1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  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 臺灣省教育視導績效評估之研究
A Study of the Performance Appraisal of Educational Supervision in Taiwan Province, R.O.C.
作者 張清濱
Bin, Chang Ching
貢獻者 簡茂發<br>劉興漢
Chien Mao Fa<br>Liu Hsin Han
張清濱
Chang Ching Bin
關鍵詞 教育視導
績效評估
教育視導績效評估
Educational Supervision
Performance Appraisal
Performance
日期 1994
上傳時間 2016-05-11
摘要 在研究旨在探討教育視導績效評估的模式，據以評估教育視導的績效；進而比較分析視導制度、視導組織、視導人力、視導經費、視導角色及視導方式在視導效能、學生表現及工作漢足上的差異；並探求有效預測視導績效的變項，期能尋求教育視導革新的途徑，以改進視導工作，提升教育的品質。
     本研究採用問卷調查法，以自編「臺灣省教育視導績效評估量表」，分視導人員及學校人員兩部分，進行施測。受試者包括台灣省及各縣市教育視導人員126人，問卷回收率達98.41%，高級中等學校406人，問卷回收率達95.07%，國民中學448人，問卷回收率83.92%，及國民小學896人，問卷回收率78.90%。回收問卷經統計分析，獲得以下結論：
     一、不同視導制度在國民中學工作滿足上有極顯著差異。以駐區視導為主、分科視導為輔者比駐區視導為主、職合視導為輔者獲得更高的滿足。兩種不同的視導制度在視導人員及國民小學的視導績效上則未達顯著水準。
     二、不同視導目標取向在國民小學的工作滿足上有顯著差異，亦即教育政策取向優於非教育政策取向。兩種不同的視導目標取向在視導人員及國民中學的視導績效上亦未達顯著水準。
     三、不同視導組織結構在國民小學的視導績效上有顯著差異，亦即非正式化取向在視導效能、學生表現及工作滿足等方面，均優於正式化取向。兩種不同的視導組織結構在視導人員及國民中學的視導績效上未達顯著水準。
     四、不同視導人員年齡在國民小學學生表現及教師工作滿足上有顯著差異，亦即視導人員年齡愈小，學生表現及教師工作滿足愈佳。其他視導人員的人口變項對於視導人員及國民中學的視導績效上沒有達到顯著水準。
     五、不同視導旅費在視導人員工作滿足上有顯著差異。視導旅費愈充裕，視導人員的滿意度愈高。視導旅費充裕與否也會影響國民中學學生表現及教師的工作滿足。
     六、不同視導角色在國民中學的工作滿足上有顯著差異，亦即溝通取向比領導角色在國民中學的工作滿足，但在視導人員及國民小學的視導績效上沒有達到顯著水準。
     七、不同視導方式在視導人員、國民中學及國民小學的視導績效上沒有達到顯著水準，亦即不論民主式或權變式均不造成顯著差異。
     八、不同公文效率在視導人員的工作滿足及國民小學的視導效能和工作漢足有顯著差異。公文效率高，工作滿足也愈高。
     九、教育廳視導人員比縣市視導人員更有自信心，較能表現人性化的特質，工作滿意度也較高。
     十、高級中學學校的視導績效優於國民小學，國民小學的視導績效也優於國民中學。
     十一、各績學校人員的視導績效，主任優於教師，校長也優於教師。視導績效顯現於行政層面，惟教學層面則不甚顯著。
     十二、視導的背景變項、輸入變項及歷程變項對於視導效能、學生表現及工作滿足有交互關係。在各類變項的因素中，視導旅費、視導組織結構、視導制度、視導人員素質及公文效率對於視導績效頗具影響。
     綜觀本研究的發現與結論，研究者提出教育視導革新竹建議，俾供各級機關及學校斟採行：
     一、對教育行政機關的建議：（一）塑造視導人員的新形象，（二）延攬優秀視導人員，（三）實施分科及分及視導制度，（四）運用臨床（診斷式）視導技術，（五）結合教學輔導網，（六）建立績效評估制度，（七）建立教育品質管理系統，（八）強化視導人員的培育與進修制度，（九）增加視導經費及（十）提高公文處理效率。
     二、對學校的建議：（一）擴大校務參與的層面，（二）實施同儕輔導，（三）推展校內教師進修計畫，（四）貫徹「有教無類、因材施教」的辦學理念，（五）加強學生行為之輔導，（六）改進校務評鑑及（七）激勵教育工作熱忱。
     三、對省政府的建議：（一）設置縣市政府教育局督學室，（二）調整縣市政府教育局視導人員編制，（三）訂定省、縣市視導人員的任用基準，（四）暢通視暢人員的升遷管道及（五）改善視導人員的工作環境。
     四、對中央機關的建議：（一）修訂教育人員任用條例，（二）建立視導人員績效本位的考績制度，（三）建立視導人員的酬償制度，（四）提高視導人員的職等及權限及（五）舉辦視導人員高等考試。
參考文獻 一、中文部份
     王政彥(民79). 以CIPP橫式評鑑當前的教育視導.教育研究， 15 ，45-51.
     江文雄(民67). 我國地方教育視轉制度之研究. 臺北市:教育部國民教育司.
     行政院研究發展考核委員會(民75). 長中程計畫作業要領. 臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會.
     李緒武(民79). 教育評鑑的意義與發展，現代教育， 7(19) , 3-14.
     李祖壽(民68) 教育視導與教育輔導.臺北:黎明文化事業公司.
     邱兆偉(民81). 教育績效責任:美國經驗的啟示.駝鈴集Ⅲ，臺中:臺灣省政府教育廳國民教育輔導團， 114-127.
     邱錦昌(民77). . 臺灣地區國民中學教學視導工作之研究.國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文(:未出版) ?
     邱錦昌(民80). 教育視導之理論與實際.臺北:五南圖書公司.
     吳定等人(民79). 行政機關生產力衡置模式之研究. 臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員、會.
     吳清山(民81) 。學校效能研究. 臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
     吳清基(民79) 。精緻教育的理念. 臺北:師大書苑.
     吳堯峰(民82). 如何提昇地方公務員服務品質. 載於銓敘部主編:行政管理論文選輯，第七輯. 臺北:考試院銓敘部
     呂愛珍(民63) 我國地方教育視導人員任務研究.國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版) .
     林武(民79) .各國教育視導制度比較.彰化:復文書局.
     林新發(民82) 。教育機會均等與教育品質.博雅教育文集，第三輯. 臺北:國立臺北師範學院， 27-42.
     郭為藩(民76)，精緻教育的概念規準.中國教育學術研討會講詞.
     孫邦正(民55). 教育視導大綱.臺北:臺灣商務書局.
