Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60031| 題名: | 新北市高中英文教師教學專業能力指標建構之研究 A study on the development of professional teaching competence indicators for senior high school english teachers in New Taipei City |
作者: | 馮文秀 Feng, Wen Hsiu |
貢獻者: | 許炳煌 Sheu, Ping Huang 馮文秀 Feng, Wen Hsiu |
關鍵詞: | 高中英文教師 階層程序分析法(AHP) 英文教學 高中英文教師教學專業能力指標 Senior High School English Teachers Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) English Language Teaching Professional Teaching Competence Indicators for Senior High School English Teachers |
日期: | 2011 | 上傳時間: | 4-九月-2013 | 摘要: | 有鑑於近年來教育當局對於提升教師教育專業能力的重視以及陸續於一般中等學校計劃實施教師專業評鑑的努力，本研究旨在建構高中英語教師之教學專業能力指標，瞭解279位現職於22所公立高中之新北市高中英文教師對於各指標重要性看法之差異，並針對性別、學歷、學校規模、教學年資等社會背景的教師分析其看法之不同。依據文獻探討與專家效度實施之結果，共建立5大能力層面、13個向度、以及47個指標。問卷分析採用階層程序分析法(AHP)，得出各向度之權重值，排序結果如下：\n1.規劃能力：教學規劃比課程規劃重要；這兩項中分別又以規劃適當教學活動及規劃教學程序為重要指標。\n2.教學能力：溝通能力與英文能力尤其重要；這兩項中分別又以良好口頭溝通技巧及自我表達能力為重要指標。\n3.管理能力：班級管理比資源管理重要；而班級管理中又以良好師生互動為重要指\n標。\n4.專業成長：掌握學習機會比進行教學研究與革新重要；而掌握學習機會中又以反思個人教學與追求專業成長為重要指標。\n5.教學道德：工作態度比專業精神重要；而工作態度中又以與學校同事、學生家長、與附近社區建立良好工作關係為重要指標。\n在各向度的指標中，與教學有關係者較受青睞。各背景的教師與所有教師的看法傾\n向於一致，只顯示些微的差別。\n依據研究結果，本研究亦針對教育當局及高中英文教師提出建議，對於未來研究方\n向也提出一些看法，以期對英文教學有些許貢獻。 Academic authorities have recently laid their prominence on upgrading teachers’ professional competence with the reform efforts of implementing evaluating professional competence on teachers in middle schools. The current study aimed to explore the indicators for evaluating senior high school English teachers’ professional competence, and at the same time, to provide English teachers access to improve and increase teaching efficiency by showing the rankings of indicators under each sub-criterion investigated from 279 English teachers with 4 social background variants in 22 public senior high schools in New Taipei City. The social background variants included gender, educational backgrounds, school size, and total teaching years. In accordance with literature review and expert validity, 5 criteria, 13 sub-criteria, and 47 indicators were established as evaluating standards. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed and the results indicated that:\n1. Planning competence: Teaching planning was more important than course planning. Planning appropriate teaching activities and developing teaching procedures were considered to be the most important in the two sub-criteria respectively.\n2. Teaching competence: Communicative competence and English language competence were the first two priorities, but presentation of teaching materials the last. Good oral communicative skills and self-expressive ability were labeled as the most essential indicators respectively.\n3. Management competence: Classroom management was rather prominent than resources management. Good teacher-student interaction was especially viewed as important in classroom management.\n4. Professional development: Grasping opportunities to learn was taken more significant than conducting teaching research and teaching innovation. In grasping opportunities to learn, reflecting on one’s teaching and seeking professional development were seen as more important than others.\n5. Teaching ethics: Working attitude was of higher significance than professionalism, especially establishing good working relationship with school staff, students’ parents, and surrounding communities.\nIn conclusion, indicators which were more helpful to teaching were more favored. Despite their different social backgrounds, teachers tended to show similar opinions on the development of their professional competence. According to the results of the study, some suggestions were provided for professional development of English teachers, teacher training, gender differences of English teachers, teaching experiences, and future studies. |
