高中生活科技教師教法取向、教學領導和自我效能感關係之研究

全文

(1)

(2)

(3) 1984. Honey. 2013. 30.

(4) 340 420. 313. 74.5%) (1) ，. (2) (3) (4) ，. (5). 、. (.

(5) A Study of the Relationships among Senior-high-school Technology Teacher’s teaching approach, Instructional Leadership and Self-efficacy Author: Rong-Ren Yang Adviser: Lung-Sheng Lee Abstract The purpose of this study was to realize the relationships among seniorhigh-school technology teacher’s teaching approach, instructional leadership and self-efficacy. Questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from 420 teachers who teach the subject “Living Technology” in 340 senior high schools in Taiwan. There were 74.5% valid questionnaires returned. Descriptive statistical analysis, structural equation modeling (SEM) etc. were employed to analyze the data collected. Consequently, the following conclusions regarding senior-high-school technology teachers are made: (1) Regardless of student-centered or teacher-centered approach, the higher teacher’s commitment, the better teacher’s instructional leadership is. (2) Regardless of student-centered or teacher-centered approach, the higher teacher’s commitment, the higher teacher’s self-efficacy is. (3) The better teacher’s instructional leadership, the higher teacher’s self-efficacy is. (4) The two relationship models, connecting student-centered or teacher-centered teaching approach, instructional leadership and self-efficacy, can be used to identify the means and end to promote teacher’s self-efficacy. (5) In order to enhance his/her self-efficacy, a teacher should be good at teaching and leadership. Keywords: senior high school, technology education, teaching approach, instructional leadership, self-efficacy.

(6) 逑逑. 逑. Abstract .............................................................................................................................I ...........................................................................................................................III ............................................................................................................................V ..............................................................................................................- 1 ..................................................................................- 1 ..........................................................................- 7 ..............................................................................................- 8 ............................................................................... - 11 逑. ................................................................................................... - 15 ............................................... - 15 ................................................- 25 ........................................... - 38 -. 逑. ............................................................................................... - 49 ............................................................................... - 49 ............................................................................................- 55 ........................................................................................... - 56 ........................................................................................... - 58 ........................................................................................... - 63 ........................................................................................... - 66 ............................................................................................... - 69 ........................................................................................... - 69 ................................... - 77 ............................................................... - 79 I.

(7) - 95 ........................................................................................... - 98 ......................................................................... - 103 ......................................................................................... - 103 ................................................................................................. - 106 ................................................................................................. - 110 ............................................................................................................... - 114 ................................................................................................................... - 130 ........................... - 130 逑逑. ............................................................................................... - 134 -. II.

(8) 2-1. ........................................................ - 18 -. 2-2. ................................................................ - 41 -. 2-3. ................................................................ - 43 -. 3-1逑. - 60. 3-2. ........................................ - 60 -. 3-3. .............................................................- 62 -. 4-1. N= 313. ......................................- 70 -. 4-2. .....................................................................- 72 -. 4-3. .........................................................................- 74 -. 4-4. ........................................................ - 75 -. 4-5. .............................- 76 -. 4-6. (SEM). ............................- 76 -. 4-7. CR. .......................................................... - 77 -. 4-8. .................................................- 78 -. 4-9. .................................................................................... - 81 -. 4-10a. 1. .................... - 83 -. 4-10b. 1. .................... - 83 -. 4-11a. 2. .................... - 84 -. 4-11b. 2. .................... - 85 -. 4-12a. 3. .................... - 86 -. 4-12b. 3. .....................- 87 -. 4-13a. 4. .................... - 89 -. 4-13b. 4. .................... - 90 -. 4-14a. - 91 -. 4-14b. - 91 -. III.

(9) 4-15a. ............................................ - 93 -. 4-15b. ............................................ - 94 -. 4-16a. .................................................- 97 -. 4-16b. .................................................- 97 -. IV.

(10) 2-1. ............................................................ - 18 -. 2-2. ........................................................ - 19 -. 2-3. Snyder. 1983. ........................................... - 29 -. 3-1a. ...................................................... - 49 -. 3-1b. ...................................................... - 50 -. 3-2. .......................................................... - 63 -. 4-1a. .......................................................... - 80 -. 4-1b. .......................................................... - 80 -. 4-2a. 1 ............................................................... - 83 -. 4-2b. 1 ............................................................... - 84 -. 4-3a. 2 ............................................................... - 85 -. 4-3b. 2 ............................................................... - 86 -. 4-4a. 3 ................................................................- 87 -. 4-4b. 3 ............................................................... - 88 -. 4-5a. .............................. - 89 -. 4-5b. .............................. - 90 -. 4-6a. .......................................................... - 93 -. 4-6b. .......................................................... - 94 -. V.

(11) -0-.

(12) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD. 2012. Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives 2013. (Jones & Moreland, 2004). YouTube. -1-.

(13) 1999. Zollman, 2012. -2-.

(14) YouTuBe M樫T. (Cuban, 2001; Sandholtz, Rinstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). Chen, Brown, Hattie, & Millward, 2012; Meyer, 2005 99. -3-.

(15) technology. 2005. 102. 7. 10. 2001 2011. 1996. 2002. 2007 Bayraktar, 2011; Evans,. 2011; Smith & Southerland, 2007. 2006. empowerment. -4-.

(16) 1999 Daugherty, 2009. 2008. Martin. Ritz(2012). 99. -5-.

(17) -6-.

(18) -7-.

(19) teaching approach. YouTube MIT. ( Biggs, 1999; Cuban, 2001; Sandholtz, Rinstaff, & Dwyer, 1997; Trigwell, 2002) Prosser, Martin, Trigwell, & Ramsden; 2005 teaching approach student approach Trigwell. Prosser. teacher approach. 2004. Approaches to Teaching Inventory, ATI. 逑 instructional leadership postmodern-school. -8-.

(20) Harris, 2003 (. 2003窳. Barth. 2001. All teachers can lead. transforming the organisation. supporting actions. modelling the way. Sandbakken. 2004. Leadership Practices Inventory, LPI). self-efficacy MBA. (self-efficacy) Bandura. Bandura(1977) (reciprocal determinism). -9-.

(21) mastery experience arousal persuasion. emotional/physiological. vicarious experience Kieffer. Henson. Self-efficacy Inventory, SI. - 10 -. social verbal 2000.

(22) 99. - 11 -.

(23) 2012. ( 99. - 12 -. ).

(24) ，. ：. ，。. - 13 -.

(25) - 14 -.

(26) 逑. 逑. Prosser & Trigwell, 2006 technology 2005 (technological literacy). Trigwell & Prosser, 1997. - 15 -.

