Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/137706


Title: 國民中學校長學習領導、學校社會資本與學校效能關係之研究
The Rearch of Principle Study Leadhips`s effect thorugh Social Capital on School effetiveness.
Authors: 江俊儀
JIANG, JYUN-YI
Contributors: 秦夢群
CHIN,MENG-CHUN
江俊儀
JIANG,JYUN-YI
Keywords: 學習領導
社會資本
學校效能
Study Leaderhip
Social Capital
School Effectivness
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-11-01 12:10:10 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本研究旨在瞭解目前我國國民中學校長學習領導、學校社會資本與學校效能的現況,分析不同背景變項之教師知覺校長學習領導、學校社會資本與學校效能之差異情形,並嘗試建構上述三組變項間之結構方程模型,及驗證學校社會資本的中介效果。
研究方法採問卷調查法,經統計檢定顯示問卷具有良好信、效度。以臺北市、新北市與基隆市公立國民中學之現任正式教師為母群體,分層隨機抽取45所學校,發出630份問卷,回收588份,回收率為93%,其中有效問卷為563份,可用率為89%。並進行描述分析、平均數差異分析、單因子變異數分析、結構方程模型檢定及中介效果檢驗。獲致結論如下:

一、教師對校長學習領導的知覺屬中上程度,以「促進教師專業」感受表現最佳。教師對校長學習領導的知覺程度會因「性別」、「在校年資」、「職務」與「學校規模」之不同而有顯著差異。以教師「男性」、「在校21年以上」、「兼任行政」與「中型學校」之知覺程度顯著較高。
二、教師對學校社會資本的知覺屬中上程度,以「關係構面」感受表現最佳。教師對學校社會資本的知覺程度會因「性別」、「在校年資」、「職務」、「學校規模」與「校長性別」之不同而有顯著差異。以教師「男性」、「在校21年以上」、「兼任行政」、「中型學校」與「男性校長」之知覺程度顯著較高。
三、教師對學校效能的知覺屬中上程度,以「學生學習表現」感受最佳。教師對學校效能的知覺程度會因「性別」、「在校年資」、「職務」與「學校規模」、「校長性別」之不同而有顯著差異。以教師「男性」、「21年以上」、「兼任行政」、「中型學校」與「男性校長」之知覺程度顯著較高。
四、校長學習領導、學校社會資本與學校效能的結構方程模型適配度良好。
五、校長學習領導會透過學校社會資本間接影響學校效能,學校社會資本具有完全中介效果。

最後,根據本研究結果,提出具體建議,俾供學校教育人員與未來相關研究之參考。
The purpose of this research is to understand the current state of learning leadership, school social capital, and school effectiveness of school principals in national secondary schools in my country, analyze the differences in teacher perception of principals’ learning leadership, school social capital, and school effectiveness in different background variables, and try to construct the above three groups Structural equation model between variables, and verify the intermediary effect of school social capital.
In the research method, the questionnaire survey method is adopted, and the questionnaire is compiled according to the literature and related scales. Taking the current official teachers of public schools in Taipei City, New Taipei City and Keelung City as the mother group of the research, 45 schools were randomly selected in stratification, 630 questionnaires were sent out, and 588 were returned. The recovery rate was 93.3%, of which the valid questionnaire was 563. The availability rate is 89.3%. The conclusions of this research are as follows:.

1. The current state of public junior high school teachers' perception of the principal's learning leadership is at an intermediate to upper level, and the performance of "promoting teacher professionalism" is the best. Teachers’ perception of the principal’s learning leadership will vary significantly depending on the “teacher gender”, “teacher’s seniority in school”, “teacher position” and “school size”. "Male teachers", "21 years or more", "part-time administrative teachers" and "medium-sized schools" have significantly higher levels of awareness.
2. The current state of public junior high school teachers' perception of school social capital is at an intermediate to upper level, and the "relationship dimension" performs best. Teachers' perception of school social capital will vary significantly depending on the "teacher gender", "teacher's years of schooling", "teacher position", "school size" and "principal gender". "Male teachers", "21 years or more", "part-time administrative teachers", "male principals" and "medium-sized schools" have significantly higher levels of awareness.
