1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Education
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 台北市幼稚園後設評鑑之研究
作者 賴志峰
貢獻者 秦夢群
Chin, Meng-Chu
賴志峰
日期 1996
上傳時間 2016-05-11
摘要 在研究旨在探討後設評鑑的相關理論與實務，進行台北市幼稚園評鑑（八十二至八十四學年度）之後設評鑑研究，以了解台北市幼稚園評鑑實施在效用性、可行性、適切性、精確性之價值與優缺點，並提出具體改進建議。
     後設評鑑之探討以文獻分析法進行，台北市幼稚園後設評鑑之進行則採用後設評鑑表及檔案文件分析法，首先後設評鑑表係基於後設評鑑理論及評鑑理論與實務的文獻中，選擇教育評鑑標準聯合委員會之方案評鑑標準，並修正部分內容後，編製成台北市公私立幼稚園後評鑑表，寄送評鑑委員、受評幼稚園填答，以了解其看法，並評估台北市幼稚園評鑑的優缺點，其次以檔案文件分析法針對評鑑相關會議記錄、評鑑報告等原始資料進行再分析，從不同面向評估台北市幼稚園評的品質。上述後設評鑑方法所獲得資料，視其性質，採取質化或量化的方法進行分析。
     本研究之結論依評鑑效用性、可行性、適切性和精確性四方面進行歸納台北市幼稚園評鑑提出以下建議：
     一、專業化的幼稚園評鑑制度為首要努力目標，並將後設評鑑列為幼稚園評鑑制度的一環，以提升評鑑的公信力。
     二、教育行政機關辦理評鑑有其先天限制，可朝向認可制度的方向發展，並由專責機構負責評鑑標準之認可，以確保評鑑實施的品質。
     三、應建立更健全的評鑑委員遴選儲訓制度，以提升評鑑委員的素質。
     四、評鑑程序及手冊應逐年研究改進，並釐清評鑑模式本身的限制。
     五、建立正確的評鑑觀念，有助於評鑑三循環（自我評鑑、訪問評鑑、追蹤評鑑）的落實。
     六、透過多元管道有效傳播評鑑相關資訊，使評鑑資訊為所有利害關係人所共享。
     七、評鑑績優幼稚園遴選原則係經評鑑委員多年討論獲致共識，可視為幼稚園辦學的關鍵性成功因素。
The purpose of this research is to explore relative theories and practice of metaevaluation, and to undertake the metaevaluation study of the Taipei Kindergarten educational evaluation (from 1993 to 1995 school year) in order to understand the value, merits and demerits of its implementation in utility, feasibility, properity, and accuracy, and accuracy, and to provide feasible suggestions for improvement.
      The metaevaluation research is carried out in the method of document analysis, while the metaevaluation of Taipei Kindergarten educational evaluation is carried out with metaevaluation checklist and in archival analysis. First of all, the metaevaluation checklist of Taipei public and private kindergartens is edited from The Program Evaluation Standards of The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation which is modified on the basis of metaevaluation theory and documents of evaluation theories and practice. Then the metaevaluation checklist is send to the evaluators and the kindergartens, which were evaluated, to fill in for the purpose of understanding their ideas and to assess the merits and demerits of the Taipei kindergarten evaluation. Secondly, the crude material collected from related conference records and reports is reanalyzed in archival analysis in order to evaluate the quality of Taipei kindergarten educational evaluation from different aspects. The material obtained from the methods of metaevaluation mentioned above, according to its characters, is analyzed in the method of qualitilization or quantitilization.
      The conclusion of this research tries to induce the value, merits and demerits of Taipei kindergarten educational evaluation according to the four aspects of utility, feasibility, properity, and accuracy, and on the basis of documents study and the research conclusion provides the following suggestions to the Taipei kindergarten educational evaluation:
     1.The professional kindergarten education evaluation system should be the primary goal to achieve. And the metaevaluation should be a part of it in order to promote its credibility.
     2.Because the educational administration has its innate limit when conductiong such evaluation, it’s better to adopt the Accreditation in which evaluation standards are accredited by professional organizations in order to ensure the quality of the evaluation.
     3.Establish more sound election system for evaluators in order to promote their quality.
     4.Improve the procedures and the manual of evaluation yearly, and clarify the limitation of the evaluation itself.
     5.Establishing right ideas on evaluation contributes to the implementation of the three cycles of evaluation (self-study, on-site evaluation, follow-up evaluation).
     6.Propagandize efficiently information of evaluations through diverse methods in order that information can be shared by those who have related interests.
