期刊文獻資料庫

論文查詢

論文詳細資料內容:
未授權全文
論文基本資料
篇  名 台北市國民小學試辦教師專業發展評鑑之成效分析:理論導向評鑑取徑之應用
並列篇名 Assessment of a Pilot Program of Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development in Taipei Elementary Schools: Application of Theory-driven Evaluation Approach
作  者 潘慧玲 ; 高嘉卿
發表期刊 教育政策論壇
出版年份 2012 年
卷  期 15 卷 3 期
頁  次 p.133~166
關鍵字 教師專業發展評鑑 ; 教師評鑑 ; 理論導向評鑑 ; teacher evaluation ; teacher evaluation for professional development ; theory-driven evaluation
語言別 中文
中文摘要

為確保教師專業素質、促進教師專業發展,教師評鑑是一項重要措施。台灣自 2006~2009 學年度開始推動中小學「教師專業發展評鑑」之試辦,鼓勵教師自願參與,並強調評鑑之目的在促進教師專業發展,不與績效掛勾,是一種形成性評鑑。為瞭解教師專業發展評鑑如何能促進教師專業發展,運用理論導向評鑑(theory-driven evaluation)是一可行之取徑(approach)。傳統以來,評鑑較重視評鑑的輸入和輸出,但忽略兩者間的運作過程,而理論導向評鑑則是藉由探究方案運作的活動及其產生的中介過程,為介入的方案為何產生成效,尋找有力的理論證據。本研究以台北市試辦教師專業發展評鑑之國民小學為研究範圍,在以文獻分析、文件分析與訪談方法建立之「試辦教師專業發展評鑑」方案改變理論(Program's theory of change)架構下,以台北市參與試辦國小的教師為對象進行問卷調查,探討方案活動落實情形及方案產生之成效,並檢視哪些方案活動能顯著地解釋方案成效。研究結果發現,四類方案活動中,以教師專業成長活動落實程度最低,次低為教師實施評鑑、教師參與研討,以及評鑑說明溝通;教師對於方案成效知覺最為明顯的前兩項為教師進行教學反思、教師增加合作能力;在控制相關變項下,方案活動中的評鑑說明溝通、教師專業成長活動對於方案成效具顯著之解釋力。此發現不僅能夠提供吾人瞭解教師專業發展評鑑方案是否有其成效,更能協助瞭解該方案如欲獲得預期成果,需要掌握哪些重要方案活動之落實,故對於後續政策方案之推動,其重要之參考意義。

英文摘要

To assure teacher professional quality, teacher evaluation is deemed a crucial measure. From 2006 to 2009, a pilot program of teacher evaluation for teacher professional development was launched in Taiwan. Teachers’ voluntary participation was encouraged. A formative evaluation was implemented to enhance teacher growth. In order to investigate how the pilot program promotes teacher professional development, theory-driven evaluation is a feasible approach. Contrary to the traditional method- driven evaluation, which focuses on input and output without noticing the linkage between the two, this approach attempts to explore how the program works to acquire the desired outcome. This study conducted a survey to examine how program activities relate to program outcomes using the sample of Taipei elementary school teachers. The findings revealed that teacher professional development activities were the lowest implemented one among the four types of program activities. Teachers’ reflection was the most significant outcome found. Furthermore, teacher professional development activities significantly predicted the program’s outcome. The findings enlightened how the teacher evaluation pilot program operated, which is informative for the follow-up policy.

本文被引用次數:3瀏覽...

說明:為本資料庫所收錄文章

本文參考文獻資料:

尤春美 (2011), 高雄地區國民小學試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施成效之調查研究, 國立屏東教育大學, 碩士論文, 未出版.

王麗雲與侯崇博 (2005), 應用方案理論進行評鑑:以嘉義縣市國小週三進修方案為例, 載於潘慧玲(主編), 教育評鑑的回顧與展望, 219-249, 台北: 心理 .

民生國小 (208), 96 學年度試辦教師專業發展評鑑計畫成果報告, 擷取自 http://140.111.34.34/docdb/files/dma7ffffffm30.pdf.

行政院研究發展考核委員會 (2001), 「二○○一年教育改革檢討與改進會議」重要結論及辦理期程表, 擷取自http://www.rdec.gov.tw/public/Attachment/53161456571.pdf.

行政院教育改革審議委員會 (1996), 教育改革總諮議報告書, 台北: 作者.

呂仁禮 (2009), 教師專業發展評鑑試辦成效之研究:以一所國民中學為例, 學校行政, 63(), 131-153.

吳金香與陳世穎 (2008), 國小教師對試辦教師專業發展評鑑態度之調查研究:以台中縣市為例, 學校行政, 53(), 211-253.

吳麗君與楊先芝 (2009), 教師專業發展評鑑的文化故事, 教育資料與研究 , 89(), 89-118.

汪履維、張德銳與饒見維 (2007), 規劃教師專業成長方案, 台北: 教育部教育研究委員會.

周麗華 (2010), 臺北市國小教師專業發展評鑑實施效應之研究, 市北教育學刊, 000(037), 0103-0125. 

柯淑惠、林海清與黃寶圓 (2009), 台中縣國民小學教師專業發展評鑑實施之研究, 文教論壇, 1(), 80-104.

高雄市政府教育局 (2000), 高雄市立高級中等以下學校教師專業評鑑試行要點 , 高雄: 作者.

張德銳 (2006), 形成性教育評鑑系統的研發、推廣、研究與實施展望, 初等教育學刊, 000(023), 0001-0026. 

張德銳、李俊達、周麗華 (2010), 國中實施形成性教師評鑑歷程及影響因素之個案研究, 教育實踐與研究, 023(002), 0065-0094. 

張德銳、周麗華、李俊達 (2009), 國小形成性教師評鑑實施歷程與成效之個案研究, 課程與教學季刊, 012(003), 0265-0290. 

教育部 (2002), 建立學生輔導新體制:教學、訓導、輔導三合一整合實驗方案, 擷取自 http://www.edu.tw/secretary/content.aspx?site_content_sn=19610.

教育部 (2003), 2003 年全國教育發展會議實錄, 台北: 作者.

教育部 (2006), 教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫, 台北: 作者.

教育部 (2007), 教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫(修訂版), 台北: 作者.

教育部 (2008), 教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫(修訂版), 台北: 作者.

教育部 (2009), 教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施要點, 台北: 作者.

游象昌與陳俊龍 (2010), 教師專業發展評鑑與教師賦權增能關係之研究, 學校行政, 67(), 181-203.

馮莉雅 (2007), 教師專業發展評鑑系統試驗研究:以高雄市為例, 國民教育學報, 4(2), 241-277.

馮莉雅 (2010), 教師專業發展評鑑的實施與成效:以高雄市國小為例, 教育研究學報, 044(002), 0085-0109. 

廖素梅 (2009), 教師專業發展評鑑實施現況之調查研究:以台中縣國民小學為例, 國立台東大學, 碩士論文, 未出版.

台北縣政府教育局 (2006), 教學精進、專業昇華:台北縣試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫, 台北: 作者.

歐陽教、張德銳 (1993), 教師評鑑模式之研究, 教育研究資訊, 001(002), 0090-0100. 

潘慧玲 (2005), 邁向下一代的教育評鑑:回顧與前瞻, 載於潘慧玲 (主編), 教育評鑑的回顧與展望, 3-36, 台北: 心理.

潘慧玲、王麗雲、張素貞、鄭淑惠與吳俊憲 (2010), 試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑之方案評鑑(II), 台北: 教育部.

潘慧玲、陳文彥 (2010), 教師專業發展評鑑促進組織學習之個案研究, 教育研究集刊, 056(003), 0029-0065. 

