(3.232.129.123) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/06 00:57
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:李清華
研究生(外文):Cheng Hua Lee
論文名稱:國民小學教師之校長教學領導知覺、教師效能感與統整課程實施態度之關係研究
論文名稱(外文):The Relationalship among perception of principal''''s instructional leadership behaviors, Teacher Efficacy, and Attitudes toward the Implementation of Integrated Curriculum
指導教授:黃瓊蓉黃瓊蓉引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chiung Jung Hung
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:教育研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:綜合教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:202
中文關鍵詞:統整課程教師效能感校長教學領導
外文關鍵詞:integrated curriculumteacher efficacyprincipal’s instructional leadership.
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:116
  • 點閱點閱:3293
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:1246
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:20
摘 要
本研究主要目的有五:(1)瞭解統整課程實施態度的現況及差異情形,(2)瞭解教師效能感的現況及差異情形,(3)瞭解教師所知覺的校長教學領導的現況及差異情形,(4)探討教師效能感、教師所知覺的校長教學領導與統整課程實施態度間的關係,(5)分析背景變項、教師效能感與教師所知覺的校長教學領導對統整課程實施態度的預測力。研究樣本取自彰化縣、台中縣、台中市802名國小教師,採用問卷調查法,得到以下的結論:
一、 教師對統整課程實施態度,因年資和職稱背景變項的不同而有顯著差異。
二、 國民小學教師具良好的效能感,但因年資、職稱背景變項的不同而有顯著差異。
三、 教師認為校長的教學領導尚稱積極,且因學校規模、年資、職稱背景變項的不同而有顯著差異。
四、 教師效能感、教師所知覺的校長教學領導與統整課程實施態度間有關連性。
五、背景變項、教師效能感、教師所知覺的校長教學領導對統整課程實施態度具有預測作用。
最後根據研究結論提出各項建議,供學校行政機關、教師及未來研究之參考。
關鍵詞:統整課程、教師效能感、校長教學領導
The Relationship among Perception of Principal’s Instructional Leadership behaviors, Teacher Efficacy, and Attitudes toward
the Implementation of Integrated Curriculum
Cheng -Hua Lee
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among perception of principal’s instructional leadership behaviors, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of integrated curriculum.
A total of 802 elementary school teachers, selected from Changhua county, Taichung county, and Taichung city, responded to a set of instruments including the Attitude toward the Implementation of Integrated Curriculum scale, Teacher Efficacy scale, and Principal’s Instructional Leadership Behaviors scale. The descriptive statistics, product-moment correlation, canonical correlation, one-way ANOVA, and multiple regression analysis were used to analyze data.
The conclusions of major findings were as follows:
1.The factors, which affected teacher’s attitudes toward the implementation of integrated curriculum, were as follows: years of experience as a teacher and the position a teacher held.
2.There were significant differences in teacher efficacy concerning years of experience as a teacher and the position a teacher held.
3.There were significant differences in perceptions of principal’s instructional leadership behaviors concerning school size, years of experience as a teacher, and the position a teacher held.
4.There were significant correlations between perceptions of principal’s instructional leadership behaviors, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward implementation of integrated curriculum.
5.Demographic variables, teacher efficacy, and perceptions of principal’s instructional leadership behaviors could significantly predict attitudes toward the implementation of integrated curriculum.
Based on the results of this study, suggestions are offered for teachers, schools and future research.
Key words:integrated curriculum, teacher efficacy and principal’s instructional leadership.
