國小導師輔導自我效能量表之因素結構研究

The Factor Structure of Elementary School Homeroom Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Guidance Scale

黃文瑄; 蔡秀玲; 李俊儀; 杜淑芬
Wen-Hsuan Huang; Shiou-Ling Tsai; Chun-Yi Lee; Su-Fen Tu

Doi:10.3966/181665042018121404002


所屬期刊: 第14卷第4期 「教育心理、輔導與測評」
主編:國立臺北教育大學教育學系教授
張郁雯
系統編號: vol055_02
主題: 測驗與評量
出版年份: 2018
作者: 黃文瑄; 蔡秀玲; 李俊儀; 杜淑芬
作者(英文): Wen-Hsuan Huang; Shiou-Ling Tsai; Chun-Yi Lee; Su-Fen Tu
論文名稱: 國小導師輔導自我效能量表之因素結構研究
論文名稱(英文): The Factor Structure of Elementary School Homeroom Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Guidance Scale
共同作者:
最高學歷:
校院名稱:
系所名稱:
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 30
中文關鍵字: 因素結構; 國民小學; 發展性輔導; 輔導自我效能; 導師
英文關鍵字: factor structure; elementary schools; primary prevention; self-efficacy in guidance; homeroom teachers
服務單位:
稿件字數: 19957
作者專長: 諮商心理、學校輔導
投稿日期: 2018/4/11
論文下載: pdf檔案icon
摘要(中文): 本研究旨在探索國小導師輔導自我效能量表之因素結構。研究採用叢集與
配額取樣,取得桃園市296 位導師之自願參與。研究工具採用自編之國小導師輔導自我效能問卷,研究程序係透過項目分析與探索性因素分析檢視題目與因素屬性,並進一步以驗證性因素分析驗證國小導師自我效能之因素結構。因素分析結果顯示導師輔導自我效能包括「師生關係」、「班級經營與正向管教」、「問題解決與衝突處理」、「辨識適應問題徵兆」、與「系統合作」等五項因素,42 項題目之因素負荷量介於.64 到.85 之間,各分量表信度介於.87 ~ .92 之間,五因素相關介於 .87 到 .97 之間。五因素模式卡方值χ2/df = 2.361,各項適配度指標CFI = .900、IFI = .901、SRMR = .042、RMSEA = .068。不同性別、年齡、婚姻、服務年資、任教年段、與輔導背景的導師,其部分或整體輔導自我效能呈現顯著差異(P < .05)。
摘要(英文): The aim of current study is to explore the construct of homeroom teachers’ self-efficacy in guidance. The study adopted stratified clustering sampling process and included 296 homeroom teachers from Taoyuan City. A questionnaire was developed to study the homeroom teachers’ self-efficacy in guidance. In pre-test, item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed to investigate the item quality and factors construct. Then, CFA was further conducted to confirm the factor constructs of homeroom teachers’ self-efficacy in guidance. The results of CFA produced five constructs that consisted of teacher-student relationship, class management and positive disciplinary, problem solving and conflict resolving, identifying signs of adjustment problems, and system cooperation. The factor loadings of 42 items ranged from .64 to .85, the correlations between five factors were from .87 to .97, and the Cronbach α’s were from .87 to .92 for five factors. The CFA model fit index were χ2/df=2.361, other fit indexes included CFI=.900, IFI=.901, SRMR=.042, RMSEA=.068. In addition, self-efficacy in guidance showed significant differences with regard to different gender, age, marriage status, years of service, grade of teaching, and background education in counseling (P<.05).
參考文獻: 王若雯(2016)。高雄市國小輔導教師工作投入、工作壓力與輔導自我效能關係
之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學教育學系,高雄市。
王婉玲(2007)。國中輔導人員角色壓力、輔導自我效能與職業倦怠之關係研究
(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系,臺北市。
王麗斐、杜淑芬(2017)。Working WISER 臺灣學校輔導工作模式本土化發展與
建置。載於陳秉華(主編)多元文化在臺灣(頁613-648)。臺北市,心理。
吳育沛(2007)。國小輔導教師多元文化輔導知能覺察與輔導自我效能之相關研
究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系,臺北市。
吳明隆(2009)。班級經營理論與實務。臺北市:五南。
吳明隆、涂金堂(2014)。SPSS 與統計應用分析。臺北:五南。
吳武典(1996)。國小怎樣實施輔導工作。臺北市:心理。
吳清山(1998)。學校效能研究。臺北市:五南。
李錫津(1991)。導師的任務與素養。載於吳清山(主編),班級經營(頁33-91
頁)。臺北市:心理。
杜淑芬(2015)。國小導師成功處理兒童欺凌行為的輔導策略分析。教育實踐與
研究,28(1),101-130。
林建平(2001)。兒童輔導與諮商。臺北市:五南。
林美珠(2000)。國小輔導工作實施需要、現況與困境之研究。中華輔導學報,8,
51-76。
孫志麟(1996)。國小教師自我效能與班級管理取向。政治大學學報,72,121-
150。
孫志麟(2001)。教師自我效能與教學行為的關係:實徵取向的分析。國立臺北
師範學院學報,14,109-140。
孫志麟(2003)。教師自我效能之概念與測量。教育心理學報,34(2),139-156。
國民中小學聘任班級導師注意事項(2012 年8 月9 日頒佈)。https://www.eycc.
ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=583DE2B2364F19DF&s=6C1C9C9C11448493
教育部(1998)。建立學生輔導新體制一教學、訓導、輔導三合一整合實驗方案。
取自https://www.nknu.edu.tw/~edu/web/doc/Learning/learning%20thesis/learning
%20thesis-1/item1-article2.htm
教育部(2012)。中華民國師資培育白皮書。取自https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ed2600/
Content_List.aspx?n=80B3C8316471EB78
教育部(2013)。國民小學學校輔導工作參考手冊。臺北市:作者。
教育部訓委會(1993)。領航明燈:國民小學導師手冊。臺北市:張老師。
曹慧珠(2012)。導師制度與導師角色、工作內涵之探討。教育研究論壇,3(1),
109-125。
許育齡(2006)。教師效能感研究的取向及限制-邁向變動教師效能感的探究。
慈濟大學教育研究學刊,2,109-137
許憶雯(2010)。國中輔導人員情緒智能與輔導自我效能之相關研究(未出版之
碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系,臺北市。
馮觀富(2003)。國中、小學輔導諮商理論與實務。臺北市:心理。
楊漢麟(2000)。教育大辭書。臺北:文景。
劉雅惠(2011)。中小學教師工作壓力之探究。學校行政,72,77-98。
鄭如安(1993)。國小輔導人員之社會支持﹑ 輔導自我效能與輔導成效之相關研
究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所,高雄市。
鄭安伶(2002)。國小教師對學校輔導工作及學生輔導觀點之研究(未出版之碩
士論文)。國立屏東教育大學教育心理與輔導研究所,屏東縣。
鄭崇趁(2005)。從學校組織再造的需求探討教訓輔三合一方案在教育改革中的
角色功能。國立臺北教育大學學報,18(2),75-100。
學生輔導法(2014 年11 月12 日修正)。取自http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.
aspx?id=GL001380
學校訂定教師輔導與管教學生辦法注意事項(2007 年6 月22 日修訂)取自http://
edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL001536
鍾榮進(2015)。國小教師教學效能自評之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,
8(1),69-104。DOI 10.3966/207136492015040801004
Akhtar, Z. (2013). Role of a teacher in guidance and counselling. Indian Journal of
Community Psychology, 9(2), 442-447.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. G. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended tow-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(May),
411-423.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Bulletin, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Adolescence and education, Vol. 5: Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp.
307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Finney, D. (2006). Stretching the boundaries: Schools as therapeutic agents in mental
health. Is it a realistic proposition? Pastoral Care in Education, 24(3), 22-27. DOI:
10.1111/j.1468-0122.2006.00375.x
Fives, H. (2003). What is teacher efficacy and how does it relate to teachers’ knowledge?
A theoretical review. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, April 2003 – Chicago. Retrieved from http://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.135.6460&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (2012). Developing and managing your school guidance
& counseling programs (5th edition). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). London, England: Prentice Hall International.
Hui, E. K.(2002). A whole-school approach to guidance: Hong Kong teachers’
perceptions. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 30(1), 63-80. 
Lai-Yeung, S. W. C. (2014). The need for guidance and counselling training for teachers.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science, 113, 36-43.
Larson, L. M., & Daniels, J. A. (1998). Review of counseling self-efficacy literature. The
Counseling Psychologist, 26, 179-218. doi: 10.1177/0011000098262001
Larson, L. M., Suzuki, L. A., Gillespie, K. N., Potenza, M. T., Bechtel, M. A., &
Toulouse, A. L. (1992). Development and validation of the counseling self-estimate
inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 105–120. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.39.1.105
Maples, M. (1992). Teachers need self-esteem too: A counseling workshop elementary
schools teachers. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 27, 33-37.
The New York State Teaching Standards (September 12, 2011). Retrieved from http://
www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/pdf/teachingstandards9122011.pdf
The California Teaching Performance Expectation (2013). Retrieved from https://www.
ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/adopted-tpes-2013.pdf
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2) , 202-248.
Urbani, S., Smith, M. R., Maddux, C. D., Smaby, M. H., Torres-Rivera, E., & Crews, J.
(2002). Skills-based training and counseling self-efficacy. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 42, 92–106. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2002. tb01802.x
Wilson, V., Hall, S., & Hall, J. (2007). Pupil guidance: An integral part of teacher
education and development in Scotland? Teaching and Teacher Education: An
International Journal of Research and Studies, 23(7), 1153-1164.
Witmer, J. M. (1968). The teacher’s guidance role and functions as reported by
elementary teachers [microform]. Paper was presented at the American Personnel
and Guidance Association Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada.