教师参与学校治理意愿影响因素的实证研究——计划行为理论框架下的分析

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.04.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

促进包括教师在内的多元主体参与是学校治理现代化的必然要求。本研究基于上海市442名中学教师的问卷调查，在计划行为理论框架下，对影响教师参与学校治理意愿的机制进行了实证分析。结果发现：（1）主观规范、知觉行为控制、参与治理态度和教师参与学校治理意愿显著正相关；（2）主观规范、知觉行为控制不仅可以直接正向预测教师参与学校治理意愿，还可以通过参与治理态度间接作用于教师参与学校治理意愿；（3）教师身份和教龄对主观规范通过参与治理态度影响教师参与治理意愿的中介效应有调节作用，非教代会代表、新手教师的效应更明显。需要加强参与理念宣传，营造良好参与氛围；注重意见反馈，提高教师参与效能感；用好激励机制，转变教师参与治理的态度；拓展参与范围，尤其注重新教师和非教代会代表在学校治理中的参与。

关键词: 教师参与, 学校治理, 意愿, 计划行为理论

Abstract:

It is an inevitable requirement for the modernization of school governance to promote the participation of multiple subjects including teachers. Based on a questionnaire survey of 442 middle school teachers in Shanghai, this paper analyzes the mechanism that affects teachers’ willingness to participate in school governance under the framework of the theory of planned behavior. The results show that subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and participation attitude have a significant positive impact on teachers’ participation in school governance. Besides, subjective norms and perceived behavior control can not only directly and positively predict teachers’ willingness to participate in school governance, but also indirectly affect teachers’ willingness to participate in school governance through participation attitude. Also, the mediating effect of subjective norms on teachers’ willingness to participate in governance is moderated by teachers’ identity and teaching age, and the effect of non-representatives of teachers’ Congress and novice teachers is more obvious. It is necessary to strengthen the publicity of the idea of participation and create a good atmosphere for participation. In addition, it’s important to pay attention to feedback, improve teachers’ sense of participation efficiency, make good use of incentive mechanism and change teachers’ attitude to participate in governance. Finally, expanding the scope of participation, especially the participation of novice teachers and non-representatives in school governance is helpful.

Key words: teacher participation, school governance, willingness to participate, planning behavior theory

魏叶美, 范国睿. 教师参与学校治理意愿影响因素的实证研究——计划行为理论框架下的分析[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2021, 39(4): 73-82.

Yemei Wei, Guorui Fan. An Empirical Study on the Influencing Factors of Teachers’ Willingness to Participate in School Governance: Analysis Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(4): 73-82.

