高中個人理財教育教師教學準備模式之探究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討高中個人理財教育教師的個人理財行為、教學專業能力、理財教育學科知識與教學準備之情形及關係，並根據學理與經驗，探討高中個人理財教育教師教學準備因素構成的探索性模式。首先，經由文獻分析理財教育、學科知識、個人理財行為、教學專業能力及教學準備等概念，綜合其內涵與相關研究後，建立高中個人理財教育教師教學準備模式。其次，以金管會之「金融基礎教育學習架構」等相關內容擬定訪談大綱，對六位學者專家進行「高中理財教育學科知識」內容的深度訪談；再根據訪談結果設計「高中理財教育學科知識」德懷術專家問卷，邀請學者與中小學教師共22位組成專家小組，進行三次施測，統整成「理財教育學科知識」問卷；同時，研究者參酌相關學者既有問卷編訂成「個人理財行為」、「教學專業能力」、「教學準備」問卷，上述四類問卷綜合而成「高中個人理財教育教師教學準備」問卷，作為本研究最主要的研究工具，以高中公民與社會科教師為研究對象。依照教育統計資料「100學年度高級中學公民與社會之任教領域教師數—按學校所在地分」，高級中學公民與社會任教領域教師數為1153人，採用分層比例抽樣進行問卷調查，發放給全國170所高中650份問卷，共計回收有效問卷503份，有效回收率達77.38％。 經過SPSS 12.0與AMOS 18.0等統計軟體分別進行描述統計、差異分析、結構方程模式分析，獲得本研究之建構模式適於解釋高中個人理財教育教師教學準備之研究結果，教師之「理財教育學科知識」對於「個人理財行為」、「教學專業能力」及「教學準備」具直接影響效果；「教學專業能力」對「個人理財行為」及「教學準備」具直接影響效果，「理財教育學科知識」對於「教學準備」具間接影響效果。根據研究結果，獲致研究結論如下： 一、高中理財教育學科知識可分為4層面與14子題，其核心概念為責任與規劃。 二、高中教師在師生互動與進修、專業發展、保險與風險管理、信用借貸與保險 與風險等層面表現較佳。 三、高中教師在投資知識以及個人財務規劃兩層面表現較差。 四、部分高中教師背景變項對理財教育學科知識構面有顯著差異。 五、建構模式適合解釋高中理財教育教師的教學準備 六、「理財教育學科知識」對於「教學準備」之影響略勝於「教學專業能力」，兩者影響力遠高於「個人理財行為」。 本研究乃依研究結果與所歸納之結論，從高中個人理財教育課程設計、高中個人理財教育教師教學準備與理財教育後續研究等面向提出建議，供我國師資培育機構、金管會、高中教師以及後續研究者等參考。

The purpose of the research is to probe into the construction of teaching readiness model in the behavior of personal financial behavior, teaching competence and financial content knowledge for senior high school teachers. Based on theory and experiences, the researcher would like to construct an exploratory model for high school teachers’ teaching readiness. First, with the overview of relevant literature review in financial education, personal financial behavior, teaching competence, content knowledge and teaching readiness, ateaching preparatory model was formulated. Second, with the “Financial Basic Teaching Learning Framework”as a basis, the researcher made an outline for interview and conducted an in-depth” high school financial education” interview with six professionals in the field. Based on the results of the interview, a Delphi Method “High School Financial Education Subject Content Knowledge” questionnaire was designed. 22 scholars and high school teachers were invited for the construction and organization of “Financial Education Subject Content Knowledge” questionnaire. Meanwhile, the researcher also surveyed previous “Personal Financial Behavior”, “Teaching Competence”, “Teaching Readiness” questionnaires, in combination with the “Financial Education Subject Content Knowledge” to formulate “High School Teachers’ Teaching Readiness for Personal Financial Education” as the main research instrument in the research. High school Civics and Society teachers were the subjects. According to the statistical data from MOE-”High School Civics and Society Teachers in 2011 academic year- arranged by school distribution”, there were 1153 Senior High School Civics and Society teachers. By means of sampling, 650 pieces of questionnaire were sent and 503 effective pieces were collected from 170 high schools in Taiwan, with the effective response rate of 77.38%. The current study adopted SPSS12.0 and AMOS 18.0 and other statistical analysis software independently for descriptive statistics, indifference analysis and factor analysis and structural equation model to validate that the constructual model of the current research is appropriate for the explanation of high school teachers’ personal financial education and teaching readiness. According to the research, teachers’ “Subject Content Knowledge” had the direct influence on “Personal Financial Behavior”, “Teaching Competence” and “Teaching Readiness”; “Teaching Competence” has a direct influence on “Personal Financial Behavior” and “Teaching Readiness” while “Subject Content Knowledge” has indirect influence on “Teaching Readiness”. Based on the findings, we can conclude that: 1.High school financial education subject content knowledge could be categorized into 4 major dimensions and 14 items, with responsibility and planning as the main cores. 2.High teachers performed better in teacher-student interaction, professional development, insurance and risk management, credit and loan, insurance and risk. 3.High school teachers performed comparatively less satisfying in the category of knowledge investment and personal financial planning. 4.The background factor had significant influence on some high school teachers’ financial education knowledge. 5.The constructual model was adaptive for the interpretation of teachers’ teaching readiness. 6.The influence of “Financial Education Content Knowledge” on “Teaching Readiness” is more significant than “Teaching Competence”. Nevertheless, the influence of “Financial Education Content Knowledge” and “Teaching Competence” on “Teaching Readiness” is more significant than “Personal Financial Behavior.” To sum up, the research aims to provide constructive suggestions for future financial education curriculum planning, high school teacher financial education, teaching readiness and further research. In addition, it could be used as a reference for Teacher Cultivation Organizations, Financial Supervisory and high school teachers.