Psychology, 3, 11.\nFredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol, 56(3), 218-226.\nFeldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, M. B. (1988). A three-stage model for gifted education. Gifted Child Today Magazine, 11(1), 14-20. doi:10.1177/107621758801100104\nGallavara, G., Hreinsson, E., Kajaste, M., Lindesjöö, E., Sølvhjelm, C., Sørskår, A. K., Zadeh, M. S. (2008). Learning outcomes: common framework - different approaches to evaluation learning outcomes in the Nordic countries. Helsinki, Finland: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Retrived From https://enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/occasional-papers/NOQA%20report_occasional%20papers%2015.pdf\nGbollie, C., & Gong, S. (2018). Enhancing pre-K-12 student learning outcomes: The need for synergies of policy-makers, school administrators and parents. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(8), 270-280.\nGrainger, T., Barnes, J., & Scoffham, S. (2004). A creative cocktail: Creative teaching in initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 30(3), 243-253.\nGreenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1022-1038. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1022\nGuay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of selfdetermination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 233.\nHarvey, L. (2014). Analytic quality glossary. Retrieved from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/\nHodshire, C. (2013). Best teaching practices: Applying innovative teaching methods for facilitating and lecturing sensitive diversity dimension courses and topics. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 6(3), 681-690.\nHarvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 18(1), 9-34. doi:10.1080/0260293930180102\nHarvey, L., & Knight, P.T. (1996). Transforming higher education. London, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.\nHarvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 3-36. doi:10.1080/13538321003679457\nHeschong, L., Elzeyadi, I., &Knecht, C. (2002). Re-analysis report: Daylighting in schools, additional analysis. Tasks 2.2.1 through 2.2.5. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470978)\nHeystek, J., & Terhoven, R. (2015). Motivation as critical factor for teacher development in contextually challenging underperforming schools in South Africa. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 624-639. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.940628\nHilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1966). Theories of learning (3rd ed). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.\nHilliard, M. E., Monaghan, M., Cogen, F. R., & Streisand, R. (2011). Parent stress and child behaviour among young children with type 1 diabetes. Child: Care, Health and Development, 37(2), 224-232. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01162.x\nHirose, T., Koda, N., Nishio, M., & Yamada, Y. (2015). Assessing practical thinking of teachers for use in teacher education. Comprehensive Psychology, 4(3), 2-8. doi:10.2466/10.01.IT.4.3\nHoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers` sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372.\nHopper, T. F., Sanford, K., & Fu, H. (2016). Finding the connective tissue in teacher education: Creating new Spaces for professional learning to teach. McGill Journal of Education, 51(3), 1013-1035.\nHung, C.L., & Li, F.C. (2017). Teacher perceptions of professional role and innovative teaching at elementary schools in Taiwan. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(21), 1036-1045.\nHurley, Robert & Hult, Tomas. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54. doi:10.2307/1251742\nHussey, T., & Smith, P. (2003). The uses of learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 357-368.\nIddings, A.C.D. (2009). Bridging home and school literacy practices: Empowering families of recent immigrant children. Theory into Practice, 48(4), 304-311.\nImms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T. & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning environments in Australasian schools. University of Melbourne, Melbourne. Retrieved from: http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/reports\nJaskyte, K., Taylor, H., & Smariga, R. (2009). Student and faculty perceptions of innovative teaching. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 111.\nJeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: distinctions and relationships. Educational studies, 30(1), 77-87.\nJiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408.\nJohnston, J. R. (2015). School facilities and student achievement: The relationship between administrators` perceptions of school facilities and student achievement (Order No. 3739648). Available from Education Database; ProQuest Central. (1749775166). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/docview/1749775166?accountid=10067\nKalota, D (2017). Infrastructure deprivation in the schools of Uttar pradeshusing geographic Information system. International Journal for Innovative Reasearch in Multidisciplinary Field, 3(7), 314-320.\nKim, E. (2015). Effect of discussion activities and interactions with faculty to mediate self-directed learning capability on learning outcomes of college students. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 12(2), 173-196.\nKitchell, S. (1995). Corporate culture, environmental adaptation, and innovation adoption: A qualitative/quantitative approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3), 195-205. doi:10.1177/0092070395233004\nKahn, L. I., & Latour, A. (1991). Louis I. Kahn: writings, lectures, interviews. Washington, D.C., United States: Rizzoli.\nKhohar, M. A., Ruminiati & Munzil. (2016). Penerapan teams games tournament untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar ips kelas IV. Journal pendidikan: Teori, penelitian dan Pengembangan, 1(9), 1869-1873.\nKhurshid, F., & Zahur, B. (2013). Comparison of teachers’ awareness and utilisation of innovative teaching strategies in private and public sector secondary schools. Elixir Psychology, 45, 12242-12245.\nKimberly, J. and Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 689-713. doi:10.2307/256170\nKing, J. A., & Evans, K. M. (1991). Can we achieve outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, 49, 73-75.\nKok, H. B., Mobach, M. P., & Onno S.W.F. Omta. (2011). The added value of facility management in the educational environment. Journal of Facilities Management, 9(4), 249-265. doi: 10.1108/14725961111170662\nKo, J. W., Park, S., Yu, H. S., Kim, S., & Kim, D. M. (2016). The structural relationship between student engagement and learning outcomes in Korea. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 147-157. doi: 10.1007/s40299-015-0245-2\nLackney, J. A. (1999). Assessing school facilities for learning/assessing the impact of the physical environment on the educational process: Integrating theoretical issues with practical concerns. Retrived from Mississippi State University, Educational Design Institute website: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED441330.pdf\nLoertscher, J. (2010). Using assessment to improve learning in the Biochemistry classroom. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(3), 188-189.\nLittlecott, H. J., Long, S., Hawkins, J., Murphy, S., Hewitt, G., Eccles, G., & Moore, G. F. (2018). Health improvement and educational attainment in secondary schools: complementary or competing priorities? Exploratory analyses from the school health research network in Wales. Health Education & Behavior, 45(4), 635-644.\nLumpkin, R. B., Goodwin, R. T., Hope, W. C., & Lutfi, G. (2014). Code compliant school buildings boost student achievement. SAGE Open, 4(4), 1-8. doi: 10.1177/2158244014556993\nMaslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.\nMalone, S. (2000). Innovative alternatives in learning environments. Retrived from National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC. website: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455679.pdf\nMcVatta, R. (1981). Factors contributing to student affect, satisfactuon, and behavioral intention: Research extension at the community college. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED203962)\nMishra, S. (2007). Technology, e‐learning and distance education - by Tony Bates. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1134-1135.\nMoeslichatoen. (2004). Metode pengajaran di taman kanak-kanak. Jakarta: Asdi Mahasatya Poerwadarminta.\nMoon, J. (2003). The social responsibility of business and new governance. Government and Opposition, 37(3), 385-408.\nMossberger, K., & Hale, K. (2002). “Polydiffusion” in intergovernmental programs: Information diffusion in the school-to-work network. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(4), 398-422.\nMutrofin, Degeng, N. S., Ardhana, W., & Setyosari, P. (2017). The effect of instructional methods (lecture-discussion versus group discussion) and teaching talent on teacher trainees student learning outcomes. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(9), 203-209.\nNational Forum on Education Statistics. (2012). Forum guide to facilities information management: A resource for State and local education agencies. (NFES Report 2012–808). Retrived from National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education website: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012808.pdf\nNewton, J. (2010). A tale of two ‘qualitys’: Reflections on the quality revolution of higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 51-53. doi:10.1080/13538321003679499\nNaliakaMukhale, P., & Hong, Z. (2017). Towards improvement of student learning outcomes: An assessment of the professional development needs of lecturers at Kenyan Universities. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(12), 151-158.