學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 新北市國民中學校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀關係之研究
The Study of the Relationships between Principal Distributed Leadership and Teacher Academic Optimism in Junior High School in New Taipei City作者 林松德 貢獻者 張奕華<br>王素芸
林松德關鍵詞 分散式領導
教師學術樂觀日期 2013 上傳時間 21-七月-2014 15:47:21 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在先探討新北市國民中學校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀的現況；接著，剖析不同背景變項與學校變項的教師知覺校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀的差異情形；再來探討校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀之間的關係；最後，以逐步多元廻歸檢視校長分散式領導對教師學術樂觀的預測力效果。為達到上述研究目的，本研究採用問卷調查法，以新北市42 所國民中學之主任、組長及教師為研究對象，共寄發問卷895 份，回收有效問卷743 份，有效回收率為83.0％。本研究採用SPSS 20.0 for Windows統計套裝軟體進行分析，獲得以下結論，根據研究結論，提出建議供有關單位參考：一、新北市國民中學教師知覺校長分散式領導、教師學術樂觀為中高程度。二、不同教育程度、服務年資、學校地區之教師在知覺校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀上，沒有顯著差異。三、51（含）歲組以上的教師知覺校長分散式領導高於30 ~ 40 歲組的教師；在知覺教師學術樂觀則高於所有其他年齡組的教師。四、學校規模95（含）班以上的教師在知覺教師學術樂觀上，高於44(含)班以下的教師。五、教師兼主任知覺校長分散式領導高於教師兼組長及教師二組；在知覺教師學術樂觀上，也高於教師兼組長及教師二組。六、校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀之間呈現高度正向相關。七、校長分散式領導對於教師學術樂觀有預測力。 最後，依據上述研究結論，提出具體建議，以做為教育行政機關、國民中學校行政及未來研究人員的參考運用。
The Study of the Relationships between Principal Distributed Leadership and Teacher Academic Optimism in Junior High School in New Taipei CityAbstractFirst, this study aimed to explore the current situation of New Taipei City junior high schools’ principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism; then, to analyze the demographic variables on the different perception of principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism, and then to discuss the relationship between principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism. Finally, stepwise multiple regression was used to predict teacher academic optimism. Based on the research conclusions, I also proposed recommendations for the relevant institutions’ reference. To achieve these purposes, this study used questionnaire survey method. I used the directors, team leaders and teachers from 42 junior high schools in New Taipei City as my study subjects. A total of 895 questionnaires were distributed, with 743 valid questionnaires. The return rate was 83.0%. Survey data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, t-test, one way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, and stepwise multiple regression. The conclusions of this research are as follows:1. In junior high schools in New Taipei City, teachers’ perception of principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism is high.2. There’s no significant difference in education levels, service years, and school locations in teachers’ perception of distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism.3. The teachers’ perception over 51 (inclusive) years old on principal distributed leadership is higher than the teachers from 31 to 40. On teacher academic optimism, it’s also higher than all the other groups.4. The teachers’ perception over 95 (inclusive) classes on teacher academic optimism is higher than the teachers under 44(inclusive) classes.5. Teachers hold the post as directors whose perceptions both on principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism are higher than team leaders and class teachers.6. Principal distributed leadership is high positively correlated to teacher academic optimism.7. The prediction of the relationships between principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism is supported. Finally, based on the above research conclusions, I provide recommendations as references and applications for educational administrations, junior high school administrations and future researchers.參考文獻 壹、中文部分方德隆( 1994 )。學校影響因素與學校效能之研究：學校效能的社會學分析。高師大學報，5，41-58。方慶林(2010)。臺北縣國民小學分散式領導對學生學習態度影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。王文科、王智弘(2009)。教育研究法。臺北市：五南。王建祥(2013)。國民中學教師學術樂觀之指標建構及其現況調查之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。王紹光、劉欣(2002)。