目 次
謝 辭 Ⅰ
中文摘要 Ⅱ
英文摘要 Ⅲ
目 次 Ⅴ
表 次 Ⅶ
圖 次 Ⅺ
第一章 緒 論
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 6
第三節 研究假設 7
第四節 名詞釋義 8
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 校長教學領導之理論與相關研究 14
第二節 教師效能感之理論及相關研究 29
第三節 統整課程之理論與相關研究 44
第四節 校長教學領導、教師效能感與統整課程實施態度
之關係 63
第三章 研究設計
第一節 研究架構 68
第二節 研究對象 71
第三節 研究工具 73
第四節 資料處理 87
第四章 結果與討論
第一節 統整課程實施態度之現況與差異 90
第二節 教師效能感之現況與差異 101
第三節 教師所知覺的校長教學領導之
現況與差異 108
第四節 統整課程實施態度、教師效能感、教師所知覺
的校長教學領導間的關係分析 116
第五節 教師背景變項、教師效能感、教師所知覺的
校長教學領導對統整課程實施態度
之預測分析 132
第五章 結論與建議
第一節 主要發現 142
第二節 結論 150
第三節 建議 152
參考書目
壹、 中文 158
貳、西文部分 165
附 錄
附錄一 抽樣學校 181
附錄二 校長教學領導量表使用同意書 185
附錄三 教師效能感量表使用同意書 186
附錄四 預試問卷 188
附錄五 正式問卷 193
表 次
表3-1 正式有效樣本分配表 79
表3-2 「統整課程實施態度量表」之分量表及題項 74
表3-3 「 統整課程實施態度量表」項目分析摘要 76
表3-4 「統整課程實施態度量表」因素分析摘要 78
表3-5 「統整課程實施態度分量表」信度分析摘要 79
表3-6 「統整課程實施態度量表」 正式量表 80
表3-7 「教師效能感量表」之分量表及題項 81
表3-8 「教師效能感量表」項目分析摘要 82
表3-9 「教師效能感量表」因素分析摘要 84
表3-10 「教師效能感量表」信度分析摘要 85
表3-11 「教師效能感量表」正式量表 86
表4-1 統整課程實施態度之題項平均數、標準差 92
表4-2 不同學校規模的教師其統整課程實施態度之單
因子變異數差異分析摘要表 93
表4-3 不同年資的教師其統整課程實施態度之單因子變
異數差異分析及事後比較摘要表 94
表4-4 不同職稱的教師其統整課程實施態度之單因子
變異數差異分析及事後比較摘要表 95
表4-5 教師效能感之題項平均數、標準差 102
表4-6 不同學校規模的教師其教師效能感之單因子變
異數分析摘要表 104
表4-7 不同年資的教師其教師效能感之單因子變異數
分析及事後比較摘要表 105
表4-8 不同職稱的教師其教師效能感之單因子變異數
分析及事後比較摘要表 106
表4-9 校長教學領導知覺之題項平均數、標準差 110
表4-10不同學校規模的教師所知覺的校長教學領導之
單因子變異數分析及事後比較摘要表 111
表4-11不同年資的教師所知覺的校長教學領導之單因子
變異數分析及事後比較摘要表 112
表4-12不同職稱的教師所知覺的校長教學領導之單因子
變異數分析及事後比較摘要表 113
表4-13教師效能感與統整課程實施態度之積差相關
摘要表 117
表4-14校長教學領導知覺與統整課程實施態度之積差
相關摘要表 119
表4-15教師效能感與校長教學領導知覺之積差相關
摘要表 120
表4-16 教師效能感與統整課程實施態度之典型相關分析摘要表 123
表4-17 校長教學領導知覺與統整課程實施態度之典型相關分析摘要表 126
表4-18 校長教學領導知覺與教師效能感之典型相關分析摘要表 129
表4-19 預測變項對「內容工具性」向度之迴歸分析
摘要表 134
表4-19 預測變項對「方法工具性」向度之迴歸分析
摘要表 135
表4-20 預測變項對「一致性」向度之迴歸分析
摘要表 136
表4-21 預測變項對「成本」向度之迴歸分析
摘要表 137
表4-22 預測變項對「重要性」向度之迴歸分析
摘要表 138
表4-23 預測變項對「困難度」向度之迴歸分析
摘要表 139
圖 次
圖2-1 效能預期與結果預期 28
圖3-1 正式的研究架構圖
參考書目
壹、中文部分
王受榮 (民81)。我國國民中小學教師效能感及其影響因素之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版。
王怡琦(民90)。一位高教師效能感之國中教師。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
王振鴻(民89)。國小教師對九年一貫課程之變革關注及其影響因素之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文,未出版。
王湘栗 (民86)。國民小學教師關注與教師效能感之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
王麗娟 (民88)。一位國小教師數學班級評量之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
方德隆(民88)。課程與教學研究。高雄:復文。
行政院教育改革審議委員會 (民85)。教育改革總咨議報告書。台北:編者。
阿姆斯壯 (民86)。經營多元智慧。(李平譯)。台北:遠流。(原作出版年:1994年)
朱俊淇(民88)。國民小學教師生涯發展停滯期之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
江秋玫 (民86)。國小教師專業承諾、自我效能與專業踐行關係之研究。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
成露茜、羊憶蓉 (民85)。邁向二十一世紀新新教育-從澳洲「關鍵能力」教育計畫試探臺灣的教改前景。教改通訊,22,14-19。
李玉林(民90)。桃園縣國小校長教學領導角色知覺與實踐之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
李安明 (民86)。我國國小校長教學領導之研究。行政院國科會專題研究計畫。NSC 86-2413-H-134-006。
李安明 (民88)。「為教學而行政」的校長教學領導:理論與實務,教育政策論壇,2,158-203。
李金泉 (民82)。SAS/PC應用手冊:多變量應用統計與研究分析實務。台北:松崗。
李俊湖 (民81)。國小教師專業成長與教學效能關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
李彗碧 (民87)。學校情境因素與教師效能感之研究-以國中教師為例。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
李新民 (民88)。統整課程簡介。教育研究,7,83-99。
