臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究
作者：吳政達 引用關係
作者(外文)：Wu, Cheng-ta
校院名稱：國立政治大學
系所名稱：教育學系
指導教授：林邦傑
秦夢群
學位類別：博士
出版日期：1999
主題關鍵詞：教師評鑑；指標；模糊德菲術；模糊層級分析法；模糊綜合評估法；模糊理論；Teacher appraisal；Indicators；Fuzzy Delphi method；Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method；Fuzzy multiple assessment method；Fuzzy theory
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(50) 博士論文(82) 專書(3) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:50
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:161
自Zadeh(1965)提出模糊集合論，將集合論之二值邏輯擴充至多值邏輯後，使得集合論更為完善，能更精確地描述實際問題之特性。由於教師評鑑的規準建構與測量方法皆深具模糊性，因此有必要針對評鑑問題之模糊特性，選擇適當之模糊理論。本研究以模糊德菲法以整合專家意見以建構評鑑指標，續以模糊層級分析法計算各指標間的相對權重。教師評鑑除考量量化指標外，由於質化指標常以語意詞句(linguistic terms)表達，故採取Chen和Hwang (1992)所提之轉換法將模糊評語集轉換為明確得點值(crisp score)。並利用模糊綜合評估以從事實際教師評鑑之結果分析，其中涉及不同運算算子間的差異比較。
本研究結果發現：教師評鑑指標體系包括教師評鑑指標共可區分為九大類主指標四十一項次指標。其主指標分別為「專業知識」、「教學準備能力」、「教學策略與實施能力」、「教學評量能力」、「運用教學資源能力」、「班級經營能力」、「專業責任」、「校務參與及服務績效」與「人際溝通能力」等九類；「專業知識類」次指標包括「任教科目的專門知識（含提供完整的知識架構）」、「教學方法的專業知識（含清楚教導概念）」、「課程與教材方面的知識（包括清楚目前的學習內容與先前的學習內容及未來的學習內容之間的關連）」、「教學情境的專業知識」、「輔導方面的知識（包括了解學生的心理）」與「學習與發展方面的知識（包括精熟學生背景知識和經驗）」等六項，「教學準備能力類」次指標包括「訂定教學計畫，妥善準備教具」、「根據學生學習需求及課程標準，訂定適合的教學目標」等兩項，「教學策略與實施能力類」次指標包括「教導認知、情意及動作技能的學習與遷移」、「教材展示精確又清楚」、「運用適當教學方法的技巧」、「對教學內容的解釋、舉例之能力」、「教學內容組織能力」、「引起並維持學生的學習動機與注意力」、「教學表達能力」、「傾聽兒童說話的技巧」、「促使學生延展其思考」等九項，「教學評量能力類」次指標包括「評量兒童表現並提供回饋與指導」、「根據評量結果改進教學歷程」、「適時而正確地評估學生進步情形」等三項，「運用教學資源能力類」次指標包括「妥善佈置教學環境」、「運用多樣教學資源」等兩項，「班級經營能力類」包括「輔導學生的能力（包括輔導學生因學業及日常生活所產生的困擾）」、「指導學生遵守生活常規，養成良好行為習慣」、「教室管理的技巧（包括建立愉快的班級氣氛、建立教室常規和程序）」、「有效運用獎懲手段」、「訂定適切的班級規範」與「創造適當的學習環境」等六項，「專業責任類」次指標包括「關懷與瞭解學生」、「工作勤惰」、「教學認真」、「教育信念」、「研究進修」與「敬業精神」等六項，「校務參與及服務績效類」次指標包括「主動積極協助校務推展」、「配合學校行政詳建各項學生檔案」、「對學校活動積極參與」等三項，「人際溝通能力類」包括「同儕教師溝通交流分享互動之能力」、「和家長保持溝通互動以維持良好的親師關係」、「建立和維持師生關係」、「教師能公平、公正地對待全部學生」等四項，合計四十一項次指標。
Since Zadeh(1965) proposed the fuzzy sets theorem and further developed the theorem from two-value logic to continues multi-value logic, the assembly theorem had become more completed and was capable of depicting the characteristics of real problem more specifically. Because the standard structure and measuring method of teacher appraisal are both ambiguous, it is necessary to adopt an suitable fuzzy theorem for this ambiguous characteristic of teacher appraisal. The study incorporated the opinions of specialists into structural evaluation indicator based upon Fuzzy Delphi and further calculated the relative weights among each indicator by Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. The teacher appraisal not only need to quantify the indicator but also to qualify them using linguistic terms to express. Therefore, the study adopted the Chen-Hwang (1992) transfer method to transform the ambiguous evaluation terms into specific crisp scores and used the composite of fuzzy evaluation to engage the analysis of real teacher appraisal involving differentiated comparison among individual operants.