     7.The rules for the kindergarten educational evaluation are conclude after years of discussion by evaluators can be regarded as the critical successful factors of the kindergarten.
參考文獻 一中文部分:
     王靜珠(民76) 。 幼稚園園務及教學評鑑。台灣教育， 436 , 20-26 。
     台北市立師範學院(民83) 。”當前幼稚園教育問題及意見之調查研究。
     國立教育資料館編印。
     台北市政府教育局(民83a)。台北市八十二學年度公私立幼稚園教育評鑑報告。
     台北市政府教育局(民83b) 。台北市八十三年度公私立幼稚園評鑑實施要點。
     台北市政府教育局(民84a) 。台北市八十三年度公私立幼稚園教育評鑑報告。
     台北市政府教育局(民84b) 。台北市八十四年度公私立幼稚園評鑑實施要點。
     台北市政府教育局(民85a) 。臺北市政府教育局辦理公私立幼稚園評鑑實務檢討報告。 台灣區八十四學年度公私立幼稚園後設評鑑研討會。
     台北市政府教育局(民85b) 。台北市八十四年度公私立幼稚園教育評鑑報告。
     台灣省政府教育廳(民85)。台灣省公私立幼稚園評鑑實務檢討報告。
     任秀媚(民81) 0 從幼稚園評鑑談幼稚園教保活動之問題。國教世紀， 28 (1)，34-40 。
     江啟昱(民82) 。 CIPP評鑑模式之研究。 國立台灣師範大學教育研究所
     碩士論文。
     李阿成(民73) 。談幼稚園教育評鑑。國教天地， 59 ，28-33 。
     周淑惠(民83)。幼稚園評鑑實施方案之說明。 載於教育部主編，八十三年度台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑委員研討座談會手冊。
     周淑惠、江麗莉(民84)。我國幼稚國評鑑制度。 載於中國教育會主
     編，教育評鑑( 第一版， 327-357)。台北:師大書苑。
     秦夢群(民79) 。教育評鑑對目前教育決策的影響一CIPP與司法評鑑模
     式為例。現代教育 , 20 ， 56-58 。
     高傳正(民77 )。幼稚園評鑑內容之探討。國教園地， 26 ， 11-14。
     國立台南師範學院(民， 82)。中美幼兒教育制度比較研究。 教育部編印。
     教育部國民教育司(民59)。國民教育發展五年計畫期終評鑑報告。
     教育部國民教育司(民82) 。發展與改進幼稚園教育中程計畫。
     教育部(民82)。台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑實施要點。
     教育部(民83) 。台灣省、台北市、高雄市幼稚園評鑑手冊。
     教育部(民85)。台灣區八十四年度公私立幼稚園後設評鑑研討會手冊。
     許玉齡(民82)。台灣地區與美國幼教評鑑制度的比較。 國立新竹師範
     學院幼教系學術研討會。
     許玉齡(民83) 。評鑑標準之說明一理念與行政部分。 載於教育部主
     編，八十三年度台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑委員研討座談會手冊。
     陳漢強(民74) 。美國大專院校評鑑之研究。台灣省政府教育廳編印。
     陳漢強(民83) 。幼兒教育機構評鑑。載於教育部主編，八十三年度台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑委員研討座談會手冊。
     陳漢強(民84) 。大學評鑑與品質保證模式的探討。 師資培育評鑑國
     際學術研討會。
     游家政(民83)。國民小學後設評鑑標準之研究。國立台灣師範大學
     教育研究所博士論文。
     黃光雄編譯(民78)。教育評鑑的模式。 台北:師大書苑。
     黃政傑等人(民， 83) 。台北市國民小學評鑑之研究。國科會補助研究
     案。
     黃炳煌(民84)。試為我國建立一個適切可行之課程發展模式—兼評國內當前之課程決策。 邁向二十一世紀我國中小學課程革新與發展趨勢學術研討會。
     黃美瑛(民73) 。幼稚教育評鑑有感。國教天地。
     劉穎(民78 )。從幼稚園評鑑談幼稚圍的環境與設備。國教月刊，36 , 36-39。
     蔣碧珠(民82)。由參加評鑑談幼兒教育問題。南投文教 , 104-106 。
     蔡春美(民75) 。幼稚園評鑑的意義和內容。國民教育，27 , 2-4。
     盧增緒(民84)。論教育評鑑觀念之形成。 載於中國教育會主編，教育評鑑(第一版， 3-59 )。台北:師大書苑。
     
     二、英文部分:
     Aikin, M. C., & Stecher, 8. (1983). A study of Evaluation Costs. In M. C.
     Aikin & L. C. Solmon (Eds.), The Cost of Evaluation (pp. 119-132) . Newbury
     Park, CA: Sage.
     American Evaluation Association. (1995) . Guiding Principles for Evaluators.
     New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66, 19-26.
     Bayless, D. L., Cahalan, M., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1990). Written Standards
     as A Process to Improve Survey Data Quality: A Riview of Selected National
     Standards. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO, ED 324 357 )
     Brinkerhoff, R. 0., Brethower, D. M., Hluchyj, T., & Nowakowski, J. R.
     ( 1983) . Program Evaluation: A Practitioner`s Guide for Trainers and Educators.Boston : Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Busen, T., & Tuijnman, A. (1994). Monitoring Standards in Education:
     Why and How it Came About. In A. C. Tuijnman & T. N. Postlethwatie (Eds.),
     Monitoring The Standards of Education (pp. 1-21 ) . New York : Pergamon.
     Baker, J. R., Claus, R. N., & Manley, M. (1980) . Meta Evaluation of The
     Saginaw township Middle School Enrichment Center Project. (ERIC Document
     Reproduction Service NO. ED 206 720 )
     Chambers, D. E., Wedel, K. R., & Rodwell, M. K. (1992). Evaluating Social
     Program. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
     Cook, T. D. (1974). The Potential and Limitations of Secondary Evaluation .
     In M, W. Apple, M. J. Subkoviak, & H, S, Lufler, Jr. (Eds. ), Educational Evaluation: Analysis and Responsibility (pp. 155-235) , Berkeley, CA: MrCutrhan.
     Cook, T. D., & Gruder, C. L. (1978) . Metaevaluation Research. Evaluation
     Quaeterly, 2 ( 1 ) , 5-51,
     Cook, T. D., & Straw, R. B. (1990) . Meta-evaluation, In H, J. Walberg &
     G, D. Haertel (Eds,) , The International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation( pp. 58-61 ) . New York: Pergamon,
     Cummings, O. W., Nowakowski, J. R., Schwandt, T. A., Eichelberger, R. T.,
     Kleist, K. C., Larson, C. L., & Knott, T. D. (1988). Business Perspectives on Internal/ External Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 39, 59-73.
     Datta, Lois-ellin. (1994) . Paradigm Wars: A Basis for Peaceful Coexistence
     and Beyond. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 84 .
     Evaluation Research Society Standards Committee. (1982). Evaluation ResearchSociety Standards for Program Evaluation. New Directions for ProgramEvaluation, 15, 7-20.
     Floden, R. E. (1983). Flexner, Accreditation and Evaluation. In G. F.
     Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation Models: Viewpointson Educational and Human Services Evaluation (pp. 261-277 ) . Boston :Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Fournier, D. M. (1994) . [Review of the book The Program Evaluation
     Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2nd ed. ) I.
     Journal of Educational Measurement, 31 ( 4) , 363-367.
     Gove, P. B. et al. (Eds.) (1981). Webster`s Third New International
     Dictionary. Springfield, MA : Merriam-Webster.
     Gallegos, A. (1994). Meta-Evaluation of School Evaiuation Models. Studies
     in Educational Evaluation, 20, 41-54.
     -Gowin, D. B., & Millman, J. (1978). Can Meta-Evaluation Give A Direction
     for Research on Evaluation? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.
     ED 161 938 )
     Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1988). Fourth Generation Evaluation.
     Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Harlen, W., & Elliott, J. (1982) . A Checklist for Planning or Reviewing an
     Evaluation . In R. McCormick, J. Bynn~r, P. Clift, M. James, & C. M. Brown
     ( Eds. ) , Calling Education to Account (pp. 296-304) . London: Open University.
     Hedrick, T. E. (1994). The Quantitative- Qualitative Debate: Possibilities
     for Integration. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61,45-52.
     Hopkins, D. (1989). Evaluation for School Development Bristol, PA :
     Open University.
     Krantz, D. L. (1995) . Sustaning VS. Resolving the Quantitative-Qualitative
     Debate. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18 ( 1 ) , 89-96.
     Lan, C. A. (1982). Using the Tools of Philosophy: Metaphor in Action.
     New Directions for Program Evaluation, 13, 29-51.
     Lee, Bruce Tien-Lung (1995) . A meta-evaluation of Taiwan Ministry of
     Education`s National Technology Institutes Evaluation: A Study of Evaluation
     Team`s and Shakeholders f Judgments on the Evaluation Practive [CD-ROM]. Abstractfrom : ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 9538604.
     Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). Program Evaluation:
     A Historical Overview. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds .),Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation( pp. 3-22) . Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Martin, P. H. (1982) . Meta-Analysis,Meta-Evaluation and Secondary
     Analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 228 280 )
     McLeod, R. (1995). Management Information Systems (6th ed. ) .
     Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.
     Mertens, D. M. (1994). Training Evaluators: Unique Skills and Knowledge.
     New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 17-28.
     Millman, J. (1981) . A Checklist Procedure. In N. L. Smith (Ed . ), New
     Techniques for Evaluation (pp. 309-314) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Nevo, D. (1994). Combining Internal and External Evaluation: A Case for
     School-Base Evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 87-98.
     Patton, M. Q. (1982) . Practical Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Patton, M. Q. (1994). [Review of the book The Program Evaluation Standards
     : How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2nd ed.) ]. Educational
     and Psychological Measurement, 54, 561-567.
     Sanders, J. R. (1983) . Cost Implications of the Standards. In M. C. Aikin &
     L. C. Solmon (Eds.), The Cost of Evaluation (pp. 101-117) . Newbury Park,
     CA: Sage.
     Sanders, J. R. (1995). Standards and Principles. New Directions for Program
     Evaluation, 66, 47-52.
     Scriven, M. (1972). An Introduction to Meta-Evaluation. In P. A. Taylor &
     D. M. Cowley (Eds.), Readings in Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 84-86) . Dubuque,Iowa: Brown.
     Scriven, M. (1975). Evaluation Bias and Its Control (ERIC Document
     Reproduction Service NO. ED 164 593 )
     Scriven, M. (1991a). The Science of Valuing. In W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook,
     & L. C. Leviton (Eds.), Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of
     Practice (pp. 73-118) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Scriven, M. (1991 b ). Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed. ) . Newbury Park,
     CA: Sage.
     Smith, N. L. (1981). Criticism and Meta-Evaluation. In N. L. Smith (Ed.) .
     New Techniques for Evaluation (pp. 266-273) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1974). Toward a Technology for Evaluating Evaluation.
     (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 090 319 )
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1981). Metaevaluation : Concept, Standards, and Uses.
     In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Educational Evaluation Methodology: The State of The
     Art (pp. 146-163) . Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP Model for Program Evalualuation . In G. F.
     Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation Models: Viewpointson Educational and Human Services Evaluation (pp. 117-141 ) . Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Stufflebeam, D. L., & Webster, W. J. (1983) . An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.),Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation( pp. 23-43) . Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1990). Professional Standards for Educational Evaluation.
     In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia
     of Educational Evaluation (pp. 94-106) . New York: Pergamon.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1994). Empowerment Evaluation,Objectivist Evaluation,
     and Evaluation Standards: Where the Future of Evaluation Should Not Go and
     Where It Needs to Go. Evaluation Practice, 15 ( 3) ,321-338.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1995). Evaluation of Superintendent Performance toward
     a General Model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 153-225.
     The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1981) .
     Standards for Evaluations of Educational Programs, Projects, and Materials. New York: McGraw-HilI.The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994) . The
     Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2nd ed.) . Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
     Worthen, B. R. (1994). Is Evaluation a Mature Profession That Warrants
     the Preparation of Evaluation Professionals? New Directions For Program Evaluation,62, 3-15.
     Young, K. E., Chambers, C. M., Kells, H. R., & Associates (1983) . Understanding Accreditation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G91NCCV0052012
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 秦夢群zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chin, Meng-Chuen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 賴志峰zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 賴志峰zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 1996en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2016-05-11-
dc.date.available 2016-05-11-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2016-05-11-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G91NCCV0052012en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96450-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 教育學系zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在研究旨在探討後設評鑑的相關理論與實務，進行台北市幼稚園評鑑（八十二至八十四學年度）之後設評鑑研究，以了解台北市幼稚園評鑑實施在效用性、可行性、適切性、精確性之價值與優缺點，並提出具體改進建議。
     後設評鑑之探討以文獻分析法進行，台北市幼稚園後設評鑑之進行則採用後設評鑑表及檔案文件分析法，首先後設評鑑表係基於後設評鑑理論及評鑑理論與實務的文獻中，選擇教育評鑑標準聯合委員會之方案評鑑標準，並修正部分內容後，編製成台北市公私立幼稚園後評鑑表，寄送評鑑委員、受評幼稚園填答，以了解其看法，並評估台北市幼稚園評鑑的優缺點，其次以檔案文件分析法針對評鑑相關會議記錄、評鑑報告等原始資料進行再分析，從不同面向評估台北市幼稚園評的品質。上述後設評鑑方法所獲得資料，視其性質，採取質化或量化的方法進行分析。
     本研究之結論依評鑑效用性、可行性、適切性和精確性四方面進行歸納台北市幼稚園評鑑提出以下建議：
     一、專業化的幼稚園評鑑制度為首要努力目標，並將後設評鑑列為幼稚園評鑑制度的一環，以提升評鑑的公信力。
     二、教育行政機關辦理評鑑有其先天限制，可朝向認可制度的方向發展，並由專責機構負責評鑑標準之認可，以確保評鑑實施的品質。
     三、應建立更健全的評鑑委員遴選儲訓制度，以提升評鑑委員的素質。
     四、評鑑程序及手冊應逐年研究改進，並釐清評鑑模式本身的限制。
     五、建立正確的評鑑觀念，有助於評鑑三循環（自我評鑑、訪問評鑑、追蹤評鑑）的落實。
     六、透過多元管道有效傳播評鑑相關資訊，使評鑑資訊為所有利害關係人所共享。
     七、評鑑績優幼稚園遴選原則係經評鑑委員多年討論獲致共識，可視為幼稚園辦學的關鍵性成功因素。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this research is to explore relative theories and practice of metaevaluation, and to undertake the metaevaluation study of the Taipei Kindergarten educational evaluation (from 1993 to 1995 school year) in order to understand the value, merits and demerits of its implementation in utility, feasibility, properity, and accuracy, and accuracy, and to provide feasible suggestions for improvement.
      The metaevaluation research is carried out in the method of document analysis, while the metaevaluation of Taipei Kindergarten educational evaluation is carried out with metaevaluation checklist and in archival analysis. First of all, the metaevaluation checklist of Taipei public and private kindergartens is edited from The Program Evaluation Standards of The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation which is modified on the basis of metaevaluation theory and documents of evaluation theories and practice. Then the metaevaluation checklist is send to the evaluators and the kindergartens, which were evaluated, to fill in for the purpose of understanding their ideas and to assess the merits and demerits of the Taipei kindergarten evaluation. Secondly, the crude material collected from related conference records and reports is reanalyzed in archival analysis in order to evaluate the quality of Taipei kindergarten educational evaluation from different aspects. The material obtained from the methods of metaevaluation mentioned above, according to its characters, is analyzed in the method of qualitilization or quantitilization.
      The conclusion of this research tries to induce the value, merits and demerits of Taipei kindergarten educational evaluation according to the four aspects of utility, feasibility, properity, and accuracy, and on the basis of documents study and the research conclusion provides the following suggestions to the Taipei kindergarten educational evaluation:
     1.The professional kindergarten education evaluation system should be the primary goal to achieve. And the metaevaluation should be a part of it in order to promote its credibility.
     2.Because the educational administration has its innate limit when conductiong such evaluation, it’s better to adopt the Accreditation in which evaluation standards are accredited by professional organizations in order to ensure the quality of the evaluation.
     3.Establish more sound election system for evaluators in order to promote their quality.
     4.Improve the procedures and the manual of evaluation yearly, and clarify the limitation of the evaluation itself.
     5.Establishing right ideas on evaluation contributes to the implementation of the three cycles of evaluation (self-study, on-site evaluation, follow-up evaluation).
     6.Propagandize efficiently information of evaluations through diverse methods in order that information can be shared by those who have related interests.