3. The current state of public junior high school teachers' perception of school effectiveness is at an intermediate to upper level, and the feeling of "student performance" is the best. Teachers’ perception of school effectiveness will vary significantly depending on the “teacher gender”, “teacher’s years in school”, “teacher position” and “school size”. "Male teachers", "21 years or more", "part-time administrative teachers", "male principals" and "medium-sized schools" have significantly higher levels of awareness.
4. The structural equation model of learning leadership, school social capital and school effectiveness of the National High School has a good fit.
5. The Principal Learning Leadership of National High Schools will indirectly affect school effectiveness through school social capital, and school social capital has a completely intermediary effect.

Finally, based on the results of this research, specific suggestions are put forward for the reference of school educators and related research in the future.
Reference: 一、中文部分

丁一顧(2012)。教師專業學習社群運作的核心:以學生學習為本。教育研究月刊,215, 5-16。
丁一顧(2014a)。國小校長教練式領導與教師專業學習社群關係之研究。教育政策論壇,17(3),117-151。
丁一顧(2014b)。教師專業學習社群之調查研究:「關注學生學習成為焦點。課程與教學,17(1),209-232。
丁一顧、胡慧宜(2014)。學習與領導的交織、轉化與實踐。教師天地,192,32-37。
王中天(2003)。「社會資本:概念、源起及現狀」。問題與研究,42(5),139-163。
王元珊(2005)。國民小學社會資本與教師知識分享行為關係之研究。國立臺北師範學院教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
王令宜(2016)。面向未來的教師專業發展。教育研究月刊,270,40-53。
王俊斌(2002)。論學校效能研究方法論的哲學反思:以 Karl-Otto Apel 知識人類學為例。學校行政雙月刊,18,38-51。
朱慶忠(2003)。社會關係網絡對組織公民行為影響之探討(未出版之碩士論文)。元智大學,桃園市。
江明修、陳欽春(2004)。充實社會資本之研究。行政院經濟建設委員會委託之專題研究成果報告(編號:93064.123)。臺北市:行政院經濟建設委員會。
何文純(2007)。國民小學社會資本與學習社群關係之研究。國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
余民寧(2006)。潛在變項模式:SIMPLIS 的應用。臺北市:高等教育。
吳堂鐘(2016)。國民中學學習領導、學習環境與學習成效關係之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。
吳清山(2001)。知識管理與學校效能。臺北市立師範學院學報,32,1-16。
吳清山(2004)。學校效能研究(第二版)。臺北市:五南。
吳清山(2007)。教育行政議題研究。臺北市:高等教育。
吳清山(2012年6月15日)。校長領導與學生學習。國家教育研究院電子報。取自:http://epaper.naer.edu.tw/index.php?edm_no=42&content_no=1158
吳清山(2013)。教育發展議題研究。臺北市:高等教育。
吳清山、王令宜(2012)。校長學習領導的理念與實踐策略。教育行政研究,2(2),1-21。
吳清山、林天祐(2010)。分布式領導。教育資料與研究雙月刊,95,149-150。
吳清山、林天祐(2012)。學習領導。教育研究月刊,217,139-140。
吳清山、黃建翔(2013)。提升學校效能策略之探析,教育研究月刊,232,5-17。
吳毓淳(2002)。誰在八卦?一個社會網絡的分析(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
吳瓊恩(2002)。公共行政學發展趨勢的探究三種治理模式的互補關係及其政治理論的基礎。公共行政學報,7,173-220
吳瓊恩(2016)。行政學。臺北市:五南。
呂悅寧(2013)。國民小學校長學習領導之調查研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學,臺北市。
李安明、謝傳崇(2003)。運用知識管理理論與策略以提升學校效能之研究。國立臺北師範學院學報,16(2),49-78。
李宛蓉譯(2004)。Fukuyama, Francis著。信任。臺北市:立緒。
李惠斌(2000)。社會資本與社會發展。北京市:社會科學文獻出版社。
那昇華(2015)。基隆市國民小學智慧資本、社會資本與教師專業發展關係之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。
周麗修(2016)。高級中學校長學習領導、教師專業發展與教師創新教學關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
林千慧(2008)。臺北縣公立國民小學教師個人社會資本與工作滿意度關係之研究。私立淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北縣。
林大容(譯)(1999)。Leif Edvinsson & Michael, S. Malone 著。智慧資本:如何衡量資訊時代無形資產的價值。臺北市:麥田。
林妮燕(2004)譯。教育績效的新要求及內涵。載於王如哲等譯,教育行政研究手冊,727-752。臺北:心理。(原著:Joseph Murphy & Karen Seashore Louis(1999). Hand book of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association,2nd ed. Jossey-Bass Inc.)
