國民中學校園安全指標之建構

本研究旨在建構國民中學校園安全指標，以供教育行政機關及國民中學學校之參考。研究方法部分，先以文獻探討方式歸納出國民中學校園安全指標共75 項，並以焦點團體訪談方式使指標之敘述更為具體明確，再以模糊德菲問卷進行指標篩選及確立，以篩選出29 項指標。接著以概念構圖法之多元度量法及集群分析法整合專家學對指標之分類以建構構面，並以模糊德菲術整合專家學者對指標重要性之看法，最後以歸一化方式求得各構面及各項指標之權重，完成國民中學校園安全指標系統。根據研究結果及分析，歸納主要結論及建議如下：一、結論 (一) 本研究確立國民中學校園安全指標，共六大構面二十九項指標。指標六大構面及權重如下：「校園設施及設備之安全」 (佔18.32%)、「工程及設施修繕之友善」(佔13.35%)、「事件通報及流程之訂定」(佔20.29%)、「門禁及交通安全之維護」(佔14.20%)、「學生相關情形輔導關注」(佔16.31%)及「安全宣導及措施之訂定」(佔17.43%)。 (二) 依據構面及指標權重評比分析，本研究之構面權重最高者為「事件通報及流程之訂定」，佔6 大構面之20.29%。另指標中以「1-3 逃生通道暢通且有安全指引設備」(3.94%)所佔權重最高，其次為「3-1 訂定學生意外事件SOP 處理流程」。(3.87%)及「6-1 規劃配置警衛及保全系統」(3.87%)。權重較低者為「5-3 學校能掌握學生在校園的生活情況」 (3.07%)及「2-1 完善設置安全便利之無障礙空間設施」 (3.08%)。二、建議 (一) 對教育行政機關之建議：本校園安全指標，主管機關可進一步應用於學校，以了解目前各校所面對之校園安全情形，以為未來訂定相關校園安全政策之參考。 (二) 對國民中學學校之建議：透過本研究指標的應用，以預防的概念協助國民中學行政主管於校園安全業務之執行，藉以早期發現，以減少校園安全事件的發生。 (三) 對未來研究方向之建議：研究指標可依學制建構且增加實際應用之情況以為回饋。 (四) 對未來研究方法之建議：研究方法可以層級分析(Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP)使指標權重更具信效度。

關鍵字

國民中學；校園安全；校園安全指標

並列摘要

The purpose of this research is to construct the system of Indicators of Campus Safety for Junior High Schools. As regard to the research methods, below approaches were adopted. Firstly, 75 indicators of campus safety for junior high school were concluded through literature review. Secondly, 29 indicators out of which were confirmed and filtered out through set of Fuzzy Delphi questionnaires. Thirdly, analysis methods were constructed through integration of high educational experts’ opinions via Multidimensional Scaling Method, Cluster Analysis and Fuzzy Delphi Method. Finally, the weights for each dimension and indicator were implied through Normalization Method and the development of indicators of campus safety for Junior High Schools is completed. Conclusions and suggestions are as below. 1. Conclusion (1) This study had concluded 29 indicators out of 6 major dimensions of campus safety for Junior High Schools. The 6 major dimensions and weights for the indicators are as below: "Safety of Campus Facilities and Equipment" (accounting for 18.32%), "Friendliness of Engineering and Facility Repairment" (accounting for 13.35%), "Incident Notification and Process Construction" (accounting for 20.29%) ), "Maintenance of Access Control and Traffic Safety" (accounting for 14.20%), "Coaching and Caring for Student-Related Affairs" (accounting for 16.31%) and "Promotion and Process Construction for Campus Safety" (accounting for 17.43%). (2) According to the analysis result of the 6 major dimensions and weights for their indicators, "Incident Notification and Process Construction" accounts for the highest weight which is 20.29%. Among the indicators of which, "1-3 Clear Escape Routes and Safety Guidance Equipment" accounted for the highest weight (3.94%); followed by "3-1 SOP for Student Accidents" (3.87%); and "6-1 Planning to Deployment of Security Guard and Security System" (3.87%); while "5-3 Ability for School to Keep Track of The Campus Life of Students " (3.07%) and "2-1 Improvement and Establishment of Safe and Convenient Barrier-free Space Facilities" (3.08%) accounts for the lowest weight. 2. Suggestion and Recommendation (1) For Educational Administrative Agencies: This campus safety indicator research could be further applied by the competent authority for schools to understand current campus safety situation and as a reference to construct relevant campus safety policies in the future. (2) For Junior High Schools: To assist the national high school administrators for the execution of campus safety affairs through adoption of the indicators under this research under the concept of prevention. So that schools can early detect the campus safety dangerous and reduce the occurrence of incidents. (3) For future research directions: The indicators can be further revised and constructed according to the actual educational system and to add feedbacks from actual application experience of this research. (4) For future research methods: Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP can be further adopted to assure the reliability and validity of the indicators.