     馬信行(民79). 論教育評鑑指標之選擇.現代教育，7(19)，39-54.
     高孔廉(民78). 如何化計畫評估作業，行政計畫的理論與實務.臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會編印.
     徐善德(民67). 臺灣省縣市教育局組織與職構之研究.國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文， (未出版)。
     陳英豪(民82) 教育元導人員的角色.教育廳八十二學年度第一學期第一次視導工作會報紀錄.臺中:臺灣省政府教育廳.
     陳倬民(民79). 開創教育視導輔導的新境界.革新、實踐、開創教育新境界.臺中:臺灣省政府教育廳.
     陳偉民(民80) 。教育視導人員的角色. .臺灣省八十學年度地方教育視導暨教學輔導人員座談會實錄. 臺中:臺灣省政府教育廳.
     張鈿富(民81 ). 有教無類、因材施教之實施與成效. 教育研究，24，14-23.
     張清濱(民77) 。學校行政.臺北:臺灣書店.
     張清濱(民79). 教育的良醫一開創教育視導的新境界.師友月刊，274.38-39.
     張潤書(民79) 。組織行為與管理.臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
     黃昆輝(民71 ).教育行政與教育問題.臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
     黃振球(民79). 學校管理與績效.臺北:師大書苑.
     黃振球(民80). 績效學校因素初探.教育資料文摘，159，58-88.
     黃麗莉、李茂興合譯(民80)，組織行為:管理心理學理論與實施.
     臺北:揚智文化事業股份有限公司.
     楊百世(民78). 國民小學校長教學視導之研究.國立高雄師純學
     院教育研究所碩士論文(未出版) .
     雷國鼎(民56) 。教育行政. 臺北:正中書局.
     臺灣省政府(民46). 臺灣省政府公報‘春字第62期.
     臺灣省政府人事處(民80). .臺灣省人事行政法規及釋例彙騙，第
     七編.南投中興新村:臺灣省政府人事處，17-18.
     臺灣省政府教育廳(民63). 革新教育注意事項 總統訓詞.臺中:
     臺灣省政府教育廳.
     臺灣省政府教育廳(民79). 視導人員的角色與定位. .臺灣省教育
     通訊.8.2-3.
     臺灣省政府教育廳(民80). . 臺灣省教育視導人員手冊. 臺中:臺
     灣省政府教育廳
     臺灣省政府教育廳(民81) 陳英豪廳長提示七項工作重點. 臺灣
     省教育通訊， 33 ， 1.
     臺灣省政府教高廳(民82). 臺灣省政府教育廳單位預算.臺中:
     臺灣省政府教育廳
     臺灣省國民學校教師研習會(民67). 縣市督學基本能力研究報告.
     臺北:臺灣省國民學校教師研習會.
     蔡振生譯(民81) .學校組織行為分析. 臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
     劉春榮(民82) .國民小學組織結構、組織承諾與學校效能關係研
     究.國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文. (:未出版) .
     劉真(民59) .教育行政.臺北:正中書局.
     劉興漢(民79). 開放社會中學校行政的新趨勢.開放社會中教師
     的新形象，第19輯. 臺中: 臺彎省政府教育廳. 156-177.
     賴士葆〈民78). 政府機關生產力衡量橫式之建立，載於行政機關
     生產力衡量模式研討會議文集.臺北:行政院研究發展考
     核委員會.269.
     謝文全(民78). 教育行政-理論與實務，增四版.臺北市:文景書局.
     薛光祖〈民65). 六十四學年度教育視導工作研討報告. 臺中: 臺
     灣省政府教育廳.
     簡茂發、楊國樞等編(民71) .信度與效度.社會行為科學研究法
     (上冊) . 臺北:東華書局.
     關永實(民81) 。目標管理與績效評估，載於銓敘部編=行政管理
     論文選輯，第六輯，臺北:考試院銓敘部. 409-434.
     
     二、英文部分
     Alfonso. R.J., Firth, G.R. and Neville. R.F.(1975).
     Instructional supervision: A behavioral system.
     Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
     Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction-process analysis: A
     method for the study of small groups. Reading,
     Boston. MA: Addison-Wesley.
     Barnard. C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive.
     MA: Harvard University Press.
     Barr, A.S., Burton. W.H .? and Brueckner. L.J. (1947).
     Supervision. democratic leadership in the
     improvement of learning. New. York: AppletonCentury-
     Crofts.
     Barrilleaux, L.E. (1972). Accountability through
     performance objectives. National Association of
     Secondary School Principal Bulletin, May.
     103-110.
     Bingham, R.D., Heywood, J.S. & White. S.B. (1991).
     Evaluating schools and teachers bqsed on student
     performanec: Testing an alternative methodolog~.
     Evaluation Review. 15. 191-218.
     Blanchard, T., Lovell, B .? & Vi lIe. N. (1989). Managing
     fiance in schools. London: Cassell Educational
     Limited.
     Bobb itt, F. (1913). Some genera I pr inc ip I es of management
     app lied to the prob I ems of city schoo I systems. In
     Twelfth year book of the National Society fur the
     Study of Educat i on. Part I. Ch i cago: Un i vers i ty of
     Chicago Press. 7.
     Bolin. F.S. & Panaritis, P.(1992). Searching for a common purpose: A perspective on the history of supervision. In C.D. Glickman (Ed.). Supervision in transition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 30~43.
     Borg, M.G. 8. Riding, R . .I. (1993). Occupational stress, and job satisfaction among schooladrninistrators. Journal of Educational Administration. 31(1). 4-21.
     Bouckaert. G. (1992). Productivity analysis in the public sector: The fire service. International Review of ·
     Bridge. R.G .. Charles. M.J. & Moock. P.R. (1979). The . determ~nants or educational outcomes: The impact of famili~s.peers. teachers. And schools. New York: . BalI inge ..
     Campbell. R.F. (1980). The organization and control · of amer-ican schools (4th ed). Columbus. Ohio: ‘ Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. 5.
     Carnpbell. R.F .. Corbally. J.E. & Nystrand, R.O. (1983). · Introduction to ~ducational administration (6th). Baston: Allyn & Bacon. Inc. 221.
     Carman. B. (1970). Roles and responsibilities in general supervision of instruction. Unpublished doctoral . dissertation.
     Cassidy. M.F.; Schimmel. B.S. & Brady. K.A.(1993). 1 ldentirYing expectations for service quality in training and education through process needs assessment. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 6 (2). 3-16.
     Child. J. (1985). Organization: A guide to problem
     and practice. London: Harper & Row.
     Climaco. C. (1992). Getting to know schools using
     performance indicators: criteria. indicators and
     processes. Educational Review, 44(3), 297.
     Cogan, M.L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston:
     Houghton Mifflin Company.