The outcomes of the study demonstrated that the indicator system of teacher appraisal including teacher appraisal indicator consist of 9 major indicator and 41 minor indicator. The 9 major indicator were professional knowledge, capability of teaching preparation, teaching strategy and implementation ability, capability of teaching assessment , capability of employing teaching resource, capability of class management, professional duty, involvement of school managing and service achievement, and capability of interpersonal communication. The 6 sub-indicator in the professional knowledge category includes professional knowledge of the specific discipline with a comprehensive knowledge structure, professional knowledge of teaching methods included a lucid teaching concept, professional knowledge of class and teaching material included understanding of the connection between the current and future learning contents. professional knowledge of teaching situations, professional knowledge of consulting included understanding of student psychology and professional knowledge of learning and developing included awareness of student background knowledge and experiences. There were two sub-indicator in the capability of teaching preparation (making a teaching agenda and preparing teaching tools, and planing a proper teaching goal based upon student learning need and class standard. The 9 sub-indicator in the teaching strategy and implementation ability were, understanding of guidance and learning and transferring of mental and physical skills, demonstration of teaching material precisely and clearly, employment of proper teaching skills, the interpretation of teaching contents and exemplification faculty, ability to organize teaching contents, inspire and maintain learning motivation and attention of student, faculty of teaching expression, listening skills concerning the child talk, and stimulate the extension of student thinking. The 3 sub-indicator in capability of teaching evaluation were, evaluation of child performance in order to render guidance and feedback, rescheduling the teaching agenda according to the evaluation outcomes, and accurately and timely evaluating student progression . The capability of employing teaching resource category consisted of implementing teaching environment congruently and adopting diversified teaching resources. The 6 sub-indicator in capability of class management were faculty of student guidance (consulting the student problems causing by class-learning and everyday activities), lead students to fellow the normal rules and to keep righteous behavior habits, class room managing skills ( establish an amicable classroom atermosphere and the classroom guidelines and procedures), proper employing award/ punish system, making the proper classroom paradigm, and create suitable learning environment. The 6 sub-indicator in professional duty were concerning and understanding students, working habits, teaching sincerity, teaching believe, advancing research, reverence to occupation, The 3 sub-indicator in involvement of school administration and service achievement were, actively assisting the school administration to implement, cooperating the school administration to establish the student records, actively engaging the school activities. The capability of interpersonal communication category composed of 4 sub-indicator, capability of communicating and interacting with teaching colleagues, capability of communicating and interacting with student parents and maintain a good teacher-parent relationship, establishing and keeping the teacher-student relationship, treating all student with equality and fairness. The grand total of sub-indicator were 41.
