連結學術與公共服務：影響大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程因素與教學取向之研究

The Scholarship of Engagement: A Research on Factors that Influence College Faculty Engaging in Service-Learning Courses and Their Teaching Approaches

邱筱琪(Hsiao-Chi Chiu)

指導教授 ： 黃玉

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/公民教育與活動領導學系/博士(2012年)

摘要

本研究旨在探究影響大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程因素及其教學取向，以增進我國大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程並提升各專業領域服務-學習教學。研究問題包括：（一）影響大學校院（一般大學、技職校院、宗教型大學校院）教師開設服務-學習課程之因素（個人因素、學校因素）與教學取向（教學哲學、教學設計）為何？「個人因素」、「學校因素」之相對重要性為何？「個人因素」與「學校因素」為什麼及如何影響教師開設服務-學習課程？（二）不同學校類型（一般大學、技職校院、宗教型大學校院）教師在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上差異為何？（三）不同專長領域教師（人文社會類、醫護教育及社會服務類、科技類）在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上差異為何？(四) 不同課程類別教師（校訂服務-學習必修共同課程、融入服務-學習內涵通識課程、融入服務-學習內涵專業課程）在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上差異為何？（五）不同專業領域教師之服務-學習課程教學具體內涵（課程理念與課程設計）為何？

為達研究目的，本研究採取質量並行的研究方法及設計。第一階段採用實證量化研究法，以瞭解影響我國大學教師開設服務-學習課程的因素及其教學取向。參考國內外相關文獻以自編之「大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向問卷」做為研究工具，問卷內容包括「開設服務-學習課程影響因素問卷」及「服務-學習教學哲學與教學設計量表」二部分。以表面、專家評定及因素分析等方式建立效度，以內部一致性建立信度。因缺乏全國開設服務-學習課程教師母群資料，故依學校類型、專長領域及課程類別採配額取樣選取研究對象，又因預試與正式施測問卷完全相同且來自不同學校，為使研究對象涵括更為廣泛，將預試研究對象納入於正式研究對象中，以「合併預試研究對象後正式研究對象」作為本研究之正式研究對象，共包括全國53所大學校院，發出問卷1728份，回收880份，剔除填答不全，實際有效為876份，問卷回收率為50.69％。以描述統計和單因子獨立樣本變異數分析進行資料分析。

第二階段採用質性研究法，從第一階段研究對象中，以立意取樣方式，選取「服務-學習教學哲學與教學設計量表」得分較高且來自不同學校類型、專長領域及課程類別之大學校院教師，共選取教育、營建管理、傳播及醫護學門四位研究參與者，依據半結構式訪談大綱進行訪談，除進一步瞭解各因素為什麼及如何影響教師開設服務-學習課程外，並瞭解不同專業領域教師其服務-學習教學具體內涵，找出不同專業領域之服務-學習教學取向。以三角檢正、參與者檢核、同儕審視、與研究參與者建立信任關係、選擇訪談地點和研究者自我角色與主觀意識省察建立信實度。

本研究之主要發現包括：
一、大學校院教師開設服務-學習課程受「學校因素」影響程度高於「個人因素」；開設課程大致符合服務-學習課程教學取向，但仍有改進空間：
（一）學校因素：
1.「專責單位和專責行政人員協助」、「教師認同服務-學習精神」及「學校重視學生實作或做中學理念」是影響教師開設服務-學習課程的重要學校因素，「學校類型」及「學校宗旨」不重要。
2.一般大學教師首重教學助理提供，且較受學校及科系鼓勵影響；技職校院教師較受學校將教學創新列入教師評鑑指標影響；宗教型大學校院教師則較受學校提供相關教材及教師培訓影響。
（二）個人因素：
1.「認同服務-學習理念」、「妨礙學術研究」、「學生安全考量」、「促進學生學習」、「具備服務-學習基本專業知能」為主要個人影響因素。
2.「經費」、「以往或現在志願服務經驗」、「性別角色」和「宗教信仰」非影響開課主因，與國外文獻不符，教師人格特質才是關鍵。
3.服務-學習妨礙學術研究，與服務-學習相關研究不具嚴謹學術認證、課程安排耗時且缺乏學術發表平台有關，但仍視領域關聯性而定。
4.技職校院教師受「具備服務-學習專業知能」影響程度高於「促進學生學習」；宗教型大學校院教師則較受「學生安全考量」因素影響；而一般大學教師受「宗教信仰」影響程度高於「性別角色」。
（三）教學哲學：
1.教學哲學大致符合批判教育式教學理念，但尚未達到轉化學習式教學理念所強調之付諸行動階段。
2.一般大學教師較認同「學生具有批判思考能力」；技職校院教師較認同「服務-學習能活化教學」；宗教型大學校院教師較認同「服務-學習課程能幫助社區發展」。
（四）課程設計：
1.課程設計符合準備、服務、反思及慶賀四階段，但應用大學生發展理論於服務-學習教學中仍有待強化。
2.一般大學教師最符合反思階段之「服務反思帶領」；技職校院教師最符合慶賀階段之「肯定學生服務成果及服務承諾」；宗教型大學校院教師最符合慶賀階段之「期末成果發表」。

二、不同學校類型教師在開設服務-學習課程影響因素上有顯著差異，但教學取向上則無顯著差異：
（一）技職校院、宗教型大學校院在「個人因素」與「學校因素」影響上，均顯著高於一般大學。
（二）不同學校類型在「教學哲學」與「教學設計」上，無顯著差異。

三、不同專長領域教師在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上有顯著差異：
（一）在「個人因素」影響上，醫護、教育及社會服務類顯著高於人文社會類，人文社會類顯著高於科技類；在「學校因素」影響上，醫護、教育及社會服務類顯著高於科技類。
（二）在「教學哲學」上，醫護、教育及社會服務類教師最傾向服務-學習教學取向、人文社會類教師次之、科技類教師最低；在「教學設計」上，醫護、教育及社會服務類教師，較科技類教師更傾向服務-學習教學取向。

四、不同課程類別教師在開設服務-學習課程影響因素與教學取向上有顯著差異：
（一）在「個人因素」影響上，融入服務-學習內涵通識課程、融入服務-學習內涵專業課程顯著高於校訂服務-學習必修共同課程；在「學校因素」影響上，融入服務-學習內涵專業課程顯著高於校訂服務-學習必修共同課程。
（二）在「教學哲學」與「教學設計」上，融入服務-學習內涵通識課程、融入服務-學習內涵專業課程，均較校訂服務-學習必修共同課程，更傾向服務-學習教學取向。

五、教育、營建管理、傳播及醫護學門教師開設之服務-學習課程在背景脈絡、課程理念、課程設計、困難與解決方式、學校行政單位角色上相似，但課程目標關注重點、與社區協同合作關係、經費需求上則各有不同。

依據研究結果，分從國家政策及執行方面、大學校院政策及執行方面、大學校院教師教學方面及後續研究方面提出相關建議。

關鍵字

大學校院教師 ； 服務-學習課程 ； 影響因素 ； 教學取向

並列摘要

The purpose of the study was to explore the factors that influence college faculty engaging in service-learning courses and their teaching approaches in order to promote faculty engaging in service-learning courses and progressing their teaching approaches. The research questions included:
1.What are influential factors (personal factors and institutional factors) and teaching approaches (teaching philosophy and curriculum design) of college faculty who engaging in service-learning courses? Which influential factor, personal or institutional factor, is more important than the other? Why and how these personal and institutional factors influence faculty to engage in service-learning courses?
2.Are influential factors and teaching approaches varied from different institutional types?
3.Are influential factors and teaching approaches varied from different academic disciplines?
4.Are influential factors and teaching approaches varied from different types of curriculum?
5.What are the contents and teaching approaches of academic service-learning courses on different academic disciplines?

By using a mixed method approach, first, the instrument of quantitative research, “Questionnaire on Influential Factors and Teaching Approaches of College Faculty Who Teaching Service-Learning Courses” (QIFTA), which included “Questionnaire on Influential Factors of College Faculty Who Teaching Service-Learning Courses” (QIF) and “Inventory on Teaching Approaches of College Faculty Who Teaching Service-Learning Courses” (ITA), was developed by the researcher to collect data. Face, content and construct validity were established by a panel of experts, a field test, a pilot study and formal study. The reliability of the instrument was determined by an internal measure of consistency from pilot and formal study. Since lack of the target population, quota sampling in terms of institutional types, academic disciplines and types of curriculum was used to select the sample. In addition, because of the instrument (QIFTA) which using in both pilot and formal study was the same, and the sample institutions from pilot and formal study were total different , the final quantitative sample was combined from both pilot and formal study in order to broaden the research findings. 1728 questionnaires were sent out to 53 universities and colleges, resulted in 876 valid samples (50.69％). Descriptive statistics and one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to analyze the quantitative data.

Second, by using purposive sampling, four college faculties who had higher score on ITA and varied from institutional types, academic disciplines and types of curriculum were selected as the qualitative participants. Semi-structured interview was used to understand why and how these institutional and personal factors influence them engaging in service-learning courses and their teaching approaches in depth. The trustworthiness was established by triangulation, member check, peer debriefing, developing trust relationship with participants, choosing where to interview, and self-reflectivity.

