- 學位論文
大學院校教師性格特徵之探討
AN INVESTIGATION ON THE PERSONALITY TRAITS OF FACULTIES IN TAIWAN
摘要
大學院校教師的任務，在教學、研究及服務，一方面培育大學生的專業知識及心智成長，一方面創造知識、服務社會，在社會上呈現一個重要的族群。本研究旨在探討這個族群的性格特徵，其結果期以用為大學徵才及政府機構延聘專家的參考。同時大學則用以改善環境制度，提供適合這個族群發展及發揮其特質的場所，而使大學院校教師能提供社會更大的貢獻。 性格特徵自弗洛伊德倡導以來，一直是學者探討的重要問題。西方學者的研究，綜合成五大因素模型已為大家共同接受的觀念。近年來，香港中文大學張妙清等人，更以五大因素模型為基礎，加入中國人特有的特徵，並把它標準化後，發展出「跨文化（中國人）個性測量表」（CPAI-2）。本研究商得張妙清教授的同意，採用此量表對全台灣十三所學校，不分科系量測大學院校教師性格特徵。本研究中，共對大學院校教師發出160份問卷，回收125份，有效問卷119份，回收率78%，為作比較，以同樣問卷83份量測社會人士，回收率100%。用CPAI-2專屬計分程式刪除無效問卷及計算信度，並使用統計方法作平均數檢定，其結果用雷達圖、直方圖進行比較分析。 研究結果顯示，在二十八個性格特徵中，大學院校教師與社會人士在十七個性格特徵有顯著差異。差異的原因，與此兩族群人的教育水平、工作性質有密切關係。為了探討工作性質的影響，本研究與參考資料（蕭筱筠, 2003）的結果作比較，該研究使用相同的量表，但其對象是工程研發人員，比較結果顯示在三個面向有差異。由於此兩群人均屬高教育水平，他們的差異較能顯示工作性質即所謂的社會影響會造成性格特徵的差異。 本研究結果與由性格特徵理論推論出來的假設大部分均能符合，僅「容人度」這個性格特徵，大學院校教師的族群雖為高教育水平及較大年齡，但卻顯示較低的容人度，此點與推論不符，究其原因與他們所受的訓練與工作性質有很大的關係，可見這個族群是一個較特殊的族群。另外性格特徵裡之「人情」面向，α值低於0.5，顯示它不容易量測，但以大小比較，仍符合推論。
並列摘要
Via teaching, research and services, faculties of higher education forge their missions through cultivation of student’s professionals and maturity, and articulation of knowledge and social services; this presumes them with a unique feature. The present study aims to investigate those faculties’ personality traits so that the understanding could facilitate recruitments of talents by universities and government. Furthermore, it may improve the environment and regulation to support those talents’ development and self-fulfillment, and consequently optimize their contributions for the society. Personality trait is a topic received tremendous research attention since Freud and is reached with a popular model composed of five factors. Researchers M. Cheung et. al. at the Chinese University of Hong Kong lately develop a Cross-cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory-2 (CPAI-2) by adding an additional factor of Chinese characters to the previous model. With the permission of Cheung, the present study adopts the CPAI-2 to assess the personality traits of faculties of 13 universities in Taiwan. One hundred and sixty surveys are deployed for faculties and result in one hundred and twenty five returns. One hundred and nineteen are valid (78%). For comparison, eighty three surveys are deployed for layperson; all of the surveys are returned. With the dedicated analysis of CPAI-2, student-T tests are conducted. Radar diagram and histogram are utilized for comparisons. Analysis results show that of the twenty eight personality traits, there are seventeen traits which are significantly different between faculties and laypersons. The differences attribute to factors of education level and working types. For further investigation of the working type factor, we compare our results with 蕭筱筠(2003) where she adopts the same Inventory for R&D engineers. The comparison obtains an interesting finding that there exist three significantly different factors despite that faculties and R&D engineers are all high level educated and similar age. This difference in personality trait may attribute to social environment. Findings of the present study are mostly coinciding with previous ones excluding the “interpersonal tolerance” factor. Results show that faculties preserve lower tolerance than other laypersons, although faculties tend to be elder and bearing higher level of education. This finding is against our hypothesis. A possible explanation is that faculties are cultivated with special training and job characters which make them a unique group of people. Finally, the α value for the “relationship orientation” factor of the twenty eight personality traits is less than 0.5. This shows that the assessment for “relationship orientation” is difficult. Nevertheless, it remains coincidence of hypothesis.