「教育部防制校園霸凌安全學校計畫」之推動成效研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討教育部所推動之防制校園霸凌安全學校計畫的推動成效，期望提供台灣未來全面推動「教育部防制校園霸凌安全學校計畫」的實證資料。本研究採自編式結構性問卷，研究母群體為19所接受教育部計畫且推動滿三年之國高中職教職員，經配額抽樣並配合分層抽樣法，共得有效問卷211份，回收率66%。本研究結果如下： 一、研究對象「反霸凌概念認知」正確率平均總分百分比為79.83%，且在「反霸凌態度」皆趨於正向反應，對於處理霸凌事件的判斷或處理均有很大的信心。研究對象對於「反霸凌執行行為」平均皆有七成的執行率。 二、研究對象「教育部防制校園霸凌安全學校計畫推動成效自評表」總得分最小值37，最大值100，總平均得分為86.2，標準差16.2。得分越高者代表研究對象自評學校對於此計畫之執行達成率越高。 三、研究對象「反霸凌概念認知、態度、執行行為」及「教育部防制校園霸凌安全學校計畫推動成效自評」會因教職員性別、教學年資、專任教師年資、擔任行政年資以及過去一學年曾參與『反霸凌』訓練不同水準而產生顯著差異。代表學校教職員可能會因為個人背景差異性而導致對防制「霸凌」有不同的應變措施。且曾參加過『反霸凌』訓練者亦較未參加者有較佳的防制「霸凌」應變措施。 四、研究對象個人背景變項，可解釋「反霸凌概念認知、態度、執行行為」總變異量分別為14%、18%、14%，表示反霸凌概念認知越高者，對於「反霸凌」認知也越高，對於「反霸凌」定義越清楚；過去一學年參加研討會次數越多者，對「反霸凌態度」也越高；接受大學教育者之教職員，對「反霸凌執行行為」越注重。 五、研究對象學校因素變項可解釋「反霸凌概念認知、態度、執行行為」總變異量分別為13%、8%和4%，顯示學校相關人員對「教育部防制校園霸凌安全學校計畫」模式的瞭解程度越高，對於「反霸凌」越重視。This research aims at exploring the effectiveness of “the anti-bullying safe school preventing programs promoted by Ministry of Education”, in order to provide empirical data of anti-bullying safe school preventing programs for Taiwan in the future. This research applies from structured questionnaire, choosing population from 19 junior and senior high school faculty members who have received promoted the program from Ministry of Education at least three years. Through quota sampling along with stratified sampling, there were 211 valid questionnaires received, with 66% of overall response rate. The results of this study are as follows: 1.Research objects achieved at least 79.83% of accuracy about “the perception of anti-bullying concept”, and presented positive response on the “anti-bullying attitude”, which showed great confidence on judging or dealing with “execution of anti-bullying”. In average, there are 70% of anti-bullying execution rate for the research objects. 2.Research objects scored the minimum of 37 and maximum of 100 on “self-evaluation of promotional effectiveness for the anti-bullying safe school preventing programs”. The average is 86.2, and the standard deviation is 16.2. The higher scores they got, the higher execution rate they had on this program. 3.The perception, attitude, and execution of “self-evaluation of promotional effectiveness for the anti-bullying safe school preventing programs” will show significant difference according to different genders, teaching seniority, expertise seniority, administrative seniority and past experiences of anti-bullying trainings. This shows the faculty members might result in different reactions about “bullying” because of individual background differences. Furthermore, the ones who have involved in “anti-bullying trainings” have better reactions compared with the ones who haven’t. 4.The variable of individual background explains “anti-bullying perception, attitude and execution” for the variations are respectively 14%, 18% and 14%. The higher scores they got on the anti-bullying concepts, the more they perceive and define the “anti-bullying”; the more frequent they’ve participated in the anti-bullying conference at the past one year, the more positive “attitude of anti-bullying” they have. The members who have university degree emphasize more on “anti-bullying execution” . 5.The environmental factor variables of research objects explain the variations of “anti-bullying perception”, attitude and execution” are respectively 13%, 8% and 4%. This result shows the more faculty members understand the “anti-bullying safe school preventing programs”, the more they emphasize on “anti-bullying.”