(27) Lueddeke, 2003. Petrina, 2006 ( Biggs, 1999; Cuban, 2001; Sandholtz, Rinstaff, & Dwyer, 1997; Trigwell, 2002) Prosser, Martin, Trigwell, & Ramsden ; 2005. 2008. Ramsden, 1992 Shulman, 2004. - 16 -.

(28) Healey, 2000,2003; Kreber, 2001; Shulman, 2004 Martin. Benjamin 饋-1，. Trigwell Prosser. 2000. (1窳. (饋窳逑(3窳. -. 4. -. 逑. - 17 -.

(29) 2-1 逑. 逑逑. 逑. 逑逑. 逑. 逑. 逑逑逑. 逑逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑逑. 逑. 逑逑. Trigwell, Martin, Benjamin, & Prosser, 2000.. 饋-1. 饋-饋. Eggen & Kauchak, 1997. 逑. 逑逑. 逑. 逑. 2-1 Eggen & Kauchak, 1997.. - 18 -. 逑.

(30) 逑逑逑. 逑逑逑. 逑逑. 逑. 逑逑. 逑. 2-2 Eggen & Kauchak, 1997.. 逑 Eggen. Kauchak 1997. (Lombaerts, Engels, & van Braak, 2009). (Hilden & Pressley, 2007). Chen. - 19 -. (2012). 逑.

(31) hands on. doing 2009. Wicklein. Wicklein, 1997. 1997. Healey, 2000 , 2003; Kreber, 2001; Shulman, 2004. Chen. (2012). (Ozyurt, Ozyurt, Baki, 2013; Ozyurt, Ozyurt, Baki, & Guven,2013) Avalos, 2011; Opfer, Pedder, & Lavicza, 2011. Lau (2013). - 20 -.

(32) Eggen & Kauchak, 1997. Sfard 1998 Molenda (1991). - 21 -. Cuban(1993).

(33) Trigwell Prosse (2004). Pratt (1998). 24. 1999 Approaches to Teaching Inventory;. ATI 8. 10. 656. Chen. 0.73. (2012). Trigwell. Prosser. ATI /. - 22 -. 2004. 16.

(34) Avalos, 2011. Lombaerts. Engels van Braak(2009) Lau (2013). Trigwell & Prosser, 2004. 80 (moderate level). Bindak, 2011; Soyturk, 2011 Ozgen, 2013. 2012. 2013. - 23 -. Ozgen ,2013; Ozgen &.

(35) Trigwell Prosse (2004) ATI. 8. 16. 10. 656. 0.73 逑. - 24 -.

(36) 1994. 1. 9. 21. 2. 3. 4 1995. 95. 2006. 95 POWER 99. 2010. - 25 -.

(37) 2007. Danielson, 2007;. York-Barr & Duke, 2004. Barth, 2001. DeBevoise, 1984. Fullan, Hill, &Cr’evola, 2006. 2000. 2003 2010. 2000a 2007. 2010. 2004. Anderson, 2004; Barth, 2001; Blasé &. Blasé, 2004; Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002; Danielson, 2007; Donaldson, 2001; Frost & Durrant, 2003; Fullan, Hill, & Cr’evola, 2006; Gunter, 2003; Harris, 2003; Leithwood, 2003; Murphy, 1988; York-Barr & Duke, 2004. 逑. - 26 -.

(38) 2005 1960 1986. 2001 2011 2007. 2002 1999. 2002. Federici. 2001 1997. 2006 1998. 2001. Skaalvik (2012). master teacher. 1818. Zheng, 1996. - 27 -.

(39) 99. Pantelides, 1991 Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2003 1 3. 2. 4. 6. 5 2002. Snyder 1983. 2-3. ，. (planning). (developing). (clinical supervision). - 28 -.

(40) (staff development) (assessing) (school effectiveness). (planning) (developing). (assessing). (Assessing) (Developing) *. * *. (Planning) *. *. * --. *. --. * 2-3. *. Snyder 1983. Murphy. 1990 1 2. - 29 -.

(41) 3 4. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2007. Bayraktar, 2011; Smith & Southerland, 2007; York-Barr & Duke, 2004. McEwan. 1998. 7 2. 1 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. York-Barr Duke 2004. teacher leadership. 2007. Kouzes Posner (2002). 1.. (inspiring a shared vision窳逑逑. 饋.. (challenging the process窳逑逑. 3.. (modeling the way窳逑逑. 4.. (encouraging the heart窳逑. - 30 -. 5.

(42) 5.. (enabling others to act窳. 逑. 806. Fernet,. Guay, Senécal, & Austin, 2012. Kouzes 1985. Posner. (Leadership Practice Inventory. LPI) 6. 30. (Sandbakken, 2004) Sandbakken(2004). Kouzes. Posner (2002). LPI. transforming the organization supporting actions 8. modeling the ways. 24. (Cementina-Olpoc, 2012; Hechanova, 2012) (Hechanova, 2012) Hechanova. Cementina-Olpoc (2013). - 31 -.

(43) 2003. 10 17. 10. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. - 32 -.

(44) 10. 2004 92. 1 (. ). 2 3 4. 5. 2009 1. 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8. 2010. - 33 -. 34.

(45) 1 2. 3 4 5. 6 7. 8. 2010. 98. 1 2. 3 4 5. - 34 -.

(46) teacher leadership Danielson, 2007; Frost & Durrant, 2003; Fullan, Hill, & Cr’evola, 2006; Harris, 2003; York-Barr & Duke, 2004. 95. 2006. - 35 -.

(47) Gorham, Newberry, & Bickart, 2003. Daugherty, 2009. Zollman, 2012. 99. - 36 -.

(48) Sandbakken 2004 (Leadership Practices Inventory, LPI) 逑. - 37 -.

(49) Bandura. 1977. Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993. Federici. Skaalvik (2012). 2006. 1992. 1999. 2005 2005. - 38 -.

(50) technology 2005 (technological literacy). Wicklein 1997. 1992. 1993 1999. Gibson. Dembo. - 39 -.

(51) 2010. 1999. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1998. 5. 6. 逑 Peters-Burton. McHaney. Impey. Hiller (2013窳逑. 1992. clinical supervision. model (1) (4). (2). (3). (5) (7). (6) 7 Tang 1994 (1). (2). (3). (4). Borich 1994. - 40 -.

(52) ： 1. Borich 饋. 3. 4. 5. Borich. 逑. 1999. Hansen 1993. UWO The University 饋-饋. of Western Ontario ，. 1. what -. 饋. -. 3. 逑逑逑 2-2 1.. 饋.. 3.. what 逑 1 饋 3 4 how 逑 1 饋 3 4 why 逑 1 饋 3 4 Hansen, 1993.. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑 - 41 -. how why. 逑.

