| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺東大學 === 進修部暑期體育碩士班 === 106 === Purpose: To investigate the current situation of the Health and Physical Education teachers’ willingness to innovative teaching in elementary schools in Penghu. This study further examined differences in social support, innovative atmosphere in schools, self-directed learning, organizational commitment, and other variables of the Health and Physical Education teachers’ willingness to innovative teaching, and analyzed the Linear Structural Relation Model of Health and Physical Education teachers’ willingness to innovative teaching. Methods: The participants of this study were the 586 elementary school teachers in Penghu in 2016. There were 451 valid samples, with the response rate of 77%. The data collected was analyzed by Descriptive Statistics, Independent-Sample t Test, One-way ANOVA and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Results: 1.Social support was above average (M＝3.86). The support of principals was higher than colleagues; All latent variables were rated above average with the innovative atmosphere in schools
(M＝3.85), self-directed (M = 4.1), organizational commitment (M = 3.94), willingness of teachers to innovative teaching (M = 4); The rate of self-directed learning was the highest. 2. There was significant difference for prize awarded health and physical teachers in different background variables. 3. The results of Structural Model Analysis showed that the support of principals and colleagues was counted for 49.5% of the innovative atmosphere in schools, as the innovative atmosphere in schools was the intermediary; Social support, innovative atmosphere in schools, self-directed learning and organizational commitment were counted for 51.7% of the explanation for teacher’s willingness to innovative teaching. Conclusion: The results of social support, innovative atmosphere in schools, self-directed Learning, organizational commitment and the teachers’ willingness to innovative teaching were all rated above average; the content of the willingness of teachers to innovative teaching was divided into three aspects. The score levels in order were teacher’s teaching behavior and ability, teaching ideas and attitude, teaching materials and design. The price awarded for teacher was the only variable indicated difference on the willingness to innovative teaching. Structural Model Analysis demonstrated the goodness-of-fit for the overall model test was strong.
|
|---|
