| 研究生: |
黃耀農 Huang, Yaw-Nong |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱: |
臺北市國小校長國際教育領導能力指標建構之研究 Developing Competency Indicators for International Education Leadership among Elementary School Principals in Taipei City |
| 指導教授: |
陳榮政
Chen, Robin Jung-Cheng |
| 口試委員: |
吳清山
Ching-shan Wu 何希慧 SHI-HUEI HO 蔡明學 Ming- HSueh Tsai 陳文彥 Wen-Yan Oscar Chen |
| 學位類別: |
博士
Doctor |
| 系所名稱: |
教育學院 - 教育學系 Department of Education |
| 論文出版年: | 2026 |
| 畢業學年度: | 114 |
| 語文別: | 中文 |
| 論文頁數: | 210 |
| 中文關鍵詞: | 校長國際教育領導指標 、國際教育 、模糊德懷術 、層級分析法 |
| 外文關鍵詞: | Principal's International Education Leadership Indicators, International education, Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) |
| 相關次數: | 點閱:14 下載:0 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究旨在建構校長國際教育領導能力指標與權重體系。為編製具信效度與代表性的指標,先經文件分析法,逐層釐清概念內涵、理論與原理原則,進一步完成高層向度、基層項目與細目指標初構,作為三階段問卷調查的基礎。
第一階段專家問卷調查,確保指標具良好內容效度。第二階段模糊德懷術問卷調查,函請 8 名領域權威專家學者、具國際教育實務經驗之校長等人員審評;統整各指標三角模糊數輸入至 Fuzzy Delphi 1.0 授權軟體運算,並使用 Lin 等人(2020) α-截集決斷規準篩選出共識性指標。第三階段相對權重問卷調查,將評比結果登錄 Expert Choice 11.5 軟體檢定一致性,續由 Microsoft Excel計算權重值,以建構本指標權重體系。
茲據研究調查與統計分析結果,歸納結論如下:
一、校長國際教育領導能力指標體系,由三個向度、六個項目及 30 個細目指標組成。
二、向度層次依相對權重大小排序為:
(一) 領導專業與學校願景(60.80%)
(二)課程發展與學習實踐(30.30%)
(三)系統支持與環境營造(9.00%)
三、項目層次依權重大小排序依序為:
(一) 國際教育專業素養(47.1%)
(二)課程與教學領導(19.4%)
(三)願景擘劃與校務發展(13.6%)
(四)跨文化學習與學生實踐(10.9%)
(五)資源整合與夥伴關係(5.7%)
(六)國際化校園環境營造(3.3%)
四、細目指標層次,節錄權重佔比最大之前五項:
(一)能分析並掌握國際教育政策與全球教育趨勢(14.00%)。
(二)具備跨文化理解(13.50%)。
(三)能在決策中展現多文化敏感度與全球視野(10.60%)。
(四)推動全球議題、文化學習或國際關聯適切融入校訂課程(7.90%)。 (五)定期參與國際教育專業成長(5.50%)。
承此,提出建議供國民小學校務治理者推展國際教育、教育行政機關規劃培訓課程,以及後續研究參考。
The purpose of this research is to to construct an indicator and weight system for principals' international education leadership competencies. To develop reliable, valid, and representative indicators, a document analysis was first conducted to systematically clarify the conceptual connotations, underlying theories, and guiding principles. A preliminary framework comprising high-level, mid-level, and low-level indicators was subsequently constructed to serve as the foundation for a three-stage questionnaire survey.
In the first stage, an expert questionnaire survey was administered to ensure the robust content validity of the indicators. In the second stage, a Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) questionnaire survey was distributed to a panel of eight authoritative scholars and experienced principals in the field of international education for evaluation. Triangular fuzzy numbers for each indicator were integrated and processed using Fuzzy Delphi 1.0 software, applying the α-cut decision criterion proposed by Lin et al. (2020) to extract consensus indicators. In the third stage, a relative weight questionnaire survey was conducted. The evaluation results were input into Expert Choice 11.5 software for consistency testing, followed by weight calculations using Microsoft Excel to finalize the indicator weight system.
Based on the empirical investigation and statistical analysis, the core findings are summarized as follows:
The indicator system for principals' international education leadership competencies consists of three major dimensions, six sub-dimensions, and 30 specific indicators.
Ranked by relative weights, the three major dimensions are:
(1) Leadership Professionalism and School Vision (60.80%)
(2) Curriculum Development and Learning Practice (30.30%)
(3) System Support and Environment Fostering (9.00%)
Ranked by weights, the six sub-dimensions are:
(1) Professional Competencies in International Education (47.1%)
(2) Curriculum and Instructional Leadership (19.4%)
(3) Vision Articulation and School Development (13.6%)
(4) Cross-Cultural Learning and Student Praxis (10.9%)
(5) Resource Integration and Partnerships (5.7%)
(6) Internationalized Campus Environment Fostering (3.3%)
At the specific indicator level, the top five indicators with the highest weight distributions are as follows:
(1) Ability to analyze and grasp international education policies and global
educational trends (14.00%).
(2) Possession of cross-cultural understanding (13.50%).
(3) Ability to demonstrate multicultural sensitivity and a global perspective in
decision-making (10.60%).
(4) Promotion of the appropriate integration of global issues, cultural learning, or
international connectivity into the school-based curriculum (7.90%).
(5) Regular participation in professional development for international education
(5.50%).
Based on these findings, this study proposes practical recommendations for elementary school administrators in promoting international education, for educational authorities in designing training programs, and for future research endeavors.
第一章 緒論.........................................................................1
第一節 研究背景與動機.......................................................1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題................................................9
第三節 名詞釋義.................................................................11
第四節 研究方法與步驟.......................................................14
第五節 研究範圍與限制.......................................................20
第二章 文獻探討..................................................................23
第一節 校長國際教育領導能力之概念與內涵.......................23
第二節 校長國際教育領導能力之理論基礎...........................27
第三節 國內外校長國際教育領導能力相關研究....................31
第四節 國內外校長國際教育領導能力指標概況及相關研究..38
第五節 臺北市國小校長國際教育領導能力指標之初步建構..42
第三章 研究設計與實施.........................................................63
第一節 研究架構....................................................................63
第二節 研究對象....................................................................66
第三節 研究工具....................................................................75
第四節 實施程序……….........................................................81
第五節 資料處理與分析方法..................................................84
第六節 研究倫理……………………..................………………92
第四章研究結果與討論...............................................….……95
第一節臺北市國小校長國際教育領導能力指標模糊德懷術問卷調查結果分析 …………………………………………………….….95
第二節臺北市國小校長國際教育領導能力指標相對權重問卷之指標權重體系建立........................................................................121
第三節綜合討論 ..............................................................136
第五章結論與建議 ..............................................................143
第一節結 論 ......................................................................143
第二節 建 議…………………………………………....………..154
參考文獻……………………………………………………..….159
壹、中文文獻………...........................................................159
貳、英文文獻………..........................................................164
附 錄…………………………………………....………………170
附錄一:台北市國小校長國際教育領導能力指標專家調查卷…170
附錄二:臺北市國小校長國際教育領導能力指標建構模糊德懷術問卷……………………………………………………..……..173
附錄三:臺北市國小校長國際教育領導能力指標相對權重調查問卷……………………………………..………………………185
一、中文文獻
王文科(2016)。教育研究法。五南。
王俊斌(2020)。文化際素養導向的國際教育及其教師專業發展。教育研究月刊,319,40-54。
何希慧(2025)。國際教育推廣與交流:政策理念與創新策略(未出版之成果報告)。教育部中小學國際教育推廣與交流組。
何佳郡、劉春榮(2008)。教學輔導教師培訓人選遴選指標建構之研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊,(5),1-28。
吳明清(1991)。教育研究:基本觀念與方法分析。五南。
林如貞、田效文、張婷婷、陳元和(2005)。應用AHP探討技專校院經營績效指標。商管科技季刊,6(1),93–113。