一、中文部份
王立行、饒見維〈民81〉。教育專業化與教育實習的實施。載於中華民國師範教育學會〈主編〉，教育專業（頁183-209）。台北：師大書苑。
王家通、吳裕益〈民75〉。國中優良教師之特質及其背景研究。教育資料文摘，29(3)，83-130。new window
台北市立富安國民小學〈民87〉。台北市立國民小學暨附設幼稚園合格教師遴選辦法之研究。台北：台北市政府。
行政院教育改革審議委員會〈民84〉。第一期諮議報告書。台北：作者。
吳政達〈民84〉。階層分析法與模糊評估法在學前教育指標系統之應用。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文〈未出版〉。
吳政達〈民87〉。教師遴選制度改革與教師評鑑。載於國立新竹師範學院〈主編〉，教育改革的理念與做法﹝頁163-193﹞。新竹：國立新竹師範學院。
吳清山、郭瑞芬〈民87〉。教師評審委員會選聘教師之問題分析與改進意見。北縣教育，21，11-16。
洪振創〈民85〉。群體決策下模糊績效評估模式之建構與應用。私立元智工學院工業工程研究所博士論文〈未出版〉。
秦夢群〈民86〉。教育行政：實務部分。台北：五南。
高強華〈民84〉。論提昇教師專業成長的「教師評鑑」。載於中國教育學會〈主編〉，教育評鑑（頁247-272）。台北：師大書苑。
孫小禮〈民83〉。向複雜性進軍：關於研究方法的一些思考。載於孫小禮、李慎〈主編〉，方法的比較：研究自然與研究社會（頁1-15）。新竹：凡異。
孫宗瀛、楊英魁〈民84〉。Fuzzy控制：理論、實作與應用。台北：全華。
葉郁菁〈民85〉。影響初任教師教學活動之因素：城鄉差異之比較。初等教育學報，9，399-428。
葉郁菁〈民87〉。英國督察體制之教師評鑑系統在我國可行性之初探。初等教育學報，11，365-382。new window
郭玉霞〈民83〉。美國近年來教師評量的發展與革新。載於中國教育學會〈主編〉，教育改革（頁239-254）。台北：師大書苑。
教育改革委員會〈民84〉。第一期諮議報告書。台北：作者。
陳聖謨〈民87〉。美國教師評鑑制度的發展及其對我國的啟示。教育研究，6，175-189。
張德銳〈民81〉。國民小學教師評鑑之研究。載於中華民國師範教育學會〈主編〉，教育專業（頁241-284）。台北：師大書苑。new window
張德銳〈民85〉。國小教師成績考核系統之研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告〈計畫編號：NSC-84-2411-H-133-004〉。new window
黃坤錦〈民84〉。從教師專業論教師評鑑。載於中國教育學會〈主編〉，教育評鑑（頁229-246）。台北：師大書苑。
黃政傑〈民86〉。發揮學校教評會的功能。北縣教育，16，10-12。
曾國雄、鄧振源〈民78a〉。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上)。中國統計學報，27(6)，5-22。new window
曾國雄、鄧振源〈民78b〉。層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下)。中國統計學報，27(7)，1-20。new window
傅木龍〈民87〉。英國中小學教師評鑑制度研究及其對我國之啟示。國立政治大學教育系博士論文〈未出版〉。new window
楊國賜〈民79〉。教育專業。載於黃光雄〈主編〉，教育概論﹝頁417-443﹞。台北：師大書苑。
詹志禹〈民86〉。教評會新聘良師的專業規準。中等教育，48(3)，12-15。new window
歐陽教、張德銳〈民82〉。教師評鑑模式之研究。教育研究資訊，1(2)，90-100。new window
諶啟標〈民87〉。英美教師評價制度的比較。教育資料文摘，41(5)，52-59。
盧增緒〈民84〉。論教育評鑑觀念之形成。載於中國教育學會〈主編〉，教育評鑑﹝頁3-60﹞。台北：師大書苑。
賴慶三〈民86〉。國小職前教師科學知識之研究。臺北師院學報，10，55-500。
謝文全〈民78〉。教育行政：理論與實務。台北：文景。
謝臥龍〈民86〉。優良國中教師特質之德懷分析。教育研究資訊，5(3)，14-28。new window
簡紅珠〈民82〉。教學評鑑的內涵與實施。載於伍振鷟〈主編〉，教育評鑑（頁173-189）。台北：南宏。
簡紅珠〈民86〉。專業導向的教師評鑑。北縣教育，16，19-22。
羅嘉珍〈民83〉。英國教師考評制度的內涵與實施。國立教育資料館館訊，30，3-6。
藎壚〈民80〉。實用模糊數學。台北﹕亞東。
二、英文部份
Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (1986). Teach-ers dispute ACAS independent panel: Report of the appraisal and training working group. London: ACAS CAI.
Anrig, G. R. (1986). Teacher education and teacher teaching: The rush to mandate. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 447-451.
Aspinwall, K., Simkins, T., Wilkinson, J. F., & McAuley, J. (1992). Managing evaluation in education. London: Routledge.
Ayers, T. D. (1987). Stakeholders as partners in evaluation: A stakeholder-collaborative approach. Evaluation and Program Plan-ning, 10, 263-271.
Baratz-Snowden, J. (1991). Performance assessments for identifying excellent teachers: The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards charts its research and development course. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 5(2), 133-145.
Baratz-Snowden, J. (1993, Spring). Assessment of teachers: A view from the National Board for Professional Teaching Stan-dards. Theory Into Practice, 32(2), 82-85.
Bardossy, A., Duckstein, L., & Bogardi, I. (1993). Combina-tion of fuzzy numbers representing expert opinions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 57, 173-181.
Bartos, R. ,& Souter, F. (1982). What are we teaching in edu-cational foundations. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 45-49.
Bass, S. M., & Kwakernaak, H. (1977). Rating and ranking of multiple aspect alternative using fuzzy sets. Automatica, 13, 47-58.
Beach, D. M. ,& Reinhartz, J. (1984). Using criteria of effec-tive teaching to judge teacher performance. NASSP Bulletin, 68, 31-37.