     7.The rules for the kindergarten educational evaluation are conclude after years of discussion by evaluators can be regarded as the critical successful factors of the kindergarten.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章緒論..........1
     第一節研究緣起..........1
     第二節研究目的與待答問題..........5
     第三節名詞釋義..........6
     第四節研究範圍與限制..........7
     第二章文獻探討（一）：後設評鑑..........9
     第一節評鑑的意義、專業化、質化量化典範爭議與CIPP評鑑模式..........9
     第二節後設評鑑發展的回顧..........23
     第三節後設評鑑的意義與目..........26
     第四節後設評鑑的焦點、架構與範圍..........32
     第五節後設評鑑人員..........38
     第六節後設評鑑標準（檢核表）..........44
     第七節後設評鑑的方法..........90
     第八節後設評鑑模式..........93
     第九節後設評鑑實施方針、常犯錯誤與策略..........107
     第十節後設評鑑的設計..........110
     第十一節後設評鑑的實例..........114
     第三章文獻探討（二）：幼稚園評鑑..........122
     第一節美國的幼稚園認可制度與台灣地區幼稚園評鑑制度..........122
     第二節台北市私立幼稚園評鑑..........132
     第四章研究方法..........143
     第一節研究架構..........143
     第二節研究工具與設計..........146
     第三節研究對象與取樣方法..........148
     第四節實施程序..........150
     第五節資料處理..........151
     第五章結果分析與討論..........153
     第一節後設評鑑表填答結果..........153
     第二節檔案文件分析結果..........185
     第三節綜合討論..........197
     第六章結論與建議..........202
     第一節結論..........202
     第二節建議..........205
     參考書目..........213
     附錄..........224
     附錄一台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑實施要點..........224
     附錄二台北市八十四學年度公私立幼稚園評鑑實施要點229
     附錄三台北市八十四學年度公私立幼稚園評鑑績優幼稚園遴選基本基本原則..........234
     附錄四台北市公私立幼稚園後設評鑑表..........237
     附錄五有關評鑑之網際網路討論群..........243
     附錄六台北市八十六學年度幼稚園評鑑手冊修訂情形..........246		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G91NCCV0052012en_US
dc.title (題名) 台北市幼稚園後設評鑑之研究zh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一中文部分:
     王靜珠(民76) 。 幼稚園園務及教學評鑑。台灣教育， 436 , 20-26 。
     台北市立師範學院(民83) 。”當前幼稚園教育問題及意見之調查研究。
     國立教育資料館編印。
     台北市政府教育局(民83a)。台北市八十二學年度公私立幼稚園教育評鑑報告。
     台北市政府教育局(民83b) 。台北市八十三年度公私立幼稚園評鑑實施要點。
     台北市政府教育局(民84a) 。台北市八十三年度公私立幼稚園教育評鑑報告。
     台北市政府教育局(民84b) 。台北市八十四年度公私立幼稚園評鑑實施要點。
     台北市政府教育局(民85a) 。臺北市政府教育局辦理公私立幼稚園評鑑實務檢討報告。 台灣區八十四學年度公私立幼稚園後設評鑑研討會。
     台北市政府教育局(民85b) 。台北市八十四年度公私立幼稚園教育評鑑報告。
     台灣省政府教育廳(民85)。台灣省公私立幼稚園評鑑實務檢討報告。
     任秀媚(民81) 0 從幼稚園評鑑談幼稚園教保活動之問題。國教世紀， 28 (1)，34-40 。
     江啟昱(民82) 。 CIPP評鑑模式之研究。 國立台灣師範大學教育研究所
     碩士論文。
     李阿成(民73) 。談幼稚園教育評鑑。國教天地， 59 ，28-33 。
     周淑惠(民83)。幼稚園評鑑實施方案之說明。 載於教育部主編，八十三年度台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑委員研討座談會手冊。
     周淑惠、江麗莉(民84)。我國幼稚國評鑑制度。 載於中國教育會主
     編，教育評鑑( 第一版， 327-357)。台北:師大書苑。
     秦夢群(民79) 。教育評鑑對目前教育決策的影響一CIPP與司法評鑑模
     式為例。現代教育 , 20 ， 56-58 。
     高傳正(民77 )。幼稚園評鑑內容之探討。國教園地， 26 ， 11-14。
     國立台南師範學院(民， 82)。中美幼兒教育制度比較研究。 教育部編印。
     教育部國民教育司(民59)。國民教育發展五年計畫期終評鑑報告。
     教育部國民教育司(民82) 。發展與改進幼稚園教育中程計畫。
     教育部(民82)。台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑實施要點。
     教育部(民83) 。台灣省、台北市、高雄市幼稚園評鑑手冊。
     教育部(民85)。台灣區八十四年度公私立幼稚園後設評鑑研討會手冊。
     許玉齡(民82)。台灣地區與美國幼教評鑑制度的比較。 國立新竹師範
     學院幼教系學術研討會。
     許玉齡(民83) 。評鑑標準之說明一理念與行政部分。 載於教育部主
     編，八十三年度台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑委員研討座談會手冊。
     陳漢強(民74) 。美國大專院校評鑑之研究。台灣省政府教育廳編印。
     陳漢強(民83) 。幼兒教育機構評鑑。載於教育部主編，八十三年度台灣區公私立幼稚園評鑑委員研討座談會手冊。
     陳漢強(民84) 。大學評鑑與品質保證模式的探討。 師資培育評鑑國
     際學術研討會。
     游家政(民83)。國民小學後設評鑑標準之研究。國立台灣師範大學
     教育研究所博士論文。
     黃光雄編譯(民78)。教育評鑑的模式。 台北:師大書苑。
     黃政傑等人(民， 83) 。台北市國民小學評鑑之研究。國科會補助研究
     案。
     黃炳煌(民84)。試為我國建立一個適切可行之課程發展模式—兼評國內當前之課程決策。 邁向二十一世紀我國中小學課程革新與發展趨勢學術研討會。
     黃美瑛(民73) 。幼稚教育評鑑有感。國教天地。
     劉穎(民78 )。從幼稚園評鑑談幼稚圍的環境與設備。國教月刊，36 , 36-39。
     蔣碧珠(民82)。由參加評鑑談幼兒教育問題。南投文教 , 104-106 。
     蔡春美(民75) 。幼稚園評鑑的意義和內容。國民教育，27 , 2-4。
     盧增緒(民84)。論教育評鑑觀念之形成。 載於中國教育會主編，教育評鑑(第一版， 3-59 )。台北:師大書苑。
     
     二、英文部分:
     Aikin, M. C., & Stecher, 8. (1983). A study of Evaluation Costs. In M. C.
     Aikin & L. C. Solmon (Eds.), The Cost of Evaluation (pp. 119-132) . Newbury
     Park, CA: Sage.
     American Evaluation Association. (1995) . Guiding Principles for Evaluators.
     New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66, 19-26.
     Bayless, D. L., Cahalan, M., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1990). Written Standards
     as A Process to Improve Survey Data Quality: A Riview of Selected National
     Standards. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO, ED 324 357 )
     Brinkerhoff, R. 0., Brethower, D. M., Hluchyj, T., & Nowakowski, J. R.
     ( 1983) . Program Evaluation: A Practitioner`s Guide for Trainers and Educators.Boston : Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Busen, T., & Tuijnman, A. (1994). Monitoring Standards in Education:
     Why and How it Came About. In A. C. Tuijnman & T. N. Postlethwatie (Eds.),
     Monitoring The Standards of Education (pp. 1-21 ) . New York : Pergamon.
     Baker, J. R., Claus, R. N., & Manley, M. (1980) . Meta Evaluation of The
     Saginaw township Middle School Enrichment Center Project. (ERIC Document
     Reproduction Service NO. ED 206 720 )
     Chambers, D. E., Wedel, K. R., & Rodwell, M. K. (1992). Evaluating Social
     Program. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
     Cook, T. D. (1974). The Potential and Limitations of Secondary Evaluation .
     In M, W. Apple, M. J. Subkoviak, & H, S, Lufler, Jr. (Eds. ), Educational Evaluation: Analysis and Responsibility (pp. 155-235) , Berkeley, CA: MrCutrhan.
     Cook, T. D., & Gruder, C. L. (1978) . Metaevaluation Research. Evaluation
     Quaeterly, 2 ( 1 ) , 5-51,
     Cook, T. D., & Straw, R. B. (1990) . Meta-evaluation, In H, J. Walberg &
     G, D. Haertel (Eds,) , The International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation( pp. 58-61 ) . New York: Pergamon,
     Cummings, O. W., Nowakowski, J. R., Schwandt, T. A., Eichelberger, R. T.,
     Kleist, K. C., Larson, C. L., & Knott, T. D. (1988). Business Perspectives on Internal/ External Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 39, 59-73.
     Datta, Lois-ellin. (1994) . Paradigm Wars: A Basis for Peaceful Coexistence
     and Beyond. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 84 .
     Evaluation Research Society Standards Committee. (1982). Evaluation ResearchSociety Standards for Program Evaluation. New Directions for ProgramEvaluation, 15, 7-20.
     Floden, R. E. (1983). Flexner, Accreditation and Evaluation. In G. F.
     Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation Models: Viewpointson Educational and Human Services Evaluation (pp. 261-277 ) . Boston :Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Fournier, D. M. (1994) . [Review of the book The Program Evaluation
     Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2nd ed. ) I.
     Journal of Educational Measurement, 31 ( 4) , 363-367.
     Gove, P. B. et al. (Eds.) (1981). Webster`s Third New International
     Dictionary. Springfield, MA : Merriam-Webster.
     Gallegos, A. (1994). Meta-Evaluation of School Evaiuation Models. Studies
     in Educational Evaluation, 20, 41-54.
     -Gowin, D. B., & Millman, J. (1978). Can Meta-Evaluation Give A Direction
     for Research on Evaluation? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.
     ED 161 938 )
     Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1988). Fourth Generation Evaluation.
     Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Harlen, W., & Elliott, J. (1982) . A Checklist for Planning or Reviewing an
     Evaluation . In R. McCormick, J. Bynn~r, P. Clift, M. James, & C. M. Brown
     ( Eds. ) , Calling Education to Account (pp. 296-304) . London: Open University.