     Conley, D.T. (1987). Critical attributes of effective
     evaluation systems. Educational Leadership, 44(7)
     60-64.
     Curtin, J. (1964). Supervision in today-s elementary
     schools. New York: Macmillan.
     Department of Education & Sciences(1977). Ten good
     schools. London: HMSO.
     Dimmock, C. (1990). Managing for quality and accountability
     in western australian education. Educational
     Review. 42(2), 197-206.
     Downton. D. (1987). Primary head teachers: sources of
     stress and ways of coping with it. Head Teachers
     Review, 12-22.
     Doyle, W. (1987). Research on teaching effects as a
     resource for improving instruction,. in Wideen.
     M. & Andrews. I. (eds.). Staff Development for
     School Improvement. Lewes: Palmer Press.
     Dull. L.W. (1981). Supervision: School leadership
     handbook. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
     Company.
     Edmonds. R.R. (1979). Effective schools for the urburn
     poor. Educatio~al Leadership, 37, 15-27.
     Edmonds. R.R. (1981). Making public school effective. .’ SocIal Policy, 12. 28-32.
     Lsbree. W.S .. McNally. H.J. & Wynn. R. (1967). Elementary school administration and supervision. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhod Co .. 14-18.
     Eye. G.G·.Netzer, L.A .. ‘& Krey. R.D.(1971). Superision of instruction. New York: Harper & Row. ..,
     Fiedler”. B. (198”9).” Staff appraisal-theory. Concepts and experience in other organizations an~ problems of . adaptation to education. In C. Riches. &.C. Mnrg~n r (eds.) Human resourcemanagement in education. New York:-“ Open”University Presso 190-207. ,.”
     Fiedler. F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     Fitzgerald. J.H. (1993). Management practices: A profile . of district-level supervisory activity in one school d istrict. Journal of· Curricul um and Supervision. . 8 (2). 128-139.
     Fitz-Gibbon,’c. T. (1990) .- Performance indicators. Clevedon:- Multilingual –Matters.
     Franseth, J. (1955). Super-vision in rural schools. _ . Washington. D.C.: United States Office of Education.
     Fraser. K.P. (1990). Supervisor behavior and teacher satisfaction. The Journ~l of Educational Administra-tion. 18. 224-231.
     Fullan. M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local leve”l. The Elementary School Journal. 85 (3), 391-421. .
     George, P.S. (1987). Performance management in education.
     Educational Leadership, 44(7), 32-39.
     Getzels, J.H. & GuJ::)a, E.G. (957). Social behavIor and
     the administrative process. School Review, 65, 429.
     Getzels, J.W., Lipham, J.M., & Campbell, R.E. (968).
     Educational administration as a social process.
     N.V.: Harper & Row. Publishers.
     Glickman, C.D. (990). Supervision of instruction: A
     developmental approach (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
     Bacon.
     Good, C.V. (1959). Dictionary of education (2nd ed.).
     New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc. 539.
     Gray. J. (1990). The quality of schooling: Frameworks
     for judgement. British Journal of Educational
     Studies, 38(3). 204-223.
     Griffiths, D.E. (1959). Administrative theory, New York:
     Appleton-Century-Crofts.
     Gulick. L. & Urwick. L. (1937). Papers on the science of
     administration. New York: Institute of Public
     Administration. Columbia University.
     Halpin, A. W. (1956). The behavior of leaders, Educational
     Leadership. 14, 172-76.
     Hargreaves. D.H. & Hopkins. D. (1991). The empowered
     school: The management and practice of development
     planning. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
     Harris, B.M. (1985) .. Supervisory behavior in education
     (3rd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
     Inc.
     Harris. B. & Bessent. W. (1969). In-service education: A suide to better practice. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall
     Heffron. F. (1989). Organizational theory a~d public J organi~ations: The political conneetion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Printice Hall.
     Hellweg. S. A. & PhIllips. S. L. (1980). Communication and productivity in organizations: A state-of-the-art . review. In Proceedinss of the 40th Annual Academy .of Management Conference. Detroit. Michigan. 189-92.
     Herzberg. F. (1959). The motivation to work. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
     Howsam. R. B. (1973). Current issues in eva luat ion. The . - . National Elementary Principal. 52. No.5,12-17.
     Hoy. W.K. & Niskel. E.G. (1987). Educational administra-tion: Theory. Research and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Random House ….
     Huber. J. (1974). Accepting accountability. The Clearing House. 48. 518.
     Jennings. H.H. (1950). Leadership and isolation (2nd ed.). New York: Longman, Inc. .
     Kast. F.E. et al. (1979). Organization and management. New York: McGraw Hill.
     Kerr. E.A .. Schriesheim. C.J .. Murphy. And R.M. Stoogdill (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human . Performanc.e, 62-82.
     Knutton, S. & Mycroft, A. (1986). Stress and the deputy . head. School Organization, 6(1), 49-59.
     Krajewski. R.J. (1976) Clinical supervision: To facilitate
     teacher self-improvement. Journal of Research and
     Development in Education. 9, 58-66.
     Linn, R., E. Baker, and S. Dunbur(1991). Complex performance
     based assessment: Expectations and validation
     criteria. Educational Research, 20, 8:15-21.
     Lunenburg, F.C. & Ornstein, A.C. (1991). Educational
     administration: Concepts and practices. Belmont, Cal.
     Wadsworth Publishing Company, P.439.
     Hanatt, R. P.O 992).研討會論文.臺中:臺灣省中等學校教師研習會編印。
     Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New
     York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
     Mauriel, J.J. (1989). Strategic leadership for schools:
     Creating and sustaining productive change . San
     Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
     McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New
     York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
     McKenna, B.H. (1973). Teacher evaluation-some implications.
     Today-s Education, 55.
     Meyer, C.A. (1992). What-s the difference between
     authentic and performance assessment? Educational
     Leadership, 49, 39-40.
     Heyer, H.H. (1980). Self-appraisal of job performance.
     Personnel Psychology, 33, 291-95.
     Mi ller, W. (1972). Accountabi 1 ity demands improvement,
     Educational Leadership, 29.
     Mondy. R.W .. Sharp!in. A .. and Premezux. S.R. (1990). Supervision (2nd ed.). Baston: Allyn and Bacan, 298-317. ,
     Monk. D. H.(1992). Educat i on productivity research: An
     update and assessment of its role in education
     finance reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy
     Analysis. 14(4). 307-332.
     Montgomery. D. & Hadfield. N. (1989). Practical teacher
     appraisal. Guildford. England: Kogan Page Ltd. 23.
     Moore. T: (1987). Personality tests are back.Fortune,
     March, 74-82.
     Moorer, S.H. (1952). The Keystone to educational progress.
     Tallahassee: Florida State Department of Education.
     Moreno, J.L. (1947). Contributions of sociometry to
     research methodology in sociology. American
     Sociological Review, 12, 287-92.
     Mort i more, P. (1992). Qua 1 i ty contro lin educat i on and
     schools. British Journal , of Educational Studies,
     40(1), 23-37.
     Mortimore, P. et al. (1988). School Matters. London:
     Open books.
     Mosher, R. & Purpel . D. (1972). Supervision: The
     reluctant profession. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin .
     . Murphy, J., Ha11inger, P.·, & Mesa, R. R. (Summer, 1985).
     School effectiveness: Checking progress and assumptions
     and developing a role for state and federal
     government. Teachers College Record, 86(4), 616-641.
     National Education Association(1948). The yardstick of a
     profession. Washington, D.C.: NEA.
     Neagley, R.L. & Evans, N.D. (1980). Handbook for effective
     supervision of instruction (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
     New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.
     Nhundu. T.J. (1992). The relationship between self and
     supervisor appraisals with role clarity and job
     satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration.
     30 (1). 29-41.
     Oliva. P.F. (1976). Supervision for today`s schools.
     N.Y. :Harper & Row. Publisher. Inc.
     01 i ver. N. (1993). QuaIity. costs and changing strategies
     of control in universities in the UK. Journal of
     Educational Administration. 31(1). 41-52.
     Owens. R.O. (1987). Organizational behavior in education
     (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
     Pajak. E.F. (1992). A view from the central office.
     Supervision in transition. in Glickman. C.D. (ed.).
     Association for Supervision and Curriculum
     Development.
     Perry. J.L. & Wise. L.R. (1990). The motivational bases
     of public service. Public Administration Review.
     50, 367-82.
     Pfeiffer. I.L. and Dunlap. P.B. (1982). Supervision of
     teachers: A guide to improving instruction. Phoenix:
     Oryx Press.
     Porter. L.W. & Lawler. E.E. (1968). Managerial attitudes
     and performance. Homewood. Ill.: Richard Irwin.
     Purkey. S. and Smith. M. (1983). Effective schools:
     A review. The Elementary School Journal. 83(4).
     427-52.
     Quinn. R.E. (1978). Productivity and the process of
     organizational improvement: Why we cannot talk to
     each other? Public Administrative Review. 38(1). 42.
     Ravitch. D. (1993). Launching a revolution in standards and assessments. Phi Delta Kappan. 74. 767-72. .
     Robbins .S.P.(1989). Organizational behaveor: concepts. Controversies. And applications (4th ed.)「中譯本:黃麗莉、李茂興譯(民81).組織行為:管理心理學理論與實務.台北:揚智文化事業股份有限公司.」
     Roeth lisberger, E. J. & D ickson. W. J. (1939). Management .
     And the worker. Cambridge. M:A: Harvard University . Press.
     Rutter. M. et al. (1979). Fifteenthousand hours.,London: Open Books.
     Secretary of_State for_Education(1988)_ .Speech to the· . SEO. London: DES Press office.
     Seldin. P. (1988). Evaluating and developing administrative performance: a peactical guide for academic . leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publ ishers.
     Serg iovanni, T. J. (1977). Handbook for effective leadership. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
     Sergiovanni, T.J. & Starratt, R.J.(1979). Supervision: human perspectives(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
     Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management . decision. New York: Harper & Row
     Snyde, K.& Gielfa,M.(1988). Managing Productive . programs: Training in readiness modules. Tampa. F1.: Pedamorphosis. Inc
     Spears. H. (19S3). ‘Improving the supervision of·
     Instruction. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
     Stronge, J.H. & Helm, V.M. (1992). A performance
     evaluation system for professional support
     peresonnel. Educational Evaluation and Policy
     Analysis, 14(2), 175-180.
     Stufflebeam, D.L. (1983). The CIPP model for program
     evaluation, In Evaluation Models. Boston: KluwerNijhoff
     Publishing. 17.
     SziIagyi; A. D. (1984`). Management and performance
     (2nded.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Scott
     Foresman and Company. 31.
     Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management.
     New York: Harper & Row. Publishers, Inc. 8.
     Thomas, H. (1990). Education costs and performance: A
     cost-effectiveness analysis. London: Cassell.
     Travers, A. W. (1988). Supervision: Techniques and n`ew
     dimensions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 185-199.
     Van Velzen. W. (1985). Making school improvement
     work. Leuven. Belgium: ACCO.
     Weick, K.E. (1974). Middle range theories of social
     systems. Behavioral Science, 19(6), 357-67.
     Wilcox, B. (1989). Inspection and its contribution to
     practical evaluation. Educational Research, 31"(3),
     163-175.
     Wiles, K. (1950). Supervision for better schools
     Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
     Wiles. K. (1967). Supervision for better schools (3rd.
     ed. ). Eng 1 ewood Cliffs, N. J .: Prentice-Ha11.
     Wiles. J. & Bondi, J. (1991). Supervision: A guide to
     practice (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing
     Company.
     Wiles, K. and Lovell, J.F.(1975). Supervision for
     better schools (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
     Prentice-Hall.Wilson. B.L. & Corcoran. T.B. (1988). Successful secondary schools: Visions of excellence in american public education. New York: The Fslmer Presso
     Windham, D.M. & Chapman, D.W. (1990). The evaluation-of
     educational efficiency: Constraints, issues and
     policies. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
     Witte, J.F. & Walsh, D.J. (1990). A systematic test of
     the effective schools model. Educational Evaluation
     and Policy Analysis, 12, 188-212.
     Wolf, D.P., Lemahieu. P.G., and Eresch, J. (1992). Good
     measure: Asessment as a tool for educational reform.
     Educational Leadership, 49, 8-13.