The major findings of this study are summarized as followings:
1.For college faculty who teaching service-learning courses, the impact of institutional factors is higher than the personal factors and their teaching approaches mostly comply with the service-learning approach but still need to be improved.
(1)”Institution provides with a centralized organization & staff to help the course running”, “Faculty agree with the sprite of service-learning”, and “Institution emphasizes the concept of learning by doing”, are the most important institutional factors. “Institutional types” and “Institutional mission” are less important.
(2)”Providing with teaching assistant” is the most important factor for university faculty, and they also tend to be impacted by the encouragement from institutional & academic department. Faculty in technological and vocational institutions is higher impacted by “Setting the innovation on teaching as an indicator for faculty evaluation”; and faculty in religious-affiliated institutions is higher impacted by “Providing faculty with teaching manual and training in service-learning”.
(3)For the impact of personal factors, “Agree with the service-learning concepts”, “Hinder academic research”, “Concern student safety”, “Foster student learning”, and “Possess service-learning competencies” are the most important influential factors.
(4)For the impact of personal factors, “Founding”, “Past or present volunteer experiences”, “Gender” and “Religion” are not important, which against the literature review; however, “Personality of faculty” is the key.
(5)Since lack of the professional journal publishes in service-learning and course preparation of service-learning is time intensive in Taiwan, faculty engaging in service-learning hinders their academic research, but is varied from different academic disciplines.
(6)For the impact of personal factors, Faulty of technological and vocational institutions is impacted higher by “Possess service-learning competencies” than “Foster student learning”; faculty in religious-affiliated institutions is impacted highly by “Concern student safety”; and University faulty is impacted higher by “Religion” than “Gender”.
(7)The teaching philosophy of college faculty in service-learning courses complies mostly with the concepts of critical pedagogy, but hasn’t gotten to the commitment action in transformative learning perspectives yet.
(8)University faulty highly agrees with “Students have the competency in critical thinking”; faulty in technological and vocational institutions highly agrees with “Service-learning can activate teaching”; faculty in religious-affiliated institutions highly agrees with “Service-learning can help community development”.
(9)The curriculum design of college faculty in service-learning courses complies mostly with the four stages of preparation, service, reflection and celebration; however, they need to strengthen the ability to apply the college student development theories to the service-learning teaching.
(10)For the curriculum design, University faulty complies mostly with the “Reflection practice” in the stage of reflection; faulty in technological and vocational institutions complies mostly with the “Recognize student learning outcomes and the commitment in service” in the stage of celebration; faculty in religious-affiliated institutions complies mostly with the “Learning outcome presentation at the end of semester” in the stage of celebration.

2.There are significant differences in the influential factors based upon institutional types, but no significant differences in teaching approaches.
(1)For the impact of personal factors and institutional factors, faulty in technological and vocational institutions and faculty in religious-affiliated institutions are significantly higher than university faulty.
(2)For the tending to service-learning teaching philosophy and curriculum design, there is no significant difference based upon institutional types.

3.There are significant differences in the influential factors and teaching approaches based upon academic disciplines.
(1)For the impact of personal factors, faulty in medical, nursing, education and social service fields is significantly higher than faulty in humanities and social sciences, meanwhile, faulty in humanities and social sciences is significantly higher than faulty in science and technology. For the impact of institutional factors, faulty in medical, nursing, education and social service fields is significantly higher than faulty in science and technology.
(2)For the tending to service-learning teaching philosophy, faulty in medical, nursing, education and social service fields scores significantly higher than faulty in humanities and social sciences, and faulty in science and technology scores the lowest. For the tending to service-learning curriculum design, faulty in medical, nursing, education and social service fields scores significantly higher than faulty in science and technology.

4.There are significant differences in the influential factors and teaching approaches based upon types of curriculum.
(1)For the impact of personal factors, service-learning embedded in general education courses and service-learning embedded in academic courses are significantly higher than service-learning embedded in obligatory courses. For the impact of institutional factors, service-learning embedded in academic courses is significantly higher than service-learning embedded in obligatory courses.
(2)For the tending to service-learning teaching philosophy and curriculum design, service-learning embedded in general education courses and service-learning embedded in academic courses score significantly higher than service-learning embedded in obligatory courses.

5.The teaching approaches of four different academic service-learning courses are similar in teachers’ personality & past service experiences, course philosophy, course design, course difficulties & solutions, and institutional supports; however, their course focus, partnership with community, and founding requirements are quite different.

Based on the findings, recommendations for policy, practice and further research are presented.

並列關鍵字

college faculty ； service-learning courses ； influential factors ； teaching approaches

參考文獻

林昱貞（2002）。批判教育學在臺灣：發展與困境。教育研究集刊，48（4），1-25。

陳曼玲（2011）。103年起技專校院評鑑改採認可制－－專訪教育部技職司長李彥儀。評鑑，30，1-3。

林佩縈（2008）。重新感受自己的心，從心看見對方的新—研究生參與服務學習課程之多元文化觀點轉換歷程（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

楊昌裕（2002）。以服務學習的理念推展志願服務。學生事務理論與實務，41（1），43-54。

梁碧明、謝靜如（2008）。大學社區服務課程價值的實踐－服務提供者與接受者觀點之探究。東臺灣特殊教育學報，10，頁185-202。