吳政達(1995)。階層分析法(AHP)與模糊評估法(FEM)在學前教育指標系統之應用(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學。
吳政達(1998)。國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究:模糊德菲術、模糊 層級分析法與模糊綜合評估法之應用(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學。
吳政達(2005)。我國地方政府層級教育課責系統建構之評估:模糊德菲法之 應用。教育心理與研究,28(4),645–665。
吳政達(2008)。教育政策分析:概念、方法與應用。高等教育。
林子斌(2019)。新加坡教育國際化的助力:雙語教育之發展與啟示。教育研 究月刊,305,116–125。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602019090305007
林子斌(2022)。跨文化溝通的基礎:臺灣雙語教育的實踐與挑戰。課程研 究,17(1),1–13。https://doi.org/10.53106/181653382022031701001
林信志(2014)。高級中學教科書性別偏見檢視規準之建構:德懷術與層級分 析法之應用。課程與教學,17(3),119–146。
林原宏(2002)。模糊語意問卷的語意模糊數建構演算實證分析。調查研究, 11,31–71。
林原宏(2003)。量表語意模糊數演算及其計分比較分析。臺中師院學報,17 (2),279–304。
林振春(1993)。社會調查。臺北市:五南。
邱玉蟾(2020)。《中小學國際教育白皮書 2.0》之解析與展望。臺灣教育, 725,1–11。
周祝瑛、陳榮政(2012)。國際教育。載於吳清山(主編),我國教育政策 綱領之研究(頁203–215)。國家教育研究院。
洪雯柔(2015)。全球化下的教育改革:國際教育的政策與實踐。教育研究 月刊,258,4–15。
洪雯柔、林沛萱(2021)。我國中小學國際教育2.0政策之探析與展望。教育研 究月刊,321,37–53
秦夢群(2013)。教育領導理論與應用。五南。
陳文彥(2010)。學校權力結構鉅觀制度變遷之研究。屏東教育大學學報, 35,125–154。
陳文彥(2022)。分散式領導與學校治理。載於潘慧玲、王麗雲(主編),教育治理理論與實務(頁75–92)。高等教育。
陳佩貞(2019)。校訂課程轉化之困境與對策:以外部資源連結為例。臺灣 教育評論月刊,8(12),128–144。
陳榮政、姜繼旺(2024)。數位教科書對學生全球公民素養的啟示:以 PISA 2022 為例。教科書研究,17(2),43–78。
教育部(2025)國民及學前教育署114學年度補助實施國際教育總體工作計畫申請書。
教育部(2020)。中小學國際教育白皮書 2.0。作者。
教育部(2021)。中小學校長專業素養與指標。作者。
教育部(2023)。中小學國際教育中程發展計畫(112年-117年)。
教育部(2025)。教育部推動「中小學深耕國際教育獎(SIEA)輔導與認證實施計畫」
教育部(2022)。教育部校長領導卓越獎評選及獎勵要點(民國11311月13日修正公布)。https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=FL034792。
連育瑩(2024)。公立國民小學新管理主義校務治理指標與權重體系建構之研究 (未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學。
游家政(1996)。德懷術及其在課程研究上的應用。花蓮師院學報,6(6),1–24 。
楊紹強(2003)。創造共同願景:凝聚團隊向心力的重要支柱。能力雜誌, 568,42–47。
董莊敬(2023)。日本高等教育的宏觀計畫與全球化人才之培育。臺灣教育評論月刊,12(1),107–112。
1. 臺北市政府教育局(2018)。臺北市國際教育中長程實施計畫。https://www-ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/436/relfile/30038/7947624/2dcc0152-ccec-463c-8f3b-229194ea8581.pdf
2. 臺北市政府教育局(2025)。臺北市114–115學年度國際教育獎(International Education Award, IEA)輔導與認證實施計畫。https://www.doe.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=3AC1EC76C7B3D40E&sms=0938BB6F96F83896&s=481C88D0C0D60322
臺北市政府教育局(2025)。臺北市雙語教育學校情境建置補助計畫。https://eduglobal.tp.edu.tw/uploads/1761633678043zizOkvLy.pdf
臺北市教師研習中心(2025)。優質學校評選 5.0 向度與標準
https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashxu=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvNDM2L3JlbGZpbGUvMC82NjcxNi9kNzQxNWRlNS0wZTQ5LTQ1ZjUtYTQ5Ny0zZGRmYTJiNzZmNzkucGRm&n=5YSq6LOq5a245qCh6KmV6YG4NS4w5ZCR5bqm6IiH5qiZ5rqWLnBkZi5wZGY%3D&icon=..pdf
榮泰生(2011) 。Expert Choicey 在分析層級程序法之應用。五南。
鄧振源(2005)。計畫評估——方法與應用。海洋大學運籌規劃與管理研究中心。
鄧振源、曾國雄(1989a)。層級分析法的內涵特性與應用(上)。中國統計學報,27(6),5–22。
鄧振源、曾國雄(1989b)。層級分析法的內涵特性與應用(下)。中國統計學報,27(7),1–19。
蔡進雄(2022)。邁向具備全球視野的學校領導:校長推動國際教育之素養與 策略探究。學校行政,138,1–15。
潘慧玲(2002)。緒論:學校革新的脈動。載於潘慧玲(主編),學校革新:理 念與實踐(頁1–47)。學富文化。
潘慧玲、陳佩英、張素貞、鄭淑惠、陳文彥(2014)。校長學習領導的理念與實踐。高等教育文化事業有限公司。
劉美慧(2020)。中小學國際教育能力指標之建構與運用。中等教育,71(2)。
劉慶仁(2011)。美國國際教育策略及其對我國之啟示。教育資料集刊, 52,1–24。
顏佩如(2004)。課程圖像重建:學校全球教育課程發展之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
It's 林湘霖老師(輔大資管系)。(2023a,11月15日)。層級分析法範例實作 1【影片】。YouTube。https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDTW_KUrcdc
It's 林湘霖老師(輔大資管系)(2023b,11月22日)。模糊層級分析法範例實作2【影片】。YouTube。 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxKaa99Ydwo
二、英文文獻
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications. M. E. Sharpe.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541–554. doi.org
Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2010). Educational leadership and globalization: Literacy for a glocal perspective. Educational Policy, 24(1), 52–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904809354070
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Cai, Y., & Yang, R. (2020). China’s internationalization of higher education. International Higher Education, 102, 25–26.