     Wolman, B. (1956). Leadership and group dynamics. Journal
     of Social Psychology, 43, 11-25.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
教育學系
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G91NCCV7482012
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 簡茂發<br>劉興漢zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chien Mao Fa<br>Liu Hsin Hanen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張清濱zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang Ching Binen_US
dc.creator (作者) 張清濱zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Bin, Chang Chingen_US
dc.date (日期) 1994en_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) G91NCCV7482012en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96465-
dc.description (描述) 博士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) 在研究旨在探討教育視導績效評估的模式，據以評估教育視導的績效；進而比較分析視導制度、視導組織、視導人力、視導經費、視導角色及視導方式在視導效能、學生表現及工作漢足上的差異；並探求有效預測視導績效的變項，期能尋求教育視導革新的途徑，以改進視導工作，提升教育的品質。
     本研究採用問卷調查法，以自編「臺灣省教育視導績效評估量表」，分視導人員及學校人員兩部分，進行施測。受試者包括台灣省及各縣市教育視導人員126人，問卷回收率達98.41%，高級中等學校406人，問卷回收率達95.07%，國民中學448人，問卷回收率83.92%，及國民小學896人，問卷回收率78.90%。回收問卷經統計分析，獲得以下結論：
     一、不同視導制度在國民中學工作滿足上有極顯著差異。以駐區視導為主、分科視導為輔者比駐區視導為主、職合視導為輔者獲得更高的滿足。兩種不同的視導制度在視導人員及國民小學的視導績效上則未達顯著水準。
     二、不同視導目標取向在國民小學的工作滿足上有顯著差異，亦即教育政策取向優於非教育政策取向。兩種不同的視導目標取向在視導人員及國民中學的視導績效上亦未達顯著水準。
     三、不同視導組織結構在國民小學的視導績效上有顯著差異，亦即非正式化取向在視導效能、學生表現及工作滿足等方面，均優於正式化取向。兩種不同的視導組織結構在視導人員及國民中學的視導績效上未達顯著水準。
     四、不同視導人員年齡在國民小學學生表現及教師工作滿足上有顯著差異，亦即視導人員年齡愈小，學生表現及教師工作滿足愈佳。其他視導人員的人口變項對於視導人員及國民中學的視導績效上沒有達到顯著水準。
     五、不同視導旅費在視導人員工作滿足上有顯著差異。視導旅費愈充裕，視導人員的滿意度愈高。視導旅費充裕與否也會影響國民中學學生表現及教師的工作滿足。
     六、不同視導角色在國民中學的工作滿足上有顯著差異，亦即溝通取向比領導角色在國民中學的工作滿足，但在視導人員及國民小學的視導績效上沒有達到顯著水準。
     七、不同視導方式在視導人員、國民中學及國民小學的視導績效上沒有達到顯著水準，亦即不論民主式或權變式均不造成顯著差異。
     八、不同公文效率在視導人員的工作滿足及國民小學的視導效能和工作漢足有顯著差異。公文效率高，工作滿足也愈高。
     九、教育廳視導人員比縣市視導人員更有自信心，較能表現人性化的特質，工作滿意度也較高。
     十、高級中學學校的視導績效優於國民小學，國民小學的視導績效也優於國民中學。
     十一、各績學校人員的視導績效，主任優於教師，校長也優於教師。視導績效顯現於行政層面，惟教學層面則不甚顯著。
     十二、視導的背景變項、輸入變項及歷程變項對於視導效能、學生表現及工作滿足有交互關係。在各類變項的因素中，視導旅費、視導組織結構、視導制度、視導人員素質及公文效率對於視導績效頗具影響。
     綜觀本研究的發現與結論，研究者提出教育視導革新竹建議，俾供各級機關及學校斟採行：
     一、對教育行政機關的建議：（一）塑造視導人員的新形象，（二）延攬優秀視導人員，（三）實施分科及分及視導制度，（四）運用臨床（診斷式）視導技術，（五）結合教學輔導網，（六）建立績效評估制度，（七）建立教育品質管理系統，（八）強化視導人員的培育與進修制度，（九）增加視導經費及（十）提高公文處理效率。
     二、對學校的建議：（一）擴大校務參與的層面，（二）實施同儕輔導，（三）推展校內教師進修計畫，（四）貫徹「有教無類、因材施教」的辦學理念，（五）加強學生行為之輔導，（六）改進校務評鑑及（七）激勵教育工作熱忱。
     三、對省政府的建議：（一）設置縣市政府教育局督學室，（二）調整縣市政府教育局視導人員編制，（三）訂定省、縣市視導人員的任用基準，（四）暢通視暢人員的升遷管道及（五）改善視導人員的工作環境。
     四、對中央機關的建議：（一）修訂教育人員任用條例，（二）建立視導人員績效本位的考績制度，（三）建立視導人員的酬償制度，（四）提高視導人員的職等及權限及（五）舉辦視導人員高等考試。		zh_TW
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章緒論..........1
     第一節研究動機與研究目的..........1
     第二節研究問題與假設..........4
     第三節名詞釋義..........7
     第二章文獻探討..........9
     第一節教育視導的基本概念..........9
     第二節績效評估的理論探討..........48
     第三節教育視導績效評估的行為分析..........73
     第三章研究方法..........108
     第一節研究架構..........108
     第二節研究對象..........109
     第三節研究工具..........114
     第四節實施程序..........121
     第五節資料處理..........123
     第四章研究結果與討論..........124
     第一節臺灣省教育視導概況分析..........124
     第二節教育視導績效之背景變項分析..........138
     第三節教育視導績效之輸入變項分析..........145
     第四節教育視導績效之歷程變項分析..........160
     第五節教育視導績效評估之綜合分析..........168
     第五章結論與建議..........204
     第一節結論..........204
     第二節建議..........212
     參考資料..........224
     中文部份..........224
     英文部份..........228
     附錄..........240
     附錄一臺灣省教育規導績效評估意見調查問卷初稿..........240
     附錄二臺灣省教育規導績效評估意見調查問卷表項目平均值一覽表..........259
     附錄三臺灣省教育規導績效評估量表(視導人員部分)..........269
     附錄四臺灣省教育規導績效評估量表(學校人員部分)..........275
     附錄五臺灣省教育規導概況調查表..........280		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G91NCCV7482012en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 教育視導zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 績效評估zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 教育視導績效評估zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Educational Supervisionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Performance Appraisalen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Performanceen_US
dc.title (題名) 臺灣省教育視導績效評估之研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Study of the Performance Appraisal of Educational Supervision in Taiwan Province, R.O.C.en_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文部份
     王政彥(民79). 以CIPP橫式評鑑當前的教育視導.教育研究， 15 ，45-51.
     江文雄(民67). 我國地方教育視轉制度之研究. 臺北市:教育部國民教育司.
     行政院研究發展考核委員會(民75). 長中程計畫作業要領. 臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會.
     李緒武(民79). 教育評鑑的意義與發展，現代教育， 7(19) , 3-14.
     李祖壽(民68) 教育視導與教育輔導.臺北:黎明文化事業公司.
     邱兆偉(民81). 教育績效責任:美國經驗的啟示.駝鈴集Ⅲ，臺中:臺灣省政府教育廳國民教育輔導團， 114-127.
     邱錦昌(民77). . 臺灣地區國民中學教學視導工作之研究.國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文(:未出版) ?
     邱錦昌(民80). 教育視導之理論與實際.臺北:五南圖書公司.
     吳定等人(民79). 行政機關生產力衡置模式之研究. 臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員、會.
