大學生參與服務學習課程經驗、團體動力知覺與領導力發展研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探究大學生參與服務學習課程其個人背景、課程經驗、團體動力知覺與領導力發展之關係。其中個人背景包括性別、社團幹部經驗；課程經驗包括服務方式、服務知能與服務學習發展歷程經驗的準備與服務、反思、慶賀；團體動力知覺包括團體凝聚、團體規範、溝通互動；領導力發展則包括自我覺察、真誠一致、承諾、協同合作、共同目標、以禮相爭、公民資質、改變。 研究對象為105學年度第二學期國立臺灣師範大學開設選修「服務學習活動設計與實施」的學生，共35名。量化研究工具為「大學生參與服務學習課程經驗與領導力發展問卷」，包括：服務知能量表、服務學習發展歷程經驗量表、團體動力知覺量表、領導力發展量表，統計分析方法包括：描述性統計、獨立樣本t考驗、皮爾森積差相關、多元迴歸分析與逐步迴歸分析，並蒐集學生課堂之反思心得與服務日誌等質性資料進行分析。研究結果歸納如下： 一、本研究大學生參與服務學習課程經驗、團體動力知覺與領導力發展皆屬良好程度。其中服務學習發展歷程經驗平均得分最高為「慶賀」，依序為「反思」、「準備與服務」；團體動力知覺平均得分最高為「團體凝聚」，依序為「團體規範」、「溝通互動」；領導力發展平均得分最高為「承諾」，依序為「共同目標」、「以禮相爭」、「協同合作」、「公民資質」、「改變」、「真誠一致」、「自我覺察」。 二、本研究大學生不同個人背景（性別、社團幹部經驗）對領導力發展皆無顯著差異；而不同服務方式之大學生僅有「共同目標」有顯著差異（p<.01），且為中小學服務的學生顯著高於高齡者服務的學生。 三、本研究大學生課程經驗、團體動力知覺與領導力發展皆屬於中度正相關。以多元迴歸分析課程經驗與團體動力知覺對領導力發展的解釋力為54.1%，其中以「準備與服務」、「反思」、「溝通互動」為顯著預測變項；逐步迴歸分析結果發現，「反思」為領導力發展、承諾、共同目標與以禮相爭的顯著預測變項，解釋力依序為29.6%、24.6%、52.3%與19.5%，「準備與服務」為共同目標與公民資質的顯著預測變項，解釋力分別為52.3%與20.4%。「團體規範」為改變的顯著預測變項，解釋力為31.7%；「溝通互動」為協同合作的顯著預測變項，解釋力為29.7%。 四、質性資料分析共歸納出六項主題包括：「服務實作後增進自我覺察與承諾」、「透過團體動力培養共識與協同合作」、「服務學習與反思提升社會責任的體認」、「從服務經驗中領悟出新觀念」、「透過服務學習尊重多元差異」、「從挫折中找到資源解決問題」。 本研究歸納研究結果對於提升服務學習專業課程之成效、加強服務學習師資培育之品質，以及未來研究對象、變項與方法等提出建議，期能提供相關教育人員規劃與實施服務學習課程之參考。

This study aims to explore the relationship among the personal background, curriculum experience, group dynamics perception and leadership development in participating Service-Learning curriculum. The personal background includes gender and organization cadre experience; curriculum experience includes practice of service, service knowledge and experiences of service-learning development process; group dynamics perception includes group cohesiveness, group norm, communication interaction; leadership development includes consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, collaboration, common purpose, controversy with civility, citizenship and change. The participants were the second semester of the 105 academic year elective courses "Design and Practice of Service-Learning" at National Taiwan Normal University, total of 35 students. "Students' Participation in Service-Learning Course Experience and Leadership Development Questionnaire" was used in this study, including Service Knowledge Scale, Service-Learning Development Experience Scale, Group Dynamics Perception Scale and Leadership Development Scale. The statistical analysis methods consisted of descriptive statistics, independent-sample t-test, pearson’s correlation, multiple regression analysis, stepwise regression analysis, and reflection journals were collected for qualitative analysis. Findings are as following:

1. Students participate in the Service-Learning curriculum experience, group dynamics perception and leadership development are good. The highest average score of Service-Learning experience is "celebration", followed by "reflection" and "preparation and service"; the highest average score of group dynamics perception is "group cohesiveness", followed by "group norm" and "communication interaction"; the highest average score of leadership development is "commitment", followed by "common purpose", "controversy with civility", "collaboration", "citizenship", "change", "congruence" and "consciousness of self". 2. There are no significant difference in leadership development among college students with different personal backgrounds (gender and organization cadre experience); however, there is significant difference (p<.01) among college students with different practice of service in "common purpose", and students serving primary and middle schools were significantly higher than that with elderly services. 3. The curriculum experience, group dynamics perception and leadership development have moderately positive correlation for college students. Multiple regression analysis findings: curriculum experience and group dynamics perception explain 54.1% of leadership development, in "preparation and service", "reflection" and "communication interaction" are the significant predictors. Stepwise regression analysis findings: "reflection" can explain 29.6%, 24.6%, 52.3% and 19.5% of the variance for leadership development, commitment, common purpose and controversy with civility; "preparation and service" can explain 52.3% and 20.4% of the variance for common purpose and citizenship; "group norms" can explain 31.7% of the variance for change; "communication interaction" can explain 29.7% of the variance for collaboration. 4. Qualitative analysis summarizes six themes, including "enhancing consciousness of self and commitment after service-learning", "building consensus and collaboration through group dynamics", "recognizing service-learning and reflection to enhance social responsibility", "understanding new ideas from service experience", "respecting multiple differences through service-learning" and "finding resources from setbacks to solve problems". Recommendations based on the results are presented to improve the effectiveness of service-learning curriculum and enhance the quality of service-learning teacher training, as well as expend participants, variables and methods for further research.