图/表 7

表 1

表 2

图 1

表 3

表 4

表 5

表 6

参考文献 0

	陈作松, 周爱光. (2007). 环境、自我效能感与中学生锻炼态度的关系. 武汉体育学院学报, 41 (4), 31- 35. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-520X.2007.04.007
	成媛, 赵静. (2015). 生态移民区中学生学业自我效能感与学习满意度的关系: 学习态度的中介作用. 中国特殊教育, (7), 80- 85. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3728.2015.07.013
	姬亚平. (2012). 行政决策程序中的公众参与研究. 浙江学刊 , (3), 164- 171.
	贾鼎. (2018). 基于计划行为理论的公众参与环境公共决策意愿分析. 当代经济管理, 40 (1), 52- 58.
	李春梅. (2018). 心理资本对公众参与认知、态度和行为的影响研究. 学术论坛, 41 (2), 155- 162.
	连榕. (2008). 教师教学专长发展的心理历程. 教育研究, (2), 15- 20.
	林琳, 白新文. (2014). 基于计划行为理论的大学生学业拖延行为研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 22 (5), 855- 859.
	刘加凤. (2017). 基于计划行为理论的创业教育对大学生创业意愿影响分析. 高教探索, (5), 117- 122. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9760.2017.05.023
	苏洋, 赵文华. (2019). 我国研究型大学教师学术创业影响因素的实证研究——基于计划行为理论视角. 教育发展研究, (1), 70- 76.
	托马斯. (2010). 公共决策中的公民参与(孙柏瑛等译). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
	王明天, 薛永基. (2017). 社会沟通影响独生子女品牌忠诚的机制研究——行为态度和主观规范的中介效应. 暨南学报(哲学社会科学版), 39 (9), 46- 56.
	吴明隆. (2010). 结构方程模型: AMOS的操作与应用. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社.
	徐世勇. (2020). 组织管理十大经典理论解读与应用. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
	张红, 张再生. (2015). 基于计划行为理论的居民参与社区治理行为影响因素分析——以天津市为例. 天津大学学报(社会科学版), 17 (6), 523- 528.
	赵宝春. (2012). 直接经验对自主学习意愿的影响: 基于计划行为理论的应用. 心理科学, 35 (4), 921- 925.
	朱家德. (2017). 教师参与高校治理现状的个案研究. 高等教育研究, 38 (8), 34- 41.
	Ajzen, I.. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179- 211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
	Ajzen, I.. (2002). Residual Effects of Past on Later Behavior: Habituation and Reasoned Action Perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (2), 107- 122. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_02
	Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J.. (1986). Prediction of Goal-directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22 (5), 453- 474. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4
	Al-Debei, M. M., Al-Lozi, E., & Papazafeiropoulou, A.. (2013). Why People Keep Coming Back to Facebook: Explaining and Predicting Continuance Participation from An Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour Perspective. Decision Support Systems, 55 (1), 43- 54. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.032
	Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M.. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40 (4), 471- 499. doi: 10.1348/014466601164939
	Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
	Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N.. (1980). Tests of the Generality of Self-Efficacy Theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4 (1), 39- 66. doi: 10.1007/BF01173354
	Bridges, E. M.. (1967). A Model for Shared Decision Making in the School Principalship. Educational Administration Quarterly, 3 (1), 49- 61. doi: 10.1177/0013161X6700300106
	Cohen, A., Vigoda, E., & Samorly, A.. (2001). Analysis of the Mediating Effect of Personal‐Psychological Variables on the Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Political Participation: A Structural Equations Framework. Political Psychology, 22 (4), 727- 757. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00260
	Dawkins, C. E., & Frass, J. W.. (2005). Decision of Union Workers to Participate in Employee Involvement: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Employee Relations, 27 (5), 511- 531. doi: 10.1108/01425450510612031
	Dunn, R., Hattie, J., & Bowles, T.. (2018). Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explore Teachers’ Intentions to Engage in Ongoing Teacher Professional Learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 288- 294. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.10.001
	Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
	Godin, G., Valois, P., Lepage, L., & Desharnais, R.. (1992). Predictors of Smoking Behaviour: An Application of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Addiction, 87 (9), 1335- 1343. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb02742.x
	Marshall, T. H. （1992）. Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto Press.
	Rei, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. B.. (2002). Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis. Information Systems Research, 13, 50- 69. doi: 10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96
	Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I.. (1985). Intention, Perceived Control, and Weight Loss: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (3), 843- 851. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.843

变量	题项	因子载荷值	克隆巴赫α系数
参与治理意愿	3	0.76—0.84	0.837
参与治理态度	3	0.76—0.97	0.938
主观规范	4	0.67—0.88	0.887
知觉行为控制	3	0.84—0.96	0.920

	主观规范	参与治理态度	知觉行为控制	参与治理意愿
主观规范	1
参与治理态度	0.430^**	1
知觉行为控制	0.333^**	0.739^**	1
参与治理意愿	0.392^**	0.682^**	0.739^**	1
均值（M）	3.406	3.361	3.387	3.361
方差（SD）	0.598	0.639	0.569	0.671

拟合指标	GFI	RFI	IFI	NFI	CFI	RMSEA	CMIN/DF
数值结果	0.931	0.934	0.962	0.950	0.961	0.083	4.026

路径和效应	估计值		系数乘积项	Bootstrap法（1000次） 95%置信区间
			系数乘积项	偏差校正			百分位数
		标准误	Z值	下限	上限	P值	下限	上限	P值
SN→BA→BI	0.056	0.021	2.667	0.022	0.103	0.001	0.021	0.100	0.002
PBC→BA→BI	0.204	0.056	3.643	0.104	0.332	0.001	0.096	0.317	0.002
SN→BI	0.122	0.039	3.128	0.049	0.203	0.002	0.047	0.200	0.002
PBC→BI	0.701	0.095	7.379	0.518	0.900	0.002	0.520	0.901	0.002
总中介效应	0.260	0.071	3.662	0.125	0.410	0.001	0.123	0.404	0.002
总效应	1.083	0.072	15.042	0.953	1.246	0.002	0.947	1.243	0.002
中介效应比较	?0.148	0.046	?3.217	?0.251	?0.073	0.001	?0.243	?0.065	0.002

影响路径	估计值	标准误	P值	Bootstrap 法（1000次） 95% 置信区间（偏差校正）
影响路径	估计值	标准误	P值	下限	上限
SN→BA→BI	?0.093	0.053	0.041	?0.223	?0.007
PBC→BA→BI	?0.065	0.142	0.599	?0.375	0.176