English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88657/118248 (75%)
Visitors : 23504455      Online Users : 216
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32419


    Title: 組織行為之分析:台北市士東國小的個案研究
    An analysis of organizational behavior: case study of shih-tung elementary school of Taipei city
    Authors: 郭麗美
    Kuo, Li Mei
    Contributors: 劉小蘭
    Liu, Hsiao Lan
    郭麗美
    Kuo, Li Mei
    Keywords: 少子化
    教育核心
    國小教師
    學校效能
    組織行為
    low fertility rate
    education core
    elementary school teacher
    school effectiveness
    organizational behavior
    Date: 2008
    Issue Date: 2009-09-14 13:56:34 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在台灣經歷少子化而後,國小超額老師問題相形嚴重. 故本論文以個案研究方式探討中型學校士東國小的資深與資淺教師為例,就學校歷史文化,課程設計,領導風格,及學校效能方面來探討教師在教職生涯滿意度與家長對教師之期望.
    Since the phenomenon of low fertility rate emergent in Taiwan, the teacher of the primary education suffered and gradually caused the sever problem of the surplus elementary school teacher. Hence, the Shih-Tung elementary, a medium size school, is the scale aligned with optimal scale for government to borrow the experience.
    The thesis applied a case study method of in-depth interview for related party of teachers and parents of Shih-Tung Elementary School. Initially from retrieving the education core both from definition and ancient wisdom testing the true meaning for the primary education. It is discussed from the culture of the school, the belief of an organization, which is the symbol of pine, big pencil and eraser under persistent learning, preceding that, from the culture to the curriculum design in terms of characteristic of the school, the charm of the school which made less decline of the student enrollment. Moreover, from the leadership style to verify how it formed the consensus and the acceptance form the teachers, which later on lead the effectiveness of the school. Further, it is focused on the organizational behavior analysis applying the Hierarchy of Needs Theory and Motivator-Hygiene Theory to analyze the satisfaction factors of the teachers in the school. The main parts for the central idea are focused on the teachers’ attitude in relation with the satisfaction factors in the case school, in words, the organizational behavior of the case school. Hence, the discussions are brought under school culture and curriculum design, leadership style and school effectiveness, teachers’ working satisfaction and inspiration, parents’ expectation.
    Consequently, the result and suggestions are made for the 2 parts: one for the school, and the other for the government under the transition of the era. The suggestions are made for the school as to keep the culture and inheritance of the senior to the junior teacher as legacy, and improving the environment for more efficient purpose of using and curriculum design under innovated way under long history. And utilize the human resource of unmarried woman, and build a communicative talk relationship with the parents since the mutual understanding of both parties are changing from authorities to cooperative and increasing junior teachers in the near future.
    Reference: Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (2003). On the Success of Failure: A Reassessment of the Effects of Retention in the Primary Grades (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Ariva, T (1987). ‘Centralised’ school based development—A contradiction in terms. In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England. Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield. (pp. 42-50)
    Ben-Peretz, M., & Dor, B. Z. (1986, April). Thirty years of school-based curriculum developemnt: A case study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document No. ED 274 096)
    Ben-Peretz, M., & Dor, B. Z. (1986, April). Thirty years of school-based curriculum developemnt: A case study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document No. ED 274 096)
    Bezzina, M. (1989). Teachers’ perceptions and their participation in school-based curiculum development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Australia.
    Burstein, L. (1980). The Analysis of Multi-Level Data in Educational Research and Evaluation. Review of Research in Education, 8, 158-233.
    Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Flamer.
    Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, Authenticity Consulting, LLC. Copyright 1997-2008.Oppland College.
    Chai, Ching-Hsiung(2001) School Administration:Leadership, Shui-Da-Shui-Yuan Publisher Ltd..
    Chang, Ching-Shiung(1996), School Organizational Behavior, Wu-Nan Publisher Ltd.
    Chang, Ching-Shiung(2006), School Organizational Culture and Leadership, Wu-Nan Publisher Ltd.
    Chen, Yi-Ming(2005),School Business Management and Leadership, Phychology Publisher Ltd..
    Chiou, H., & Wen, F.-h. (2007). Hierarchical Linear Modeling of Contextual Effects: An Example of Organizational Climate of Creativity at Schools and Teacher's Creative Performance. Journal of Education & Psychology, 30(1), 1-35.
    Columbus, Ohio: Merrill. West, P. T. (1985). Educational public relations. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage Publications.
    Cutlip, S. M., Broom, G. M., & Center A. H.(1994)Effective public relations(7rd ed.). Engle-wood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hall .
