|
中文部分 丁一顧(2012)。教師專業發展評鑑實徵研究之回顧與展望。教育資料與研究, 118,31-56。 王文科、王智弘(2010)。質的研究的信度和效度。彰化師大教育學報,17,29-50。 方永泉(2004)。詮釋學理論與教育研究的關係。載於潘慧玲(主編),教育研究方法論(192-221頁)。臺北市:心理。 王東進(2015)。中小學教師專業發展評鑑輔導夥伴學習歷程之研究(未出版之博士論文)。高雄師範大學,高雄市。 方朝郁、方德隆(2017)。「教師評鑑 2.0」:美國的經驗與對臺灣之啟示。教育研究與發展期刊,13(1),31-62。 卯靜儒、陳冠蓉、蘇源恭(2007)。教學專業與教師發展--美國教師評鑑指標分析。高教發展與評估雜誌,23(5),83-95。 呂木琳、張德銳(譯)(1992)。教師發展評鑑系統(原作者:Harris, Ben M. & Hill,Jane)。新竹市:國立新竹師範學院。(原著出版年:1982) 呂錘卿(2000)。國民小學教師專業成長的指標及其規劃模式之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立高雄師範大學,高雄市。 吳和堂(2007)。教師評鑑:理論與實務。臺北市:高等教育。 吳青樺(2003)。案例教學法在教師專業成長網路學習社群之發展(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學,新北市。 吳清山(2006)。師資培育的理念與實踐。教育研究與發展期刊,2(1),1-31。 吳清山、王令宜(2017)。教師專業標準的理論與應用,學校行政雙月刊,108,98-118。 吳嘉苓(2000)。醫療專業、性別與國家:台灣助產士興衰的社會學分析。台灣社會學研究,4,191-268。 林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花(2005)。質性研究方法:訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究,3(2),122-136。 林佩璇(2000)。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究所 (主編),質的研究方法(239-262頁)。高雄市:麗文。 林佩璇(2002a)。教學知識之研究:從研究典範的轉移到整合理解。課程與教學季刊,5(3),17-34。 林佩璇(2002b)。行動研究的知識宣稱—教師實踐知識。國立臺北師範學院學報,15,189-210。 林佩璇(2004)。學校本位課程—發展與評鑑。臺北市:學富文化。 林佩璇、李俊湖(2018)。從教師專業能力到教師專業素養。台灣教育,711,103-111。 林思騏、陳盛賢(2018)。教師專業發展:過去與未來。臺北市:五南。 林素卿(2018)。淺談價值涉入取向之方案評鑑。評鑑雙月刊,72。取自http://epaper.heeact.edu.tw/archive/2018/03/01/6931.aspx 林素卿、顧毓群、莊雅然(2018)。評鑑未來趨勢之探究。評鑑雙月刊,71,24-28。 洪榮炎(2016)。日本、新加坡、中國大陸與台灣中小學教師評鑑制度比較研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。 倪士峯(2018)。我國中小學教師專業發展評鑑政策規劃、執行與論證之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺中教育大學,臺中市。 徐詠絮(2016年10月4日)。教師專業發展評鑑 106學年轉型為支持系統。取自http://www.ner.gov.tw/news/?recordId=31955&_sp=detail 師資培育及藝術教育司(2016年10月4日)。教師專業發展評鑑將於106學年度起轉型為教師專業發展支持系統。取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content. aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=55BD57743E88E277 秦夢群、陳清溪、吳政達、郭昭佑(2013)。教師專業發展評鑑實施成效之調查研究。教育資料與研究,108,57-84。 孫志麟(2010)。專業學習社群:促進教師專業發展的平台。學校行政雙月刊,69,138-158 郭淑芳(2013)。我國師資培育數量規劃政策實施之效能分析。測驗統計年刊,21,61-86。 許秋燕(2017)。教師專業發展評鑑轉型之初探。臺灣教育評論月刊,6(2),53-58。 陳國生(2017)。十二年國教下校本教師專業成長模式之探討-以專業學習社群作為教師專業成長協作平台。106校務經營個案研究實務研討會成果集(頁15-44)。新北市:國家教育研究院。取自https://www.naer.edu.tw/ ezfiles/0/1000/attach/42/pta_15404_4650030_37818.pdf 陳盛賢、高瑄(2017)。教師專業發展評鑑的下一頁。臺灣教育評論月刊,6(6),73-77。 陳盛賢、楊思偉、許筱君(2015)。四代評鑑觀論述中小學校務評鑑之發展趨勢--以臺中市國中小校務評鑑為例。教育理論與實踐學刊,32,23-41。 陳錦蓮(2007)。校本課程評鑑-R.Stake回應式評鑑取向之運用與檢討(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。 教育部(2006a)。試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑宣導手冊。臺北市:作者。 教育部(2006b)。教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫。臺北市:教育部。 教育部(2010)。教育部補助辦理教師專業發展評鑑實施要點。臺北市:教育部。 教育部(2011)。教育部補助辦理教師專業發展評鑑實施要點。臺北市:教育部。 教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要。臺北市:教育部。 教育部(2016a)。高級中等以下學校教師專業發展評鑑規準。臺北市:教育部。 教育部(2016b)。中華民國教師專業標準指引。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/8/relfile/7834/45668/d4f269e3-96cf-4eac-b038-9a9cda8912f2.pdf 教育部(2016c)。中小學教師專業發展評鑑105年案例專輯:發展專業力,教出未來力 : 教師專業,十年有成。臺北市:教育部。 教育部(2016d)。教育部中小學教師專業發展支持系統規劃方向說明。取自https://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/8/relfile/7844/51815/be4db826-d04a-4c5a-8820-91c7991a4cde.pdf 教育部(2016e)。教師專業發展評鑑規準(精緻版說明與解析)。取自http://www.tcavs.tc.edu.tw/newsfile/1050531223208.pdf 教育部(2016f)。評鑑人員初階培訓課程及認證手冊。取自http://www.tdvs.ntct.edu.tw/team/TeamB-1/教師專業/105初階認證手冊.pdf 教育部(2016g)。評鑑人員進階培訓課程及認證手冊。取自http://www.tdvs.ntct.edu.tw/team/TeamB-1/教師專業/105進階認證手冊.pdf 教育部(2016h)。教學輔導教師人才培訓中心認證手冊。取自http://ptpdc.hcc.edu.tw/ezfiles/148/1148/attach/14/pta_76442_9269677_32093.pdf 教育部(2016i)。中小學教師專業發展評鑑辦理情形之分析。取自http://cfte.web.nthu.edu.tw/files/14-1020-109083,r1152-1.php?Lang=zh-tw 教育部(無日期)。教學觀察與專業回饋。取自:http://140.130.211.182/eweb/mod ule/download/update/office04/file2700_661.pdf 張民杰(2016)。教師專業發展規準之探討。新竹縣教育研究集刊,16,1-12。 張夏平(2008)。學校組織變革與教師專業發展關係之研究-以台南市國民中小學為例(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺南大學,臺南市。 張素貞、李俊湖(2014)。教師專業發展評鑑方案成效評估之研究。教育資料與研究,114,95-124。 張新仁(2010)。臺灣中小學教師專業發展的困境與前景。