Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/39200
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor湯志民zh_TW
dc.contributor.author卓子瑛zh_TW
dc.creator卓子瑛zh_TW
dc.date2008en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-25T08:54:41Z-
dc.date.available2010-04-25T08:54:41Z-
dc.date.issued2010-04-25T08:54:41Z-
dc.identifierG0095911018en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/39200-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description學校行政碩士在職專班zh_TW
dc.description95911018zh_TW
dc.description97zh_TW
dc.description.abstract本研究主要在於建構公立高中教師教學評鑑指標,以供公立高中教師教學自我評鑑之用,並提供教育行政單位實施教師教學評鑑之參考。\n 為達到上述目的,本研究透過文獻探討,參考Danielson(2007)教學專業實踐架構(Professional practice-a framework for teaching)、德州(1986)教學視導系統(Texas teacher appraisal system,TTAS)、麻薩諸塞州(2005)中小學教師有效教學原則(Principles of effective teaching),形成評鑑指標初稿,再以半開放式德懷術專家問卷調查法,進行指標審查、修正與刪減。問卷回收後應用SPSS統計軟體中之敘述統計進行分析,以平均數、中位數、眾數判斷評鑑指標之重要性,以四分差判斷專家群看法之一致性。經由前後三次德懷術問卷調查統計分析之結果,獲得以下結論:\n一、就教學評鑑領域的重要性而言,其重要性依次為:教學規劃準備、班級經營管理、呈現有效教學、實現專業責任。\n二、就「教學規劃準備」指標重要性而言,其排序為「1」者有6項,分別為「1-1-2,1-2-1,1-2-2,1-2-4,1-3-1,1-4-4」;排序為「2」者有9項,分別為「1-1-3,1-1-4,1-2-3,1-3-2, 1-3-4,1-4-2, 1-4-3,1-5-1, 1-5-2」。\n三、就「班級經營管理」指標重要性而言,其排序為「1」者有7項,分別為「2-1-3,2-2-2,2-3-1,2-3-3, 2-4-2,2-4-4, 2-5-2」;排序為「2」者有7項,分別為「2-1-1,2-1-2,2-1-4, 2-2-4, 2-3-4,2-4-1,2-5-1」。\n四、就「呈現有效教學」指標重要性而言,其排序為「1」者有7項,分別為「3-1-1,3-1-2,3-3-3,3-4-1,3-4-4, 3-5-1, 3-5-2」;排序為「2」者有10項,分別為「3-1-3,3-1-4,3-2-1, 3-2-2,3-2-4,3-3-1,3-3-2,3-3-4,3-4-3, 3-5-3」。\n五、就「實現專業責任」指標重要性而言,其重要性等級排序為「1」者有4項,分別為「4-1-3,4-1-4,4-3-1,4-4-1」;排序為「2」者有7項,分別為「4-1-1,4-1-2,4-2-1,4-3-3,4-5-1, 4-5-3,4-5-4」。\n六、就專家群看法的一致性而言,其四分差數值介於.000至.500之間,顯示專家群的看法具高度一致性。\n 七、就教學評鑑指標之建構內容而言,本研究建構之教學評鑑指標包括(一)教學規劃準備;(二)班級經營管理;(三)呈現有效教學;(四)實現專業責任。4個領域,及20個規準、57個指標項目。\n\n關鍵字:教育評鑑、教學評鑑、評鑑指標zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThe thesis attempts to build teaching evaluation indicators for senior high school teachers. The indicators will be the reference both for teachers who want to self- assess, and for senior-high school administration which want to evaluate performance of teachers.\nThe teacher evaluative indicators are derived from famous teaching evaluative indicators: “Professional practice-a framework for teaching”(Danielson, 2007), “Texas teacher appraisal system, TTAS” (1986), and “Principles of effective teaching from Massachusetts Department of Education”(2005). Later, the raw indicators are reviewed, revised, and decreased by “semi-open Delphi”. \nAfter analysed by SPSS, here comes 7 conclusions below, according to analyse the outcomes of questionnaire survey:\n\n1) On importance of teaching evaluation area, the sequence is: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, effective instruction, professional and responsibility. \n2) On importance of planning and preparation, the most important indicators are consistent of “1-1-2,1-2-1,1-2-2,1-2-4,1-3-1,1-4-4”, the second important indicators are consistent of “1-1-3,1-1-4,1-2-3,1-3-2, 1-3-4,1-4-2, 1-4-3,1-5-1, 1-5-2”.\n3) On importance of the classroom environment, the most important indicators are consistent of “2-1-3,2-2-2,2-3-1,2-3-3, 2-4-2,2-4-4, 2-5-2”, the second important indicators are consistent of “2-1-1,2-1-2,2-1-4, 2-2-4, 2-3-4,2-4-1, 2-5-1”.\n4) On importance of effective instruction, the most important indicators are consistent of “3-1-1,3-1-2,3-3-3,3-4-1,3-4-4, 3-5-1, 3-5-2”, the second important indicators are consistent of “3-1-3,3-1-4,3-2-1, 3-2-2,3-2-4,3-3-1, 3-3-2,3-3-4,3-4-3, 3-5-3”.\n5) On importance of professional and responsibility, the most important indicators are consistent of “4-1-3,4-1-4,4-3-1,4-4-1”, the second important indicators are consistent of “4-1-1,4-1-2,4-2-1,4-3-3,4-5-1, 4-5-3,4-5-4”.\n6) On coherence of professionals, lies between.000 and.500, shows highly coherence among professionals.\n7) On content of teaching evaluation indicators, the evaluative indicators for senior high school teachers include 4 areas: 1. Planning and preparation, 2. the classroom environment, 3. Effective instruction, 4. Professional and responsibility. These 4 areas are consistent of 20 standards and 57 indicators. \n\nKeywords: education evaluation, teaching evaluation, evaluation indicatorsen_US
dc.description.tableofcontents第一章 緒論 1\n第一節 研究動機與目的 1\n第二節 研究問題 5\n第三節 名詞解釋 5\n第四節 研究範圍與限制 6\n第二章 文獻探討 9\n第一節 教學評鑑的意義 9\n第二節 國內外教學評鑑實施現況 28\n第三節 教學評鑑指標的相關研究 51\n第三章 研究方法 57\n第一節 研究架構 57\n第二節 研究對象 58\n第三節 研究設計 60\n第四節 研究程序 65\n第五節 資料處理 68\n第四章 研究結果與討論 73\n第一節 第一次德懷術專家問卷分析 73\n第二節 第二次德懷術專家問卷分析 82\n第三節 第三次德懷術專家問卷分析 106\n第五章 結論與建議 151\n第一節 結論 151\n第二節 建議 157\n附錄一 169\n附錄二 177\n附錄三 184\n附錄四 191zh_TW
dc.format.extent96522 bytes-
dc.format.extent181937 bytes-
dc.format.extent215039 bytes-
dc.format.extent189112 bytes-
dc.format.extent172784 bytes-
dc.format.extent480462 bytes-
dc.format.extent404602 bytes-
dc.format.extent627675 bytes-
dc.format.extent386110 bytes-
dc.format.extent373823 bytes-
dc.format.extent414174 bytes-
dc.format.extent183592 bytes-
dc.format.extent372742 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095911018en_US
dc.subject教育評鑑zh_TW
dc.subject教學評鑑zh_TW
dc.subject評鑑指標zh_TW
dc.subjecteducation evaluationen_US
dc.subjectteaching evaluationen_US
dc.subjectevaluation indicatorsen_US
dc.title公立高中教師教學評鑑指標建構之研究zh_TW
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.reference一、中文參考文獻zh_TW
dc.relation.reference王文科 (1999)。 課程與教學論。 臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference余民寧 (2008)。 心理與教育統計學。臺北: 三民。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference吳培源 (1999)。 英國教育視導制度。高雄: 復文。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference吳清山 (1997)。 初等教育。臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference呂木琳 ( 2002)。 教學視導:理論與實務。臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李奉儒 (2001)。 英國教育改革:以中小學教育階段為例。 輯於李奉儒 (編)。英國教育:政策與制度, 11-30,臺北: 濤石。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李奉儒 (2008)。 英國中小學教師素質管理制度之研究。 輯於楊深坑、王秋絨、李奉儒 (編)。 中小學教師素質管理制度比較研究。17-49,臺北: 高等教育。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李明珠 (2006)。 國民小學實施 : 教師教學專業評鑑之硏究。未出版碩士論文, 國立臺北教育大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李 珀 (2000)。 教學視導。 臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李雪莉、丁嘉琳 (2007,11月)。 優質老師帶出創意學生。 天下雜誌,78-84。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李惠淑 (2003)。 國民中學教師教學評鑑規準之硏究。未出版碩士論文, 國立臺灣師範大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference李榮東 (2003)。 國民中學教師教學評鑑內涵之硏究。 未出版碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference林天祐 (2006)。 教學評鑑 2007.02.25。取自 評鑑雙月刊。zh_TW
dc.relation.referencehttp://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2006/09/15/63.aspxzh_TW
dc.relation.reference林以婷 (2006)。 高雄縣市國民小學教師教學評鑑與教學效能關係之硏究。 未出版碩士論文,國立臺南大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference洪啟昌 (2004)。 從課程改革談教學評鑑應有的思維與作法。學校行政, 30,115-126。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference孫志麟 (2003)。 把專業找回來--學校本位教學評鑑。 國民教育, 43(3),7-13。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference秦夢群 (1997)。 教育行政。 臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張德銳 (1998)。 師資培育與教育革新研究。 臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張德銳 (1999)。 我國中小學教師評鑑的檢討與展望。 師友, 381,5-8。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張德銳 (2004)。 中學教師教學專業發展系統。臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference張德銳、簡紅珠、裘友善、高淑芳、張美玉、成虹飛 (1996)。 發展性教師評鑑系統。臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference潘慧玲 (2004)。 發展國民中小學教師教學專業能力指標之研究。2008.05.12 ,取自http://www.sctcps.hc.edu.tw/filedown2/download/200611230806zh_TW
dc.relation.reference教育部 (2006)。 教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑之評鑑規準。 2008.05.12, 取自http://www.pchjh.chc.edu.tw/upload/news%5B1%5D.htmzh_TW
dc.relation.reference教育部 (2002)。教學評鑑與學習評量實例。 輯於國中組學校經營研發輔導手冊(6),1-95。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference莊品蓁 (2005)。高職教師教學評鑑指標適切性之探討 : 全面品質管理取向。未出版碩士論文, 國立屏東科技大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference郭昭佑 (2001)。教育評鑑指標建構方法探究。 國教學報,13,251-278。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳正昌、張慶勳 (2007)。量化研究與統計分析。 臺北: 新學林。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳永發 (2002)。 學校本位教學評鑑可行模式之建構。人文及社會學科教學通訊,13 (4) ,135-145。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference陳雅玲 (2007,03月)。 未來的一軍。 商業週刊,1006,72-78。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference曾淑惠 (2002)。 教育方案評鑑。臺北: 師大書苑。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference湯志民 (2002)。 臺北市國民中學校務評鑑之評析。 初等教育學刊,11,25-50。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference湯志民 (2008)。 未來學校的展望。 教育研究月刊, 165,13-21。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference湯瑪士.佛里曼(Thomas L.Friedman)(2005)。 世界是平的 (The world is flat,楊振富、潘勛,譯)。臺北: 雅言文化.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃政傑 (1997)。 教學的意義與模式。輯於黃政傑 (編)。教學原理, 1-26, 臺北: 師大書苑。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃政傑 (1999)。 落實教學評鑑的實施。教師天地, 99,39-45。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference黃新發 (2007)。 我國高級中等學校辦理教師專業發展評鑑初探:新制度觀點論,教師評鑑:挑戰、因應與展望研討會報告。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference溫明麗 ( 2005 )。 教育評鑑的回顧與展望-英國教育評鑑之後設分析。 2008.04.25,取自 http://web.ed.ntnu.edu.tw/~t04008/powerpoint/ppt38.doczh_TW
dc.relation.reference潘慧玲、王麗雲、簡茂發、孫志麟、張素貞、張錫勳、陳順和、陳淑敏、蔡濱如 (2004)。 國民中小學教師教學專業能力指標之發展,教育研究資訊, 12(4),129-168。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference蔡啟達 (2008)。 教育評鑑的基本概念。輯於 林進材 (編), 教學評鑑理論與實施,35-74,臺北: 五南。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference鄭崇趁 (2006)。 國民小學校務評鑑指標實施方式研究。 臺北: 心理。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference簡紅珠 (1990)。 教學評鑑的內涵與實施。現代教育,5(4),12-27。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference簡紅珠 (2004)。 從教學的道德性與藝術性論教學評鑑的盲點與限制。 教育研究,127, 55-62。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference簡紅珠 (2006)。 優質教學釋義與啟示。教育研究與發展期刊,2(2),1-17。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference簡茂發 (1984)。 教學評量原理。教師研習簡訊, 12,12-16。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference羅淑芬 (2001)。 英國學校視導制度。輯於李奉儒 (編) 英國教育:政策與制度, 61-122,臺北: 濤石。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference鐘啟泉 (2004)。 課程與教學概論。 上海: 華東師範大學。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference二、英文參考文獻zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDanielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance professional practice VA:Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDanielson, C. (2007). Enhancing profession practice:A framework for teaching VA:Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDanielson, C. (2008). The handbook for enhancing professional practice. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDarling-Hammond , L. (1999). Reshaping teaching policy, preparation, and practice. Influences of the national board for professional teaching standards. WA: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEisner, E. w. (2003). The educational imagination. London : Collier Macmillan.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFenstermacher.G. & Richardson.V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record 107(1), 186-213.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMetfessel, N. S.