Cheng, C. H., & Lin, Y. (2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00280-6
Chen, R. J.-C., Ho, S. S.-H., Huang, F., & Lu, Y.-Y. (2024). Internationalization of higher education institutions: A comparative study in Taiwan and Japan. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 26(3), 189– 207. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-06-2023-0050
Dalkey, N. (1969). The delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion. RAND.
Day, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). Successful leadership: A review of the international evidence. CfBT Education Trust.
Delbacq, A. L. (1975). Group techniques for program plannning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Scott Foresman and Company.
Dervin,F., & Hélot,C. (2020). Interculturality in Education: Diversity of Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform. (Seminar Series No. 204). Centre for Strategic Education.
Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global citizenship education: Everyday transcendence. Routledge.
Guler, N. (2024). Global competency for teacher educators: exploring the needs of teacher education faculty in a profssional development project. Teacher Development, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2024.2354266
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for the 21st century schools: From instructional leadership to leadership for learning. Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Hallinger, P. (2014). Responding to the challenges of school improvement in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 241–256.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow’s leaders. Routledge.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. John Wiley & Sons.
Ho, S. S.-H. (2016). Strategic agenda-setting of institutional research in Taiwan's higher education institutions. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 10(1), 1–22.
Ho, S. S.-H., Chen, R. J.-C., & Cheng, I. H.-H. (2025). Higher education competitiveness in East Asia: The role of partnerships and funding in different societal contributions. Studies in Higher Education, 50(10), 2196–2212. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2025.2541897
Ho, S. S.-H., Klemenčič, M., & Bello, M. (2023). Internationalization and the academic profession: Cross-border education and academic mobility. In APEC 2018 report on education and economic development (pp. 26–45). Springer.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.
Huang, Y.-C., & Wang, R.-J. (2022). A comparison of policies for international education between Taiwan and South Korea. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(12), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.912.13524
Isaacs, A. J. (2003). An investigation of attributes of school principals in relation to resilience and leadership practices [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Florida State University.
Issac, S., & Michael, W. (1984). Handbook in research and evaluation (2nd ed.). EDITS.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4),
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829
Lashway, L. (1997). Leading with vision. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Lin, H. C., Lai, W., & Wu, B. (2020). How to determine the critical ratios for Fuzzy Delphi method? International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics, 13(3), 257-266.
Ministry of Education, Taiwan. (2020). International education white paper 2.0 for primary and secondary schools. Ministry of Education.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. NPBEA.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. OECD.
Ramos, K., Wolf, E. J., & Hauber-Özer, M. (2021). Teaching for global competence: A responsibility of teacher educators. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 35(2), 311–330. doi.org。
Reimers, F. M. (2020). Empowering students to improve the world in sixty lessons. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Resnik, J. (2018). All against all competition: The incorporation of the International Baccalaureate in public high schools in Canada. Journal of Education Policy, 34(6), 803 Ramos–824.
Resnik, J. (2020). All against all competition: The incorporation of the International Baccalaureate in public high schools in Canada. Journal of Education Policy, 35(3), 315–336. doi.org。
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
Sieber, J. E. (1992). Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal review boards. Sage.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Valenzuela, C. R. (2019). Cross-border education and academic mobility. In APEC 2018 report on education and economic development—Inclusive and quality education: Embracing digital future (pp. 26–45). Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat. https://www.apec.org/docs/default-source/Publications/2019/11/APEC-2018-Report-on-Education-and-Economic-Development/219_HRD_APEC-2018-Report-on-Education-and-Economic-Development.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Wang, R.-J., & Huang, Y.-C. (2020). Establishing a set of professional standards for principals in Taiwan. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(10), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.710.9182
Yemini, M. (2012). Internationalization assessment in schools: Theoretical contributions and practical implications. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(5), 715–722.
Yemini, M. (2014). Internationalization of secondary education: Lessons from Israeli Palestinian-Arab schools in Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Urban Education, 49(5), 471–498.
全文公開日期 2027/07/21