信任的基礎: 一種理性的解釋。社會學研究，3，23-39。王環玲、王文科、王智弘(2011)。學校分散式領導與創新經營之研究：以臺中市國民小學為例，彰化師大教育學報，20，1-20。朱春霞(2011)。提高集體效能感:教導處工作的新視角。學理論，10，193-195。何建霖(2009)。國民小學學校分佈式領導、教師同僚專業互享與學生學習表現之研究（未出版的碩士論文）。國立中正大學教育學研究所，嘉義縣。吳清山、林天祐(2010 )。教育名詞。教育資料與研究雙月刊，95，149-150。吳明隆(2007)。結構方程模式 AMOS 的操作與應用。臺北市：五南。吳明隆(2009)。SPSS操作與應用－多變量分析實務。臺北市：五南林生傳(1988)。教育社會學。高雄市：復文。林忠仁(2010)。國民小學校長分佈領導、灰猩猩效應與教師專業學習社群關係之研究。(未出版之博士論文)。臺北教育大學，臺北市。周良基(2013)。國民小學校長正向領導和學業樂觀關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。林明地(2002)。學校領導：理念與校長專業生涯。臺北市：高等教育。林枝旺(2005)。家庭背景因素對子女學業成就之影響。網路社會學通訊期刊，49。引自http://mail.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j.htm林俊瑩、吳裕益(2007)。家庭因素、學校因素對學生學業成就的影響--階層線性模式的分析。教育研究集刊。53(4)，107-144。孫文梅、呂紅梅、嚴文蕃、郭芳芳(2010)。學校學業樂觀: 提升學生學業成就的合力。北京師範大學學報( 社會科學版) ，6，45-51。孫旻儀、蔡明學(2007)。社經地位和學生學業成就關係之後設分析。國教學報，19，199-221。邱皓政（2007）。量化研究與統計分析。臺北市：五南。邱皓政（2008）。結構方程模式的檢定力分析與樣本數決定。量化研究學刊，2（1），139-173。徐吉春(2010)。分散式領導。輯於黃宗顯（主編），學校領導：新理論與實踐（65-88 頁）。臺北市：五南。涂金堂(2011)。SPSS與量化研究。臺北市：五南。秦夢群(2011)。教育領導理論與應用。臺北市：五南。崔民日(2012)。行政權力與學術權力的制衡--基於分散式領導的視角。世紀橋，9，122-123。張明輝(2005)。永續領導與學校經營。臺灣教育，635，8-12。張芳全(2008)。統計就是要這樣跑。臺北市：心理。張奕華(2009)。分散式領導、教師學術樂觀與學生學習成就關係之研究。行政院國家科學委員長專題研究計畫(NSC98-2410-H004-011)。臺北市：國立政治大學。張奕華、許正妹、顏弘欽(2011)。「國民小學教師學術樂觀量表」之發展與衡量。《測驗學刊》專刊 正向心理特質的測量，4，261-289。張奕華、陳怡卉(2011)。校長分散式領導與教育成效關係之研究。學校行政雙月刊， 72，1-22。張奕華、顏弘欽(2012)。學校分散式領導構面之探析：領導者、追隨者與情境三元互動之檢證。教育實踐與研究，25 (2)，225-254。黃芳銘(2004)。結構方程模式在教育資料應用之研究。臺北市：五南。黃芳銘(2009)。結構方程模式理論與應用（第五版）。臺北市：五南。陳奎憙(1999)。教育社會學研究。臺北市：師大書苑。陳珍蓉(2006)。分散式領導與學校管理變革。中國教育技術裝備，6，69-72。馮大鳴(2012a)。西方教學領導研究的再度興盛及邏輯轉向。教育研究，3，135-139。馮大鳴(2012b)。分散式領導之中國意義。教育發展研究，12，31-35。新北市政府教育局(2013)。新北市政府教育局—學校服務—學校資料。取自http://www.ntpc.edu.tw/web/Home?command=display&page=flash楊林波、石冠峰、鬱興德(2013)。社會網路視角下人格特質、分散式領導、團隊績效間的關係。管理工程師，2，1-11。楊敏生(2009)。國內外教師效能感研究現狀及其對教師培養的啟示。中小學教師培訓，7，51-54。廖雅蘭(2011)。國民中學分布式領導與學校組織健康關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。私立逢甲大學，臺中市。劉文章(2010)。臺北縣國民小學分散式領導對教師學術樂觀影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。劉幼玲(2010)。學業樂觀的引入及對我國教育的啟示。基礎教育，7(9)，59-62。劉幼玲、龍君偉(2013)。中學教師的學生學業樂觀感:影響因素研究。基礎教育，1，103-108。蔡進雄(2004)。領導新典範：後英雄式領導的意涵及其對學校校長開放思維的啟示。教育政策論壇，7(1)，111-130。鄭玉蓮、盧乃桂(2012)。漸變調適--理解與實踐教育中分散式領導的關鍵。全球教育展望，8，73-76。賴志峰(2008)。分散式領導理論之探究—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。賴志峰(2009)。學校領導新議題研究。臺北市：高等教育。賴志峰(2010)。學校領導新議題：理論與研究。臺北市：高等教育。薛雅文、賴志峰(2013)。國民小學分散式領導與學校組織文化之關係研究。學校行政雙月刊，86，20-42。謝傳崇(2013)。十二年國教的挑戰：找回學術樂觀。教育人力與專業發展，30(3)，25-34。謝傳崇、王瓊滿(2011)。國民小學校長分散式領導、教師組織公民行為對學生學習表現影響之研究。新竹教育大學教育學報，28(1)，35-66。謝傳崇、李尚儒(2011)。校長分散式領導對學生學習表現影響之研究－以學校知識創造為仲介變項。教育理論與實踐學刊，23，149-181。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。饒春平(2012)。分散式領導理論簡介及對我國中小學管理的啟示。中小學校長，7， 42-46。Kumar R. (2008)。研究方法步驟化學習指南(湖龍騰、黃瑋瑩、潘中道，合譯)。臺北市：學富。 貳、外文部分Altay, E. (2012). Prospective teachers’ future time perspective and professional plans about teaching: The mediating role of academic optimism, Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 111-123.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20(1), 31-47. Beard, K. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2010). The nature, meaning, and measure of teacher flow in elementary schools: A test of rival hypotheses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 426-458.Beard, K. S., Hoy W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1136-1144.Brooks, J. S., Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., & Hodgins, D. W. (2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378-408.Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Chang, I. (2011). A study of the relationships between distributed leadership, teacher academic optimism and student achievement in Taiwanese elementary schools. School Leadership and Management, 31(5), 491-515.Doyle, M. E., & Smith, M. K. (2001). Classical leadership. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htmGist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 77(2), 183-211.Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Administration, 28(3), 317-338.Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis original research article. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451.Goddard, R. D., Hoy W. K., & Hoy, W. A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-508.Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, W. A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administrational Quarterly, 36, 692-701.Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (1), 3-17.Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hejazia, E., Lavasania, M. G., & Mazareia F. (2011). Individual characteristics, identity styles, identity commitment, and teacher`s academic optimism. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 646-652.Hoy, A. W., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Science Direct, 24, 821-835. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184-208.Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2005). Academic optimism of schools. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes (pp. 135-156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425-446.Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practiced. New York: McGraw-Hill.Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). Leadership Déjà vu all over again. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 435-458.Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 565–575.Kirby, M. M., & DiPaola, M. F. (2011). Academic optimism and community engagement in urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 542-562.Lakomski, G. (2008). Functionally adequate but causally idle: W(h)ither distributed leadership? Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 159-171.Lee, V., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62(3), 172-192.Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214-228.McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.Mehmet G., & Seda K. (2010). Academic optimism. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 929-932.Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55. Pajares, F. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematicalproblem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.Saadi, A. M., Hussain, A., Bhutta, R. N., Perveen, N., Kazmi, U. K., & Ahmad, N. (2009). Democratic and distributed leadership for school improvement: Case studies from Pakistan. The International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 521-532.Seligman M. E. P. (1999). Positive Social Science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(3), 181-182.Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Education Administration, 45(5), 556-568.Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Spillane, J. P. (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Stansberry, K. B., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1136-1144.Tschannen -Moran M., Woolfolk-Hoy A., & Hoy W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.Youngs, H. ( 2009). ( Un) Critical times? Situating distributed leadership in the field. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41( 4), 377-389.Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
學校行政碩士在職專班
100911012
102資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100911012 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 張奕華<br>王素芸 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 林松德 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) 林松德 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2013 en_US dc.date.accessioned 21-七月-2014 15:47:21 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 21-七月-2014 15:47:21 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 21-七月-2014 15:47:21 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0100911012 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/67649 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 學校行政碩士在職專班 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100911012 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在先探討新北市國民中學校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀的現況；接著，剖析不同背景變項與學校變項的教師知覺校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀的差異情形；再來探討校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀之間的關係；最後，以逐步多元廻歸檢視校長分散式領導對教師學術樂觀的預測力效果。為達到上述研究目的，本研究採用問卷調查法，以新北市42 所國民中學之主任、組長及教師為研究對象，共寄發問卷895 份，回收有效問卷743 份，有效回收率為83.0％。本研究採用SPSS 20.0 for Windows統計套裝軟體進行分析，獲得以下結論，根據研究結論，提出建議供有關單位參考：一、新北市國民中學教師知覺校長分散式領導、教師學術樂觀為中高程度。二、不同教育程度、服務年資、學校地區之教師在知覺校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀上，沒有顯著差異。三、51（含）歲組以上的教師知覺校長分散式領導高於30 ~ 40 歲組的教師；在知覺教師學術樂觀則高於所有其他年齡組的教師。四、學校規模95（含）班以上的教師在知覺教師學術樂觀上，高於44(含)班以下的教師。五、教師兼主任知覺校長分散式領導高於教師兼組長及教師二組；在知覺教師學術樂觀上，也高於教師兼組長及教師二組。六、校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀之間呈現高度正向相關。七、校長分散式領導對於教師學術樂觀有預測力。 最後，依據上述研究結論，提出具體建議，以做為教育行政機關、國民中學校行政及未來研究人員的參考運用。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The Study of the Relationships between Principal Distributed Leadership and Teacher Academic Optimism in Junior High School in New Taipei CityAbstractFirst, this study aimed to explore the current situation of New Taipei City junior high schools’ principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism; then, to analyze the demographic variables on the different perception of principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism, and then to discuss the relationship between principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism. Finally, stepwise multiple regression was used to predict teacher academic optimism. Based on the research conclusions, I also proposed recommendations for the relevant institutions’ reference. To achieve these purposes, this study used questionnaire survey method. I used the directors, team leaders and teachers from 42 junior high schools in New Taipei City as my study subjects. A total of 895 questionnaires were distributed, with 743 valid questionnaires. The return rate was 83.0%. Survey data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, t-test, one way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, and stepwise multiple regression. The conclusions of this research are as follows:1. In junior high schools in New Taipei City, teachers’ perception of principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism is high.2. There’s no significant difference in education levels, service years, and school locations in teachers’ perception of distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism.3. The teachers’ perception over 51 (inclusive) years old on principal distributed leadership is higher than the teachers from 31 to 40. On teacher academic optimism, it’s also higher than all the other groups.4. The teachers’ perception over 95 (inclusive) classes on teacher academic optimism is higher than the teachers under 44(inclusive) classes.5. Teachers hold the post as directors whose perceptions both on principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism are higher than team leaders and class teachers.6. Principal distributed leadership is high positively correlated to teacher academic optimism.7. The prediction of the relationships between principal distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism is supported. Finally, based on the above research conclusions, I provide recommendations as references and applications for educational administrations, junior high school administrations and future researchers. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機 1第二節 研究目的與待答問題 4第三節 名詞釋義 6第四節 研究方法與步驟 7第五節 研究範圍與限制 9第二章 文獻探討 13第一節 校長分散式領導之意涵與相關研究 13第二節 教師學術樂觀之意涵與相關研究 29第三節 校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀關係之相關研究 45第三章 研究設計與實施 49第一節 研究架構 49第二節 研究對象 52第三節 研究工具 57第四節 研究程序 74第五節 資料處理與分析 75第四章 結果分析與討論 77第一節 國民中學分校長散式領導與教師學術樂觀現況分析 77第二節 不同背景變項教師知覺校長分散式領導現況差異分析 83第三節 不同背景變項教師知覺教師學術樂觀現況差異分析 103第四節 校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀相關之分析 124第五節 校長分散式領導對教師學術樂觀之預測分析 130第五章 結論與建議 137第一節 結論 137第二節 建議 141參考文獻 147壹、中文部分 147貳、外文部分 151附 錄 155附錄一 調查問卷使用授權書 155附錄二 專家效度審查調查問卷 156附錄三 專家學者審題建議修正一覽表 162附錄四 預式調查問卷 166附錄五 正式調查問卷 170 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2505375 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100911012 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 分散式領導 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 教師學術樂觀 zh_TW dc.title (題名) 新北市國民中學校長分散式領導與教師學術樂觀關係之研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Study of the Relationships between Principal Distributed Leadership and Teacher Academic Optimism in Junior High School in New Taipei City en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 壹、中文部分方德隆( 1994 )。學校影響因素與學校效能之研究：學校效能的社會學分析。高師大學報，5，41-58。方慶林(2010)。臺北縣國民小學分散式領導對學生學習態度影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。王文科、王智弘(2009)。教育研究法。臺北市：五南。王建祥(2013)。國民中學教師學術樂觀之指標建構及其現況調查之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。王紹光、劉欣(2002)。信任的基礎: 一種理性的解釋。社會學研究，3，23-39。王環玲、王文科、王智弘(2011)。學校分散式領導與創新經營之研究：以臺中市國民小學為例，彰化師大教育學報，20，1-20。朱春霞(2011)。提高集體效能感:教導處工作的新視角。學理論，10，193-195。何建霖(2009)。國民小學學校分佈式領導、教師同僚專業互享與學生學習表現之研究（未出版的碩士論文）。國立中正大學教育學研究所，嘉義縣。吳清山、林天祐(2010 )。教育名詞。教育資料與研究雙月刊，95，149-150。吳明隆(2007)。結構方程模式 AMOS 的操作與應用。臺北市：五南。吳明隆(2009)。SPSS操作與應用－多變量分析實務。臺北市：五南林生傳(1988)。教育社會學。高雄市：復文。林忠仁(2010)。國民小學校長分佈領導、灰猩猩效應與教師專業學習社群關係之研究。(未出版之博士論文)。臺北教育大學，臺北市。周良基(2013)。國民小學校長正向領導和學業樂觀關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。林明地(2002)。學校領導：理念與校長專業生涯。臺北市：高等教育。林枝旺(2005)。家庭背景因素對子女學業成就之影響。網路社會學通訊期刊，49。引自http://mail.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j.htm林俊瑩、吳裕益(2007)。家庭因素、學校因素對學生學業成就的影響--階層線性模式的分析。教育研究集刊。53(4)，107-144。孫文梅、呂紅梅、嚴文蕃、郭芳芳(2010)。學校學業樂觀: 提升學生學業成就的合力。北京師範大學學報( 社會科學版) ，6，45-51。孫旻儀、蔡明學(2007)。社經地位和學生學業成就關係之後設分析。國教學報，19，199-221。邱皓政（2007）。量化研究與統計分析。臺北市：五南。邱皓政（2008）。結構方程模式的檢定力分析與樣本數決定。量化研究學刊，2（1），139-173。徐吉春(2010)。分散式領導。輯於黃宗顯（主編），學校領導：新理論與實踐（65-88 頁）。臺北市：五南。涂金堂(2011)。SPSS與量化研究。臺北市：五南。秦夢群(2011)。教育領導理論與應用。臺北市：五南。崔民日(2012)。行政權力與學術權力的制衡--基於分散式領導的視角。世紀橋，9，122-123。張明輝(2005)。永續領導與學校經營。臺灣教育，635，8-12。張芳全(2008)。統計就是要這樣跑。臺北市：心理。張奕華(2009)。分散式領導、教師學術樂觀與學生學習成就關係之研究。行政院國家科學委員長專題研究計畫(NSC98-2410-H004-011)。臺北市：國立政治大學。張奕華、許正妹、顏弘欽(2011)。「國民小學教師學術樂觀量表」之發展與衡量。《測驗學刊》專刊 正向心理特質的測量，4，261-289。張奕華、陳怡卉(2011)。校長分散式領導與教育成效關係之研究。學校行政雙月刊， 72，1-22。張奕華、顏弘欽(2012)。學校分散式領導構面之探析：領導者、追隨者與情境三元互動之檢證。教育實踐與研究，25 (2)，225-254。黃芳銘(2004)。結構方程模式在教育資料應用之研究。臺北市：五南。黃芳銘(2009)。結構方程模式理論與應用（第五版）。臺北市：五南。陳奎憙(1999)。教育社會學研究。臺北市：師大書苑。陳珍蓉(2006)。分散式領導與學校管理變革。中國教育技術裝備，6，69-72。馮大鳴(2012a)。西方教學領導研究的再度興盛及邏輯轉向。教育研究，3，135-139。馮大鳴(2012b)。分散式領導之中國意義。教育發展研究，12，31-35。新北市政府教育局(2013)。新北市政府教育局—學校服務—學校資料。取自http://www.ntpc.edu.tw/web/Home?command=display&page=flash楊林波、石冠峰、鬱興德(2013)。社會網路視角下人格特質、分散式領導、團隊績效間的關係。管理工程師，2，1-11。楊敏生(2009)。國內外教師效能感研究現狀及其對教師培養的啟示。中小學教師培訓，7，51-54。廖雅蘭(2011)。國民中學分布式領導與學校組織健康關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。私立逢甲大學，臺中市。劉文章(2010)。臺北縣國民小學分散式領導對教師學術樂觀影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。劉幼玲(2010)。學業樂觀的引入及對我國教育的啟示。基礎教育，7(9)，59-62。劉幼玲、龍君偉(2013)。中學教師的學生學業樂觀感:影響因素研究。基礎教育，1，103-108。蔡進雄(2004)。領導新典範：後英雄式領導的意涵及其對學校校長開放思維的啟示。教育政策論壇，7(1)，111-130。鄭玉蓮、盧乃桂(2012)。漸變調適--理解與實踐教育中分散式領導的關鍵。全球教育展望，8，73-76。賴志峰(2008)。分散式領導理論之探究—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。賴志峰(2009)。學校領導新議題研究。臺北市：高等教育。賴志峰(2010)。學校領導新議題：理論與研究。臺北市：高等教育。薛雅文、賴志峰(2013)。國民小學分散式領導與學校組織文化之關係研究。學校行政雙月刊，86，20-42。謝傳崇(2013)。十二年國教的挑戰：找回學術樂觀。教育人力與專業發展，30(3)，25-34。謝傳崇、王瓊滿(2011)。國民小學校長分散式領導、教師組織公民行為對學生學習表現影響之研究。新竹教育大學教育學報，28(1)，35-66。謝傳崇、李尚儒(2011)。校長分散式領導對學生學習表現影響之研究－以學校知識創造為仲介變項。教育理論與實踐學刊，23，149-181。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。饒春平(2012)。分散式領導理論簡介及對我國中小學管理的啟示。中小學校長，7， 42-46。Kumar R. (2008)。研究方法步驟化學習指南(湖龍騰、黃瑋瑩、潘中道，合譯)。臺北市：學富。 貳、外文部分Altay, E. (2012). Prospective teachers’ future time perspective and professional plans about teaching: The mediating role of academic optimism, Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 111-123.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20(1), 31-47. Beard, K. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2010). The nature, meaning, and measure of teacher flow in elementary schools: A test of rival hypotheses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 426-458.Beard, K. S., Hoy W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1136-1144.Brooks, J. S., Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., & Hodgins, D. W. (2007). Distributed leadership for social justice: Exploring how influence and equity are stretched over an urban high school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(4), 378-408.Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Chang, I. (2011). A study of the relationships between distributed leadership, teacher academic optimism and student achievement in Taiwanese elementary schools. School Leadership and Management, 31(5), 491-515.Doyle, M. E., & Smith, M. K. (2001). Classical leadership. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htmGist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 77(2), 183-211.Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Administration, 28(3), 317-338.Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis original research article. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451.Goddard, R. D., Hoy W. K., & Hoy, W. A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-508.Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, W. A. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administrational Quarterly, 36, 692-701.Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102 (1), 3-17.Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Hejazia, E., Lavasania, M. G., & Mazareia F. (2011). Individual characteristics, identity styles, identity commitment, and teacher`s academic optimism. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 646-652.Hoy, A. W., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Science Direct, 24, 821-835. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9, 184-208.Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2005). Academic optimism of schools. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes (pp. 135-156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 425-446.Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practiced. New York: McGraw-Hill.Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). Leadership Déjà vu all over again. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 435-458.Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 565–575.Kirby, M. M., & DiPaola, M. F. (2011). Academic optimism and community engagement in urban schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 542-562.Lakomski, G. (2008). Functionally adequate but causally idle: W(h)ither distributed leadership? Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 159-171.Lee, V., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62(3), 172-192.Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214-228.McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.Mehmet G., & Seda K. (2010). Academic optimism. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 929-932.Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55. Pajares, F. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematicalproblem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.Saadi, A. M., Hussain, A., Bhutta, R. N., Perveen, N., Kazmi, U. K., & Ahmad, N. (2009). Democratic and distributed leadership for school improvement: Case studies from Pakistan. The International Journal of Learning, 16(2), 521-532.Seligman M. E. P. (1999). Positive Social Science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(3), 181-182.Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Education Administration, 45(5), 556-568.Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Spillane, J. P. (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Stansberry, K. B., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1136-1144.Tschannen -Moran M., Woolfolk-Hoy A., & Hoy W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.Youngs, H. ( 2009). ( Un) Critical times? Situating distributed leadership in the field. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41( 4), 377-389.Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305. zh_TW