吳璧如 (民89)。幼稚園職前教師效能感之縱貫研究(1)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。NSC 89-2413-H-018-010-S。
吳鐵雄(民72)。單變數變異量分析關係強度之估計及其在行為科學研究之應用。中國測驗學會測驗年刊,30,173-182。
教育部 (民90)。台灣省教育統計年報-中華民國八十九學年(編號:2004600003)。台北:教育部。
周新富 (民80)。國民小學教師專業承諾、教師效能信念與學生學業成就關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
周淑卿 (民88)。論九年一貫課程的「統整」問題。載於中華民國課程與教育學會主編,九年一貫課程之展望。台北:揚智。
林玉體(民85)。民主與教育。台北:師大學苑。
林生傳 (民88)。九年一貫課程的社會學評析。載於中華民國課程與教育學會主編,九年一貫課程之展望。台北:揚智。
林怡秀 (民88)。國民小學課程統整模式之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
林霓岑 (民89)。國民小學教師設計統整課程之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學碩士論文,未出版。
洪瑞峰 (民89)。台北縣市國小教師效能感與家長參與班級教育活動關係之研究。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩
士論文,未出版。
孫志麟 (民80)。國民小學教師自我效能及其相關因素之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
孫志麟 (民88)。教師自我效能:有效教學的關鍵。教育研習資訊,7(6),170-187。
張俊紳 (民86)。國民小學教師教學效能之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系博士論文,未出版。
張春興 (民83)。教育心理學。台北:東華。
張清濱 (民80)。學校行政。台北:台灣書店。
張慈娟 (民86)。國民小學校長教學領導與學校效能之研究。國立新竹師範院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
張碧娟 (民88)。國民中學校長教學領導、學校教學氣氛與教師教學效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版。
葉芷嫻(民90)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程政策執行研究-國民中小學教育人員觀點之分析。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
劉威德(民83)。國中教師教學成敗歸因、社會支持與教學自我效能相關研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所論文,未出版。
許芳懿 (民86)。國小教師溝通型態、自我角色知覺與教師自我效能關係之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
郭生玉(民83)。心理與教育測驗。台北:精華。
郭明德(民88)。國小教師自我效能、班級經營策略與班級經營成效關係研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文,未出版。
陳美言 (民87)。國民小學校長教學領導與教師教學自我效能關係之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
陳馨蘭 (民87)。教師人格特質、自我效能、學生行為信念與班級經營風格之相關研究。國立彰化師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
游家政 (民89)。學校課程的統整及其教學。課程與教學季刊,3 (1),19-38。
游靜宜 (民90)。中美日三國小學統整課程之比較研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
單文經 (民81)。課程與教學研究。台北:師大書苑。
馮莉雅(民86)。國中教師角色衝突、專業成長與其教師效能感關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
黃玉梅 (民89)。國中校長教學領導、教師工作承諾與學校教育成效關係之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文,未出版。
黃政傑(民77)。邁向成功的實施。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所集刊,30,1-12。
黃政傑(民86)。教育改革的理念與實踐。台北:漢文。
黃政傑(民80)。課程設計。台北:漢文。
黃順利 (民89)。國小教師權威性格、自我效能信念、學生行為信念與體罰態度及行為之相關研究。國立台東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
黃嘉倫 (民90)。國民中小學實施統整課程的難題與解決對策之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
楊振昇 (民88)。我國國小校長從事教學領導概況、困境及其因應策略之分析研究。暨大學報,3 (1),183-236。
趙廣林 (民85)。國民小學校長教學領導之研究。國立屏東師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
歐曉玟(民 90)。彰化縣國民小學校長教學領導之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
魯先華 (民83)。國民中學校長教學領導之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
劉筱琳 (民90)。國小教師對統整課程實施之意見調查研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
鄭進丁 (民75)。國民小學校長角色之分析。高雄:復文。
鄭詩釧 (民87)。國民小學班級經營氣氛、教室衝突管理與教師教學效能關係之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育系碩士論文,未出版。
蔡秀瑗(民87)。國民小學校長教學領導及其影響因素之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
薛梨真 (民89)。國小教師統整課程實施成效之評估。課程與教學季刊,3(1),39-58。
顏銘志(民85)。國小教師教學信念、教學效能與教學行為之相關研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