Blackmer, D., Brown, C., Pinckney, R., & Walker, R. D. (1981). A matrix of teacher performance areas and criteria selected by the school organizations in the School Improvement Model (SIM) project for use during the 1981-1982 school year. A repoer of the School Improvement Model (SIM) project. (ERIC Document Re-production Service No. ED 225 279)
Bollington, R., Hopkins, D., & West, M. (1990). An introduc-tion to teacher appraisal : A professional development approach. London: Cassell.
Bolton, D. L. (1973). Selection and evaluation of teachers. Berkeley, California: McCutchan.
Borman, K. M. (1990). Foundations of education in teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed), Handbook of research on teacher education : A project of the association of teacher educators. New York: Macmillan.
Bryk, A. S. (1983). Stakeholder-based evaluation. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation. New directions for pro-gram evaluation (Vol. 17, pp. 97-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Buckley, J. J. (1984). The multipliple judge, multiple criteria ranking problem : A fuzzy set approach. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 13, 25-37.
Calvery, R., Bell, D., & Sheets, G. (1996). A study of se-lected teacher characteristics valued by Arkansas public school administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 403 646)
Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strate-gies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207.
Carr-Saunders, A. M. (1933). The profession. Oxford: Clar-endon Press.
Chen, S. J.(1985). Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 113-129.
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and application. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1989). Research in education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Cook, T. D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy (pp.21-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Craft, A. (1996). Continuing professional development: A practical guide for teachers and schools. London: The Open Uni-versity.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Education Research, 53(3), 285-325.
Department of Education and Science (1986). Techniques for appraising teacher performance in better schools: Evaluation and appraisal conference proceedings. London: HMSO.
Divid, H. (1987). Appraising teacher performance in North Carolina. Educational Leadership, 44(7), 40-44.
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1978). Operations on fuzzy numbers. International Journal of Systems Science, 9, 613-629.
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1980). Fuzzy sets and systems: The-ory and application. New York: Academic Press.
Duke, D. L. (1995). Teacher evaluation policy. New York: State University of New York Press.
Educational Testing Service. (1992). Teacher performance assessments: Assessment criteria. Princeton, NJ.: Author.
Elliott, J. (1989a). Appraisal of performance or appraisal of persons. In H. Simons & J. Elliott (Eds.), Rethinking appraisal and assessment(pp.80-99). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Elliott, J. (1989b). Conclusion: rethinking appraisal. In H. Simons & J. Elliott (Eds.), Rethinking appraisal and assess-ment(pp.180-193). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Embretson, G., Ferber, E., & Langager, T. (1984). Supervi-sion and evaluation: Helping teachers reach their maximun potential. NASSP Bulletin, 68, 26-30.
Fedrizzi, M., & Kacprzyk, J. (1988). On measuring consensus in the setting of fuzzy preference relations. In J. Kacprzyk & M. Roubens (Eds.), Non-conventional preference relations in decision making (pp. 129-141). Berlin: Springer.
Frels, K., Cooper, T. T., & Reagan, B. R. (1986). Practical aspects of teacher evaluation. New York: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education.
Gold, N. (1983). Stakeholders and program evaluation: Char-acteristics and reflections. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation. New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 17, pp. 63-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goldsberry, L. F. (1984). The realities of clinical supervision. Educational Leadership, 41, 12-15.
Greene, J. E. (1971). School personnel administration. Rad-nor, Pennsylvania: Chilton Book Company.
Greene, J. C. (1987). Stakeholder participation in evaluation design: Is it worth the effort ? Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, 379-394.
Greene, J. C., & McClintock, C. (1985). Triangulation in education: Design and analysis issues. Evaluation Review, 9, 523 -545.
Geeenwood, G. E., & Ramagli, H. J. (1980). Alternatives to student ratings of college teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 51(6), 673-682.
Gordon, J. R. (1991). A diagnostic approach to organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Grossman, P. L. (1987). A tale of two teachers: The role of subject matter orientation in teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S.M., & Shulman, L.S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M.C. Reynolds (Eds.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. New York: Pergamon.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approach. Washington , DC: Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E.G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hall, G., Hord, S. M., & Griffin, T. H. (1980). Implementation at the school building level: The development and analysis of nine mini-case studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 207 170)
Harris, B. M. (1986). Developmental teacher evaluation. Bos-ton: Allyn & Bacon.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in teaching biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education,3, 109-120.
Henry, G. T., Dickey, K. C., & Areson, J. C. (1991). Stake-holder participation in educational performance monitoring systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 177-188.
