國民小學校長不同領導風格與教師專業發展態度之相關研究

本研究目的有六：1.探討國民小學校長領導風格與教師專業發展態度之現況；2.探討國民小學不同背景變項之教師知覺校長領導風格之差異；3.探討不同背景變項之教師專業發展態度之差異；4.探討國民小學校長不同領導風格與教師專業發展態度之相關；5.分析校長不同領導風格對教師專業發展態度的解釋力；6.綜合研究結果，提出對於教師、校長及教育相關人員之建議。本研究之研究方法採用問卷調查法，以中部六縣市教師為研究對象，抽樣學校採分層隨機抽樣，抽樣教師以立意抽樣，施以自編之「國民小學校長不同領導風格與教師專業發展態度之相關研究問卷」，問卷包含校長領導風格量表與教師專業發展態度量表，前者包含權威指導、民主參與及放任無為等三種型態，後者則有課程與教學、班級經營與輔導、進修研究及專業精神等四取向。問卷編製經文獻探討分析、專家審題、編製預試問卷、回收預試問卷統計分析後，編製正式問卷，分層隨機抽樣中部六縣市1254位教師，回收957份得回收率76%，回收問卷經篩選除去廢卷後，得完全排除遺漏值有效問卷883份，為回收問卷之有用率92%。進行資料電腦處理與分析，研究以描述統計、項目分析、因素分析、ANOVA分析、平均數差異檢定、關聯性分析、皮爾遜積差相關、逐步多元迴歸分析，並經Scheffé法進行事後比較獲得資料分析。本研究得到以下結論：一、國民小學校長的領導風格現況是多展現民主參與，其次權威指導，放任無為最少。二、國民小學教師的專業發展態度的現況，對於專業精神、課程與教學及班級經營與輔導較為重視，對於進修研究較不為重視。三、不同性別、職務與學校規模的教師知覺校長權威指導領導風格具有顯著差異。四、不同性別、職務與學歷的教師知覺校長民主參與領導風格具有顯著差異。五、不同職務、學校規模與學校地區的教師知覺校長放任無為領導風格具有顯著差異。六、不同性別、年齡、年資、職務、學歷與學校地區的教師知覺專業發展態度具有顯著差異。七、國小校長的民主參與領導風格與教師專業發展態度為顯著正相關。八、國小校長的權威指導領導風格與放任無為領導風格與教師專業發展態度為顯著負相關。九、校長不同領導風格對於教師專業發展態度的迴歸預測，民主參與領導風格具較高的正向預測力，放任無為領導風格具負向預測力。最後，針對研究發現與結論，本研究分別就教育行政主管機關、校長、教師、後續研究者提出相關建議事項，藉資參考。

關鍵字

領導風格；專業發展態度

並列摘要

This research aims at: 1.exploring the present state of elementary school principals’ leading styles and teachers’ attitudes toward profession development; 2. probing the differences of those elementary school teachers who have diverse background variables aware of principals’ leading styles; 3. probing the differences of backgrounds and variables resulted in various attitudes toward profession development of teachers; 4. probing the relationship between elementary school principals’ leading styles and teachers’ attitudes toward profession development; 5. analyzing the explanation of principals’ diverse leading styles to teachers’ attitudes toward profession development; 6. concluding the research results and offering suggestions to elementary school teachers, principals and any other individuals who pertain to education. The research was conducted by means of questionnaire survey for elementary school teachers who taught in six counties or cities of central Taiwan. The schools were picked by stratified random sampling, and the teachers were picked by judgment sampling. The target group of teachers was given “The Questionnaire on the Relationship between Elementary School Principals’ Different Leading Styles and Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Profession Development” to fill out. The content included evaluations of principals’ leading styles and of teachers’ attitudes toward profession development; the former contained three styles, such as the authoritarian-directive, the democratic-participative and the free-reign style. The latter otherwise contained four evaluations: curriculum and instruction, class management and student counseling, further education pursuing and professional attitudes. The questionnaire forming had been through documentary analysis, experts’ examination, the trial run and analyzing on the trial run statistically. After all this, the final-edition questionnaire was determined, and then it was given to teachers who taught in middle Taiwan. The recovery rate was 76% based on 957 out of 1254 subsamples, the valid rate was 92% after getting rid of invalid samples, and there were 883 subsamples remained. The data was analyzed by means of descriptive statistics, item analysis, factor analysis, ANOVA analysis, paired t test, correlation analysis, Pearson product-moment correlation analysis, stepwise multiple regression analysis and Scheffé method. The followings are conclusions based on the study results: 1.The leading styles adopted by elementary school principals are primarily democratic-participative, secondarily authoritarian-directive, and the least used one is free-reign style. 2.The present state of elementary school teachers: they put emphasis on curriculum instructing, class management, student counseling and professional attitudes. They less focus on further education pursuing. 3.Teachers of different genders, on different positions and from different scales of school sense that authoritative directing by school principals differs from other types of leading style. 4.Teachers of different genders, on different positions and from different educational backgrounds sense that democratic participating by school principals differs from other types of leading style. 5.Teachers of different genders, on different positions and from different scales of school sense that free-reign style adopted by school principals differs from other types of leading style. 6.Teachers of different genders, at different ages, with different seniorities, on different positions, from different educational backgrounds and from different places sense the differences among attitudes toward profession development. 7.There exists positive correlation between the principals’ leading style of democratic-participative and the teachers’ attitudes toward profession development. 8.There exists negative correlation between the principals’ leading style of authoritarian-directive and the free-reign style, and the teachers’ attitudes toward profession development. 9.The prediction, based on regression analysis, to principals’ different leading styles and to teachers’ attitudes toward profession development is that democratic-participative style showing positive predictability, whereas free-reign style showing negative predictability. In the end, the study offers advises and references to education administrators, elementary school principals, teachers and later researchers according to the research and conclusion.