載於黃政傑(主編),教學藝術(507-532頁)。臺北市:五南。 張媛甯(2016)。教師專業發展評鑑支持系統之實施、困境與建議。臺灣教育,697,35-41。 張德銳(2003)。我國中小學教師評鑑的規劃與推動策略。教育資料與研究,53,9-11。 張德銳(2010)。喚醒沈睡的巨人—論教師領導在我國中小學的發展。臺北市立教育大學學報,41(2),81-110。 張德銳(2012)。區別化教師評鑑制度的規劃與實施策略。臺北市立教育大學學報,43(1),121-144。 張德銳(2015a)。並行不悖—當教專評鑑遇到教學革新。師友月刊,580,42-47。 張德銳(2015b)。專業領航—談中小學教師專業標準。臺灣教育,696,26-29。 張德銳(2017)。以課室觀察與回饋促進教學創新-從公開授課與專業回饋談起。教師天地,201。取自https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx60JTbjKYDxcXlr VVRGaFdrNnc/view 張德銳、蔡秀媛、許籐繼、江啟昱、李俊達、蔡美錦…賴志峰(2000)。發展性教學輔導系統:理論與實務。臺北市:五南。 張德銳、吳武雄、許籐繼、李俊達、洪寶蓮、王美霞…曾燦金(2004)。中學教師教學專業發展系統。臺北市:五南。 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,12(3),265-290。 張德銳、高紅瑛、康心怡(2010)。教學專業發展評鑑系統:實務手冊與研究。臺北市:五南。 張德銳、李俊達、王淑珍(2014)。認知教練對中小學教師教學省思及教學效能影響之研究:以參與教師專業發展評鑑方案之教師為例。臺北市立教育大學學報,45(1),61-80。 張德銳、李俊達、蔡惠青、鄧美珠、劉榮嫦、康心怡、胡慧宜、楊玲珠(2017)。專業發展導向教師評鑑:理論與實務。臺北市:五南。 單文經(1991,12月)。美國中小學師資養成教育的課程。於中華民國比較教育學會、中華民國師範教育學會主辦,國際比較師範教育研討會。臺北市:國立台灣師範大學。 黃光雄(編譯)(1989)。教育評鑑的模式(原作者:Stufflebeam Daniel L. & Shinkfield Athony J.)。臺北市:師大書苑。(原著出版年:1985) 黃光雄(主譯)(2001)。質性教育研究(原作者:Bogdan Robert C. & Hill, Biklen SariK.)。嘉義市:濤石文化。(原著出版年:1998) 黃政傑(1994)。課程評鑑。臺北市:師大書苑。 黃政傑(1996)。從課程的角度看教師專業發展。教師天地,83,13-17。 黃嘉莉(2008)。教師專業制度的社會學分析。師大學報:教育類,53(3),125-151。 黃嘉雄(2006)。析論Stake之回應式教育方案評鑑取向。國立臺北教育大學學報,19(2),1-26。 曾淑惠、阮淑萍(2013)。評鑑使用及其對我國教育評鑑的啟示。教育行政研究,3(2),93-112。 潘慧玲(2002)。方案評鑑的緣起與概念。教師天地,117,26-31。 潘慧玲(2014)。中小學教師專業發展評鑑方案之影響評估。當代教育研究季刊,22(1),47-86。 潘慧玲、王麗雲、張素貞、吳俊憲、鄭淑惠(2010)。試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑之方案評鑑(Ⅱ)。教育部委託之專案研究成果報告,未出版。 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,56(3),29-65。 潘慧玲、鄭淑惠(2015)。教師專業發展評鑑指標系統。載於潘慧玲、吳俊憲、張素貞、鄭淑惠、陳文彥(合著),教師專業發展評鑑(226-250頁)。臺北市:高等教育。 鄭淑惠(2011)。教師專業發展評鑑之個案研究:促進組織學習的觀點。教育研究與發展期刊,7(3),37-68。 鄭淑惠、潘慧玲(2013)。全國性試辦方案實施之過程與成果評鑑:以中小學教師專業發展評鑑為例。中等教育,64(2),78-97。 閻鳳婷(2016年10月4日)。教師評鑑制度106學年度起退燒 全教總宣告教師自治時代來臨。取自https://fairmedia.com.tw/教育/7808 簡紅珠(1992)。教學研究的主要派典及其啟示之探析。臺北市:復文。 蘇錦麗(譯)(2005)。評鑑模式:教育及人力服務的評鑑觀點(原作者:Stufflebeam, Daniel L. & Madaus, George F. & Kellaghan Thomas)。臺北市:高等教育。(原著出版年:2000) 饒見維(2003)。教師專業發展—理論與實務。臺北市:五南。
英文部分 Abma, T. A. (2005). Responsive evaluation: Its meaning and special contribution to health promotion. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 279-289. Abma, T. A., & Stake, R. E. (2001). Stake’s responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evolution. Responsive evaluation. New Directions in Evaluation, 92, 7–22. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership(2017, December 4). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/d efault-source/general/australian-professional-standands-for-teachers-20171006. pdf?sfvrsn=399ae83c_12 Becker, H. S. (1962). The nature of a profession. In N. B. Henry (Ed.). Education for the professions(pp.27-46). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Bestor, A. (1956). The restoration of learning: A program for redeeming the unfulfilled promise of American education. New York, NY: Alfred A Knopf. Carter, K. (1990). Teacher’s knowledge and learning to teach. In R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 101-118). New York, NY: Macmillan. CCSSO’s Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (2013). InTASC model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers:Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17699.pdf Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought process. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York, NY: Macmillan. Collins, R. (1990). Changing conceptions in the sociology of the professions. In R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage (Eds.), The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp 11-23). London, UK: Sage. Cullen, J.B. (1978). The structure of professionalism. New York, NY: Princeton. Danielson, C. & McGreal T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher professionalism: Why and how? In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 25-50). New York, NY: The Falmer Press. Darling-Hammond, L. & Goodwin, A.L. (1993). Progress toward professionalism in teaching. In G. Cawalti (Ed.), Challenges and achievements of American education(pp.19-53). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Department for Education (2011). First report of the independent review of teachers’ standards. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175433/first_report_ of_the_review_of_teachers_standards.pdf DeVries, R. G. (1993). A cross-national view of the status of midwives. In E. Riska & K. Wegar (Eds.), Gender, work and medicine: Women and the medical division of labour (pp 131-146). London, UK: Sage. Doyle, W. (1987). Paradigms for research. In M. J. Dunkin(Ed.), The international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp.113-118). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Durdella, N. R. (2010). Evaluations that respond: Prescription, application, and implications of responsive evaluation theory for community college instructional support programs. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 17(2), 13-23. Durkheim, É. (1933). The division of labor in society. Wilmington, IL: Free Press. Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination. New York, NY: Macmillan. Evetts, J. (2003). The sociological analysis of professionalism. International Sociology, 18(2), 395-415. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R. & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-uo study of professional development in mathmatics. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653-689. Gage, N. L., & Needels, M.C. (1989). Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticism. The Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 253-300. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American educational research journal, 38(4), 915-945. Glatthorn, A. (1995). Teacher development. In L. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teachers educationsecond, second edition (pp. 41-57). London, UK: Pergamon Press. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Gredler, M. E. (1996). Program evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Greene M. (1987). Teacher as project: Choice, perspective, and the public space. In F. S. Bolin & J. M. Falk (Eds.), Teacher renewal (pp. 178-189). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Guba, E.G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation. Guba, E, G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hamilton, S. F. (1983). The social side of schooling: Ecological studies of classrooms and schools. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 313-334. Hanushek, E. A. (2014). Boosting teacher effectiveness. In C. E. Finn Jr. & R. Sousa (Eds.), What lies ahead for America's children and their schools (pp. 23-35). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Harris, B. M., & Hill, J. (1982). The DeTEK handbook. Austin, TX: National Educational Laboratory Publishers. Hord, S. M. (2009). Professional learning communities. National Staff Development Council, 30(1), 40-43. House, E.R. (2001). Responsive evaluation (and its influence on deliberative democratic evaluation). New Directions for Evaluation, 92, 23-30. Howsam, R. B., Corrigan, D. C., Denemark, G. W., & Nash, R. J. (1976). Educating a profession. New York, NY: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Hoyle, E. (1980) Professionalization and deprofessionalization in education. In E. Hoyle & J. Megarry (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 1980(pp. 42-57). London, UK: Kogan Page. Hoyle, E. (1995). Teachers as professionals. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education, second edition (pp. 11 -15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kansanen, P. (2003). Teacher education in Finland: Current model and new development. In B. Moon, L. Vlasceanu, & C. Barrows (Eds.), Institutional approaches to teacher education within higher education in Europe: Current models and new developments (pp. 85-108). Bucharest, RO: UNESCO-CEPES. Kansanen, P. (2006). Constructing a research-based program in teacher education. In F.K. Oser, F. Achtenhagen, & U. Renold (Eds.), Competence oriented teacher training: Old research demands and new pathways (pp. 11-22). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Killion, J. (2000). Online staff development: Promise or peril? NASSP Bulletin, 84(618), 38-46. Leviton, L. C., & Hughes E. (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5(4), 525-548. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Liptapallop, W. (2008). Using responsive evaluation to change Thai tourist police volunteer programs (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Victoria University, Melbourne, Au. Louis, K. S., & Lee, M. (2016). Teachers’ capacity for organizational learning: The effects of school culture and context. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(4), 534-556. Mabasa, L. T. (2013). A responsive evaluation approach in evaluating the safe schools and the child-friendly schools programmes in the Limpopo province (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, SA . Macmillan, C. J. B. & Garrison, J. W. (1984). Using the "new philosophy of science" in criticizing current Research traditions in education. Educational Researcher, 13(10), 15-21. Madaus, G. F., & Stufflebeam D. L. (2000). Program evaluation: A historical overview. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed., pp.3-18). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Millerson, G. (1964). The qualifying associations. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Mitchell, D. E., & Kerchner, C. T. (1983). Labor relations and teacher policy. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook on teaching and policy (pp. 214–238). New York, NY: Longman. Mizell, H. (2007). NSDC has a brand-new purpose. Retrieved from https:// learning forward.org/docs/pdf/sys9-07mizell.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Morris, M., Chrispeels, J., & Burke, P. (2003). The power of two: Linking external with internal teachers’professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 764-767. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2017, December 4). Five core propositions. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/five-core-propositions Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (1994). Meeting the need for practical evaluation approaches: An introduction. In, J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 1-10). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2011). Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. London, UK: Routledge. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. London, UK: Sage. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica , 73(2), 417-458. Profession. (n.d.). In Cambridge dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary. cambridge.org/zht/詞典/英語-漢語-繁體/profession Profession. (n.d.). In English Oxford living dictionaries. Retrieved from http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/profession Saucier, P. R., & Mckim, B. R., Muller, J. E., & Kingman, D. M. (2014). Assessing performance and consequence competence in a technology-based professional development for agricultural science teachers: An evaluation of the lincoln electric welding technology workshop. Career & Technical Education Research, 39(2), 103-118. Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Evaluating the essentials to radically improve student learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner—How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78(1), 1-23. Shadish, W. R. (1998). Evaluation theory is who we are. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 1-19. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, third edition (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). London, UK: Macmillan Publishers. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Oxford, UK: National Staff Development Council. Stake, R. E. (1975). To evaluate an arts program. In R. Stake (Ed.), Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach (pp. 13-31). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Stake, R. E. (1976). Evaluating educational programmes: The need and the response. Paris, FR: OECD. Stake, R. E. (1977). The countenance of educational evaluation. In A. A. Bellack & H. M. Kliebard (Eds.), Curriculum and evaluation (pp.372-390). Berkeley, CA.: McCutchan. Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-8. Stake, R. E. (1991). Responsive evaluation and qualitative methods. In W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, & L. C. Leviton (Eds.), Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice(pp. 270-4314). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (1998a). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 86-109). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (1998b). When policy is merely promotion, by what ethic lives an evaluator? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(2), 203-212. Stake, R. E. (2000). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed., pp.343-362). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 134-164). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based & responsive evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3nd ed., pp. 119-150). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London, UK: Heinemann Educational Publishers. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). Foundational models for 21st century program evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, & G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 33-83). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Svensson, L. G. (1990). Knowledge as a professional resource: Case studies of architects and psychologists. In R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage (Eds.), The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp 51-70). London,UK: Sage. Toren, N. (1969). Semi-professionalism and social work: A theoretical perspective. In E. Amitai (Ed.), The semi-professions and their organization (pp. 141-195). New York, NY: The Free Press. Torstendahl, R. (1990). Introduction: Promotion and strategies of knowledge-based groups. In R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage (Eds.), The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp 1-10). London, UK: Sage. UN(2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/zh/documents/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70 /1&referer=http://www.un.org/zh/documents/treaty/files/A-RES-70-.shtml& Lang =E UNESCO(1966). Recommendation concerning the status of teachers. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/TEACHE_E.PDF UNESCO(2016). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656 WestEd (2000). Teachers who learn, kids who achieve. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The professionalization of everyone? The American journal of sociology, 70(2), 137-158. Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational Evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York, NY: Longman. Yarbrough, D. B., & Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: Aguide for evaluators and evaluation users (3th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 3-9. Zepeda, S. J. (2008). Professional development: What works. New York, NY: Eye On Education. Zumwalt, K. K. (1982). Research on teaching: Policy implications for teacher education. In A. Leiberman & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Policy making in education: 81st year of NSSE (pp. 215-248). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
|