Hopkins, D. (1989). Evaluation for school development. Mil-ton Keynes: Open University Press.
Hsu, H. M., & Chen, C. T. (1996). Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 79, 279-285.
Hwang, C. L., Lin, M. J. (1987). Group decision making under multiple criteria. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Iwanicki, E. F. (1990). Teacher evaluation for school im-provement. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secon-dary school teachers (pp. 158-174). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jain, R. (1976). Decision making in the presence of fuzzy variable. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 6, 698-703.
Jain, R. (1977). A procedure for multi-aspect decision making using fuzzy sets. International Journal of System Science, 8, 1-7.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kacprzyk, J., Fedrizzi, M., & Nurmi, H. (1992). Group deci-sion making and consensus under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy ma-jority. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 49, 21-31.
Kauffman, A., & Gupta, M. M. (1985). Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kidder, L. H., & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation. New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 35, pp. 57-75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Klir, G. J., & Folger, T. A. (1988). Fuzzy sets, uncertainty and information. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Larrhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty*s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11, 229-241.
Lee, E. S., & Li, R. L. ( 1988). Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability measure of fuzzy events. Computer and Mathematics with Applications, 15, 887-896.
Lortie, D. (1969). The balance of control and autonomy in elementary school teaching. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The semi-professions and their organizations (pp. 1-53). New York: Free Press.
Louis, K. S. (1981). Policy researcher as sleuth: New ap-proaches to integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 207 256)
Loup, K.S. , Garland, J.S. , Ellett, C.D., & Rugutt, J.K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a republication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203-226.
Manatt, R. P. (1982). Teacher performance evaluation: Prac-tical application of research. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 225 275)
Mark, M. M., & Shotland, R. L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation: New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 35, pp.95-100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate ? Educational Research, 17(2), 13-17.
Maxwell, J. A., Bashook, P. G., & Sandlow, C. J. (1986). Combining ethnographic and experimental methods in educatiobal evaluation. In D. M. Fetterman & M. A. Pitman (Eds.), Educational evaluation: Ethnography in theory, practice, and politics (pp. 121-143). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McColskey, W. & Egelson, P. (1993). Designing teacher evaluation systems that support professional growth. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 662)
McCormick, R. & James, M.(1983). Curriculum evaluation in schools. London: Croom Helm.
McGreal, T. L. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Alex-andria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum De-velopment.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Pfeifer, R. S. (1988). Teacher evalua-tion: Improvement, accountability, and effective learning. New York: Teacher College Press.
McNeil, J. D. (1967). Concomitantd of using behavioral ob-jectives in the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Ex-perimental Education, 36, 69-74.
Montgomery, D., & Hadfield, N. ( 1989). Practical teacher appraisal. London: Kogan Page.
Morrison, G. S. (1997). Teaching in America. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Natriello, G., & Cohn, M. (1983). Beyond sanctions: The evaluation of a merit pay system. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Mont-real.
Natriello, G. (1990). Intended and unintended consequences: Purposes and effects of teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 35-45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nevo, D. (1983). The conceptualization of educational evaluation: An analytical review of the literature. Review of Education Research, 53(1), 117-128.
Nevo, D. (1989). Useful evaluation: Evaluating educational and social projects. Tel Aviv, Israel: Masada.
Nevo, D. (1995). School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school improvement. London: Galliard Ltd.
Nurmi, H. (1981). Approaches to collective decision making with fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 6, 249-259.
Nuttall, D. (1990). Development evaluation in the LEA. Lon-don: ILEA Research and Statistics Branch.
Nyirenda, S. (1994). Assessing highly accomplished teaching: Developing a metaevaluation criteria framework for performance-assessment system for national certification of teachers. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 313-327.
O*Hanlon, J., & Mortensen, L. (1980). Making teacher evaluation work. Journal of Higher Education, 51(6), 664-672.
Patton, M. Q. (1995).質的評鑑與研究(吳芝儀和李奉儒合譯)。台北：桂冠。(原文版出版於1990)
Popham, J. W. (1971). Performance test of teaching profi-ciency: Rational, developmemt and validation. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 52, 559-602.new window
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational evaluation (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon.
Poster, D. (1993). Teacher appraisal: Training and implemen-tation (2nd ed.). New York: Cyril & Doreen Press.
Pugach, M. C., & Raths, J. D. (1983). Testing teachers: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 37-43.
Redfern, G. B. (1980). Evaluating teachers and administrators: A performance objective approach. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching ? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 1-35.