參考文獻: | Alabama Department of Education (2000). Alabama Professional Education Personnel Evaluation Program. Retrieved August 14, 2010, from www.alabamapepe.com/powerpoint/specialed.ppt\nAgne, K. J., Greenwood, G. E., & Miller, L. D. (1994). Relationships between Teacher Belief Systems and Teacher Effectiveness. The Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(3), 141-152.\nAkiba, M., LeTendre, G.. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher Quality, Opportunity Gap, and Achievement Gap in 47 Countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369-387.\nApple, M. (1982). Work, Gender and Teaching. University of Wisconsin Curriculum Praxis Occasion Paper, 22. Department of Secondary Education, University of Alberta.\nArnold, J. (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nBaron-Cohen, S. (2003). The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain. London: Allen Lane.\nBates, J. T. (1993). Portrait of a Successful Rural Alternative School. Rural Educator, 14(3), 20-24.\nBenveniste (1987). Professionalizing the Organization: Reducing Bureaucracy to Enhance Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas.\nBesnier, N. (2003). Crossing Genders, Mixing Languages: The Linguistic Construction of Transgenderism in Tonga. In Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (Eds.). TheHandbook of Language and Gender (pp. 423-426). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.\nBesnier, N. (2005). Gender and Language in Society. Anthropology 149B. Retrieved August 7, 2011, from www.sscnet.ucla.edu/05W/anthro149b-1/anthro149BsyllabusW05.pdf\nBorg, S. (1998). Teachers’ Pedagogical Systems and Grammar Teaching: A Qualitative Study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-38.\nBradley, J. G.. (1995). New Teacher Training Programs for Quebec. Phi Delta Kapaan, 77, 180-181.\nBritish Council (2010). Frequently Asked Question: The English Language. Retrieved August 11, 2010, from http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-faq-the-english-language.htm\nBrown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). New York: Longman.\nBrown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.\nBrumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (1979). The Communication Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nBuchmann, M. (1984). The Priority of Knowledge and Understanding in Teaching. In Katz, L.,& Raths, J. (Eds.), Advances in Teacher Education (pp. 29-50). Norwood, NJ: Ableg.\nBullough, R. V. Jr. (2001). Pedagogical Content Knowledge Circa 1907 and 1987: A Study in the History of an Idea. Teaching & Teacher Education, 17, 655-666.\nButler J. (1993). Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York: Routledge.\nCalderhead, J., & Gates, P. (1993). Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Development. London: Falmer Press.\nCalifornia Department of Education (2009). California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). Retrieved August 11, 2010, from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/CSTP-2009.pdf\nCameron, D. (2005). Language, Gender and Sexuality: Current Issues and New Directions. Applied Linguistics, 26 (4), 482-502.\nCanale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.\nChristenson, S. L., & Cleary, M. (1990). Consultation and the Parent-educator Partnership: A Perspective. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 1, 219-241.\nCoates, J. (2004). Women, Men and Language (3rd ed.). London: Longman.\nCochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.\nCuttance, P. (1990). Performance Indicators and the Management Quality in Education. Keynote address prepared for the National Conference on Indicators in Education, 3rd, Canberra, Australia, December 3-4, 1990. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service. No. ED 333575.)\nDanielson, C. (2007). Enhancing Profession Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.\nDewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.\nDick, B. (1997). Communication skills. Retrieved October 8, 2011, from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/communicn.html.\nDuarte, I. B. (1998). Research in Second Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 617-622(6).\nEichenstein, R. (1994). Project Achieve, Part I: Qualitative Findings 1993-94. Brooklyn, New York: Office of Educational Research. New York City Board of Education, 379-388.\nEllis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.\nFeiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From Preparation to Practice: Designing a Continuum to Strengthen and Sustain Teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.\nFowler, W. J., Jr., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). School Size, Characteristics, and Outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 189-202.\nFreeman, D. (1993). A Concept Paper for Teacher Source. Unpublished manuscript, School for International Training, Brattleboro, VT.\nFreeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the Knowledge-base of Language Teacher Education. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397-417.\nGuntermann, G. (1992). Developing Tomorrow’s Teachers of World Languages. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 880.\nHalliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language Structure and Lanaguage Function. In Lyons, J. (Ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (pp. 140-165). Harmondsworth, London: Penguin.\nHargreaves, A. (1992). Cultures of Teaching: A Focus for Change. In Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (Eds.), Understanding Teacher Development (pp. 216-240). New York: Teachers College Press.\nHarrington, K., Litosseliti, L., Sauntson, H., & Sunderland, J. (Eds.). (2007). Language and Gender Research Methodologies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.\nHarris, B. M., & Hill, J. (1982). The DeTEK Handbook. Boston: National Educational Laboratory Publishers, Inc.\nHawk, P. P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). "Certification: It Does Matter." Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 13-15.\nHedgcock, J. S. (2002). Toward a Socioliterate Approach to Second Language Teacher Education. Modern Language Journal, 86, 299-317.\nHu, G-W (2005). Professional Development of Secondary EFL Teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 654-705. \nHymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, London: Penguin.\nJensen, L. (2001). Planning Lessons. In M. Celce-Murcia, (Ed.), Teaching English as a \nSecond or Foreign Language (3rd ed.) (pp. 403-413). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.\nJohnson, K. E. (1989). The Theoretical Orientations of English as a Second Language Teachers: The Relationship between Beliefs and Practices. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Syracuse.\nJohnson, K. E. (1999). Understanding Language Teaching: Reasoning in Action. Boston: Newbury House.\nJohnstone, J. N. (1981). Indicators of Education System. London: UNESCO.\nJoyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986). Models of Teaching (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.\nKahle, J. B. (2004). Will Girls Be Left Behind? Gender Differences and Accountability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 961–969.\nKalaian, H. A., & Freeman, D. (1994). Gender Differences in Self-confidence and Educational Beliefs among Secondary Teacher Candidates. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(6), 647-658.\nKumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a Postmethod Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537-560.\nLafayette, R. (1993). Subject-matter Content: What Every Foreign Language Teacher Needs to Know. Developing Language Teachers for a Changing World in G. Guntermann (Eds.) (pp. 125-157). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.\nLee V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000).School Size in Chicago Elementary Schools: Effects on Teachers` Attitudes and Students` Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3-31.\nLittle, J. W. (1990). The Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and Initiative in Teachers` Professional Relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509-536.\nLiu, F. (2006). School Culture and Gender. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Education, (pp. 425–438). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\nMacaro, E. (2003). Teaching and Learning a Second Language: A Guide to Recent Research and Its Applications. London: Continuum.\nMacCarthy, B., & Atthirawong, W. (2003). Factors Affecting Location Decisions in International Operations: A Delphi Study, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23(7), 794-818.\nMcdonough, J., & Shaw, C. (1993). Material and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.\nMeijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring Language Teachers’ Practical Knowledge about Teaching Reading Comprehension. Teaching & Teacher Education, 15(1), 59-84.\nMiller, P. F., & Coady, W. T. (1986). Vocational Ethics: Toward the Development of an Enabling Work Ethic. Springfield: Illinois Department of Adult, Vocational, and Technical Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 288 062).\nMiller, J. W., Ellsworth, R., & Howell, J. (1986). Public Elementary Schools Which Deviate from the Traditional SES-Achievement Relationship. Educational Research Quarterly, 10(3), 31-50.\nMinelli, M. J., & Breckon, D. J. (2009). Community Health Education: Setting, Roles, and Skills. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.\nMohammadi, M., Navidi, N., Baskshiri, N., & Kamali, J. (2011). Gender Differences among EFL Teachers` Beliefs and Their Classroom Practices in the Iranian Context. Presented at the International Technology, Education, and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain on 7th-9th March 2011.\nMollica, A., & Nuessel, F. (1997). The Good Language Learner and the Good Language Teacher: A Review of the Literature. Mosaic, 4, 1-16.\nMurry, J. W., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research. The Review of Higher Education, 18(4), 423-436.\nNational Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1987). What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do, The Five Core Propositions. Retrieved August 11, 2010, from http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_proposition.\nNorris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating Critical Thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication.\nNunan, D. 1988. Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nPinker, S., & Spelke, E. S. (2005). The Science of Gender and Science. Pinker v.s. Spelke: A Debate. Debate Held by the Mind, Brain and Behaviour Initiative: Harvard University, 22 April 2005. Retrieved August 7, 2011, from http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2827\nRenold, R. (2006). Gendered Classroom Experiences. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Education, (pp. 439–452). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.\nRichards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nRichards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.\nRichards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Language \nClassrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nRichards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.\nRoehrig, G. H., & Kruse, R. A. (2005). The Role of Teachers` Beliefs and Knowledge in the Adoption of a Reform-Based Curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 412-422.\nSaaty, T. L. (1977). A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234-281.\nSaaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.\nSaaty, T. L. (1990). How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9−26.\nSaaty, T. L. (1994). Fundamentals of Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.\nSaaty, T. L. (1999). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. RWS Publications. Pittsburgh.\nSaaty, T. L. (2005) Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.\nSaaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2000). Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.\nSander (2008). Wikipedia. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AHPFundamentalScale.png\nSavignon, S. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.\nSchirato, T., & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and Culture: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.\nSchon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.\nSchulz, R. (2000). Foreign Language Teacher Development: MLJ Perspectives 1916-1999. Modern Language Journal, 84, 495-522.\nShulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.\nShulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.\nSparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1990). Five Models of Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.\nTannen, D. (1991). Teachers’ Classroom Strategies Should Recognize that Men and Women Use Language Differently. Chronicle of Higher Education, 37, B1.\nTexas Education Agency. (2011). Texas Teacher Appraisal System, TTAS. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/\nZeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching Student Teachers to Reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 23-48.\n行政院 (Executive Yuan) (2009年9月23日)。提升國人英語力建設計畫。院臺教字第0980093279號函核定。 \n行政院 (Executive Yuan) (2002年7月)。挑戰2008：國家發展計畫--- e世代人才培育計畫 (2002-2007)。\n臺北縣教育局 (Education Bureau, New Taipei City) (2006年8月至2009年12月)。英語教學中程計畫。檢索日期: 2010. 08. 12, 取自\n http://www.tpc.edu.tw/web66/_file/2052/upload/25503/96master-3.pps#395,2,投影\n 片 2。\n臺北縣資訊服務站 (New Taipei City Government) (2008)。活化課程實驗方案。檢索日期: 2010. 08. 12, 取自\nhttp://www.tpc.gov.tw/web66/_file/2890/upload/theme/indexresult.html?cx=016666148170134108105%3A8gpaw0m81ro&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=%E6%B4%BB%E5%8C%96%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88#1560。\n臺北縣資訊服務站 (New Taipei City Government) (2009)。檢索日期: 2010. 08. 12, \nhttp://www.tpc.gov.tw/web/SelfPageSetup?command=display&pageID=19635。\n國民小學教師基本能力研究委員會 (1976)。國民小學教師基本能力研究報告。臺北：臺灣省國民學校教師研習會。\n朱淑雅 (Zhu Shu-Ya) (1998)。國民小學教師評鑑效標之研究。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。\n呂錘卿 (Lu Chuei-Ching)(2000)。 國民小學教師專業成長的指標即其規劃模式之研究。國立高雄師範大學博士論文，未出版，高雄。\n卓子瑛 (Zhuo Zi- Ying) (2009)。公立高中教師教學評鑑指標建構之研究。國立政治大學教育學院學校行政碩士在職專班學位論文，未出版，臺北。\n吳政達 (Wu Cheng-Ta) (1998)。國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究: e模糊德菲術，模糊層級分析法與模糊粽合評估法之應用。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺北。\n林詹田 (Lin Jan-Tain ) (2010)。綜合高中教師信念與班級經營策略之相關研究。彰化師範大學工業教育與技術學系碩士論文，未出版，彰化。\n林清財 (Lin Qing-Cai) (1990)。我國國民小學教師教育信念之相關研究。國立政治大學博士論文，未出版，臺北。\n施玉惠 (Shi Yu-Hui) (1998)。國小英語教師的未來規劃方向。教育資料與研究，23，1-5頁。\n徐敏榮 (Hsu Min-Jung) (2002)。國民小學教師評鑑規準之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。\n高強華 (Gau Qiang-Hua)(1996)。論提升教師專業成長的教師評鑑。中國教育學會主編。教育評鑑，247-272 頁。臺北：師大書苑。\n教育部 (MOE) (1979 年 11 月 21 日發佈)。(2005年12月28日修正)。(2010 年 08 月 13 日更新)。師資培育法。華總一義字第09400212591號。檢索日期: 2010. 08. 12, 取自http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContentDetails.aspx?id=FL008769&KeyWordHL=&StyleType=1。\n教育部 (MOE) (2003年 01 月 15 日發佈)。(2009 年 07 月 15 日 修正 )。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。臺國（二）字第0980112647C號。檢索日期: 2010. 08. 12,取自http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000342。\n教育部 (MOE) (2004年8月31日)。普通高級中學課程暫行綱要總綱。臺北：作者。\n教育部 (MOE) (2008年1月24日)。新修訂普通高級中學課程綱要。臺北：作者。\n教育部統計處 (MOE) (2009)。重要教育統計資訊。檢索日期: 2010. 08. 12,取自\n http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0013/overview37.xls。\n教育部教師專業發展評鑑規準 (MOE) (2006)。檢索日期: 2010. 08. 12, 取自 \n http://163.32.154.7/fish/瑞豐網頁.htm。\n陳淳麗 (Chen, M.) (1999)。國小英語師資訓練課程之調查分析。第十六屆中華民國英語文教學研討會論文集，223-242頁。臺北：文鶴。\n張德銳 (Cheng, D. ) (1996)。國民小學教師評鑑之研究。中國師範教育學會主編。教育評鑑(初版)，241-284頁。臺北：師大書苑。\n張艷華 (Chang Yen-Hua) (2002)。建構中學教師專業評鑑指標之研究 A Study on \n Developing Professional Appraisal Indicators for High School Teachers。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。\n莊筱玉 (Chuang Hsiao-Yu)、莊荏惠 (Chuang Jen-Hui)、傅敏芳 (Fu Ming-Fang) (2010)。影響經驗英語教師專業知識建構之因素分析。美和技術學院學報，29卷1期，1-23頁。\n許德便 (Sheu Te-Pien) (2004)。南部地區國中教師對教師評鑑制度態度之研究。國立臺南師範學院教師在職進修課程與教學碩士學位專班碩士論文，未出版，臺南。\n馮綉雯 (Feng Hsiu-Wen) (2001)。國民小學教師教學信念與教學效能之研究。國立屏東教育大學國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。\n楊嘉怡 (Yang Chia-Yi) (2010)。臺北市國小英語教師教學專業能力指標建構之研究。國立臺北教育大學人文藝術學院兒童英語教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。\n鄭雅如 (Cheng Ya-Ju) (2010)。國小教師信念、專業成長與專業知能關係之研究。屏東教育大學教育行政研究所博碩士論文，未出版，屏東。\n潘慧玲、王麗雲、簡茂發、孫志麟、張素貞、張錫勳、陳順和 (Pan et al.) (2004)。發展國民中小學教師專業能力指標。教育部委託專案。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究中心。\n劉威德 (Liu, We-Te) (1999）。教師教學信念系統之分析及其與教學行為關係之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。\n錢文成 (Qian Wen-Cheng) (1998)。如何成為一位理想的國小英語教師。國教天地，127，39-46頁。\n歐陽教、王秋絨、李春芳、高強華、張德銳 (Ou et al.) (1992)。教師評鑑模式之研究。教育部委託。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究中心。\n簡茂發 (Chien Mao-Fa) (1997)。中小學教師應具備的基本素質。教育研究資訊，5(3)，1-13頁。\n謝臥龍 (Shieh, V. ) (1997)。優良國中教師特質之德懷分析。教育研究資訊，5(3)，14-28頁。\n羅清水 (Luo, Q-S.) (1999a)。國小教師評鑑的概念與方法。國教學報，11，1-16頁。\n羅清水 (Luo, Q-S.) (1999b)。教師專業發展的另一途徑：談教師評鑑制度的建立。研習資訊，16(1)，3-6頁。 | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 英語教學碩士在職專班 97951017 100 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097951017 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 101701.pdf | 1.01 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.