鄭進丁 (2007), 應用方案理論進行評鑑之研究-以高雄市試辦教師專業發展評鑑為例, 國民教育研究學報, 000(019), 0029-0058. 

鄭翠蓉 (2010), 台中縣市國民小學參與教師專業發展評鑑教師工作壓力與專業承諾之研究, 中台科技大學, 碩士論文, 未出版.

顏國樑與洪劭品 (2007), 國民小學教師對「教育部試辦教師專業發展評鑑」意見之研究:以台北縣為例, 學校行政, 50(), 1-26.

Airasian, P. W., & Gullickson, A. (1997), Teacher self-evaluation, In J. Stronge (Ed.), valuating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practices, 215-249, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Annunziata, J. (1997), Linking teacher evaluation and professional development, In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice, 288-302, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Bickman, L. (2000), Summing up theory, New Direction for Evaluation, 87(), 103-112.

Birckmayer, J. D., & Weiss, C. H. (2000), Theory-based evaluation in practice: What do we learn?, Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407-431.

Chen, H. T. (1990), Theory-driven evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen, H. T. (2004), The roots of theory-driven evaluation: Current views and origins, In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences, 132-152, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (1983), Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach, Evaluation Review, 7(), 283-302.

Czerniak, M. C., Lumpe. A. T., & Haney, 1. J. (1999), Science teachers’ beliefs and intentions to implement thematic units, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 123-145.

Danielson. C. (2001), New trends in teacher evaluation, Educational Leadership, 58(5), 12-15.

Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000), Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Davidson, E. J. (2000), Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation, New Direction for Evaluation, 87(), 17-26.

Davis, D. R., Ellett, C. D., & Annunziata, J. (2000), Teacher evaluation, leadership and learning organizations, Teacher evaluation, leadership and learning organizations, 16(4), 287-301.

Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007), Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career, Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423-443.

Donaldson, S. I. (2005), Theory-driven program evaluation in the new millennium, In E. Stern (Ed.), Evaluation research methods, 31-61, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Duke, D. L., & Stiggins. R. J. (1990), Beyond minimum competence: Evaluation for professional development, In J. Miliman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers, 116-132, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Isore, M. (2009), Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review, Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/downloadlfulltextl5ksf76jc5phd.pdf7expires=1338201422&id=id&accname=gues&checksum=00055E I82B4AC79515AAD8O63E6FBD7A.

Iwanicki, E. E. (1990), Teacher evaluation for school improvement, In J. Miliman & L. Darling- Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers, 158-174, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McGreal, T. L. (1988), Evaluation for enhancing instruction: Linking teacher evaluation and staff development, In S. J. Stanley & W. J. Popham (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for success, 1-29, Alexandra, VA:: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Milanowski, A., & Kimball, S. (2003), The framework-based teacher performance assessment systems in Cincinnati and Washoe (CPRE Working Paper Series TC-03-07), Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000), Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems, New Direction for Evaluation, 87(), 5-14.

Rossi, P. H., Freeman. H. E., & Lipsey. M. W. (1999), Evaluation: A system approach (6th ed.), London, England: Sage.

Schon, D. A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987), Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for-teaching and learning in professions, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stronge, J. H. (1997), Improving schools through teacher evaluation, In J. Ii. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice , 1-26, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tucker, P. D., & Kindred, K. P. (1997), Legal consideration in designing teacher evaluation systems, In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice, 59-90, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Weiss, C. H. (1997), How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway?, Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501-524.

Weiss, C. H. (1998), Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weiss, C. H. (2000), Which links in which theories shall we evaluation? , New Directions for Evaluation, 87(), 35-45.

Weiss, C. H. (2007), Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future, New Direction for Evaluation, 114(), 68-81.

Wheeler, P. H., & Scriven M. (1997), Building the foundation: Teacher roles and responsibilities, In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to Current thinking and best practice, 27-58, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Mclaughling, M. W., & Berstein, H. T. (1984), Teacher evaluation: A case study of effective practices, Santa Monica, CA: Rand.