(53) Raudebaugh 2000 1 3. 饋. 4. 5. 5 饋005. (competence). (curriculum)、. (instruction). (assessment)CCIA. 逑 (Industrial Technology Education Association, ITEA). 2003. AETL. Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy:Student. Assessment,Professional Development,and Program Standards. 7 AETL 7 逑 1. 逑. 饋 3. 逑逑. 4. STL (Standards for 逑. Technological Literacy) 5. 逑. 6. 逑. 7. 逑. 逑. - 42 -.

(54) Shulman (1986, 1987). (pedagogical content knowledge. PCK. 逑 Williams逑逑Gumbo 饋011. PCK PCK. 1. 饋. 4. 5. 逑. Moreland 饋004. Jones. Jones 饋-3. 3. PCK. Moreland. 逑. 2-3 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 逑. 逑逑. 逑逑. 逑. 逑 Jones & Moreland, 2004.. 逑逑逑 - 43 -. 逑逑. 逑.

(55) 逑逑逑. Gibson逑. Dembo. 1984. 逑 1991 (1窳. (饋窳. (3窳. (4窳 (5窳. (6窳逑. 199饋逑 199饋. - 44 -.

(56) 逑 1994 (1窳 (3窳. (4窳. (饋窳. 逑. 1997 (1窳. (饋窳. (3窳. (4窳. 逑. 1997 (1窳. (饋窳. (3窳. (4窳. (5窳. (6窳. 逑 1998 (1窳 (3窳. (饋窳. (4窳. (5窳. 逑饋00饋. (1窳 (4窳 (1窳. (饋窳. (3窳. (5窳 (饋窳. (3窳. 逑. 饋009 (1窳. (饋窳 (5窳. (3窳. (4窳. (3窳. (4窳. 逑. 饋01饋 (1窳. (饋窳 (5窳. (6窳. - 45 -. 逑.

(57) Rand. Bandura(1977窳 teacher efficacy scale. (personal teaching efficacy;. TES. 逑(general teaching efficacy; 18. PTE窳. GTE窳. 36. Rand Bandura(1997窳. mastery experience. vicarious experience arousal. emotional/physiological social verbal persuasion Tschannen-Moran. (1998窳. Woolfolk 35. Rand. Bandura(1997) (2000). Kieffer. Tschannen-Moran. Woolfolk. 33. Roy. Henson. Roy (1998)逑 Self-efficacy Inventory(. SI. 逑. 逑. - 46 -.

(58) 1999 Shulman (1986, 1987) Williams Gumbo. 2011. PCK PCK. 1. 饋. 3. 5. 逑. 饋009. hands on. doing 饋009. 逑. - 47 -. 4.

(59) Bandura(1997). Kieffer. Henson (2000). SI 逑. 逑. - 48 -.

(60) 逑. 逑. 3-1a. 3-1b. H1a. 逑. 逑 H5a逑. H2a. 1. 饋. 3.. 逑逑逑. H4a 3-1a. - 49 -. H3a. 逑 1. 饋. 3. 4.. 逑逑逑逑.

(61) 逑. 逑. H1b H5b逑 H2b. 1. 饋. 3.. 逑逑逑. H3b. 逑 1. 饋. 3. 4.. 逑逑逑逑. H4b 3-1b. 逑. 逑 99. - 50 -.

(62) 逑. 1 H1. 逑. H1a H1b. - 51 -.

(63) 99. 2 H2. H2a H2b. - 52 -.

(64) 3 H3 H3a. H3b. 4 H4. H4a H4b. - 53 -.

(65) 5 H5. H5a. H5b. - 54 -.

(66) 逑 2013. 10. 15. e-mail 1999 後. 逑. - 55 -.

(67) 2012a 340 2012. 10. 70筱 270. 420 420. 101 饋013. 0920500119. 0990511416B 2012b 18 19-36. 37-54 55 18. 55. - 56 -. 19-36. 37-54.

(68) 饋013. 2013. 4. 15. 363 313. - 57 -. 3. 饋5.

(69) 逑. Trigwell Prosser. 2004. Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) Sandbakken. 2004. Inventory (LPI). Kieffer. Leadership Practices Henson. 2000. Self-efficacy Inventory(SI) ，. Approaches to Teaching Inventory Leadership Practices Inventory. Self-efficacy. Inventory. 1.. (1). 2.. (1). 3.. (2) (2) _________. - 58 -.

(70) 4.. (1). 5.. (2) (1). 逑(3). (2) 逑(4). 6.. 7.. 逑. (5). ________. (1). 逑(3). (2). (4). (5). 8. ，. 8. ，. 16. 3-1 逑 11 5. 8逑. 24. 3-1. 逑. 14 7 4 73. 8 33. 3-1 3-1. 逑. - 59 -.

(71) 逑. 3-1逑逑. 逑逑逑逑逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑 3,5,6,8,9,14,15,16 逑 1,2,4,7,10,11,12,13 逑逑 17,18,19, 20,21, 22, 23,24, 25, 26,27 逑 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35 36,37,38,39,40 逑逑 42,45,53,54,55,56,60,61, 62,63,67,68,71,73 逑 46,49,50,57,58,65,72 逑 41,43,47,48,52,59,66,69 44, 51,64,70 逑. 逑 8 8 11 8 5 14 7 8 4. 3-2 3-2. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. /. 逑逑逑逑逑. Appalachian State University 逑. 逑逑逑逑逑. / 逑. 逑逑逑逑逑. 逑. 逑逑逑逑逑. 逑. 逑逑逑逑逑. 逑逑. 逑逑逑逑逑. 逑逑. 逑逑 - 60 -.

(72) Likert. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Gay 1987. 10%. 10. 15. 90 2013 3. 8. 3. 1. 84 80. 80 Pearson correlation. .218. KMO Kaiser Meyer Olkin. Bartlett. Bartlett’s test of sphericity KMO. .784***. .5 - 61 -. .881***. .804***.

(73) .5 57.424% 65.413%. 60.932%. Cronbach’s α .826. .955. .938. 57%. Cronbach’s α .7. 3-3. KMO ( ) 3,5,6,8,9,14, .569~ .784*** .292*~ 15,16 .753 (57.424%) .705*** 1,2,4,7,10,11, .553~ 12,13 .876 17,18,19, .527~ .881*** .515**~ .849 (65.413%) .836*** 20,21, 22, 23,24, 25, 26,27 28,29,30,31,3 .603~ 2,33,34,35 .770 36,37,38,39,4 .501~ .872 0 42,45,53,54,5 .513~ .804*** .218*~ 5,56,60, .807 (60.932) .728*** 61,62,63,67,6 8,71,73 46,49,50,57,5 .513~ 8,65,72 .859 41,43,47,48,5 .500~ 2,59,66,69 .763 44,51,64,70 .633~ .739 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. - 62 -. Cronbach’ sα .826. .955. .938.

(74) 3-2 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 3. 1. 3. 8. 逑. 2. 24. 4. 3. 3. 17. 逑. 逑. 3. 饋饋. 逑逑逑. 逑 3. 饋5. 逑. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑 3-2 - 63 -. 逑 15.