     Hedrick, T. E. (1994). The Quantitative- Qualitative Debate: Possibilities
     for Integration. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61,45-52.
     Hopkins, D. (1989). Evaluation for School Development Bristol, PA :
     Open University.
     Krantz, D. L. (1995) . Sustaning VS. Resolving the Quantitative-Qualitative
     Debate. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18 ( 1 ) , 89-96.
     Lan, C. A. (1982). Using the Tools of Philosophy: Metaphor in Action.
     New Directions for Program Evaluation, 13, 29-51.
     Lee, Bruce Tien-Lung (1995) . A meta-evaluation of Taiwan Ministry of
     Education`s National Technology Institutes Evaluation: A Study of Evaluation
     Team`s and Shakeholders f Judgments on the Evaluation Practive [CD-ROM]. Abstractfrom : ProQuest File: Dissertation Abstracts Item: 9538604.
     Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). Program Evaluation:
     A Historical Overview. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds .),Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation( pp. 3-22) . Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Martin, P. H. (1982) . Meta-Analysis,Meta-Evaluation and Secondary
     Analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 228 280 )
     McLeod, R. (1995). Management Information Systems (6th ed. ) .
     Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.
     Mertens, D. M. (1994). Training Evaluators: Unique Skills and Knowledge.
     New Directions for Program Evaluation, 61, 17-28.
     Millman, J. (1981) . A Checklist Procedure. In N. L. Smith (Ed . ), New
     Techniques for Evaluation (pp. 309-314) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Nevo, D. (1994). Combining Internal and External Evaluation: A Case for
     School-Base Evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 87-98.
     Patton, M. Q. (1982) . Practical Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Patton, M. Q. (1994). [Review of the book The Program Evaluation Standards
     : How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2nd ed.) ]. Educational
     and Psychological Measurement, 54, 561-567.
     Sanders, J. R. (1983) . Cost Implications of the Standards. In M. C. Aikin &
     L. C. Solmon (Eds.), The Cost of Evaluation (pp. 101-117) . Newbury Park,
     CA: Sage.
     Sanders, J. R. (1995). Standards and Principles. New Directions for Program
     Evaluation, 66, 47-52.
     Scriven, M. (1972). An Introduction to Meta-Evaluation. In P. A. Taylor &
     D. M. Cowley (Eds.), Readings in Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 84-86) . Dubuque,Iowa: Brown.
     Scriven, M. (1975). Evaluation Bias and Its Control (ERIC Document
     Reproduction Service NO. ED 164 593 )
     Scriven, M. (1991a). The Science of Valuing. In W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook,
     & L. C. Leviton (Eds.), Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of
     Practice (pp. 73-118) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Scriven, M. (1991 b ). Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed. ) . Newbury Park,
     CA: Sage.
     Smith, N. L. (1981). Criticism and Meta-Evaluation. In N. L. Smith (Ed.) .
     New Techniques for Evaluation (pp. 266-273) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1974). Toward a Technology for Evaluating Evaluation.
     (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 090 319 )
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1981). Metaevaluation : Concept, Standards, and Uses.
     In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Educational Evaluation Methodology: The State of The
     Art (pp. 146-163) . Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP Model for Program Evalualuation . In G. F.
     Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation Models: Viewpointson Educational and Human Services Evaluation (pp. 117-141 ) . Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Stufflebeam, D. L., & Webster, W. J. (1983) . An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.),Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation( pp. 23-43) . Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1990). Professional Standards for Educational Evaluation.
     In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia
     of Educational Evaluation (pp. 94-106) . New York: Pergamon.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1994). Empowerment Evaluation,Objectivist Evaluation,
     and Evaluation Standards: Where the Future of Evaluation Should Not Go and
     Where It Needs to Go. Evaluation Practice, 15 ( 3) ,321-338.
     Stufflebeam, D. L. (1995). Evaluation of Superintendent Performance toward
     a General Model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 153-225.
     The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1981) .
     Standards for Evaluations of Educational Programs, Projects, and Materials. New York: McGraw-HilI.The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The Personnel Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Systems for Evaluating Educators.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
     The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994) . The
     Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2nd ed.) . Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
     Worthen, B. R. (1994). Is Evaluation a Mature Profession That Warrants
     the Preparation of Evaluation Professionals? New Directions For Program Evaluation,62, 3-15.
     Young, K. E., Chambers, C. M., Kells, H. R., & Associates (1983) . Understanding Accreditation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.		zh_TW