     吳清山(民81) 。學校效能研究. 臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
     吳清基(民79) 。精緻教育的理念. 臺北:師大書苑.
     吳堯峰(民82). 如何提昇地方公務員服務品質. 載於銓敘部主編:行政管理論文選輯，第七輯. 臺北:考試院銓敘部
     呂愛珍(民63) 我國地方教育視導人員任務研究.國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版) .
     林武(民79) .各國教育視導制度比較.彰化:復文書局.
     林新發(民82) 。教育機會均等與教育品質.博雅教育文集，第三輯. 臺北:國立臺北師範學院， 27-42.
     郭為藩(民76)，精緻教育的概念規準.中國教育學術研討會講詞.
     孫邦正(民55). 教育視導大綱.臺北:臺灣商務書局.
     馬信行(民79). 論教育評鑑指標之選擇.現代教育，7(19)，39-54.
     高孔廉(民78). 如何化計畫評估作業，行政計畫的理論與實務.臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會編印.
     徐善德(民67). 臺灣省縣市教育局組織與職構之研究.國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文， (未出版)。
     陳英豪(民82) 教育元導人員的角色.教育廳八十二學年度第一學期第一次視導工作會報紀錄.臺中:臺灣省政府教育廳.
     陳倬民(民79). 開創教育視導輔導的新境界.革新、實踐、開創教育新境界.臺中:臺灣省政府教育廳.
     陳偉民(民80) 。教育視導人員的角色. .臺灣省八十學年度地方教育視導暨教學輔導人員座談會實錄. 臺中:臺灣省政府教育廳.
     張鈿富(民81 ). 有教無類、因材施教之實施與成效. 教育研究，24，14-23.
     張清濱(民77) 。學校行政.臺北:臺灣書店.
     張清濱(民79). 教育的良醫一開創教育視導的新境界.師友月刊，274.38-39.
     張潤書(民79) 。組織行為與管理.臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
     黃昆輝(民71 ).教育行政與教育問題.臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
     黃振球(民79). 學校管理與績效.臺北:師大書苑.
     黃振球(民80). 績效學校因素初探.教育資料文摘，159，58-88.
     黃麗莉、李茂興合譯(民80)，組織行為:管理心理學理論與實施.
     臺北:揚智文化事業股份有限公司.
     楊百世(民78). 國民小學校長教學視導之研究.國立高雄師純學
     院教育研究所碩士論文(未出版) .
     雷國鼎(民56) 。教育行政. 臺北:正中書局.
     臺灣省政府(民46). 臺灣省政府公報‘春字第62期.
     臺灣省政府人事處(民80). .臺灣省人事行政法規及釋例彙騙，第
     七編.南投中興新村:臺灣省政府人事處，17-18.
     臺灣省政府教育廳(民63). 革新教育注意事項 總統訓詞.臺中:
     臺灣省政府教育廳.
     臺灣省政府教育廳(民79). 視導人員的角色與定位. .臺灣省教育
     通訊.8.2-3.
     臺灣省政府教育廳(民80). . 臺灣省教育視導人員手冊. 臺中:臺
     灣省政府教育廳
     臺灣省政府教育廳(民81) 陳英豪廳長提示七項工作重點. 臺灣
     省教育通訊， 33 ， 1.
     臺灣省政府教高廳(民82). 臺灣省政府教育廳單位預算.臺中:
     臺灣省政府教育廳
     臺灣省國民學校教師研習會(民67). 縣市督學基本能力研究報告.
     臺北:臺灣省國民學校教師研習會.
     蔡振生譯(民81) .學校組織行為分析. 臺北:五南圖書出版公司.
     劉春榮(民82) .國民小學組織結構、組織承諾與學校效能關係研
     究.國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文. (:未出版) .
     劉真(民59) .教育行政.臺北:正中書局.
     劉興漢(民79). 開放社會中學校行政的新趨勢.開放社會中教師
     的新形象，第19輯. 臺中: 臺彎省政府教育廳. 156-177.
     賴士葆〈民78). 政府機關生產力衡量橫式之建立，載於行政機關
     生產力衡量模式研討會議文集.臺北:行政院研究發展考
     核委員會.269.
     謝文全(民78). 教育行政-理論與實務，增四版.臺北市:文景書局.
     薛光祖〈民65). 六十四學年度教育視導工作研討報告. 臺中: 臺
     灣省政府教育廳.
     簡茂發、楊國樞等編(民71) .信度與效度.社會行為科學研究法
     (上冊) . 臺北:東華書局.
     關永實(民81) 。目標管理與績效評估，載於銓敘部編=行政管理
     論文選輯，第六輯，臺北:考試院銓敘部. 409-434.
     
     二、英文部分
     Alfonso. R.J., Firth, G.R. and Neville. R.F.(1975).
     Instructional supervision: A behavioral system.
     Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
     Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction-process analysis: A
     method for the study of small groups. Reading,
     Boston. MA: Addison-Wesley.
     Barnard. C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive.
     MA: Harvard University Press.
     Barr, A.S., Burton. W.H .? and Brueckner. L.J. (1947).
     Supervision. democratic leadership in the
     improvement of learning. New. York: AppletonCentury-
     Crofts.
     Barrilleaux, L.E. (1972). Accountability through
     performance objectives. National Association of
     Secondary School Principal Bulletin, May.
     103-110.
     Bingham, R.D., Heywood, J.S. & White. S.B. (1991).
     Evaluating schools and teachers bqsed on student
     performanec: Testing an alternative methodolog~.
     Evaluation Review. 15. 191-218.
     Blanchard, T., Lovell, B .? & Vi lIe. N. (1989). Managing
     fiance in schools. London: Cassell Educational
     Limited.
     Bobb itt, F. (1913). Some genera I pr inc ip I es of management
     app lied to the prob I ems of city schoo I systems. In
     Twelfth year book of the National Society fur the
     Study of Educat i on. Part I. Ch i cago: Un i vers i ty of
     Chicago Press. 7.
     Bolin. F.S. & Panaritis, P.(1992). Searching for a common purpose: A perspective on the history of supervision. In C.D. Glickman (Ed.). Supervision in transition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 30~43.
     Borg, M.G. 8. Riding, R . .I. (1993). Occupational stress, and job satisfaction among schooladrninistrators. Journal of Educational Administration. 31(1). 4-21.
     Bouckaert. G. (1992). Productivity analysis in the public sector: The fire service. International Review of ·
     Bridge. R.G .. Charles. M.J. & Moock. P.R. (1979). The . determ~nants or educational outcomes: The impact of famili~s.peers. teachers. And schools. New York: . BalI inge ..
     Campbell. R.F. (1980). The organization and control · of amer-ican schools (4th ed). Columbus. Ohio: ‘ Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. 5.