(75) 2012a 101. 340 饋013 0920500119. 0990511416B 2012b 18. 19-36 37-54. 55 18. 19-36. 37-54. 饋013. 逑. - 64 -. 3. 55. 饋5.

(76) 饋013 4. 8. 4. 30饋饋71. 4. 15. 61 4饋 313. 4饋0 86.4筱 74.5筱逑逑. - 65 -. 3.

(77) SPSS. screening data. missing data. outlines. - 66 -.

(78) MacKinnon Fritz Williams PRODCLIN2. SPSS20.0. Lockwood (2007). AMOS 20.0 逑. descriptive statistical analysis. 逑. 逑 inferential statistical analysis. 逑. 逑. factor analysis 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 逑. construct validity internal consistency test 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 逑. Cornbach α reliability. Pearson correlation 逑 structural equation modeling, SEM. 逑. 逑 1.. squared multiple correlation SMC. - 67 -. skew. (kurtosis窳逑.

(79) χ2 (p. ). χ2 /df (NC) RMSEA CFI. GFI ECVI. AIC. Bias-corrected (cross-validation窳逑饋.. PRODCLIN2. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. - 68 -. 逑.

(80) structural equation modeling, SEM. 420. 2013. 4. 15. 363 313 ( ) 4-1. 56.86%. 43.14%. 80.83% 19-36. 26.84%. 19.17% 32.59%. 19-36. 22.36%. 18.21%. 55 18. 71.57% - 69 -.

(81) 28.43%. 60.7% 11.5%. 1.6%. 38.34% 21-30. 22.68%. 15.97%. 31. 3.52%. 15.65%. 2.25%. N= 313 逑. 逑逑. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 逑. 逑逑逑逑 18( 窳逑 19-36逑( 窳逑 37-54( 窳逑 55 逑逑逑逑逑逑. 逑. 逑逑逑逑. 35.46%. 24.6%. 4-1. 逑. 10. 11-20. 41.53%. 逑逑逑. 26.2%. 逑 10( 窳逑 11-饋0( 窳逑饋1-30( 窳逑 31 逑逑逑逑逑逑. - 70 -. 178 135 253 60 57 102 70 84 224 89 5 190 36 82 120 111 71 11 130 49 77 50 7. 逑 56.86% 43.14% 80.83% 19.17% 18.21% 32.59% 22.36% 26.84% 71.57% 28.43% 1.60% 60.70% 11.50% 26.20% 38.34% 35.46% 22.68% 3.52% 41.53% 15.65% 24.60% 15.97% 2.25%.

(82) 逑 Cronbach’s α 0.5 60筱. .95 3 11 12 13 14 20 22 46 48 52. 56 62 67 (. 逑. 72. ) 4-2. Pearson correlation Cronbach’s α. .376. α. .7. Nunnally, 1978 Cronbach’s α Cronbach’s α. .824 .946. .929 Cronbach’s α. Cronbach’s Bagozzi. .7. .804. Yi 1988 squared multiple correlation SMC. SMC Bagozzi .5. Yi 1988 SMC. SMC. - 71 -. SMC .262.

(83) 4-2. Cronbach’s α (SMC). Cronbach’s. 5,6,8,9, .701 15,16. .504**~. .804~.818 674**. .824. .556**~. .942~.947 776**. .946. .376**~. .925~.929 738**. .929. 1,2,4,7, .497 10 17~19, .701 21,23~ 27 28~35 .763 36~40. .687. 42,45, .723 53~55, 60,61, 63,67, 68,71, 73 49,50, .816 58,65 41,43, 47,59, 66,69 44,51, 64,70. .262 .656. **p<.01 (. ). 1. KMO Bartlett. - 72 -. KMO.

(84) Kaiser 1974. KMO. KMO. Bartlett. 868*** .944**** .931***. .5. KMO. .. .5. principle component analysis eigenvalue. 1. varimax. .5 56.150%. 60.272%. 62.162%. 50%. Fornell. Larcker. 1981. (1) item loading. standardized. .5. (2). construct reliability, CR. .6. (3). average variance extracted, AVE William Barry. Rolph (2009). .5. CR. .7 1981. Hair. , Fornell. CR. Larcker. .6. AVE AVE Fornell. Larcker. 1981. .5 4-3. .5. .850. - 73 -. . 601 .6.

(85) 4-3. 5,6,8,9, 15,16 1,2,4,7, 10 17~19, 21,23~ 27 28~35 36~40 42,45, 53~55, 60,61, 63,67, 68,71, 73 49,50, 58,65 41,43, 47,59, 66,69 44,51, 64,70. KMO ( ) ( (CR) ) (AVE) .564~.719 .868*** .501 .850 (56.150 %) .575~.764 .602~.801 .944*** .726 (62.162 %) .545~.746 .558~.699 .555~.857 .931*** .614 (60.272 %). .888. .860. .525~.801 .515~.757 .504~.775. ***p<.001. 2. ，. (1) 、，. 、. 4-4. - 74 -.

(86) .758. 4-4. ( ) 1 .855*** .867***. 1 .934***. 1 .758*** .785***. 1. 1 .931***. 1. ***p<.001. (2). bootstrap standard bootstrap, SB. percentile bootstrap, PB biased-corrected. percentile bootstrap, BCPB. Efron. Tibshirani 1986. 1,000 Torkzadeh Koufteros. Pflughoeft. 2003. bootstrap. Beta ，95. 1 ，. bootstrap. 1,000. 4-5. 1.00 - 75 -. 95%.

(87) 4-5. . Beta .255* .852** .719**. (Lower) .047 .689 .478. (Upper) .545 1.033 .994. .209* .840** .801**. .010 .637 .635. .409 1.120 .987. *p<.05, **p<.01. (3). (SEM) ，. 4-6. (SEM). χ. 4-6. 2. (SEM). (df). . (χ2). p. NFI Delta-1. IFI Delta-2. RFI rho-1. TLI rho2. 1. 35.358. .000. .016. .017. .019. .020. 1. 37.436. .000. .017. .018. .021. .021. 1. 24.593. .000. .011. .012. .013. .013. 1. 58.764. .000. .029. .030. .036. .037. 1. 68.833. .000. .034. .035. .043. .044. 1. 26.407. .000. .013. .013. .015. .016. - 76 -.

(88) McDonald & Ho, 2002. SEM. Kline(2005) 2. (skew). (kurtosis). 7. (kurtosis). skew. 20. Kline (2005). 3 CR. 10 2. 7(. 4-7. 4-7). CR. CR (skew). CR. CR. -.652. -4.707. (kurtosis) .370. -.424. -3.062. -.236. -.851. -.379. -2.736. -.318. -1.148. -.576. -4.161. -.695. -2.511. -.781. -5.642. -.475. -1.715. -.258. -1.861. -.347. -1.252. -.430. -3.105. -.914. -3.302. -.022. -.156. -1.006. -3.632. -.732. -5.285. -.014. -.051. - 77 -. 1.338. 10.

(89) 1 (. ) 2. 3. (target coefficient). (Doll, Xia, & Torkzadeh, 1994). 4-8. 4-8 1. Lai GFI. Yang. AGFI. Pai (2010). CFI. .8. 4-8 χ2 1. 3 (. χ2/df. (df). GFI. AGFI CFI. 1486.463 206. 7.216*** .992. .990. .961. 1486.463 206. 7.216*** .992. .990. .961. 1436.880 206. 6.975*** .946. .934. .861. 1436.880 206. 6.975*** .946. .934. .861. <5. >.8. >.9. 1. ) 2 1. 3 (. 1. ) 2. 1.*p<.05, **p<.01 ,***p<.001 饋. =. /. - 78 -. >.8. =1.

(90) (. ). 4-1a. 4-1b. 11. X1 (ξ1~ξ2) δ1. δ11. X11. 4. Y1. 1. (η1) ε1~ε4. 4. 2. Y4. 11 (ζ1) Gamma. 1. (γ1). 8. λX1 λX8 λX9 λX11 λY1 λY4. - 79 -. 4. 2.

(91) 4-1a. 4-2b. χ2(p. ) χ2 /df (NC). root mean square error of approximation , RMSEA goodness of fit index, GFI. comparative fit index, - 80 -.

(92) CFI. expected cross-validation index, ECVI. Akaike. Akaike information criterion , AIC 4-9. 4-9 1. 2 (p. ). χ2 /df (NC) RMSEA. 1~5(Schumacker &Lomax, 2004) RMSEA 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08. 0.10. 0 0.1. (Arbuckle, 2006) R2. GFI. AGFI. 0.8 (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Doll, Xia, & Torkzadeh, 1994) 0.8 (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Doll, Xia, & Torkzadeh, 1994). 2. CFI .9(Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Doll, Xia, & Torkzadeh, 1994) 3. ECVI ECVI AIC. ( ). ，，. - 81 -.

(93) Hilden & Pressley, 2007; Lau, 2013; Lombaerts, Engels, & van-Braak, 2009; Ozgen, 2013; Ozgen & Bindak, 2012; Soyturk, 2011 Frost & Durrant, 2003; Fullan, Hill, & Cr’evola, 2006 Federici & Skaalvik, 2012; Fernet, Guay, Senécal, & Austin , 2012; Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013. 4. 1. 2 3. 4. 1.. 1(. ). (1) 1(. ). 4-2a. 2. 2. 4-9 χ =93.912(p<.001) RMSEA=.075 GFI=.939 CFI=.953 χ /df =2.762(p<.001). RMSEA. .08. 4-10a .882(p<.01). 1. - 82 -. 2. χ /df. 3.

(94) 4-10a. 1 Beta . (Lower). .882**. .808. (Upper) .949. **p<.01. 4-2a. 1. (2) 1(. ). 4-2b. 2. 2. 4-9 χ =123.678(p<.001) RMSEA=.110 GFI=.918 CFI=.917 χ /df =4.757(p<.001). RMSEA. .08. 2. χ /df. 3. 4-10b .770(p<.01). 4-10b. 1. 1 Beta . .770**. (Lower) .669. **p<.01. - 83 -. (Upper) .851.

(95) 4-2b. 2.. 2(. 1. ). (1) 2. 4-3a. 2. χ = 196.178(p<.001) RMSEA=.082 GFI=.907 =3.114(p<.001). RMSEA. CFI=.941. 2. χ /df. .08. 4-9 2. χ /df. 3. 4-11a 2. 4-11a. 2 Beta. . (Lower). (Upper). .889**. .832. .949. .947**. .906. .980. **p<.01. - 84 -.

(96) 4-3a. 2. (2) 2. 4-3b. 2. χ = 195.961(p<.001) RMSEA=.094 GFI=.907 =3.768(p<.001). RMSEA. CFI=.932. 2. χ /df. .08. 4-9 2. χ /df. 3. 4-11b 2. 4-11b. 2 Beta. . (Lower). (Upper). .782**. .695. .856. .938**. .896. .973. **p<.01. - 85 -.

(97) 4-3b. 3.. 3(. 2. ). (1) 3(. ). 4-4a. 187.389(p<.001). RMSEA=.081. =3.022(p<.001). RMSEA. GFI=.914. CFI=.944. 2. .08 χ /df. 4-12a 3(. 4-12a. 2. χ /df. 3 Beta. ). 3 Beta. *p<.05, **p<.01. 2. χ=. 4-9. .855** .322* .653**. (Lower) .781 .028 .398. - 86 -. (Upper) .918 .593 .926.

(98) 4-4a. 3. (2) 3(. ). 4-4b. 190.847(p<.001). RMSEA=.094. =3.742(p<.001). RMSEA. GFI=.909. CFI=.934 2. χ /df. .08. 4-12b. .168. 3(. 3. ). 3 Beta . .758** .168 .800**. (Lower) .663 .033 .647. **p<.01. - 87 -. (Upper) .839 .340 .973. 2. χ /df. 4-12b Beta. 2. χ=. 4-9.

(99) 4-4b. 4.. 3. 窳. 4(. (1). 4 4-5a RMSEA=.066. GFI=.943 CFI=.967. 4-9. 2. χ =119.338(p<.001). 2. χ /df =2.340(p<.001). Beta. .255(p<.05)、 .855(p<.01) 、. .716(p<.01). bias-corrected ，. Beta ，. - 88 -. 4-13a.

(100) 4-13a. 4 Beta. *p<.05, **p<.01. .255* .855** .716**. (Lower) .046 .781 .473. (Upper) .524 .918 1.000. 4-5a. (2) 4 2. 4-9 χ =116.608. 4-5b (p<.001). RMSEA=.077. GFI=.937. (p<.001). CFI=.962 Beta. .190 (p<.05)、. .758 (p<.01)、. .790 (p<.01) 4-13b. 2. χ /df =2.844. bias-corrected ，. Beta ，. - 89 -.

(101) 4-13b. 4 Beta. *p<.05, **p<.01. .190* .758** .790**. (Lower) .014 .662 .638. 4-5b. 5.. 1 4 4-14a 1. 4. 4-14b 4 ，. - 90 -. (Upper) .347 837 .962.