    Cutlip, S.M., & Center, A.H.(1985). Effective public relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice-Hall, Inc..
    Duignan, P. (1988). School-based curriculum development: Math or reality. Australian Educational Research, 15(4), 9-21.
    Fang, Der-Lung(2005), Curriculum Theory and Practice, Li-Wen Culture Ltd..
    Godinez, b., Estela (2005). School Connections: U.S. Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement. The Teachers College Record, 107, 2451-2454.
    Hamilton, D. (1976). Curriculum evaluation. London: Open Books.
    Hargreaves, A. (1982). The Rhetoric of school-centred innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(3), 251-266.
    Harrison, M. (1979). Toward empirical based curriculum theory: A participant observation study of school-based curriculum decision-making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Macquarie University. Australia.
    Harrison, M. (1981). School-based curriculum decision-making: A personal viewpoint. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(1), 47-52.
    Holliday, A. E.(1988). In search of an answer : what is school public relations? Journal of Educational Public Relations,11(2),12-14.
    Hsieh, Wen-Chuan(2008), Educational Administration, Zhi-Shan Culture Co.Ltd..
    Hughes, L. W. & Hooper, D. W.(2000). Public relations for school leaders. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
    Ke,Kuan-Mei, (2004), Parents Education Participation, Shun-Ding Culture Publisher Ltd.
    Kennedy, K. J. (1992). School-based curriculum development as a policy for the 1990s: An Australian Perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), 180-195.
    Kirk, D. (1986). Structure and agency as two problematics in school-based curriculum development: A case study. Australian Journal of Education, 30(3), 285-299.
    Lee, Ming-Chen.(2007), The Special Editorial of 66th Birthday and 3 Anniversary of Lee-Shing-Lo Completion of Shih-Tung Elementary School, Taipei. Taipei City Shih-Tung Elementary School.
    Levine, D.U. & Lezotte, L.W.(1990).Unusually effective schools. Madison: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.
    Lewy, A. (1977). Handbook of curriculum evaluation. New York: Longman.
    Lewy, A. (1977). Handbook of curriculum evaluation. New York: Longman.
    Lewy, A. (1987). Can teachers produce high quality curriculum material? In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 84-86). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
    Marsh, C., Day, C., Hannay, L., & McGutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualizing school-based curriculum development. London: The Falmer Press.
    Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and Personality, New York:Harper & Row.
    Miskel, C. G., Fevurly, R. & Steward, J. (1979). Organizational structures and process, perceived school effectiveness, loyalty, and job satisfaction. Educational
    Mott, P. E. (1972). The characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
    Munn, P. (1985). Teacher’s perceptions of school-based curriculum development: Some evidence from multi-disciplinary courses. Scottish Educational Review, 17(2), 82-91.
    Nevo, D. (1995). School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school improvement. New York: Elsevier Science.
    Nixon, J. (1992). Evaluating the whole curriculum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
    Norris, N. (1990). Understanding educational evaluation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
    Organizer, 2009 International Conferece on Globalization: Democracy, Institution, and Change, College of Social Science, National Chenchi Universaty,.
    Lin Pei-hsuan, The Study of the Context of School-Based Curriculum Development, Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, Vol.17, No.2(Sep. 2004)35~56, national taipei teachers college
    Prideaux, D. (1993). School-based curriculum development: partial, paradoxical and piecemeal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(2), 169-178.
    Seddon, T., Angus, L., & Poole, M. E. (1990). Pressures on move to school-based decision-making and management. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp.29-54). Falmer.
    Simon , H.A.(1976).Administrative. New York: The Free Press.
    Simon, H. A.(1960). New science of management decision. New York: Harper & Row.
    Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. London: Harper & Row.
    Spaulding, A.&O’Hare, M. J.(2000). Public relations in a communication context: listening, nonverbal and conflict-resolution skills. In T. J. Kowalski(ed.), public relations in school, p138-159.
    Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    Sturman, A. (1990). Curriculum decision-making at the school level. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp.279-297). Falmer.
    Tiller, T. (1992). Wolf in sheep’s closing. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication no.77). Lillehammer:
    Todaro,Michael P.(1982), Economic Development in the Third World, Longman Inc., 3rd Printing, 289~327
    Tsai, Pei-Twen(1996), Teacher Career and Grading System, Li-Wen Culture Ltd..
    Wu, Shin-Shiung(2000), School Organizational Behavior and Management, W u-Nan Publisher Ltd.
    Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum: Principles and foundations. New York: Harper & Row.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    臺灣研究英語碩士學程
    96924001
    97
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096924001
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[台灣研究英語碩士學程(IMTS)] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML83View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback