從國際「安全學校」認證觀點，精進校園安全危機管理之研究─以臺北縣某科技大學為例

The study coming from accredited indicators of the “International Safe Schools, ISS”, research about improving the crisis management of campus security－case study for a university of science & technology in Taipei County.

周家榮(JIA-RONG JOU)

指導教授 ： 張雪梅

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/公民教育與活動領導學系在職進修碩士班/碩士(2009年)

摘要

本研究從國際「安全學校」認證觀點，精進校園安全危機管理之研究－以臺北縣某科技大學為例，以自編「精進校園安全危機管理研究調查問卷（學生及教職版）」及「精進校園安全危機管理研究訪談大綱」為研究工具，量化研究採立意抽樣，回收有效樣本教職員177 份、學生983份，調查問卷除個人基本資料外，包含校園安全氣氛知覺及國際「安全學校」認證指標與環境面向符合度兩部分；訪談大綱則以校園安全氣氛知覺現況改善、校園危機管理效能評估及對學校迎向國際「安全學校」認證之看法及應作努力為範圍，邀訪對象為校安業務一、二級主管計六人。綜合問卷調查及訪談結果，歸納結論如下
一、教職員生其校園安全氣氛知覺現況同意程度呈現「中高」情形，且向度分數排序相同，由高至低依次為安全態度、緊急應變、學校行動及個人險覺，且教職員給分均比學生為高。
二、教職員生其國際「安全學校」認證指標與環境面向，和校安現況符合度呈現「中高」及「中低」情形，且分數排序部分相同，社會環境、健康服務面向較高，而健康教育、社區與家庭面向較低，且教職員給分均比學生高。
三、學校不同個人背景變項之學生及教職員，對於校園安全氣氛知覺四向度及整體知覺有顯著差異之情形如下
（一）學生就讀不同學制、本學期不同居住狀況，在學校行動、緊急應變兩向度及整體知覺上有顯著差異；就讀不同院別，僅在安全態度向度知覺上有顯著差異；就讀不同部別、年級及入學迄今曾否擔任幹部，在四向度及整體知覺上有顯著差異。
（二）教職員不同職務，僅在安全態度向度知覺上有顯著差異；入校服務迄今曾否參與學務工作，僅在緊急應變向度知覺上有顯著差異；不同服務年資、入校服務迄今曾否參加安全教育訓練，在學校行動、緊急應變兩向度知覺上有顯著差異。
四、學校不同個人背景變項之學生及教職員，對於以國際「安全學校」認證指標與環境面向知覺校園安全，在七面向及整體符合度有顯著差異情形如下
（一）學生就讀不同學制，在物質環境、健康教育、體能活動／體育、健康服務四面向及整體符合度上有顯著差異；入學迄今曾否擔任幹部，在社會環境、物質環境、體能活動／體育、健康服務、危機反應、社區與家庭六面向及整體符合度上有顯著差異；就讀不同部別、不同年級，在七面向及與整體符合度上有顯著差異。
（二）教職員不同性別，僅在健康教育面向符合度上有顯著差異；擔任不同職務，在物質環境、體能活動／體育、危機反應、社區與家庭四面向及整體符合度上有顯著差異；教職員入校服務迄今，曾否參與學務行政工作，在物質環境、健康教育、體能活動／體育三面向及整體符合度上均有顯著差異；入校服務迄今，曾否參加安全教育訓練，在七面向及整體符合度上有顯著差異。
五、校安業務主管訪談摘要如下
（一）教育部應制定「校園安全法」，以保障師生安全。
（二）教育部應精進校園安全工作思維，推動國際「安全學校」認證。
（三）學校應模擬夜間停電應變計畫，強化應變處置能力及警覺性。
（四）學校應檢視組織運作情況，加強橫向協調聯繫，整合校園安全維護。
（五）學校應建立參與式的領導模式，擬定合適可行之校園安全管理方案。
（六）學校應研擬策略與方案，監控方案實施成果，經驗回饋預作準備。

關鍵字

危機管理 ； 校園安全 ； 國際「安全學校」

並列摘要

ABSTRACT
The research topic of this study comes from indicators of the “International Safe Schools, ISS”, research about improving the crisis management of campus security. The study sample is a university of science & technology in Taipei County, and uses two self-designed research instruments. One is a questionnaire given to the staff and the students, and the other is interview questions given to upper-level staff. For the survey, the available-cases include 177 from the staff, and 983 from the students. The questionnaire includes their perception of the campus safety climate and “ISS” indicators. The interview involves the improvement of perception of the campus safety climate, the evaluation of efficiency of campus crisis management, and the schools’ efforts regarding “ISS” indicators. The results of questionnaire are:
1. The staff and students’ perception of the campus safety climate shows “middle-high” agreement, and its four dimensions are ordered as follows: Safety Attitudes, Emergency Responses, School Actions, and Personal Perception of Danger. Furthermore, the staff gives higher scores than the students do.
2. Regarding the present campus safety environments, the views of the staff about the “ISS” indicators show “middle-high” agreement and the students show “middle-low” agreement. The Social Environment and Health Services reveal higher scores, and the Health Education as well as Community & Family show lower scores. Furthermore, the staff gives higher scores than the students do.
3. The perception of four dimensions and the overall campus safety climate of the students and the staff reveal significant differences, which result from personal backgrounds. The differences are:
(1) The different students’ educational programs and living situation for this semester reveal significant differences in the perception of two dimensions of School Actions and Emergency Responses and the overall safety climate. There are significant differences only in the perception of Safety Attitudes when the students study in different colleges. Studying different class times, grades and whether serving as class leaders reveal significant differences in the perception of four dimensions and the overall campus safety climate.
(2) The staff in different departments shows significant differences only in the perception of Safety Attitudes; whether taking part in student affairs shows significant differences only in he perception of Emergence Responses; different lengths of services and participating in safety educational training shows significant differences in the perception of School Actions and Emergency Responses.
4. The different backgrounds of the students and the staff show significant differences in the indicators of “ISS”, including the agreement of seven dimensions of environments and overall “ISS” indicators regarding the perception of campus safety climate. The results are:
(1) The students studying different educational programs show significant differences in the agreement of overall “ISS” indicators and four dimensions, including Physical Environment, Health Education, Physical Activity/Physical Education, and Health Services; whether serving as class leaders since entering university show significant differences in the agreement of overall “ISS” indicators and six dimensions, including Social Environment, Physical Environment, Physical Activity/Physical Education, Health Services, Crisis Response and Community & Family; studying in different class times and grades show significant differences in the agreement of seven dimensions and overall “ISS” indicators.
(2) The different gender of staff shows significant differences only in the dimension of Health Education; serving in different departments shows significant differences in the agreement of overall “ISS” indicators and four dimensions of Physical Environment, Physical Activity/Physical Education, Crisis Response, and Community & Family. Staff participation in student affairs shows significant differences in the agreement of three dimensions of Physical Environment, Health Education, and Physical Activity/Physical Education as well as overall “ISS” indicators; whether taking part in campus security educational training shows significant differences in the agreement of seven dimensions as well as overall “ISS” indicators.
5. The interview results of managers responsible for campus security include:
(1) The Ministry of Education should institute “The Campus Security ACT” to protect the safety of teachers and students.
(2) The Ministry of Education should develop better concepts about campus security, and promote the indicators of “ISS”.
(3) The schools should practice electrical power failure drills at night to strengthen the crisis response ability and alertness.
(4) The school should examine organizational efficiency, and intensify the lateral coordination to combine campus safety maintenance.
(5) The school should establish the participation model of leadership and set up the suitable and feasible management programs of campus security.
(6) The schools should develop strategies plans to monitor the campus security and provides experience feedback.

並列關鍵字

crisis management ； campus security ； International Safe Schools

參考文獻

彭孟國（2006）。校園危機管理—以桃園地區大專校院為例。元智大學管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，中壢市。

吳聰智、呂牧蓁、李金泉（2003）。我國大專院校實驗室等場所安全氣候之調查研究。弘光學報，42，113。

吳聰智（2001）。臺灣中部四類製造業安全氣候與安全績效之相關研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系博士論文，未出版，彰化市。

鄭美華（2003）。危機管理機制建立之研究。開南管理學院通識研究集刊，4，93-224。

王國川（ 1997）。從PRECEDE 模式中教育與行為診斷來探討青少年事故傷害發生之影響因素。師大學報，42，75-90。