影響新竹市國中教師使用合作學習因素之探討

Abstract

本研究旨在探討國中教師使用合作學習的影響因素及行為，並以新竹市國中教師為例，首先透過文獻探討，建立研究的整體架構，繼而發展「影響新竹市國中教師使用合作學習因素調查問卷」調查問卷，進行資料的蒐集。 本研究以新竹市公立國中教師為母群體，以分層隨機抽樣方式抽取16所學校為調查對象，回收後有效樣本共367份，有效回收率84.0%。經統計分析後歸納重要結論如下： 1.影響教師使用合作學習的因素不會因性別、年齡、教學年資、學校規模不同而有所差異。 2.教師使用合作學習教學的現況不會因性別、最高學歷、教學年資、擔任職務、學校規模不同而有所差異。 3.最高學歷為專科大學的教師受「學生素養」與「整體影響因素」的影響為正向，且顯著高於最高學歷為碩士的教師。 4. ①任教領域藝術與人文的教師受「實施時間安排」的影響為正向，且顯著高於國文及社會科的教師。 ②任教領域綜合活動的教師受「實施時間安排」的影響為正向，且顯著高於國文科、社會科及自然科的教師。 ③任教領域健康與體育的教師受「實施時間安排」的影響為正向，且顯著高於社會科的教師。 5.兼任行政的教師受「學校行政激勵」的影響為正向，且顯著高於兼任導師的教師。 6.研習時數6至10小時、11至20小時與21小時以上的教師受「教師素養」方面的影響為正向，且顯著高於研習時數5小時以下的教師。另外，研習時數6至10小時的教師受「實施時間安排」、「學校行政激勵」、「同事影響」、「整理影響因素」四方面的影響皆為正向，且顯著高於研習時數5小時以下的教師。 7.31至35歲的教師在「教學評量」方面，總表現顯著高於51歲以上的教師。 8.主要任教領域「綜合活動」科的教師在「教學過程」方面，總表現顯著高於「社會」科的教師 9.研習時數6至10小時的教師在「教學準備」、「教學過程」、「教學態度」三方面的表現皆顯著高於研習時數5小時以下的教師。 10.教師受到「教師素養」、「學校行政激勵」、「學生素養」、「教師認同態度」、「同事影響」、「實施時間安排」等因素影響越大，教師在合作學習之「整體教學」實施頻率也越高。 最後針對研究發現與結論，提出建議事項，以供教師、教育工作者、以及教育行政單位使用與推廣合作學習之參考。

This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing junior high school teachers’ applications of Cooperative Learning (CL) in instructions in the public junior high schools in Hsinchu City. A comprehensive review of related literatures was conducted to serve as the foundation for the research. “The Influencing Factors of Integrating CL in Teaching at Public Junior High Schools in Hsinchu City Questionnaire” was then developed as the research instrument to collect data. Participants for this study were selected from all qualified teachers from seven Learning Areas at the public junior high schools in Hsinchu City. Stratified sampling was used as the process of selecting accessible samples from 16 schools. After the collection of questionnaires, 367 participants responded, which resulted in a 84.0% response rate. The major survey results were analyzed, synthesized, and reported as follows：

1. Teachers’ gender, age, years of teaching, and school size did not have significant correlation with the general outcome of their applications of CL in teaching. 2. Teachers’ gender, the highest educational degree, years of teaching, duty carried, and school size were not crucial determinants when they implemented CL into instructions in the current teaching situation. 3. In comparison with teachers with master’s degree, teachers with bachelor’s degree reported significantly more positive results in “Students’ CL Literacy” and “Overall Influencing factors.” 4. ①Teachers in Learning Area of Arts and Humanity reported significantly more positive results in “the Arrangement and Allocation of Time” than teachers in Learning Area of Chinese and Social Studies. ②Teachers in Learning Area of Integrative Activities reported significantly more positive results in “the Arrangement and Allocation of Time” than teachers in Learning Area of Chinese, Social Studies, Science and Technology. ③Teachers in Learning Area of Health and Physical Education reported significantly more positive results in “the Arrangement and Allocation of Time” than teachers in Learning Area of Social Studies. 5. In comparison with homeroom teachers, teachers holding a concurrent administrative post reported significantly more positive results in “the Encouragement of School.” 6. In comparison with teachers whose training hours were less than 5 hours, teachers whose training hours were 6-10 hours, 11-20 hours, and more than 21 hours reported significantly more positive results in “Teachers’ CL Literacy.” In addition, teachers whose training hours were 6-10 hours reported significantly more positive results in “the Arrangement and Allocation of Time,” “the Encouragement of School,” “the Influence of Coworkers,” and “Overall Influencing factors” than teachers whose training hours were less than 5 hours. 7. Teachers aged from 31 to 35 were more actively productive in “Teaching Assessment” than teachers aged over 51. 8. Teachers in Learning Area of Integrative Activities were more actively productive in “Teaching Process” than teachers in Learning Area of Social Studies. 9. Teachers whose training hours were 6-10 hours were more actively productive in “Teaching Preparation,” “Teaching Process,” and “Teaching Assessment” than teachers whose training hours were less than 5 hours. 10. The more teachers were influenced by the following factors, i.e., “Teachers’ CL Literacy,” “The Encouragement of School,” “Students’ CL Literacy,” “Teachers’ Attutude toward CL,” “The Influence of Coworkers,” and “The Arrangement and Allocation of Time,” the higher the frequency of their “Overall Teaching Behavior” in intergrating CL in teaching was. Finally, pedagogical implications of the findings, possible solutions to the problems, and suggestions for future research were proposed as a reference for teachers, educators, and educational administrators.