劉月娥(民89)。國民小學教師專業決定與教師效能感之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
鍾惠娟(民90)。教師對統整課程的認知與實施統整課程問題知覺關係之研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
饒見維(民88)。九年一貫課程與教師專業發展之配套實施策略。教育實習輔導,4(4),33-38。
貳、西文部分
Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Brophy, J. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, 79, 193-223.
Andrews, R. I., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational leadership, 44, 9-11.
Arredondo, D., & Rucinski, T. (1996). Principal’s epistemological belief and their support of integrated curriculum.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339519)
Arredondo, D., & Rucinski, T. (1998). Principal perceptions and beliefs about integrated curriculum use. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 285-298.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teacher’s sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Beane, J. (1991). The Middle School:The natural home of integrated curriculum. Educational leadership, 49, 9-13.
Bean, J. (1997). Curriculum integration designing the core of democratic education. Teachers College, Columbia University. New York and London.
Binda, K., P. (1991). Principals as change agents: Their role in the curriculum implementation process. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 342061)
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: teachers’ perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 349-379.
Braunger, J., & Hart-Landsberg, S. (1994). Crossing Boundaries: Explorations in integrative curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 370239)
Brewer, J. A. (1996). Integrating academic and vocational education: An investigation of attitude and curricular values of administrators and faculty in the Wisconsin Technical College System. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 21, 5-31.
Burns, R. C., & Sattes, B. D. (1995). Dissolving the
boundaries: Planning for curriculum integration
in middle and secondary schools and facilitators
guide.( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED384455)
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a
brain-based approach to learning and teaching.
Educational Leadership, 48, 66-70.
Carless, D. R. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System, 26(3), 353-368.
Carter, G. K. (1994). Improving teachers’ understanding and planning of an integrated curriculum with a staff development plan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379108)
Cawelti, G. (1987). How effective instructional leaders get results. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328933)
Checkley, K. (1997). The first seven…and the eighth. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, 55, 8-13.
Chell, J. (1995). Introducing principals to the role of Instructional Leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391222)
Coladarci, T. (1997). Teacher, efficacy, supervision
and the special resource-room teacher. Journal
of Educational Research, 90, 230-239.
