資優教育教師專業認定類型及其相關因素之探討

Gifted Education Teachers’ Professional Identity Styles and Related Factors

張芝萱

指導教授 ： 吳武典教授

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/特殊教育學系/博士(2011年)

摘要

教師專業認定的探究，多源於對教師主體與教師世界等現象理解的興趣，並期望能對教師專業相關議題獲得見識。爰此，本研究以國民小學資優教育教師為研究對象，進行教師專業認定類型及其相關因素之探究。具體而言，本研究的目的有三：
一、探討國小資優教育教師專業認定之相關因素。
二、了解國小資優教育教師專業認定相關因素彼此的關係。
三、探究國小資優教育教師專業認定之類型。

根據研究目的，本研究採用解釋式混合方法設計，先運用問卷調查量化資料分析現況，再透過個案訪談，蒐集教師回溯的經驗敘事資料，以解釋或擴展量化分析的結果。

在量化分析階段，本研究運用自編之「資優教育教師之專業認定」問卷及吳武典、張芝萱(2010)「資優教育師資專業標準」之實務調查問卷，以分層隨機叢集取樣方式，從臺灣北、中、南、東四區八個縣市設有資優班的學校蒐集260位資優教育教師資料，以了解教師專業認定之現況，分析相關因素的關聯，進而探索與驗證資優教育教師專業認定可能的社會心理結構。繼之，依問卷調查的結果，邀請13位不同代表性的教師參與訪談，透過教師的經驗敘事，了解國小資優教育教師對專業自我與工作處境的覺知與詮釋，探討相關因素對其專業認定可能的影響。

根據上述兩階段的研究設計，獲得以下結論：
一、國小資優教育教師專業認定之相關因素可從六層面分析之：內在標準、外在結構、認定突顯、認定落差、社會認定機制與認定困境等。

二、上述層面下包含的因素有：「內在標準重要性」、「內在標準具備程度」、「內在落差」(前兩者的差距)；「外在結構重要性」、「外在結構影響程度」、「外在落差」(前兩者的差距)；「認定突顯程度」；「社會分類」、「社會比較」、「積極區分」(同屬社會認定機制)；「缺乏正向回饋」、「不被了解或被忽略」、「維持其他的認定」、「外在價值期望」(同屬認定困境)。

三、不同認定狀態的教師(定向成功、尋求認定、依順認定、認定迷失)在「內在標準重要性」、「內在標準具備程度」、「內在落差」、「外在結構影響程度」、「認定突顯程度」、「社會比較」、「積極區分」、「缺乏正向回饋」、「維持其他的認定」、「外在價值期望」等十個因素上有明顯的差異。在「外在結構重要性」、「外在落差」、「社會分類」與「不被了解或被忽略」四個因素上，彼此的差異不顯著。

四、透過區別分析發現，以上述因素為預測變項，區分為三組的區別函數求得的線性組合分數能有效的將教師的專業認定狀態進行分組，其中「內在標準具備程度」、「缺乏正向回饋」、「認定突顯」、「社會比較」、「維持其他認定」與「外在價值期望」有較大的結構係數。

五、透過階層迴歸分析發現，「認定突顯」、「認定落差」對教師專業認定的預測效果會受到「社會認定機制」與「認定困境」的中介影響。

六、透過結構方程模式驗證發現，資優教育教師專業認定狀態與認定突顯、認定落差、社會認定機制及認定困境等潛在變項的關聯，主要有以下四條路徑：(1)認定突顯經社會認定機制至認定狀態的間接效果，其效果僅次於第二條路徑;(2)認定突顯經認定困境至認定狀態的間接效果，其效果值最大;(3)內在落差經認定困境至認定狀態的間接效果;(4)內在落差對認定狀態的直接效果，其效果與前者相當。外在落差在本研究模式中的關聯效果不顯著。

七、從本研究的結構模式中獲知，有助於教師專業認定狀態朝定向成功發展的有利因素為認定突顯與社會認定機制。教師除了自身對資優教育專業充滿熱情與承諾 (認定突顯) 外，也需適度的將自身專業的區別性展露出來，以獲得社會認定。而教師專業認定的危險因子為認定困境，內在落差越高則認定困境也越高。

八、本研究根據量化分析與質性訪談的發現，綜合闡述國小資優教育教師專業認定類型及其相關因素，並提出國小資優教育教師專業認定發展軌跡之概念圖，以解釋不同的教師專業認定狀態可能的發展軌跡與其間互動之相關因素。

最後，依研究結果對國小資優教育教師之專業發展提出六項建議，並對未來研究提出六項建議。

關鍵字

教師專業認定 ； 認定落差 ； 認定突顯 ； 社會認定 ； 認定困境 ； 認定狀態

並列摘要

The study on teachers’ professional identity mainly comes from the interest in comprehension of teachers as subjects and teachers’ world, and expectation to obtain perspectives of relevant teachers’ profession issues. Therefore, the purposes of the study were to explore gifted education teachers’ professional identity styles and their related factors. Three issues were explored in this study: (1) related factors of the professional identity of gifted education teachers; (2) relationships between the related factors of the professional identity of gifted education teachers and (3) professional identity styles of gifted education teachers. The target subjects were gifted education teachers in elementary schools. The mixed research methods of was adopted for explanation. The Questionnaire survey was used to collect quantitative data and in-depth interview method was adopted to gather teachers’ retrospective narrative data in order to explain and expand the quantitative analysis.

For quantitative analysis, the stratified random cluster sampling method was used to collect the data related to the current situations of teachers’ professional identity. The self-developed questionnaire, “Gifted Education Teachers’ Professional Identity”, and the “Gifted Education Teachers’ Professional Standards Questionnaire” developed by Wu & Chang (2010) were administered to the subjects, 260 gifted education teachers from eight counties around Taiwan were available at the end. In addition, 13 teachers representing different perspectives were interviewed. The correlation of related factors was analyzed and the possible social-psychological structure of gifted education teachers’ professional identity was explored and identified, the teachers’ perception and interpretation toward one’s profession and work situation were narrative analyzed, and the possible influence of those related factors on the professional identity was explored.

The major findings were as the following:
1.The related factors of gifted education teachers’ professional identity can be analyzed in six categories: Inner identity standards, external structure, identity salience, identity discrepancy, social identity mechanism, and identity dilemma.

2. The above categories included the following factors: the importance of inner identity standards, the capacity of inner identity standards, the inner identity discrepancy (the difference between the two previous factors); the importance of external structure, the influence of external structure, the external identity discrepancy (the difference between the two previous factors); identity salience, social categorization, social comparison, positive distinctiveness (these three factors belong to social identity mechanism); the lack of positive feedback, not being understood or being neglected, the maintenance of other identities, and the external value expectation (these four factors belong to identity dilemma).

3. Teachers in different identity status (identity achievement, identity moratorium, identity foreclosure, identity diffusion) had significant differences on the following ten factors: the importance of inner identity standards, the capacity of inner identity standard, the inner identity discrepancy, the influence of external structure, identity salience, social comparison, positive distinctiveness, the lack of positive feedback, the maintenance of other identity, and the external value expectation. There were no significant differences among the four factors, external structure importance, external identity discrepancy, social categorization, and not being understood or being neglected.

4. Using discriminate analysis and involving the previous factors as predictors and divided them into three discriminate functions, the linear combination can categorize teachers’ professional identity status effectively. Among all the factors, the capacity of inner standard, the lack of positive feedback, identity salience, social comparison, maintaining other identity and external value expectation, had higher structure coefficient.

5. Using hierarchical regression analysis, it showed that the social identity mechanism and identity dilemma had mediating effects on the prediction of identity salience and identity discrepancy toward teachers’ professional identity.

6. Based on the structural equation model, it was confirmed that there were four main paths describing relationships between these latent variables: (1) Identity salience  social identity mechanism  identity status. Its indirect effect was only less than the second path; (2) Identity salience  identity dilemma  identity status. Its indirect effect had the biggest effect size; (3) Inner identity discrepancy  identity dilemma identity status. (4) The direct effect of inner identity discrepancy on identity status is the same as the indirect effect of (3). The correlation of external identity discrepancy was not significant, though.

7.Based on the structural model of the study, the beneficial factors assisting teachers’ identity status toward identity achievement were identity salience and social identity mechanism. In addition to teachers’ enthusiasm in and commitment to gifted education (identity salience), there was a need of presenting their distinct professional expertise in order to obtain social identification. The risk factor of teachers’ professional identity was identity dilemma. The more the inner identity discrepancy was, the greater the identity dilemma was raised.

8. Based on the findings derived from the quantitative analysis and qualitative interviews, this study comprehensively illustrated the gifted education teachers’ professional identity styles and its related factors, and provided a concept map of gifted education teachers’ professional identity developmental trajectory to explain the possible developmental trajectory of different teachers’ professional identity status and the interrelated factors.

Finally, based on the research findings, suggestions regarding gifted education teachers’ professional development and further studies are proposed.

並列關鍵字

teachers’ professional identity ； identity discrepancy ； identity salience ； social identity ； identity dilemma ； identity status

參考文獻

王琡棻(2004)：臺北市、高雄市國小資優教育教師專業能力、工作壓力、因應策略與職業倦怠之相關研究。國立屏東教育大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東市。

吳武典、張芝萱(2010) ：資優教育師資專業標準之建構。資優教育研究，9(2)，103-143。

李茂能(2008)：SEM 適配度指標的潛藏問題：最佳模式難求。測驗統計年刊，16，17-30。

周鳳美、宋佩芬(2005)：實習教師建構教師專業認同之研究。新竹師院學報，20，1-26。

高格孚(2004)：風和日暖─外省人與國家認同轉變。臺北：允晨文化。