(102) 4-14a (. N) 1 2 3. (χ2). (df). χ2/ df. GFI. CFI. RMSEA. 187.389***. 62. 3.022***. .914. .944. .081. 93.912***. 34. 2.762. .939. .953. .075. 196.178***. 63. 3.114. .907. .941. .082. 119.338***. 51. 2.340***. .943. .967. .066. χ2/ df. GFI. CFI. RMSEA. 4. ***p<.001. 4-14b (. N) 1 2 3. (χ2). (df). 190.847***. 51. 3.742. .909. .934. .094. 123.678***. 26. 4.757. .918. .917. .110. 195.961***. 52. 3.768. .907. .932. .094. 116.608***. 41. 2.844. .937. .962. .077. 4. ***p<.001. (cross-validation). validity generalization. - 91 -.

(103) (invariance). MacKinnon Williams. Lockwood (2007). loose replication strategy replication strategy. moderate. tight replication strategy. (unconstrained). measurement weights) intercepts. measurement. (structural weights). structural covariances. structural. residuals measurement residuals. goodness of fit Kline 2005. 1. 4-15a residuals. structural p. Gordon. .402. CFI. Roger(2002). .961. CFI ∆CFI. 0.01 (. - 92 -. 4-6a). .001.

(104) 4-6a. 4-15a NFI (model) (df). (measurement weights) (structural weights) (structural covariances) (structural. IFI. p. ( 2). TLI. Delta-1. Delta-2. RFI rho-1. CFI rho2. 9. 4.200. .898. .002. .002. -.006. -.007. -. 3. 1.419. .701. .001. .001. -.002. -.002. .001. 1. .061. .805. .000. .000. -.001. -.001. .000. 2. .005. .997. .000. .000. -.002. -.002. .001. 12.555. .402. .006. .006. -.003. -.003. .000. residuals) (measurement 12 residuals) Kline ( 2005, p151)GFA. ECVI. AIC. (. ). 2. 4-15b residuals. structural p. Gordon. .104. Roger(2002). CFI CFI. - 93 -. .964.

(105) ∆CFI. 0.01 (. .001. 4-6b). 4-6b 4-15b NFI (model). ( 2) (df). (measurement weights) (structural weights) (structural covariances) (structural residuals). IFI. p. TLI. Delta-1. Delta-2. RFI rho-1. CFI rho2. 8. 4.663. .793. .002. .002. -.006. -.006. -. 3. .952. .813. .000. .000. -.002. -.003. .001. 1. 2.649. .104. .001. .001. .001. .001. -.001. 2. .701. .704. .000. .000. -.002. -.002. .001. 8.718. .648. .004. .004. -.005. -.005. .001. (measurement 11 residuals) Kline ( 2005, p151)GFA. ECVI. AIC. (. - 94 -. ).

(106) 4-5a. 4-15a. 4-13a. Beta. p<.05. 4-5b. .255. 4-15b. 4-13b Beta. .190. p<.05. H1、H1a. H1b. 4-5a. 4-15a. 4-13a. Beta. p<.01. 4-5b. - 95 -. 4-15b. .855.

(107) 4-13b Beta. .758. H2、H2a. p<.01. H2b. 逑、. 4-5a. 4-15a. 4-13a. .716. p<.01. 4-5b. 4-15b. 4-13b .790 H3a. p<.01. H3、. H3b ，. 4-16a 4-16b. .612*** ， .672***。. .867*** 、. .255**. .881*** 、. .209**. MacKinnon Fritz Williams - 96 -. Lockwood. (2007).

(108) prodclin2 1. H5 H5a. H5b. 4-16a Beta .852 .719. <--<---. S.E.. CR. p. .082 .101. 10.345 7.151. *** ***. .402. .856. .462. .914. ***p<.001. =. +. =.255+.612=.867. 4-16b Beta .840 .801. <--<---. S.E.. CR. p. .103 .078. 8.189 10.262. *** ***. ***p<.001. =. +. =.209+.672=.881. - 97 -.

(109) 逑. Hilden & Pressley, 2007; Lau, 2013; Lombaerts, Engels, & van Braak, 2009; Ozgen, 2013; Ozgen & Bindak, 2012; Soyturk, 2011 Avalos, 2011 Lau, 2013. - 98 -.

(110) (.255*). (p<.05). (.190*) (p<.05). Frost & Durrant, 2003; Fullan, Hill, & Cr’evola, 2006. (.855**). - 99 -. (p<.01).

(111) (.758**). (p<.01). Federici & Skaalvik , 2012; Fernet, Guay,. Senécal,. &Austin. ,. 2012;. Hechanova. Cementina-Olpoc, 2013. (p<.01). (.716**). (.790**). (p<.01). - 100 -. &.

(112) SEM (bias-corrected). 2. χ =119.338(p<.001). RMSEA=.066. GFI=.943. 2. CFI=.967 χ /df =2.340(p<.001). SEM (bias-corrected). 2. χ =116.608(p<.001) CFI=.962. 2. RMSEA=.077. χ /df =2.844(p<.001). - 101 -. GFI=.937.

(113) 4-17a. 4-17b .867***、. .612***，. .255**. .672*** 。. .209** Fritz Williams. .881***、 MacKinnon. Lockwood. (2007). prodclin2. 1 H5. - 102 -. H5a. H5b.

(114) 逑. - 103 -.

(115) 逑. 逑逑逑逑. - 104 -.

(116) SEM. SEM. - 105 -.

(117) 逑. 逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. hands on. doing. 逑逑. - 106 -.

(118) 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑逑. - 107 -.

(119) 逑逑. 逑逑逑逑逑逑. - 108 -.

(120) 95. 99. 逑. - 109 -.

(121) - 110 -.

(122) 99. - 111 -.

(123) - 112 -.

(124) 1. 饋. - 113 -.

(125) 逑. 1992 逑 2010. 逑 2002 逑饋009. MST逑 4饋饋. 61-77 逑 1995. 2001. 2002. 饋010. 2001. - 114 -.

(126) 1999 2003. 427 1-3. 2005. 饋013 1. 44. 逑 2002. 199饋. 逑. 1999 逑饋001. -. 18(6) 15-21 (2000) 155-183. 1994. 2002. 406 50-53. 2011. 1999 2006. 逑. - 115 -.

(127) 饋005 1(1窳 1饋9-154. 逑. 1997 逑 2005. -. 1991 逑 1992 逑 2004. 饋01饋. 逑 2010 55(3窳 (1999). 1998. 逑 1997. - 116 -. 151-176.

(128) 1996. 47(6). 50-57 1993. 逑. 2005. 逑 1997. 1998 61 饋饋1-饋53 逑 2009. 1998. 2010. 2006. 2012a 5. —. 2012. 23. http://www.edu.tw/files/publication/B0013/100highprint.xls 2012b. 2012. - 117 -. 5. 23.

(129) http://www.edu.tw/high-school/bbs/42.doc 饋013 3. (. 窳 2013. 23. http://www.edu.tw/pages/detail.aspx?Node=1729&Page=15300&Ind ex=6&WID=31d75a44-efff-4c44-a075-15a9eb7aecdf逑 2003. 2010. 逑饋008 逑饋007. 逑 1986 2005. 2009 逑 2010. 92. --. 2007. - 118 -.