林明地(2009)。學校創新經營:組織學習的觀點。載於張鈿富(主編),教育行政:理念與創新(267-294頁)。臺北市:高等教育。
林明地(2013)。學習領導:理念與實際初探。教育研究月刊,229,18-30。
林明地(2014)。學習領導:理念到具體行動。教師天地,192,26-31
林明地、楊振昇、江芳盛譯(2000)。教育組織行為。Robert G. Owens 著。臺北: 揚智。
林浩銘(2016)。新竹縣國民小學校長學習領導、教師專業發展與教師教學效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
林祐聖、葉欣怡譯,(2005)。Nan Lin 著。社會資本。臺北市:弘智。
林新發、黃秋鑾(2014)。推動校長學習領導以提升教師專業學習互動之策略。臺灣教育評論月刊,3(1),43-62。
邱志芳(2002)。組織之社會資本與技術移轉績效之研究---以參與工研院研發聯盟之廠商為例(未出版之碩士論文)。義守大學,高雄市。
邱春堂(2010)。國民小學校長社會資本、教導型領導與教師組織承諾關係之研究。國立臺北教育大學教育學院教育政策與管理研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。
邱翌凱(2012)。心理資本、社會資本與知識分享關係之研究。國立高雄應用科技大學人力資源發展系所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
邱皓政(2004)。社會與行為科學的量化研究與統計分析。臺北市:五南。
徐玉珊(2007)。國內國民小學教師學習型組織、教師專業成長與學校效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。銘傳大學,桃園縣。
徐發斌(2013)。國民小學校長邀約領導、組織認同與學校效能之關係研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立嘉義大學,嘉義市。
秦夢群(2010)。教育領導:理論與應用。臺北市:五南。
秦夢群、楊詠翔(2014)。校長知識領導、教師專業發展與學校智慧資本關係之研究。教育與心理研究,37(4),1-30。
張奕華、張敏章(2010)。台北縣國民小學校長科技領導對學校效能影響之研究。學校行政雙月刊,66,30-50。
張德永(2013)。社區、成人學習與社會資本。臺北市:師大書苑。
張德銳(2010)。喚醒沉睡的巨人-論教師領導在我國中小學的發展。臺北市立
教育大學學報,41(2),81-11
張慶勳(2001)。學習型學校組織文化與領導。學校行政雙月刊,14,29-41。
章文駿(2002)。社會資本觀點之組織知識蓄積與應用的研究-以參與工研院科技專案廠商為例(未出版之碩士論文)。義守大學,高雄市。
莊俐昕(2017)。原住民族社會資本之研究。社會政策與社會工作學刊,21(1),1 – 4。
許士軍(2001)。知識經濟的迷思與省思。臺北市:天下文化
陳玉娟(2004)譯。社會資本對於學校、社區、都市的意涵。載於王如哲等譯,教育行政研究手冊,617-648。臺北:心理。(原著:Joseph & Karen Seashore Louis(1999). Hand book of research on educational administration: A project of the American Educational Research Association,2nd ed. Jossey-Bass Inc.)
陳佩英(2008)。教師領導之興起與發展。教育研究月刊,171,41-57。
陳佩英、潘慧玲(2013)。校長的學習領導:領導踐行與能力發展的初探。教育研究月刊,229,50-70。
陳怡蓉(2017)。國民小學校長學習領導與教師專業學習社群關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立大學,臺北市。
張偉豪(2011)。論文寫作 SEM 不求人。臺北市:鼎茂。
陳青達(2005)。文化資本與學業成效關係之研究-以雲林縣國民小學六年級學生為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中正大學,嘉義縣。
陳恆鈞(2003)。士氣激勵之研究:社會資本觀點。人事月刊,37(5),20-32。
陳秋華(2015)。校長學習領導、參與教師專業發展評鑑態度與教師專業成長關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。南華大學,嘉義縣。
陳榮德(2004)。組織內部社會網絡的形成與影響:社會資本觀點(未出版之博士論文)。國立中山大學,高雄市。
單文經(2013)。試釋學習領導的意義。教育研究月刊,229,1-17。
曾榮豐(2011)。組織內部社會資本對知識分享與組織創新影響之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立中山大學,高雄市。
黃吉村(2003)。研發團隊成員之內隱知的流動與績效(未出版之博士論文)。成功大學,臺南市。
黃旭鈞(2003)。課程領導:理論與實務。臺北市:心理。
黃旭絹(2016)。國民小學校長學習領導與教師教學關注關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺北市立大學,臺北市。
黃克先、黃惠茹(譯)(2008)。David Halpern 著。社會資本。臺北市:巨流。
黃明賢(2002)。社會資本、創業導向、組織創新暨組織績效關係之實證研究-以台灣電子製造業為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立雲林科技大學,雲林縣。
黃建翔、吳清山(2013)。提升教師專業學習社群之可行策略探究:「資料導向決定」觀點。教育研究學報,47(1),39-58。
黃貞裕(2005)。學校組織動態能耐評量指標建構與實證之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
黃毅志(2000)。文化資本、社會網絡與階層認同、階級界限。國立政治大學社會學報,30,頁 1-42。
黃毅志(2002)。書評 林南(Nan Lin)的「社會資本」(Social Capital)理論對於台灣教育社會學研究之啟發。2(2),153-163。
黃毅志(2003)。教育與社會階層化,收錄於張建成主編,教育社會學。臺北市:巨流。
楊振昇(2003)。學習領導與教師專業發展。教育資料集刊,28,287-318。
楊淙富(2012)。國民小學教師領導、教師專業學習社群與學校效能之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。
楊逸民(2000)。資訊化組織員工人際關係網絡對工作滿足與組織承諾的影響──與科層式組織之比較(未出版之碩士論文)。元智大學資,桃園市。
葉冠伶(1999)。艾特興業知識管理的網絡分析(未出版之碩士論文)。東海大學,台中市。
葉連祺(2013)。教育領導研究可探討什麼?學校行政,84,1-35。
葉連祺(2017)。應用社會網絡分析探討學習領導與科技領導及其他變項之關係。學校行政,107,59-82。
葉連祺(2017)。應用社會網絡分析探討學習領導與科技領導及其他變項之關係。學校行政,107,59-82。
潘東豫(2013)。科技管理實務與應用。臺北市:新文京。
潘慧玲(2017)。從學校變革觀點探析學習領導。學校行政,110,1-23。
潘慧玲、陳佩英、張素貞、鄭淑惠、陳文彥(2014)。從學習領導論析學習共同體的概念與實踐。市北教育學刊,45,1-28。
蔡志豪(2002)。組織之社會資本與組織學習績效之研究-參與工研院研發聯盟之廠商為例(未出版之碩士論文)。義守大學,高雄市。
蔡進雄(2003)。學校領導的新思維:建立教師學習社群。技術及職業教育雙月刊,78,42-46。
蔡進雄(2005)。社會資本的意涵及對學校經營領導的啟示。研習資訊,22(2),74-81。
鄭安伶(2010)。桃園縣國民中學學校組織文化與教師社會資本關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。
鄭伯壎(1993)。組織價值觀與個人工作效能:符合度研究途徑,中央研究院民族學研究所集刊, 75 ,69-103。
鄭載德(2017)。臺北市國民中學校長學習領導、教師專業發展及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。
鄭燕祥(2003)。教育領導與改革:新範式。臺北市:高等教育。
盧敏芳(2002)。社會資本報酬制度與創新績效(未出版之碩士論文)。東海大學,臺中市。
蕭佩琪(2001)。團隊成員間關係,主觀契合度與團隊效能之關係(未出版之碩士論文)。銘傳大學,臺北市。
賴志峰(2010)。學校領導新議題理論與實踐。台北市:高等教育。
賴志峰(2012)。學校領導新議題:理論與實踐。臺北市:高等教育。
鍾佳容(2013)。屏東縣國民中學校長分布式領導、創新經營、組織學習與學校效能關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立屏東教育大學,屏東縣。
羅文興(2015)。國民小學校長學習領導之研究-以新北市五位校長為例(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學,新北市。
饒見維(2003)。教師專業發展:理論與實務。臺北市:五南。
顧忠華(1999)。社會信任、社會資本與非營利組織,非營利組織與社會信任研討會,中研院社會所與政大社會系,國立政治大學。

二、外文部份
Adler, P. S. & Kwon, S. W. (2000). Social capital: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In E.L. Lesser (Ed.), Knowledge and Social Capital(pp.89-115). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Barbeck, (2003)Schools-Universities-Cmmunities-Professions in Collaboration for Studet Achievement and Well Being.The National Society for the Study of Education.
Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443-449.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning:Mapping the terrain. Educational researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Breidenstein, A., Fahey, K., Glickman, C., & Hensley, F. (2012). Leading for powerful learning: A guide for instructional leaders. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Brundrett, M., & Rhodes, C. (2011). Leadership for quality and accountability in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P.(1997) .The form of capital In Halsey A.H., Lauder H., Brown P. & S. Wells A. (Eds.).Education-culture, economy, and society(46-58).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Callan, E.& White J.(2003).Liberalism and communitarianism. In Blake N., Smeyers P., Standish P.& Smith R. (Eds.).The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education,(95-109). London: Blackwell.
Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2001). How school leaders can promote teachers’professional development: An Account from the field. School Leadership & Management, 21(1), 43-57.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology. 94, 95-120.
Coleman, J.S.(1997) Social capital in the creation of human capital. In Halsey A.H., Lauder H., Brown P. & S. Wells A. (Eds.).Education-culture, economy, and society,(80-95).Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2014). Teacher professional development for improving quality of teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
Crowther, F., Kaagan, S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher
leader: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA
Corwin Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Danzig, A. B., Borman, K. M., Jones, B. A., & Wright, W. F. (2007). Learner-centered leadership: New directions for school leadership in a national perspective. In A. B. Danzig, K. M. Borman, B. A. Jones,& W. F. Wright (Eds.), Learner-centered leadership: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 3-19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2000). Grounding knowledge of school in stakeholder realities: A multi-perspective study of effective school leaders. School Leadership and Management, 21(1), 19-42.
Dempster, N. (2009). Leadership for learning: A framework synthesizing recent research. Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/28012/ 57815_1.pdf?sequence=1
Dempster, N. (2011). Leadership and learning: Making connections down under. In T. Townsend & J. MacBeath (Eds.), International handbook of leadership for learning (pp. 89-101). Dordrecht, NED: Springer.
Elmore, R. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational leadership, 16(3), 6-10.
Field, J.(2003).Social capital. London: Routledge.
Ford, D. (1991). The school principal and Chicago school reform: Principal’s early perceptions of reform initiatives. Chicago: Chicago Panel on Public school Policy and Finance.
Foster, E. M. (1997). Teacher leadership: Professional right and responsibility. Action in Teacher Education, 19(3), 82-94.
Fukuyama, F.(1995).Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Fullan, M. (2011). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 487-503.
Gordon, Z. V. (2005). The effect of distributed leadership on student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT.
Glickman, C. D. (2005). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317-338.
Hallinger, P. (2009). Leadership for 21st century schools: From instructional leadership to leadership for learning. Retrieved from http://www.ied.edu.hk/cplectures/include/getfile.php?file=12675817 69.pdf&filepath=resource&filename=Hallinger%20-%20Booklet%2 0-%20Final.pdf
Hargreaves, D. H. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and Improvement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving Schools through Teacher Leadership.