     Carnpbell. R.F .. Corbally. J.E. & Nystrand, R.O. (1983). · Introduction to ~ducational administration (6th). Baston: Allyn & Bacon. Inc. 221.
     Carman. B. (1970). Roles and responsibilities in general supervision of instruction. Unpublished doctoral . dissertation.
     Cassidy. M.F.; Schimmel. B.S. & Brady. K.A.(1993). 1 ldentirYing expectations for service quality in training and education through process needs assessment. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 6 (2). 3-16.
     Child. J. (1985). Organization: A guide to problem
     and practice. London: Harper & Row.
     Climaco. C. (1992). Getting to know schools using
     performance indicators: criteria. indicators and
     processes. Educational Review, 44(3), 297.
     Cogan, M.L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston:
     Houghton Mifflin Company.
     Conley, D.T. (1987). Critical attributes of effective
     evaluation systems. Educational Leadership, 44(7)
     60-64.
     Curtin, J. (1964). Supervision in today-s elementary
     schools. New York: Macmillan.
     Department of Education & Sciences(1977). Ten good
     schools. London: HMSO.
     Dimmock, C. (1990). Managing for quality and accountability
     in western australian education. Educational
     Review. 42(2), 197-206.
     Downton. D. (1987). Primary head teachers: sources of
     stress and ways of coping with it. Head Teachers
     Review, 12-22.
     Doyle, W. (1987). Research on teaching effects as a
     resource for improving instruction,. in Wideen.
     M. & Andrews. I. (eds.). Staff Development for
     School Improvement. Lewes: Palmer Press.
     Dull. L.W. (1981). Supervision: School leadership
     handbook. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
     Company.
     Edmonds. R.R. (1979). Effective schools for the urburn
     poor. Educatio~al Leadership, 37, 15-27.
     Edmonds. R.R. (1981). Making public school effective. .’ SocIal Policy, 12. 28-32.
     Lsbree. W.S .. McNally. H.J. & Wynn. R. (1967). Elementary school administration and supervision. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhod Co .. 14-18.
     Eye. G.G·.Netzer, L.A .. ‘& Krey. R.D.(1971). Superision of instruction. New York: Harper & Row. ..,
     Fiedler”. B. (198”9).” Staff appraisal-theory. Concepts and experience in other organizations an~ problems of . adaptation to education. In C. Riches. &.C. Mnrg~n r (eds.) Human resourcemanagement in education. New York:-“ Open”University Presso 190-207. ,.”
     Fiedler. F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
     Fitzgerald. J.H. (1993). Management practices: A profile . of district-level supervisory activity in one school d istrict. Journal of· Curricul um and Supervision. . 8 (2). 128-139.
     Fitz-Gibbon,’c. T. (1990) .- Performance indicators. Clevedon:- Multilingual –Matters.
     Franseth, J. (1955). Super-vision in rural schools. _ . Washington. D.C.: United States Office of Education.
     Fraser. K.P. (1990). Supervisor behavior and teacher satisfaction. The Journ~l of Educational Administra-tion. 18. 224-231.
     Fullan. M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local leve”l. The Elementary School Journal. 85 (3), 391-421. .
     George, P.S. (1987). Performance management in education.
     Educational Leadership, 44(7), 32-39.
     Getzels, J.H. & GuJ::)a, E.G. (957). Social behavIor and
     the administrative process. School Review, 65, 429.
     Getzels, J.W., Lipham, J.M., & Campbell, R.E. (968).
     Educational administration as a social process.
     N.V.: Harper & Row. Publishers.
     Glickman, C.D. (990). Supervision of instruction: A
     developmental approach (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
     Bacon.
     Good, C.V. (1959). Dictionary of education (2nd ed.).
     New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc. 539.
     Gray. J. (1990). The quality of schooling: Frameworks
     for judgement. British Journal of Educational
     Studies, 38(3). 204-223.
     Griffiths, D.E. (1959). Administrative theory, New York:
     Appleton-Century-Crofts.
     Gulick. L. & Urwick. L. (1937). Papers on the science of
     administration. New York: Institute of Public
     Administration. Columbia University.
     Halpin, A. W. (1956). The behavior of leaders, Educational
     Leadership. 14, 172-76.
     Hargreaves. D.H. & Hopkins. D. (1991). The empowered
     school: The management and practice of development
     planning. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
     Harris, B.M. (1985) .. Supervisory behavior in education
     (3rd. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
     Inc.
     Harris. B. & Bessent. W. (1969). In-service education: A suide to better practice. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall
     Heffron. F. (1989). Organizational theory a~d public J organi~ations: The political conneetion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Printice Hall.
     Hellweg. S. A. & PhIllips. S. L. (1980). Communication and productivity in organizations: A state-of-the-art . review. In Proceedinss of the 40th Annual Academy .of Management Conference. Detroit. Michigan. 189-92.
     Herzberg. F. (1959). The motivation to work. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
     Howsam. R. B. (1973). Current issues in eva luat ion. The . - . National Elementary Principal. 52. No.5,12-17.
     Hoy. W.K. & Niskel. E.G. (1987). Educational administra-tion: Theory. Research and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Random House ….
     Huber. J. (1974). Accepting accountability. The Clearing House. 48. 518.
     Jennings. H.H. (1950). Leadership and isolation (2nd ed.). New York: Longman, Inc. .
     Kast. F.E. et al. (1979). Organization and management. New York: McGraw Hill.
     Kerr. E.A .. Schriesheim. C.J .. Murphy. And R.M. Stoogdill (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human . Performanc.e, 62-82.
     Knutton, S. & Mycroft, A. (1986). Stress and the deputy . head. School Organization, 6(1), 49-59.
     Krajewski. R.J. (1976) Clinical supervision: To facilitate
     teacher self-improvement. Journal of Research and
     Development in Education. 9, 58-66.
     Linn, R., E. Baker, and S. Dunbur(1991). Complex performance
     based assessment: Expectations and validation
     criteria. Educational Research, 20, 8:15-21.
     Lunenburg, F.C. & Ornstein, A.C. (1991). Educational
     administration: Concepts and practices. Belmont, Cal.
     Wadsworth Publishing Company, P.439.
     Hanatt, R. P.O 992).研討會論文.臺中:臺灣省中等學校教師研習會編印。
     Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New
     York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
     Mauriel, J.J. (1989). Strategic leadership for schools:
     Creating and sustaining productive change . San
     Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
     McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New
     York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
     McKenna, B.H. (1973). Teacher evaluation-some implications.
     Today-s Education, 55.
     Meyer, C.A. (1992). What-s the difference between
     authentic and performance assessment? Educational
     Leadership, 49, 39-40.
