Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/128133
題名: 學校氣候與教師工作滿意度關係之研究: 以臺灣、日本、韓國為例
A Study on the Relationships between School Climate and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction: Taking Chinese Taipei, Japan and Korea as Examples
作者: 王穎
Wang, Ying
貢獻者: 陳榮政
王穎
Wang, Ying
關鍵詞: 學校氣候
教師工作滿意度
教學與學習調查
school climate
teachers’ job satisfaction
TALIS
日期: 2019
上傳時間: 3-Jan-2020
摘要: 本研究旨在瞭解臺灣、日本和韓國國民中學教師知覺學校氣候與教師工作滿意度的現況,分析不同背景變項的國民中學教師所知覺的學校氣候與工作滿意度差異之情形,並探討教師知覺學校氣候與教師工作滿意度之關係。\n本研究採次級資料分析法,分析2018年教學與學習調查 (Teaching and Learning International Survey, TALIS 2018) 在臺灣、日本和韓國調查之數據,透過系統性的資料分析資料與整理,運用統計軟體IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0進行量化資料統計,以探討上述三個地區學校氣候與教師工作滿意度之間的關係與差異。\n本研究之研究對象為10321位國中教師。資料分析結果以描述性統計、t檢定、單因子變異數分析、皮爾森積差相關的統計方法加以分析與探討。研究結論如下:\n一、相較其他地區,臺灣國民中學教師知覺學校氣候較佳\n二、相較於其他地區,韓國國民中學教師工作滿意度高\n三、不同背景變項在知覺學校氣候與教師工作滿意度的差異:\n1.相較於其他地區,韓國女性在知覺學校氣候上顯著優於男性,臺灣和韓國男性在工作滿意度上顯著高於女性。\n2.相較於其他地區,日本全職教師在教師工作滿意度顯著低於兼職老師。\n3.臺灣、日本、韓國以首份工作為教職的教師在知覺學校氣候和教師工作滿意度上顯著優於首份工作非教職的教師。\n4.相較於臺灣,日本和韓國教學年資越長的教師,在知覺學校氣候上較佳。\n5.臺灣、日本、韓國教學年資越長的教師,在教師工作滿意度上越高。\n四、臺灣、日本、韓國國民中學教師知覺的「親和支持」和「學校氣候」對提高教師工作認同有助益。\n五、臺灣、日本、韓國國民中學教師知覺的「專業發展創新」對提高教師工作認同有助益。\n\n最後根據本研究結果,提出具體建議,以供教育行政機關、學校校長、學術相關研究及相關單位參考。
The purpose of this study is to understand the current situation of school climate and teachers’ job satisfaction among Chinese Taipei, Japan and Korea national junior high school teachers. This paper analyzes the differences between school climate and job satisfaction perceived by National Junior High School teachers with different background variables and explores the relationship between teacher perception school climate and teachers’ job satisfaction. This study used the Secondary Data analysis method to analyze the data of the 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) surveyed in Chinese Taipei, Japan, and Korea. Through systematic data analysis and collation, the statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 performs quantitative data statistics to explore the relationship and differences between school climate and teachers` job satisfaction in the three regions. The research object of this study is 10,321 national junior high school teachers. The data analysis results were analyzed and discussed by descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient methods.\nThe research conclusions are as follows:\nFirst, compared with other regions, Chinese Taipei National Junior High School teachers perceive high school climate.\nSecond, compared with other regions, Korean National Junior High teachers have high job satisfaction.\nThird, the difference between different background variables in the perception of school climate and teachers’ job satisfaction:\n1. Compared with other regions, Korean males are significantly lower than females in perceptual school climate, and Chinese Taipei and Korean males are significantly higher in job satisfaction than females.\n2. Compared with other regions, Japanese full-time teachers have significantly lower job satisfaction in teachers than part-time teachers.\n3. Chinese Taipei, Japan, and South Korea’s teachers who have their first job as faculty members are significantly higher than the first job non-faculty teachers in perceived school climate and teacher job satisfaction.\n4. Compared with Chinese Taipei, the long experience the teachers in Japan and South Korea are teaching, the better the climate in the school of perception.\n5. The longer the experience the teachers in Chinese Taipei, Japan, and Korea are teaching, the higher the teacher`s job satisfaction.\nFourth, The "Affinity Support" and "School Climate" perceived by Chinese Taipei, Japanese, and Korean National High School teachers are helpful for improving the recognition of teachers` work.\nFifth, The "professional development and innovation" perceived by teachers in Chinese Taipei, Japan, and Korea’s national secondary schools is helpful for improving the recognition of teachers` work.