Buckingham, UK: Open University.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172-188.
Hook, D. P. (2006). The impact of teacher leadership on school effectiveness in selected exemplary secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University.
Hord, S. (2004). Professional learning communities: An overview. In Hord S.M.(Eds.). Learining together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities,(pp. 5-14). New York: NY: Teachers college Press.
Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York,NY: Basic Books.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping
teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Katz, S., & Earl, L. (2010). Learning about networked learning communities. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 27-51.
Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37: 656-669.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., Honig, M. I., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2010). Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leaders hip/key-research/Documents/Focused-Leadership-and-Support-in-Ur ban-Systems.pdf
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in school. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leana, C. R. & Van Buren III, H. J. 1999. Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538-555.
Leithwood, K. (2007). School leadership in the context of accountability policies.
International Journal Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217-235.
Little, J. W. (2003). Constructions of teacher leadership in three periods of policy and reform activism. School Leadership and Management, 23(4), 401-419.
Lin, N.(2001).Socail capital:A theory of social structure and action.Cambridge University Press.
Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. & Bryk, A. S. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community, In K. S. Louis, & S. D. Kruse (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools,(pp. 23-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
MacBeath, J. (2008). Leadership for learning: Concluding thoughts. In J. MacBeath & Y. C. Cheng (Eds.), Leadership for learning: International perspectives (pp. 327-334). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Malone, A., & Smith, G. (2010). Developing schools as professional learning communities: The TL21 experience. US-China education review, 7(9), 106-114.
Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood, P.Hallinger, K. S. Louis, P. Furman-Brown, P. Gronn, W. Mulford, & K. Riley (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration(pp.561-612). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Murphy, J. (2007). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Nahapiet, J. &Ghoshal S.(1998).Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management,23(2),242-266.
Oliver(2016).School Capital and Student Engagement: Does School Capital Matter? University of Redlands.
Owens, R. G.(1998). Organizational behavior in education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 66-78.
Reardon, R. (2013). Elementary school principals’ learning-centered leadership and educational outcomes: Implications for principals’ professional development. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(1), 63-83.
Rasberry, M. A., & Mahajan, G. (2008). From isolation to collaboration: Promoting teacher leadership through PLCS. North Carolina, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.
Reeves, D. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership: To improve your school.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Roberts, M.S., Pruitt Z.E.(2003).School as professional learning communities: Collaborative activities and strategies for professional development. Thousand Oaks,California:Corwin
Rosalind, E.(2002).Social capital-A sloan work and family encyclopedia entry. Family &Social Capital. ESRC Research Group, South bank university.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2002). Leadership: What’s in it for schools ? New York:Routledge.
Smylie, M. A. (2008). Foreword. In M. M. Mangin & S. R. Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. ix-x). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Spillane, J. P., Haverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34
Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 1-13). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Swaffield, S., & MacBeath, J.(2009). Researching leadership for learning across international and methodological boundaries. San Diego ,CA: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
The Institute for Educational Leadership (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship. Retrieved from http://www.iel.org/programs/21st/reports/principal.pdf
Wahlstrom, K. L., Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Inv estigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf

Walker, D., &Downey, P. (2012). Leadership for learning. The Educational Forum, 76, 13-24.
Wenk (2011).Social Capital and High School Graduation Rates. City University of New York.
Woods , P., & Gronn , P. (2009). Nurturing democracy: The contribution of distributed leadership to a democratic Organizational landscape. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37( 4), 430-451.
Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A., & Wise, C. (2004). Variabilities and dualities in distributed leadership: Findings from a systematic literature review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(4), 439-457.
Xie, D. (2008). A study of teacher leadership and its relationship with school climate in American public schools: Finding from SASS 2003-2004. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Zepeda, S. J., Mayers, S. R., & Benson, B. N.(2003). The call to teacher leadership.Poughkeepsie. NY: Eye on Education.
Description: 博士
國立政治大學
教育學系
100152502
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100152502
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[教育學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
250201.pdf11385KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing