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：國民中小學校長能力指標建構與實證分析之研究
作者：蔡金田 引用關係
作者(外文)：Chin-tien Tsai
校院名稱：國立中正大學
系所名稱：教育研究所
指導教授：張鈿富
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2006
主題關鍵詞：實證分析；德懷術；指標建構；能力指標；校長能力；Delphi technique；indicator cnstruction；competence indicator；empirical analysis；principal's competence
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(7) 博士論文(30) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:7
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:73
面對二十一世紀知識經濟的新紀元，迎接全球化教育競爭的年代，校長所具備之能力深深影響學校教育之永續生存與發展。本論文主要在建構國民中小學校長重要能力指標及探討當前校長所具備指標能力之現況，全文計分為兩個部分，第一部分為理論建構，從國內外校長能力內涵之文獻中進行內容分析並歸納出國民中小學校長能力指標構念，共分為四個層面、十二個向度、九十三項能力指標。接著經由三次德懷術之專家諮詢修訂，最後形成四個層面（行政管理、課程與教學、資源管理與運用、專業涵養）、十二個向度（校務行政、知識管理、事務決定、政策執行、教學領導、課程領導、學生學習與成就、教育經費與資源、校內人力資源、學校外部資源、專業能力、一般學養）、七十二項重要能力指標。
第二部分為實證分析，共寄出「國民中小學校長能力指標問卷」計333份，回收有效問卷302份，進行資料彙整與統計分析，以描述統計、相關分析、變異數分析與事後比較、t考驗、迴歸分析來詮釋所發現之研究現象。
研究結論如下︰
一、 校長能力內涵之內容分析
（一） 國內外學者在有關校長能力向度之陳述上共同重視的是校務行政、校內人力資源、學校外部資源、專業能力等向度。
（二） 國內外教育機構在有關校長能力向度之陳述上共同重視的是校務行政、校內人力資源、學校外部資源、教學領導、專業能力等向度。
（三） 國內外校長能力相關研究能力向度之比較分析可知，在有關校長能力向度之陳述上共同重視的是校務行政、校內人力資源、學校外部資源、專業能力、教育經費與資源等向度。
（四） 由國內外學者、教育機構對於校長能力內涵向度之綜合分析發現，校務行政、校內人力資源、學校外部資源、專業能力、教學領導所佔百分比較高，均超過70﹪以上。
二、 德懷述所建構之國民中小學校長能力指標重要排序中位居首要者，並非當前校長所具備能力得分之最高者，顯示校長在首要能力指標項目所具備之能力相對不足。
三、 校長具備能力現況之實證分析
（一） 當前國民中小學校長在能力指標各層面之得分介於4.24至4.44分之間；在能力指標各向度之得分則介於4.12至4.53之間。
（二） 不同區域、學歷、學校所在地之校長其所具備之能力在校長能力指標向度之得分上達顯著差異。
（三） 不同性別、年資及國中小校長別其所具備之能力，在校長能力指標向度之得分上並無顯著差異。
四、校長能力關聯與解釋模式
（一） 國民中小學校長所具備之四個層面，兩兩間均達顯著相關，其相關
係數介於 .771至 .830；另在十二個向度方面，彼此間亦達顯著相關，其相關係數介於 .519至 .774。
（二）政策執行、學生學習與成就、教學領導、知識管理、學校外部資源、班級數等能力向度能有效解釋校長能力指標之課程領導向度，總解釋力為63.9﹪。
（三）政策執行、專業能力、校務行政、課程領導、區域性、事務決定、學生學習與成就等可有效解釋校長能力指標之知識管理向度，總解釋力達63.70﹪。
（四）政策執行、校務行政、校內人力資源、專業能力、知識管理等可有效解釋校長能力指標之課程領導向度，總解釋力達66.4﹪。
（五）政策執行、校內人力資源、課程領導、一般學養、教育經費與資源、學校外部資源等可有效解釋校長能力指標之學生學習與成就向度，總解釋力達69.3﹪。
（六）校務行政、課程領導、事務決定、學生學習與成就、一般學養等可有效解釋校長能力指標之政策執行向度，總解釋力達75.6﹪。
（七）課程領導、校務行政、一般學養、學校所在地、學歷、事務決定等可有效解釋校長能力指標之教學領導向度，總解釋力達49.2﹪。
（八）政策執行、事務決定、教育經費與資源、知識管理等可有效解釋校長能力指標之校務行政向度，總解釋力達70.5﹪。
相關建議如下︰
一、對當前國民中小學校長培育、評鑑與證照制度規劃之建議
（一） 根據本研究所建構之校長重要能力指標及當前校長所具備能力概況，做為國民中小學校長培育之內容依據。
（二） 將校長能力指標做為校長評鑑之依據。
（三） 參考校長能力指標，建構適宜的校長證照標準。
（四） 對於校長之儲訓、評鑑、證照之規劃，應重視校長能力養成之完整性。
二、對於校長專業發展與成長規劃之建議
（一） 參照校長能力指標及當前所具備之能力現況建置校長專業能力資源網。
（二） 了解當前校長具備能力之現況，作為規劃校長專業成長之依據。
（三） 校長專業發展學術論壇，應以校長能力差異及甚少被論及之議題做為論述焦點。
三、對校長專業能力自我更新取向之建議
（一） 將校長能力指標及能力差異做為校長本身專業能力發展之依據。
（二） 擬定校長能力檢核表，進行自我反省、更新與發展。
（三） 透過網路資訊平台，建立校長網路學習社群。
四、 進一步研究的建議
（一） 因應教育趨勢適時彈性調整指標內涵。
（二） 可逐年檢證校長所具備之能力現況進行比較。
（三） 可進一步進行公私立國民中小校長能力之比較探討。
（四） 可採行不同指標建構方法相互驗證。
The purpose of this study was to develop professional indicators of elementary and junior high school principals and to investigate the current status of principals’ competence. The study included two stages—theory construction and empirical analysis. At the first stage, the study analyzed contents of principal’s competence in native and foreign countries through literature reviews. It included 4 sections, 12 categories and 93 competence indicators. After three times of Delphi technique were used to survey experts’ opinions on these indicators, it finally generalized 4 sections, 12categories, and 72 competence indicators. At the second stage, 333 questionnaires of “Competence Indicators of Elementary and Junior High School Principals” were responded by 302 elementary and junior high school principals. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, one-way ANOVA, t-test, and stepwise multivariate regression.