參考文獻: 壹、中文部分\n王俊斌(2017)。教學領導與專業增能:TALIS 2013的省思。教育研究月刊,284,134-148。\n王勇麗(2019)。社會性別視角下日本女性的生存困境探析。重慶交通大學學報(社會科學版),19(1),27-34。\n王翠萍(2017)。臺南市公立國民小學學校組織氣候與教師工作滿意度及工作投入關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。亞洲大學,臺中市。\n王潔、張民選(2016)。TALIS教師專業發展評價框架的實踐與思考——基於TALIS 2013上海調查結果分析。全球教育展望,45(6),86-98。\n王潔、寧波(2018)。國際視域下上海教師工作時間與工作負擔:基於TALIS資料的實證研究。教師教育研究,30(6),81-88。\n田寶、李靈(2006)。學校組織氣候對教師工作倦怠的影響。心理科學,29(1),189-193。\n朱小虎、張民選(2017)。教師專業發展的可能路徑——基於TALIS 2013上海和芬蘭的比較分析。中國教育學刊,9,1-8。\n朱燁(2018)。校園氛圍研究述評。上海教育科研,3,36-41。\n艾娟、鄭濤、尚曉麗(2005)。教師自我效能、集體效能與教師壓力狀況的關係研究,山東師範大學學報(人文社會科學版),4,154-157。\n余民寧(2006)。潛在變項模式SIMPLIS的應用。臺北市:高等教育。\n吳昌諭(2016)。竹苗區國民中學校長願景領導、學校組織氣氛與學校效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。\n吳清山(2015)。「實驗教育三法」的重要內涵與策進作為。教育研究月刊,258,42-58。\n吳清基(1978)。教師工作滿意度在教學心理學上之意義。今日教育雜誌,33,62-67。\n吳清基(1979)。國民中學教育組織結構與工作滿意之關係(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n李奉儒(2017)。澳洲教與學的變革:TALIS校長領導素質的調查分析。教育研究月刊,284,21-38。\n李梅(2013)。中小學新教師工作滿意度影響因素的實證研究。教師教育研究,25(5),43-48。\n李瓊、張倩、樊世奇(2018)。國際視野中的我國鄉村教師專業發展:與PISA高績效東亞四國TALIS資料的比較。外國中小學教育,11,53-61。\n沈學珺(2019)。關於教師工作滿意度對學生幸福感的影響的實證研究——基於PISA 2015資料的分析。上海教育科研,3,20-27。\n林仁傑(2017)。瑞典與愛沙尼亞校長領導之比較:2013年TALIS結果分析。教育研究月刊,284,75-87。\n林仁傑(2018)。TALIS 2013調查瑞典及愛沙尼亞教師自我效能與工作滿意度之研究。比較教育,84,77-108。\n林呈隆(2018)。新北市高級中學校長領導力與學校組織氣氛關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立大學,臺北市。\n林和春、康惠雅(2015)。國民小學校長創新領導與組織氣候關係之研究──以桃園市為例。臺灣教育評論月刊,4(11),194-220。\n林俊瑩(2010)。工作滿意度,組織承諾與離職意圖:中小學教師與其他職業之比較。教育實踐與研究,23(1),1-30。\n林俊瑩、謝亞恆、曹靜麗、蕭明潔(2009)。工作特性,組織氣候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。\n林宣耀(2015)。國小校長服務領導、學校組織氣候與教師工作滿意度之關係研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。\n林新發(1990)。我國工業專科學校校長領導行為組織氣氛與組織績效關係之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。\n林慧敏(2013)。學校教師工作滿意度之研究——以臺東縣各教學階段與公私立學校教師為例。屏東大學學報-教育類,41,35-69。\n林慧敏、黃毅志(2016)。臺灣中小學教師工作滿意度之研究——與其他職業做比較。當代教育研究季刊,24(3), 29-64。\n武向榮(2019)。義務教育教師工作滿意度影響因素的實證研究。教育研究,1,66-75。\n邱從益(2005)。組織氣氛與學校經營。學校行政,36,71-86。\n邱皓政(2010)。量化研究與統計分析:SPSS(PASW)資料分析範例。臺北市:五南。\n侯玉蓮(2005)。行為科學的奠基人:喬治.艾爾頓.梅奧。保定市:河北大學出版社。\n胡詠梅(2007)。中學教師工作滿意度及其影響因素的實證研究。教育學報,3(5),46-52。\n郁文娟(2009)。國民中學學校組織氣候與教師工作滿意度之關係研究——以臺中縣為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立彰化師範大學,彰化縣。\n徐富明、申繼亮(2001)。中小學教師工作滿意度的研究及其提高對策。教育科學研究,9,23-26。\n徐瑾劼、楊潔(2016)。學習導向型領導:影響校長角色轉變的關鍵因素——基於上海TALIS2013調查結果的實證研究。全球教育展望, 45(7),104-117。\n殷玉新(2015)。TALIS:一種教師專業發展水準的測量框架——基於2013年國際性教與學的大資料調查。外國中小學教育,2,11-17。\n秦夢群(2010)。教育領導理論與應用。臺北市:五南。\n秦夢群、莊清寶(2010)。大專生求學經歷與就業力關係。教育資料與研究,94(6),85-112。\n袁建銘(2017)。高雄市國民中學校長分布式領導、學校組織氣氛與學校效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。\n張正平、邱齡瑩、陳羿君(2017)。臺灣偏遠地區教師出走現況:幸福感、學校組織氣候和離職傾向的關係。蘇州大學學報,2,94-104\n張紅、李華(2018)。上海地區中學教師工作滿意度影響因素的實證研究——基於TALIS資料庫的分析。上海教育科研,11,36-41。\n張倩、李子建(2011)。國際比較視域下的教師專業發展——以TALIS 2010教師專業發展主題報告為基礎。教育發展研究,31(6),39-46。\n梁丁財(2001)。國民小學校長轉型領導與教師工作滿意度關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺中師範學院,臺中市。\n梁忠銘(2017)。日本教與學的變革:TALIS的省思,教育研究月刊,284。88-102。\n梁忠銘(2018)。TALIS 2013調查日本教師自我效能與工作滿意度之研究。比較教育,84,1-25。\n許江雲(2017)。桃園市國民中學學校組織氣候與教師工作滿意度之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。中華大學,新竹市。\n陳佳葳、楊洲松(2017)。紐西蘭校長領導之探究:2013年TALIS結果分析。教育研究月刊,284, 39-56。\n陳亮(2019)。中外教師工作滿意度研究文獻綜述。教育理論研究,2,109-110。\n陳純槿(2017a)。中學教師工作滿意度影響因素的實證研究——基于PISA 2015教師調查數據的分析。教師教育研究,2,84-91。\n陳純槿(2017b)。國際比較視域下的教師教學效能感——基於TALIS調查資料的實證研究。全球教育展望,4,11-22。\n陳純槿(2017c)。國際視域下的教師專業發展及其影響因素——基於TALIS資料的實證研究。比較教育研究,6,84-92。\n掌慶維(2017)。法國教與學的變革:TALIS 2013校長領導調查分析。教育研究月刊,284,57-74。\n掌慶維(2018)。TALIS 2013調查法國初中教師自我效能與工作滿意度之研究。比較教育,84,61-75。\n黃月純(2010)。比較臺日韓中小學女性教師與校長之數量與比例。臺灣教育,664,21-27。\n黃昆輝(1988)。教育行政學。臺北市:東華。\n黃昆輝、張德銳(2000)。組織效能。載於劉真(主編),教育大辭書(第十冊)(523-527)。臺北市,文景。\n黃柏叡(2017)。新加坡2013年教與學國際調查 (TALIS) 結果對校長領導的省思。教育研究月刊,284,119-133。\n黃嘉莉(2017)。韓國校長領導之探究:2013年TALIS結果分析。教育研究月刊,284,103-118。\n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,11,1-40。\n楊帆、鐘啟暘(2017)。教師建構主義教學能力的培養及其效果——基於TALIS 2013上海教師資料。教育發展研究,37(18),50-57。\n賈文勝、梁寧森(2015)。歸屬感提升:高職院校兼職教師激勵與培養路徑探析。高等工程教育研究,6,162-166。\n趙明仁(2015)。國際視野中教師專業發展狀況及對我國啟示——基於TALIS 2013報告的分析。教師教育研究,27(3),100-106。\n劉傳怡(2014)。國民小學教師參與教師專業發展評鑑與學校組織氣氛關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立大學,臺北市。\n劉興漢、石雅慧(1991)。臺灣地區新制師範學院學校組織氣候與教師工作滿意之研究。國立政治大學學報,61,189-212。\n鄭勝耀、侯雅雯(2017)。美國校長教學領導與教學變革之研究:2013年TALIS的省思。教育研究月刊,284,4-20。\n鄭媛文、任麗華(2005)。桃園縣國小資源班教師工作壓力與工作滿意度相關之研究。國民教育研究集刊,14,205-234。\n鄭雅婷、許惟翔、邱憲義(2015)。教師組織信任、組織承諾、學校組織氣氛對工作滿意度的影響。朝陽人文社會學刊,13(2),97-115。\n穆洪華、胡詠梅、劉紅雲(2006)。中學教師工作滿意度及其影響因素研究。教育學報,12(2),71-80。\n蕭佳純(2009)。家庭社經地位、自我概念、學業表現對大學畢業生就業情形之探討。當代教育研究季刊,17(3),1-40。\n鮑振宙、張衛、李董平、李丹黎、王艷輝(2013)。校園氛圍與青少年學業成就的關係:一個有調節的中介模型。心理發展與教育,1,61-70。\n蘇永明(2018a)。校長的教學領導:以TALIS 2013英格蘭的調查結果為例。教育研究月刊,296,60-74。\n蘇永明(2018b)。TALIS 2013調查英格蘭教師自我效能與工作滿意度之分析研究。比較教育,84,27-60。\n蘇船利、黃毅志(2011)。教師間氣候、校長領導風格、教師教學制控信念與教師工作滿意度關係之研究:以臺東縣國民中學為例。屏東大學學報—教育類,36,399-430。\n\n貳、西文部分\nAcker, S. (1995). Gender and teachers’ work. Review of research in education, 21(1), 99-162.\nAlderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior Human Performance, 4(2), 142-175.\nBiklen, S. K. (1983). Teaching as an Occupation for Women: A Case Study of an Elementary School.New York, NY: Education Designs Group.\nBurke, P., Fessler, R., & Christensen, J. (1984). Teacher career stage Implications for staff development. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.\nCohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213.\nCollie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of educational psychology, 104(4), 1189.\nDee, T. (2005). “A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter?”, American Economic Review, 95(2), 158-165, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282805774670446.\nDemirtas, Z. (2010). Teachers’ job satisfaction levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1069-1073.\nDeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.\nDewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Free Press\nDurkheim, Ε. (1961). Moral education: A study in the theory and application of the sociology of education. New York, NY: Free Press\nEducation International (2015). The Status of Teachers and the Teaching Profession : A study of education unions’ perspectives. Retrieved from http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/The%20Status%20of%20Teachers%20and%20the%20Teaching%20Profession.pdf\nForehand, G. A., & Von Haller, G. J. P. b. (1964). Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 62(6), 361.\nGottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling psychology, 28(6), 545.\nHalpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1962). The Organizational Climate of School. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.\nHerzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.\nHoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York, NY: Harper and Row.\nHoy, W. and A. Woolfolk (1993). “Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools”, The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/461729.\nHoy, W. K., & Clover, S. I. J. E. a. q. (1986). Elementary school climate: A revision of the OCDQ. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(1), 93-110.\nHoy, W. K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D., & Bliss, J. (1996). The organizational climate of middle schools: The development and test of the OCDQ-RM. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(1), 41-59.\nHoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Bliss, J. R. J. E. A. Q. (1990). Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 260-279.\nHuberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers College Record, 9(1), 31-57.\nLindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. o. a. p. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 331-348.\nLiu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the teacher follow-up survey in the United States for 2000–2001. Teachers College Record, 24(5), 1173-1184.\nLocke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(4), 309-336.\nLortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.\nMa, L., Phelps, E., Lerner, J. V., & Lemer, R. M. (2009). The development of academic competence among adolescents who bully and who are bullied. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 628-644. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.\nMa, X., & MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers` job satisfaction. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39-47.\nMaslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.\nNational School Climate Council (2007). The School Climate Challenge: Narrowing the gap between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guide lines and teacher education policy. Retrieved from http://www.schoolclimate.org/ climate/advocacy.ph\nNilsen, T. and J. Gustafsson (2014). “School emphasis on academic success: Exploring changes in science performance in Norway between 2007 and 2011 employing two-level SEM”, Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(4), 308-327, Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080 /13803611.2014.941371.\nOlolube, N. P. (2006). Teachers job satisfaction and motivation for school effectiveness: An assessment. Online Submission.\nOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Programme for International Student Assessment (2018). Science Teachers’ Satisfaction: Evidence from the PISA 2015 Teacher Survey. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/1ecdb4e3-en.pdf?expires=1557894259&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=CC300B0D5C681C3E190D255293CBE656\nOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Teaching and Learning International Survey (2009). Leading to Learn: School Leadership and Management Styles. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/berlin/43541674.pdf\nOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Teaching and Learning International Survey (2013). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS%20Conceptual%20Framework_FINAL.pdf\nOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Teaching and Learning International Survey (2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019\nOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Teaching and Learning International Survey (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/1d0bc92a-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/1d0bc92a-en&mimeType=text/html\nPorter, L. W. (1961). A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45(1), 1-10.\nPorter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 151-176.\nSmith, PC, LM Kendall, & CL Hulin. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.\nStern, G. G., & Steinhoff, C. R. (1963). Characteristics of intellectual climate in college environment, Harvard Educational Review, 31, 5-41.\nTagiuri, R., Litwin, G. H., & Barnes, L. B. (1968). Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.\nThapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of educational research, 83(3), 357-385.\nU.S. Department of Education (2007). Mobilizing for evidence-based character education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/charactered/mobilizin\nUnited Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656.locale=en\nUnited Nations International Children`s Emergency Fund (2012). Child friendly schools. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/lifeskills/index_7260.html\nUnruh, Adolph., & Turner, Harold, E.(1970). Supervision for Change and Innovation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.\nWay, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychological and behavioral adjustment. American journal of community psychology, 40(3-4), 194-213.\nWeiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minneapolis, MN: Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
106152014
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1061520141
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
014101.pdf1.33 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.