Reza, K., & Vassilis, S. M. (1988). Delphi Hierarchy Process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and Analytical Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 37, 347-354.
Robbins, S. P. (1991). Management (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in s sing large-scale evaluation stude. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643.
Sanders, T. (1994). A new model: For quality assurance in teacher education. NCATE Quality Teaching, 3(2), 4-5.
Saaty, T. L. (1990a). Multicriteria decision making: The Ana-lytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
Saaty, T. L. (1990b). Decision making for leaders. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
Saaty, T. L. (1991a). The logic of priorities: Applications in business, energy, health, and transportation. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
Saaty, T. L. (1991b). Analytical Planning: The organization of systems. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.
Schermerborn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1985). Managing organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Schermerhorn, L. L., Williams, L., & Dickison, A. (1982). Project COMPAS [Consortium for operating and managing pro-grams for the advancement of skills]: A design for change. East Peoria, IL: Illinois Central College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 219 100)
Scriven, M. (1994). The duties of the teacher. Journal of Per-sonnel Evaluation in Education, 8(2), 151-184.
Scriven, M. (1995). A unified theory approach to teacher evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 111-129.
Seyfarth, J. T.(1991). Personnel management for effective school. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Shadish, W. R., Jr., Cook, T. D., & Houts, A. C. (1986). Quasi-experimentation in a critical multiplist mode. In W. M. K. Trochim (Ed.), Advances in quasi-experimental design and analysis. New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 21, pp.29-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shieh, V. (1990). Using Delphi technique to determine the most important characteristics of effective teaching at junior high school level in Taiwan. Unpublished doctor dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
Shinkfield, A. J. ,& Stufflebeam, D. L. (1995). Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Shotland, R. L., & Mark, M. M. (1987). Improving inferences from multiple methods. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation (Vol. 35, pp.77-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the con-versation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate. Educa-tional Researcher, 15(1), 4-12.
Stake, R. E. (1989). The evaluation of teaching. In H. Simons & J. Elliott (Eds.), Rethinking appraisal and assessment ( pp.13-19). Bristol: PA, Open University Press.
Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, L. R., Merriman, H. O., & Provus, M. M. (1971). Edu-cational evaluation and decision-making. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Brethower, D. M. (1987). Improving personnel evaluations through professional standards. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1 , 125-155.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Sanders, J. R. (1990). Using the per-sonnel evaluation standards to improve teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 416-428). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Talmage, H., & Rasher, S. P. (1981). Quantifying qualitative data: The best of both worlds. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 204 396) Tanino, T. Tanino, T.(1984). Fuzzy preference orderings in group deci-sion making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 12, 117-131.
Tenopyr, M. L., & Oeltjen, P. D. (1982). Personnel selection and classification. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 581-618.
Texas Educational Agency (1986-1987). Teacher appraisal system: Teacher orientation manual. Austin, Texas: Author.
Turner, G., & Clift, P. (1988). Studies in teacher appraisal. London: Falmer.
Valentine, J. W. (1992). Principles and practices for effective teacher evaluation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wallner, F. (1997). 建構實在論(王榮麟和王超群合譯)。台北：五南。(原文版出版於1995)
Weiss, C. H. (1983). Toward the future of stakeholder ap-proaches in evaluation. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation: New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 17, pp. 83-96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whyte, J. B. (1986). Teacher assessment: A review of the performance appraisal literature with special reference to the im-plications for teacher appraisal. Research Papers in Education, 1(2), 137-163.
Williams, D. (1994). Issues in teacher education and profes-sional development in the United States: Implications for Australia. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 143)
Winter, R. (1989). Problems in teacher appraisal: An action-research solution? In H. Simons & J. Elliott (Eds.), Rethinking appraisal and assessment (pp.44-54). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., & Bernstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Wise, A. E., & Leibbrand, J. (1993). Accreditation and the creation of a profession of teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 133-136.
Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evalua-tion: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
Wragg, E. C. (1987). Teacher appraisal: A practical guide. London: Macmuilan.
Xu, R. N., & Zhai, X. Y. (1992). Extensions of the analytic hierarchy process in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 52, 251-257.
Yager, R. R. (1980). On a general class od fuzzy connectives. Fuzzy Sets and System, 4, 235-242.
Yager, R. R. (1981). A procedure for ordering fuzzy snbsets of the unit interval. Information Sciences, 24, 143-161.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353.
Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning. Information Sciences, 8, 199-249.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：801（臺灣：779，外國：22） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1855660 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67666077
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上