(130) 52 20-43 1994. 逑 ---. 2002. 逑 2006. 逑 2001. 逑逑逑 Anderson, K. D. (2004). The nature of teacher leadership in school as reciprocal influences between teacher leaders and principals. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(1), 97-113. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc. 531-551. Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10-20. Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988), On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. Bandura, A.(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theoryof behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, pp.191-215. - 119 -.

(131) Bandura, A.(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baumgartner, H. & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing and Consumer Research: A Review. International Journal of Research in Marketing,13 ,139-161. Bayraktar, S. (2011). Turkish preservice primary school teachers' science teaching efficacy beliefs and attitudes toward science: The effect of a primary teacher education program. School Science and Mathematics,111, 83-92. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham. Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Borich, G. D. (1994）. Observation skills for effective teaching. New York: Macmillan. Cementina-Olpoc, R. (2012). ABCs of Change: The Journey of Miriam College. In M.R. Hechanova and E.P. Franco (Eds). Reinvention and Rebirth: Transforming Philippine Organizations. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University. Chen, J., Brown, G. T. L., Hattie, J. A. C.&Millward, P. (2012). Teachers’ conceptions of excellent teaching and its relationships to self-reported teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 , 936-947. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. - 120 -.

(132) Crowther, F., Kaagan, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Cuban, L.(1993).How teachers taught : constancy and change inAmerican classroom 1880-1890. New York: Teacher College, Columbia University. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University press. Danielson, C.(2007).The many faces of leadership.Educational Leadership,65(1),14-19. Daugherty, J. L. (2009). Engineering professional development design for secondary school teachers: A multiple case study. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 10-24. DeBevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader.Educational Leadership, 41(5), 14-20. Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 357–369. Donaldson, G. A. (2001). Cultivating Leadership in schools:Connecting people,purpose,and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Efron, B., & R. J. Tibshirani(1986). Bootstrap method for standard errors, confidence intervals and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1, pp.54-77. Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (1997). Educational psychology: Windows on classroom(3rd.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Evans, B. R. (2011). Content knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy in the mathematics New York City Teaching Fellows (NYCTF) Program. School Science and Mathematics, 111, 225-235. - 121 -.

(133) Federici, R. A. & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: relations with burnout, job satisfaction and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 295–320. Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 514-525. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unbervables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233-239. Frost, D., & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher leadership: Rationale, strategy and impact. School Leadership Management, 23(2),173-186. Fullan, M.,Hill, P.,&Cr’evola, C.(2006).Breakthrough.Thousand Oaks,CA:Corw in Press. Gay, L. R. (1987). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582. Gordon, W. C., & Roger, B. R (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. Gorham, D., Newberry, P. B., & Bickart, T. A. (2003). Engineering accreditation and standards for technological literacy. Journal of Engineering Education,92(1),95-99. Gunter, H. M. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Prospects and possibilities. In M. Brundrett, N. Burton, R. Smith (Eds.) Leadership in education (pp.118-131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hair, J. F., William, C. B., Barry, J. B., &Rolph, E. A. (2009). - 122 -.

(134) Multivariate data analysis (7 nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall. Hansen, R, E. 1993. .A technological teacher education program. planning model.Journal of Technology Education.5 1. .21-28.. Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris,et al., Effective leadership for school improvement (pp.72-83). London: Routledge Falmer. Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 19 (2), 169-188. Healey, M. (2003). Prooting lifelong professional development in Geography education: International perspectives on developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education in the Twenty-first century. The Professional Geographer, 55 (1), 1-17. Hechanova, M. R. (2012). Transforming the academe: The ateneo way. In M. R. Hechanova & E. P. Franco (Eds.), Reinvention and rebirth: Transforming Philippine organizations. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University. Hechanova, R. M. & Cementina-Olpoc, R.(2013). Transformational Leadership, Change Management, and Commitment to Change: A Comparison of Academic and Business Organizations. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,22(1), 11-19. Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulated through transactional strategies instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 51-75. Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372. International Technology Education Association. - 123 -. 2003. . Advancing.

(135) Excellence in Technological Literacy:Student Assessment,Professional Development,and. Program. Standards.. Available:. http://www.iteawww.org. Jones, A.&Moreland, J.(2004). Enhancing Practicing Primary School Teachers’Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education ,14, 121–140. Kaiser, H. F.(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. Kieffer, K. M., & Henson, R. K. (2000). Development and validation of the sources of self-efficacy inventory(SOSI): exploring a new measure of teacher efficacy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED445061) Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structure equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge ( 3rd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kreber, C. (2001). The scholarship of teaching and its implementation in faculty developmentand graduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86(Summer), 79-88. Lai, C. S., Chiu, C. J., Yang, C. F., & Pai, D. C. (2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: the mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 457-469. Lau, K. L. (2013). Chinese language teachers’ perception and implementation of self-regulated learning-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education. 31. 56-66. Leithwood, K. (2003). Teacher leadership: Its nature, development, and impact on schools and students. In M, Brundrett, N. Burton, & R. - 124 -.

(136) Smith (Eds.), Leadership in education (pp.103-117). Thousand Oaks, CA :Sage. Lombaerts, K., Engels, N., & van Braak, J. (2009). Determinants to teachers’ recognitions of self-regulated learning practices in elementary education. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 163-173. Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalising teaching practice in higher education:A study of disciplinary variation and ‘teaching-scholarship’. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (2), 213-228. MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: program prodclin. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384-389. Martin, G., & Ritz, J. (2012). Research needs for technology education: A U.S. perspective. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2), 25-43. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7 (1),64-82. McEwan, E. K. (1998). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. McHaney,J.H., & Impey,W.D.(1992).Strategies for analyzing and evaluating teaching effectiveness using a clinical supervision model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association . Georiga: Geographic srce./country of publication. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 268). Meyer, H. (2005). Unterrichtsmethoden II:Praxisband. Berlin: Cornelsen. Molenda, M. (1991). A philosophical critique on the claims of“constructivism.” Educational Technology,31(9),44-48. - 125 -.

