建議

一、推展校長空間領導，並以「形塑空間願景」、「建構教育空間」、「融入課程教 學」為實施重點

二、校長空間領導應善用融入課程教學以促進教師組織承諾

三、校長空間領導應善用融入課程教學以提升學校效能

四、運用校長空間領導促進教師組織承諾提升學校效能

五、空間領導應強化使用者參與、學校效能應強化社區認同參與

35

參考文獻

吳清山（2008）。空間領導的展望──兼談臺北市教育政策發展。敎育研究，174，5-174。

吳清山、賴協志（2009）。知識領導: 理論與研究。臺北市：高等教育。

東教育大學社會科教育學系碩士班，屏東縣。

北較育大學教育政策與管理研究所，臺北市。

教育部（2007b）。空間無間學習無限教育部推動活化校園空間總體規劃方案。取自

文，國立政治大學教育行政與政策研究所，臺北市。

版碩士論文，國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士班，高雄市。

文，國立彰化師範大學教育研究所，彰化縣。

蔡錦杉（2010）。公立高中職校長轉換型領導、學校品牌形象與學校效能關係之研究。未出 版碩士論文，國立高雄大學高階經營管理碩士在職專班，高雄市。

鄭玉菁（2009）。高雄縣國中校長轉型領導、教師對組織變革接受度與學校競爭優勢關係之 研究。未出版碩士論文，高雄師範大學教育學系，高雄市。

鄭燕祥 (2006)。教育範式轉變：效能保證。臺北市：高等教育。

蕭勝文（2009）。臺北縣國民小學校長領導信任與教師組織承諾關係之研究。未出版碩士論 文，國立臺北教育大學教育經營與管理研究所，臺北市。

蕭輝勳（2009）。國民中小學校長知識領導與學校創新經營效能關係之研究。未出版碩士論 文，國立新竹教育大學人資處教育行政碩士專班，新竹市。

顏筱婷（2009）。高職校長服務領導、學校組織文化與領導效能之相關研究。未出版碩士論 文，國立彰化師範大學工業教育與技術學系，彰化縣。

羅彣玢（2008）。花蓮縣國民小學校長科技領導與教師教學效能關係之研究。未出版碩士論 文，國立花蓮教育大學教育行政與管理學系碩士班，花蓮縣。

蘇美娟（2009）。教師知覺國民中學校長魅力領導、學校組織氣氛與學校效能關係之研究─

以中部六縣市為例。未出版碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學教育研究所，彰化縣。

西文部分

Aydin, A.,Yilmaz, S.,& Sengül, U.(2011).The effect of gender on organizational commitment of teachers: A meta analytic analysis. Educational Sciences:Theory

& Practice, 11(2),628-632.

Bhuian, S. N., & Menguc, B. (2002). An extension and evaluation of job

characteristics, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in an expatriate, guest worker, sales setting. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,

XXII, 1, 1-11.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Coman, Drew Carson.(2010).Teacher commitment and burnout: Their effects on the fidelity of implementation of comprehensive treatment programs for preschool children with autism spectrum disorders. Open Access Theses. 67.

Retrieved from http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_theses/67

Creemers, B.P.M., Peters, T. & Reynolds, D. (Eds.) (1989). School Effectiveness

and School Improvement. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Cremmers,B.P.M. & Kyriakides,L. School factors explaining achievement on cognitive and affective outcomes: establishing a dynamic model of

42

educational effectiveness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,

54(3) , 263-294.

Dee, J. R., Henkin, A. B., & Singleton, C. A. (2006). Organizational commitment of teachers in urban schools examining the effects of team structures. Urban Education, 41(6), 603-627.

Earthman, G. I., Cash, C. S., & Berkum, D. V. (1995). A statewide study of student

achievement and behavior and school building condition. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 387878)

Ettlie,J.E.(2000).Managing technological innovation.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons.

Halpin, A.W., & Croft, D. B. (1962). The Organizational Climate of School.

Washington D.C.: U.S. Office of Education.

Hopkins, G. (1998). Hard hat area: The deteriorating state of school buildings.

Retrieved from http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin089.shtml Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational administration: Theroy, research

and practice.New Yourk:McGraw-Hill.

Hreiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of

Organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555-573.

Jarman, D.,Webb, L., & Chan, T. C. (2004). A beautiful school is a caring school.

Retrieved from

http://asbointl.org/asbo/files/ccPageContent/DOCFILENAME/000000007496/SB A_June_04_ul_School.pdf

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts

and practices (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Maccoby, E. & Maccoby, N. (1954). The Interview: A Tool of Social Science. In: G.

Lindzey (Ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Miller, G. K. (1991). A comparative analysis of the importance of middle school

building characteristics to teachers, principals, and architects. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 448572)

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth

Interviewing, Second Edition. South Melbourne: Longman.

Mumthas, N.S., & Blessytha, A.(2009, November). Teacher effectiveness of secondary school teachers with high tacit knowledge.Paper presented at the National Seminar on Perspectives in Teacher Education:Researches, Innovations and Practices, Kerala, India.

43

Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Mesa, P. (1985). School effectiveness: Checking progress and ssumptions and developing a role for state and federal government. Teachers

College Record, 86(4), 615-642.