     Heyer, H.H. (1980). Self-appraisal of job performance.
     Personnel Psychology, 33, 291-95.
     Mi ller, W. (1972). Accountabi 1 ity demands improvement,
     Educational Leadership, 29.
     Mondy. R.W .. Sharp!in. A .. and Premezux. S.R. (1990). Supervision (2nd ed.). Baston: Allyn and Bacan, 298-317. ,
     Monk. D. H.(1992). Educat i on productivity research: An
     update and assessment of its role in education
     finance reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy
     Analysis. 14(4). 307-332.
     Montgomery. D. & Hadfield. N. (1989). Practical teacher
     appraisal. Guildford. England: Kogan Page Ltd. 23.
     Moore. T: (1987). Personality tests are back.Fortune,
     March, 74-82.
     Moorer, S.H. (1952). The Keystone to educational progress.
     Tallahassee: Florida State Department of Education.
     Moreno, J.L. (1947). Contributions of sociometry to
     research methodology in sociology. American
     Sociological Review, 12, 287-92.
     Mort i more, P. (1992). Qua 1 i ty contro lin educat i on and
     schools. British Journal , of Educational Studies,
     40(1), 23-37.
     Mortimore, P. et al. (1988). School Matters. London:
     Open books.
     Mosher, R. & Purpel . D. (1972). Supervision: The
     reluctant profession. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin .
     . Murphy, J., Ha11inger, P.·, & Mesa, R. R. (Summer, 1985).
     School effectiveness: Checking progress and assumptions
     and developing a role for state and federal
     government. Teachers College Record, 86(4), 616-641.
     National Education Association(1948). The yardstick of a
     profession. Washington, D.C.: NEA.
     Neagley, R.L. & Evans, N.D. (1980). Handbook for effective
     supervision of instruction (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
     New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.
     Nhundu. T.J. (1992). The relationship between self and
     supervisor appraisals with role clarity and job
     satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration.
     30 (1). 29-41.
     Oliva. P.F. (1976). Supervision for today`s schools.
     N.Y. :Harper & Row. Publisher. Inc.
     01 i ver. N. (1993). QuaIity. costs and changing strategies
     of control in universities in the UK. Journal of
     Educational Administration. 31(1). 41-52.
     Owens. R.O. (1987). Organizational behavior in education
     (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
     Pajak. E.F. (1992). A view from the central office.
     Supervision in transition. in Glickman. C.D. (ed.).
     Association for Supervision and Curriculum
     Development.
     Perry. J.L. & Wise. L.R. (1990). The motivational bases
     of public service. Public Administration Review.
     50, 367-82.
     Pfeiffer. I.L. and Dunlap. P.B. (1982). Supervision of
     teachers: A guide to improving instruction. Phoenix:
     Oryx Press.
     Porter. L.W. & Lawler. E.E. (1968). Managerial attitudes
     and performance. Homewood. Ill.: Richard Irwin.
     Purkey. S. and Smith. M. (1983). Effective schools:
     A review. The Elementary School Journal. 83(4).
     427-52.
     Quinn. R.E. (1978). Productivity and the process of
     organizational improvement: Why we cannot talk to
     each other? Public Administrative Review. 38(1). 42.
     Ravitch. D. (1993). Launching a revolution in standards and assessments. Phi Delta Kappan. 74. 767-72. .
     Robbins .S.P.(1989). Organizational behaveor: concepts. Controversies. And applications (4th ed.)「中譯本:黃麗莉、李茂興譯(民81).組織行為:管理心理學理論與實務.台北:揚智文化事業股份有限公司.」
     Roeth lisberger, E. J. & D ickson. W. J. (1939). Management .
     And the worker. Cambridge. M:A: Harvard University . Press.
     Rutter. M. et al. (1979). Fifteenthousand hours.,London: Open Books.
     Secretary of_State for_Education(1988)_ .Speech to the· . SEO. London: DES Press office.
     Seldin. P. (1988). Evaluating and developing administrative performance: a peactical guide for academic . leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publ ishers.
     Serg iovanni, T. J. (1977). Handbook for effective leadership. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
     Sergiovanni, T.J. & Starratt, R.J.(1979). Supervision: human perspectives(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
     Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management . decision. New York: Harper & Row
     Snyde, K.& Gielfa,M.(1988). Managing Productive . programs: Training in readiness modules. Tampa. F1.: Pedamorphosis. Inc
     Spears. H. (19S3). ‘Improving the supervision of·
     Instruction. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
     Stronge, J.H. & Helm, V.M. (1992). A performance
     evaluation system for professional support
     peresonnel. Educational Evaluation and Policy
     Analysis, 14(2), 175-180.
     Stufflebeam, D.L. (1983). The CIPP model for program
     evaluation, In Evaluation Models. Boston: KluwerNijhoff
     Publishing. 17.
     SziIagyi; A. D. (1984`). Management and performance
     (2nded.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Scott
     Foresman and Company. 31.
     Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management.
     New York: Harper & Row. Publishers, Inc. 8.
     Thomas, H. (1990). Education costs and performance: A
     cost-effectiveness analysis. London: Cassell.
     Travers, A. W. (1988). Supervision: Techniques and n`ew
     dimensions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 185-199.
     Van Velzen. W. (1985). Making school improvement
     work. Leuven. Belgium: ACCO.
     Weick, K.E. (1974). Middle range theories of social
     systems. Behavioral Science, 19(6), 357-67.
     Wilcox, B. (1989). Inspection and its contribution to
     practical evaluation. Educational Research, 31"(3),
     163-175.
     Wiles, K. (1950). Supervision for better schools
     Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
     Wiles. K. (1967). Supervision for better schools (3rd.
     ed. ). Eng 1 ewood Cliffs, N. J .: Prentice-Ha11.
     Wiles. J. & Bondi, J. (1991). Supervision: A guide to
     practice (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing
     Company.
     Wiles, K. and Lovell, J.F.(1975). Supervision for
     better schools (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
     Prentice-Hall.Wilson. B.L. & Corcoran. T.B. (1988). Successful secondary schools: Visions of excellence in american public education. New York: The Fslmer Presso
     Windham, D.M. & Chapman, D.W. (1990). The evaluation-of
     educational efficiency: Constraints, issues and
     policies. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc.
     Witte, J.F. & Walsh, D.J. (1990). A systematic test of
     the effective schools model. Educational Evaluation
     and Policy Analysis, 12, 188-212.
     Wolf, D.P., Lemahieu. P.G., and Eresch, J. (1992). Good
     measure: Asessment as a tool for educational reform.
     Educational Leadership, 49, 8-13.
     Wolman, B. (1956). Leadership and group dynamics. Journal
     of Social Psychology, 43, 11-25.		zh_TW