& Michael, W. B. (1967). A parading involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school program. Eductional & Psychological measurement, 27(4), 931-943.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMillman, J. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. CA: Newbury Park.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePayne, D. A. (1994). Designing educational project and program evaluations – A practial overiew based on research and experience. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencePeters, R. S. (1996). Ethics and education. London: George Allen and Unwin.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRibas, W. B. (2005). Teacher evaluation that works .MA:Ribas Publications.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceScriven, M. (1984). Evaluation ideologies. In Ross F. Conner, David G. Altman & C. Jackson (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual , 9, 49-80. CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSeyfarth, J. T. (1991). Personal management for effective schools. MA: Allyn and Bacon.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceShavelson, R., Mcdonnell, L., Oakes, J., Carey, N., & Picus, L. (1987). Indicator systems for monitoring mathematics and science education (Publication no. ERIC). http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED294738&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED294738zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSmith, B. O. (1987). Definition of teaching. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education ,11- 15 . Oxford:Pergamon.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSpee, A., & Bormans, R. (l992). Performance indicators in government institutional relations:The conceptual framework. Higher education management., 4:2, 139-155.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStake, R. E. (1983). Program evaluation-particularly responsive evaluationzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceIn G.F.Madaus, M.Scriven & D.L.Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models ,287-310. Boston: Kluwer-Nizhoff.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStuffiebeam, D. L. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. IN: Phi Delta Kappa.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTenbrink, T. D. (1974). Evaluation:A practical guide for teachers. NY: McGraw-Hill.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceW.K.Kellogg Foundation. (1998). Evaluation handbook. Retrieved 2008. 05.20, from http://www.wkkf.org/Default.aspx?LanguageID=0.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWorthern, E. C., & Sanders, T. R. (1987). Educationl evaluation : Alternative approaches and practical guide. NY: Longman.zh_TW
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
101801.pdf94.26 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101802.pdf177.67 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101803.pdf210 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101804.pdf184.68 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101805.pdf168.73 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101806.pdf469.2 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101807.pdf395.12 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101808.pdf612.96 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101809.pdf377.06 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101810.pdf365.06 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101811.pdf404.47 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101812.pdf179.29 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
101813.pdf364.01 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.