Collier, S., & Nolan, K. (1996). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of integration. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405328)
Cook, P.A., & DeHart, P. (1996). Making connections: Helping teachers to implement an integrated approach to curriculum within their school communities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 397003).
Cordogan, S., & Stanciak, L. (2000). An examination of the effects of an interdisciplinary curriculum program on behavior and academic performance in a suburban high school. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 442816)
Cross, C.T., & Rice, R.C. (2000). The role of the principal as instructional leader in a standards-driven system. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 61-65.
da Costa, J. L. (1993). A study of teacher collaboration in terms of teaching-learning performance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 362472).
DeBevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader. Educational Leadership, 41, 14-20.
DeCorse, C. B. (1996). Teachers and the integrated curriculum: An intergenerational view. Action in Teacher Education, 18(1), 85-92.
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8, 1-12.
Drake, S. M. (1993). Planning Integrated Curriculum : The call to adventure. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 355660)
Dwyer, D. C., & others (1985). Understanding the principal’s contribution to instruction: Seven principals, seven stories case #6: Florence Barnhart, principal of an inner-city junior high school. Far West Lab. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 373398)
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in classroom management and discipline. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 755-765.
Fullan, M. & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47, 335-397.
Fullan, M., & Park, P. (1981). Curriculum implementation: A resource booklet. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H (1997). Relationships among experience teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teaching Education, 13, 451-458.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy : A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Grisham, D. L. (1995). Integrating the curriculum: The case of an award-winning elementary school. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385502).
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes: Toward the implementation of instruction innovation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 63-69.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 627-643.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 217-247.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 45, 54-61.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal Administration, 30, 35-48.
Halling, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical, Research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-44.
Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Curriculum integration and classroom relevance: A study of teachers’ practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15, 89-112.
Hartzler, D. S. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum programs and their effects on student achievement [Abstracts]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(03), 865A.(University Microfilm No.AA9967119).
Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 21-34.
Heck, R. H.,& Marcoulides, G. A. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 77, 20-28.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent-school relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287-294.
Hord, S. M. (1987). Three images : What principals do in curriculum implementation. Curriculum Inquiry, 17, 55-89.
Iadevaia, S.T. (1999). A comparative study of two middle schools in providence, Rhode Island with a focus on the relationship between perceived instructional leadership of principals and selected probe recommendations [Abstracts]. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 60(07), 2307A.(University Microfilm No.AA9939509)
Keith, S. C. (1990). Teacher efficacy and relationship between elementary principals’ instructional leadership and self-perception of efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International 50(12), 3810A. (University Microfilms No. AAC 9002836)
Keys, D.A. (1999). The factor structure of teacher efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International 59(12), 4351A.(University Microfilms NO.AAC 9914688).
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for researching activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Krug, S. E. (1992). Instructional leadership, school instructional climate, and student learning outcomes project report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 359668)
Lake, K. (1994). Integrated Curriculum. Retrieved April 22, 2000, from World Wide Web: http : // www. Nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/ 8/co16.html
Larsen, T. J. (1987). Identification of Instructional leadership behaviors and the impact of their implementation on academic achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 281286).
Lubbers, J. M. (1990). An investigation to determine if principal behaviors can impact teacher efficacy [Abstracts]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(08), 2586A.(University Microfilm No.AA9028670)
Marsh, D. D. (1992). Enhancing instructional leadership. Education & Urban Society, 24, 386-410.
Mason, T. C. (1996). Integrated curricula: Potential and problems. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 263-270.
Mason, T. C., Kruchkov, V., & Kilbane, J. (1999). United States and Russian teachers’ perspectives on the integrated curriculum in global education. International Journal of Social Education, 13, 89-104.
McEwan, E. K. (1998). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership. California: Corwin Press Inc.
McNeil, J. D. (1985). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Merier, S. L., Cobbs, G., & Nicol, M. (1998). Potential benefits and barriers to integration. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 438-447.
Mohlman, G. G., Coladraci, T., & Gage, N. L. (1982). Comprehension and attitude as predictors of implementation of teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 33, 31-36.
Mojkowski, C. (2000). The essential role of principals in monitoring curriculum implementation. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 76-83.
Moorthy, D. (1992). The Canadian principal of the 90’s manager or instructional leadership?or both? Education Canada, 32, 8-11.
Morris, L. L. (1998). The effects of integrated curriculum on 9th grade at-risk students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 422419)
Murphy, J. (1990a). Principal instructional leadership advances in Educational Administration, part B: Changing perspectives on the school, 163-200.
Murphy, J. (1990b). Instructional leadership: Focus on curriculum responsibilities. NASSP Bulletin, 74, 1-4.
Murphy, E. L. (1993). Interdisciplinary curriculum influences on student achievement, teacher and administrator attitudes, and teacher efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(11), 3979A. (University Microfilms No. AAC9410993).
North West for Emerging Technologies (1998). Integrated curriculum. Retrieved August 10, 2001, from World Wide Web: http://nwcet.bcc.ctc.edu /CDK/Overview/integrat.htm
Paker, S. A., & Day, V.P. (1997). Promoting inclusion through instructional leadership: The roles of the secondary school principal. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 83-89.
Pantelides, J. R. (1991). An exploration of the relationship between specific instructional leadership behaviors of elementary principals and student achievement [Abstracts]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(03), 768A.(University Microfilm No.AA9123746)
Polite, M. M. (1994). Team negotiation and decision-making : Linking leadership to curricular and instructional innovation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370929)
Poole, M. G. (1991). Implementing Change:The effects of teacher efficacy and interaction among educators (Curriculum Guides). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(03), 769A. (University Microfilms No. AAC 9121469)
Rasinski, T. & Padak, N. (1995). Curriculum integration in Even Start programs. Occasional paper#5. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388948)
Schoch, A. P. (1992). The relationship between instructional leadership behavior, school effectiveness, school size, gender, race and years of principal experience in elementary schools in South Carolina [Abstracts]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(12), 4161A.(University Microfilm No.AA9307987)
Schumacher, D. M. (1992). A multiple case study of curriculum integration by selected middle school interdisciplinary teams of teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356518)
Scott, M. A. (1988). The perceptions of elementary principals and teachers on selected instructional leadership practices in the Fairfax country public school [Abstracts]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(06), 1337A.(University Microfilms NO.AAC 8815579)
Shoemaker, B. J. (1989). Integrative education: A curriculum for the twenty-first century. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 311602).
Skinner, E, A. (1995). Perceived control, Motivation, & Coping (PP. 20-31). California: Sage.
Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R.L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 314826)
Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (2000). The Interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a Manual for Administrators and teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 443172).
Snyer, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp.402-435). New York:Macmillan Publishing Company.
Soodak, L., & Podell, D. (1996). Teaching efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12, 401-411.
Sparks, G. N. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41, 65-72.
Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The process of teacher change. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 171-187.
Terry, P. M. (1996). The principal and instructional leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED400613)
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, W. A., & Hoy, W. K (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-240.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W.K. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher, 17, 783-805.
Waugh, R., & Punch, K. (1987). Teacher receptivity to system wide change in the implementation stage. Review of Educational Research, 57, 237-254.
Weasmer, J., & Woods, A. M. (1998). I think I can: The role of personal teaching efficacy in bringing about change. The Clearing House, 71, 245-247.
Weber, J. R. (1987). Instructional leadership contexts and challenges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 288201)
Weber, J.R. (1989). Leading the instructional program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 309513).
Weilbacher, G.A. (2000). Why teachers decide to use then not use, curriculum integration as their curriculum planning philosophy [Abstracts]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(05), 1735A.(University Microfilms NO.AAC 9973071)
Whitaker, B. (1997). Instructional leadership and principal visibility. The Clearing House, 70, 155-156.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teacher’s sense of the efficacy and beliefs control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Young, J. H. (1992). Curriculum integration: Perceptions of preserves teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 13, 1-9.
Zheng. H. Y. (1996). School, contexts, principal characteristics, and instructional leadership effectiveness : A statistical analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 396408)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