\nNdirangu, M., & Udoto, M. O. (2011). Quality of learning facilities and learning environment. Quality Assurance in Education, 19(3), 208-223. doi: 10.1108/09684881111158036\nNkong, M.V.M., George, F. E., & Mohamadou, G. (2016). The effects of school facilities on educational quality. The case of public primary schools in Kupe-Muanenguba division, South-West region of Cameroon. International Journal of New Technology and Research, 2(6), 37-39.\nNaz, F., & Murad, H. S. (2017). Innovative teaching has a positive impact on the performance of diverse students. SAGE Open, 7(4), 1-8. doi:10.1177/2158244017734022\nNingsih, Soetjipto, B. E., & Sumarmi. (2017). Improving the students’ activity and learning outcomes on social sciences subject using round table and rally coach of cooperative learning model. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(11), 30–37.\nOffice of Radiation and Indoor Air (2003). Indoor air quality and student performance. Retrived from Indoor Environments Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website: https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality\nOblinger, D. G. (2006). Learning spaces [Adobe Digital Editons version]. Retrived from https://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102.pdf\nOhia, U. O. (2011). A model for effectively assessing student learning outcomes. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(3), 25-32.\nOlubu, O. M. (2015). Effects of laboratory learning environment on students learning outcomes in secondary school chemistry. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(2), 507-525.\nOlson, S. L., & Kellum, S. (2003). The impact of sustainable buildings on educational achievements in k-12 schools. Leonardo Academy Inc, 2, 3-12.\nOjo, O. A., & Adu, E. O. (2017). Transformation of teaching quality in secondary school education: teachers` conception. Perspectives in Education, 35(2), 60-72. doi: 10.18820/2519593X/pie.V35i2.5\nPearlman, B. (2010). Designing new learning environments to support 21st century skills. 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, 6, 116-147.\nPascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.\nPike, A.W.G., Hoffmann, D. L., García-Diez,M., Pettitt,P. B., Alcolea,J., De Balbín. R., … Zilhão, J. (2012). U-series dating of Paleolithic art in 11 caves in Spain. Science, 336(6087), 1409-13. doi:10.1126/science.1219957\nPublic Impact & Clayton Christensen Institute. (2018). Innovative staffing to personalize learning: How new teaching roles and digital tools help students succeed. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact; and Lexington, MA: Christensen Institute.\nQuehl, G. H., Bergquist, W. H., & Subbiondo, J. L. (1999). Fifty years of innovations in undergraduate education: Change and stasis in the pursuit of quality. New York, US: Lumina Foundation.\nRoberts, L. W. (2009). Measuring school facility conditions: An illustration of the importance of purpose. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 368-380. doi: 10.1108/09578230910955791\nRogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.\nRunco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 317-324. doi:10.1080/00313830308598\nRuss, S.W. (2003) Play and creativity: Developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 291-303. doi:10.1080/00313830308594\nRamseook-Munhurrun, P., & Nundlall, P. (2013). Service quality measurement for secondary school setting. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(4), 387-401. doi: 10.1108/QAE-05-2011-0025\nRahayu, S., Ulfatin, N., Wiyono, B. B., Imron, A., & Wajdi, M. B. N. (2018). The professional competency teachers mediate the influence of teacher innovation and emotional intelligence on school security. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(2), 210-227.\nRoberts, L. W., Edgerton, J. D., & Peter, T. (2008). The importance of place: Facility conditions and learning outcomes. Education Canada, 48(3), 48-51.\nRogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York, US: Free Press.\nSchneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? Retrived from National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC. website: http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf\nSchell, K. A. (2006). A delphi study of innovative teaching in baccalaureate nursing education. The Journal of Nursing Education, 45(11), 439-448.\nSieberer-Nagler, K. (2016). Effective classroom-management & positive teaching. English Language Teaching, 9(1), 163-172.\nSousa, R.D. (2007). Truth, authenticity, and rationality. Dialectica, 61(3), 323-345.\nSuskie, L. (2004). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.\nSuskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.\nSchindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(3), 3-13. doi: 10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244\nShah, S. F., Khan, I. U., Khan, D., & Khan, M. F. (2013). The impact of physical facilities on quality of primary education in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as perceived by teachers. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 18(3), 20-24.\nSitumorang, M., Sitorus, M., Hutabarat, W., & Situmorang, Z. (2015). The development of innovative chemistry learning material for bilingual senior high school students in Indonesia. International Education Studies, 8(10), 72-85.\nSiswono, T. Y. E., Hartono, S., & Kohar, A. W. (2018). Effectiveness of project based learning in statistics for lower secondary schools. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 75, 197-210.\nStalk, G., Evans, P. and Shulman, L. (1992). Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 70, 57-69.\nSternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of Creativity, 1, 3-15.\nSwarat, S., Oliver, P. H., Tran, L., Childers, J. G., Tiwari, B., & Babcock, J. L. (2017). How disciplinary differences shape student learning outcome assessment: A case study. AERA Open, 3(1). 1-12.\nTam, M. (2014). Outcomes-based approach to quality assessment and curriculum improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 22(2), 158-168. doi:10.1108/QAE-09-2011-0059\nTeachman, J.D. (1987). Family background, educational resources, and educational attainment. American Sociological Review, 52, 548-557. doi:10.2307/2095300\nTramaglini, T. W. (2010). Student achievement in lower SES high schools. (Doctoral dissertation), Retrived from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.874.5680&rep=rep1&type=pdf\nTissot, P., & Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle. (2004). Terminology of vocational training policy: A multilingual glossary for an enlarged Europe. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities.\nTregenza, P., & Mardaljevic, J. (2018). Daylighting buildings: Standards and the needs of the designer. Lighting Research & Technology, 50(1), 63–79.\nUdu, D. A. (2018). Innovative practices in science education: A panacea for improving secondary school students’ academic achievement in science subjects in Nigeria. Global Journal of Educational Research, 17(1), 23-30. doi: 10.4314/giedr.v17i1.4\nUNICEF (2000, June). Defining quality in education. Paper presented at the International Working Group on Education meeting, New York, US, Abstract retrived from http://www.oosci-mena.org/uploads/1/wysiwyg/Quality_Education_UNICEF_2000.pdf\nUzkurt, C., Kumar, R., Kimzan, H. S., & Eminoglu, G. (2013). Role of innovation in the relationship between organizational culture and firm performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 92-117. doi: 10.1108/14601061311292878\nVandiver, B. (2011). The impact of school facilities on the learning environment (Order No. 3439537). Available from Education Database; ProQuest Central.Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/docview/851310201?accountid=10067\nVan Roekel, N. P. D. (2008). Parent, family, community involvement in education. Washington, DC: National Education Association.\nWarr, P., & Downing, J. (2000). Learning strategies, learning anxiety and knowledge acquisition. British Journal of Psychology, 91(3), 311-33. doi: 10.1348/000712600161853\nWilliamson, B., & Payton, S. (2009). Curriculum and teaching innovation: Futurlab. Retrived from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/handbooks/curriculum_and_teaching_innovation2.pdf\nWiseman, D., & Hunt G., (2008). Best practice in motivation and management in the classroom (2nd ed). Springfield: Charles Thomas.\nWu, C. T., & Chung, S. M. (2016). A latent growth curve analysis of learning strategy and efficiency. Ling Tung Journal, 39, 23-47.\nWu, Y., & Yang, C. (2016). A study of the effect of junior high school organizational innovation climate to teachers` innovative teaching: Psychological capital as a mediator. School Administrators, 106, 52-82.\nYazdanfar, F. (2014). School milieu and education revenue: The educational environment and student achievement. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 8(2), 358-374.\nZhu, C. (2013). How innovative are schools in teaching and learning? A case study in Beijing and Hong Kong. The Asia - Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 137-145. doi: 10.1007/s40299-012-0006-4\nZepatou, V., Loizidou, M., Chaloulakou, A., & Spyrellis, N. (2016). School facilities and sustainability-related concepts: A study of hellenic secondary school principals`, teachers`, pupils` and parents` responses. Sustainability, 8(4), 311. doi: 10.3390/su8040311\nZhu, C., & Wang, D. (2014). Key competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching among secondary school teachers: A mixed-methods research. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(2), 299-311. doi: 10.1007/s12564-014-9329-6 | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 學校行政碩士在職專班 105911023 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105911023 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 102301.pdf | 2.64 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.