Muijs, D. (2006). New directions for school effectiveness research: Towards school effectiveness without schools. Journal of Educational Change, 7. 141-160.

OECD (2005). Evaluating quality in educational facilities. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_35961311_35470674_1_1_1 _1,00.html

OECD (2006). PEB organising framework for evaluating quality in educational

facilities. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/57/37783219.doc

Potamites, L., Booker, K., Chaplin, D., & Isenberg, E. (2009). Measuring school and

teacher effectiveness in EPIC charter school consortium--Year 2. Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 507467)

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).Organization commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: a review. The Elementary

School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.

Reeves, J.B. (2010). Academic optimism and organizational climate: An elementary

school effectiveness test of two measures. ProQuest LLC, Ed.D. Dissertation,

The University of Alabama.

Reyes, P. (1990). What research has to say about commitment, performance and productivity. In P.Reyes (Ed.), Teachers and their workplace: commitment,

performance and productivity (pp.15-21), Newbury Park, California: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behave or and belief. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in

organizational behavior (pp. 1-54). Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Scheerens. J., & Creemers, B. P M. (1989). Conceptualizing school effectiveness.

International

Journal ofEducational Research, 13(7). 691-707.

Solinger,O.N.,Van Olffen, W.,Roe, R.A.(2008).Beyond the three component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1),70-83.

Tanner, C. K., & Lackney, J. A. (2006). Educational facilities planning: Leadership,

architecture, and management. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tapaninen, R. (2005). The Nordic cooperation network: The school of tomorrow.

Retrieved from http://www.aia.org/cae_confrep_spring05_nordic

44

The Association of Physical Plant Administrators (2008). Leadership in educational

facilities. Retrieved June 22, 2010, from http://www.appa.org/

Uline, C., Miller, D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). School effectiveness: The underlying dimensions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 462-483.

Uline, C., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). The walls speak: The interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement. Journal of Educational

Administration, 46(1), 55-73.

Verachtert, P., Van Damme, J., Onghena, P., & Ghesquiere, P. (2009). A seasonal perspective on school effectiveness: Evidence from a flemish longitudinal study in kindergarten and first grade. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,

20(2), 215-233.

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organization: A normative view. Academy of

Management Review, 7, 418-428.

Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E.（1991）. Job satisfaction and Organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.

Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Williams, M. (1997). Social Surveys: Design to Analysis. In: T. May (Ed.). Social Research Issues, Methods and Process. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Wilson, C. L. (2008). The impact of the educational facility on student achievement.

Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/cathywilson.pdf

Wolfe, M. (1986). Institutional settings and children’s lives: An historical ,

developmental and environmental perspective on educational facilities. Jerusalem,

Israel: The Edusystems 2000 International Congress on Educational Facilities, Values & Contents. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282339)

45

國科會補助計畫衍生研發成果推廣資料表

日期:2013/10/30

國科會補助計畫

計畫名稱: 國民小學校長空間領導、教師組織承諾與學校效能關係之研究 計畫主持人: 湯志民

計畫編號: 101-2410-H-004-131- 學門領域: 教育行政

無研發成果推廣資料

101 年度專題研究計畫研究成果彙整表

計畫主持人：湯志民 計畫編號：101-2410-H-004-131-

計畫名稱：國民小學校長空間領導、教師組織承諾與學校效能關係之研究

其他成果 (無法以量化表達之成 果如辦理學術活動、獲 得獎項、重要國際合 作、研究成果國際影響 力及其他協助產業技 術發展之具體效益事 項等，請以文字敘述填 列。)

無

成果項目 量化 名稱或內容性質簡述

測驗工具(含質性與量性) 0

課程/模組 0

電腦及網路系統或工具 0

教材 0

舉辦之活動/競賽 0

研討會/工作坊 0

電子報、網站 0

科 教 處 計 畫 加 填 項

目 計畫成果推廣之參與（閱聽）人數 0

國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告自評表

請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況、研究成果之學術或應用價 值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）、是否適 合在學術期刊發表或申請專利、主要發現或其他有關價值等，作一綜合評估。

1. 請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況作一綜合評估

■達成目標

□未達成目標（請說明，以 100 字為限）

□實驗失敗

□因故實驗中斷

□其他原因 說明：

2. 研究成果在學術期刊發表或申請專利等情形：

論文：□已發表 □未發表之文稿 ■撰寫中 □無 專利：□已獲得 □申請中 ■無

技轉：□已技轉 □洽談中 ■無 其他：（以 100 字為限）

3. 請依學術成就、技術創新、社會影響等方面，評估研究成果之學術或應用價 值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）（以 500 字為限）

本研究透過量化與質性研究發現國民小學校長肯定空間領導之價值，根據量化結果，校長 空間領導透過教師組織承諾的部分中介對學校效能有所影響，而校長空間領導對學校效能 亦有直接之影響效果；另外透過訪談發現透過空間領導可以凝聚共識，促進人和，建置優 質環境；空間領導運用環境較為具體會有立即性的效益，較為穩定，但可能需要較長時間。

因為校長空間領導為新興領導理論，探索空間仍相當大，故仍有持續研究之價值。

在文檔中 國民小學校長空間領導、教師組織承諾與學校效能關係之研究 (頁 45-59)