(137) Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,10(2), 117-139. Murphy¸ J. (1990). Principal instruction leadership. In P. W. Thurston & L. S. Lotto (Eds), Advances in educational administration. Volume 1, Part B; Changing perspectives on the school, (pp163-200). Greenwich¸CT.﹕JAI Press. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.) NY: McGraw-Hill. Opfer, V. D., Pedder, D. G., & Lavicza, A. (2011). The role of teachers’ orientation to learning in professional development and change: a national study of teachers in England. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 443-453. Ozgen, K., & Bindak, R. (2012). Examining student opinions on computer use based on the learning styles in mathematics education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 79–93. Ozgen, K.(2013). An Analysis of High School Students’ Mathematical Literacy Self-efficacy Beliefs in Relation to Their Learning Styles. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 91–100. Ozyurt, O.,Ozyurt, H., Baki, A., Guven, B. (2013) Integration into mathematics classrooms of an adaptive and intelligent individualized e-learning environment: Implementation and evaluation of UZWEBMAT. Computers in Human Behavior ,29,726–738. Ozyurt, O., Ozyurt, H., Baki, A. (2013). Design and development of an innovative individualized adaptive and intelligent e-learning system for teaching–learning of probability unit: Details of UZWEBMAT. Expert Systems with Applications ,40, 2914–2940. Pantelides, J. R. (1991). An exploration of relationship between specific instructional leadership behaviors of elementary principal and student achievement. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,Virginia - 126 -.

(138) Polytechnic Institute and State University. Peters-Burton, E. E. & Hiller, E. S. (2013). Fun Science: The Use of Variable Manipulation to Avoid Content Instruction. Science Teacher Educatio, 24, 199–217. Petrina, S.(2006). Advanced Teaching Methods for the Technology Classroom. Canada: UBC Press. Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education, Krieger Publishing, Malabar, Florida. Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405-419. Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K. & Ramsden, P. (2005). Academics' experiences of understanding of their subject matter and the relationship of this to their experiences of teaching and learning, Instructional Science, 33, 137-157. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge. Raudebaugh, R. A.(2000).One university's approach to an outcome-based teacher education program.The Journal of Technology Studies.30(2). Sandbakken, D. A.(2004).The Factor Structure of the Kouzes and Posner Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) Revisited in a Norwegian Context.UK: Henley Management College. Sandholtz, J. M., Rinstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching and technology: creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teacher College, Columbia University. Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.82. - 127 -.

(139) Sfard, A.(1998). One-two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). the new reform.. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.. Shulman, L. S. (2004). Visions of the possible:Models for campus support of the scholarship of teaching and learning. In W. E.Becker & M. L. Andrews (eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: Contributions of research universities (pp.9-23). Bloomington:Indiana University Press. Smith, L. K.& Southerland, S. A.(2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms? : Elementary teachers' response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 396-423. Snyder, K. J. (1983). Instructional leadership for productive schools. Educational Leadership, 40(5), 32-37. Soyturk, I. (2011). An investigation of classroom teacher candidates’ self-efficacy about mathematical literacy and their beliefs about mathematical problem solving. M.D. Dissertation, Istanbul University, Istanbul. Tang,L.P.(1994). Teaching evaluation in the college of business: factors related to the overall teaching effectiveness. Tennessee:Geographic scre./country of publication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374 716). Torkzadeh, G., Koufteros, X.,& Pflughoeft, K. (2003). Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(2), 263-275. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1997). Towards an understanding of individual acts of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research - 128 -.

(140) & Development, 16, 241-252. Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., &Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching:A model, Higher Education Research& Development, 19 (2), 155-168. Trigwell, K. (2002). Approaches to teaching design subjects: A quantitative analysis. Art, Design Commun. Higher Educ. 1: 69–80. Trigwell, K.& Prosser, M.(2004). Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. Educational Psychology Review,16(4),409-424. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-004-0007-9 Tschannen-Moran, M.,Woolfolk, R. A.,& Roy, W. K.(1998).Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Educational Research. 68, pp.202-248. Wicklein , R. C.(1997).Curriculum focus for technology education.Journal of technology education,8(2),71-78. Williams, P. J.& Gumbo, M.(2011), Discovering New Zealand Technology Teacher’s PCK.The Journal of technologystudies,37(1),50-60. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Finding from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research,74(3), 255-316. Zheng, H. Y. (1996). School context, principal characteristics, and instructional leadership effectiveness: A statistical analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association , New York, Apr. 8-12, 1996. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396 408) Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM Literacy: STEM Literacy for Learning. School Science and Mathematics, 111, 58-72.. - 129 -.

(141) 逑逑. 逑. 敎 0910-855-086，ema程級: er程理jj評ang@gma程級.理om)。逑. ( 逑逑逑. 逑逑逑. 逑. (逑 )1.. (1). (逑 )2.. (1). (2) _________. (1). ( )5.. (2) (1). 逑(3). (2). ( )6.. 逑(4) 逑. (5). ( )7.. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. (2). (逑 )3. (逑 )4.. 逑. ________ (1). 逑(3). (2). - 130 -. (4). (5).

(142) 73 逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑 1.. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 饋.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 3.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 /. 逑. 4.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 5.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 6.. /. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑. 逑 7. 逑逑逑 8.. 逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 /. 逑. 9.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 10. 11.. 逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 1饋. 13.. 逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 14.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 15.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 16.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑 - 131 -.

(143) 逑. 逑逑逑逑逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑. 17. 逑 18.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 19. 饋0.. 逑. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑. 逑饋1. 饋饋. 饋3. 饋4. 饋5. 饋6. 逑逑逑饋7.. 逑 /. 逑逑逑逑. 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑逑 5逑. 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑. 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑. 饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑. 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑. 逑 /. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑. 逑饋8. 饋9.. 逑. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑. 逑 30.. /. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑. 逑 31. 3饋. 33. 34. 35. 36.. 逑逑逑逑逑. 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑. 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑. 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑. 饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑. 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑. 逑 37.. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 38. 39. 40.. 逑. 5逑 5逑 5逑逑. 逑逑. 4逑 4逑 4逑逑. 3逑 3逑 3逑逑. 饋逑饋逑饋逑逑. 1逑 1逑 1逑逑. 逑 41. 4饋. 43.. 逑逑逑 - 132 -. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑.

(144) 44. 45. 46. 47.. 逑逑逑. 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑. 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑. 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑. 饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑. 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑. 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑逑 5逑 5逑逑 5逑 5逑逑 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑. 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑. 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑. 饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑. 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑. 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑. 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑. 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑. 饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑. 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑. 逑 48. 49. 50. 51. 5饋. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 60. 61. 6饋. 63. 64.. 逑逑逑逑逑. 65. 66.. 逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑逑. 67. 68. 69.. 逑逑. 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑 5逑 4逑 3逑饋逑 1逑. 逑 70. 71. 7饋. 73. 逑. 逑逑逑. 逑逑. 逑 5逑 5逑 5逑 5逑逑斌逑. - 133 -. 4逑 4逑 4逑 4逑逑. 3逑 3逑 3逑 3逑逑. 饋逑饋逑饋逑饋逑逑. 1逑 1逑 1逑 1逑逑逑.

(145) 逑逑. 逑. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. 逑逑逑. 4. 3. 907. 168. 逑逑逑. ( [email protected]窳逑逑. 敎逑0910-855-086. email敎逑. 逑. 逑逑逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑. 逑逑逑逑逑逑逑. - 134 -.

(146)