The results were as follows:
A. Analysis of principal’s professional competence included four parts.
1. The categories of principal’s professional competence which native and foreign experts all emphasized were school administration, campus human resource, school’s external resource and professional competence.
2. The categories of principal’s professional competence which were stressed by Native and foreign educational organizations were school administration, campus human resource, school’s external resource, instruction leadership and professional competence.
3. Depending on the comparative researches of principal’s professional competence, it focused on school administration, campus human resource, school’s external resource, professional competence, educational budgets and resource.
4. According to the general analysis of principal’s professional competence by native and foreign experts and educational organizations, school administration, campus human resource, school’s external resource, professional competence and instruction leadership accounted for over 70%.
B. The most important indicator of elementary and junior high school principal’s professional competence constructed by Delphi technique was not as same as the
highest scores of professional competence possessed by current principals. It accounted for the principal’s lack of professional competence in the most important indicator.
C. The empirical analysis of principal’s current professional competence
1. The scores on the sections of current elementary and junior high school principal’s competence indicators were between 4.24 and 4.44. The scores on the categories were between 4.12 and 4.53.
2. The professional competence of the principals with different areas, educational backgrounds, and school locations was remarkably diverse on the categories of principal’s competence indicators.
3. The professional competence of the principals with different genders and seniority didn’t have obviously difference on the categories of principal’s competence indicators.
D. The correlation of principal’s professional competence and interpretation
1. The four sections of principal’s professional competence had highly relation to each other. Its correlation coefficient was between 0.771 and 0.830. Besides, the twelve categories also had high relation to each other. Its correlation coefficient was between 0.519 and 0.774.
2. Competence categories of policy implementation, students’ learning and achievement, instruction leadership, knowledge management, school’s external resource and class size made an efficient description of categories of curriculum leadership on principal’s competence indicator. Total explanatory capability was 63.9%.
3. Policy implementation, professional competence, school administration, curriculum leadership, regions, decision-making on administrative affairs, and students’ learning and achievement made an efficient description of categories of knowledge management on principal’s competence indicator. Total explanatory capability was 63.70%.
4. Policy implementation, school administration, campus human resource, professional competence, and knowledge management made an efficient description of categories of curriculum leadership on principal’s competence indicator. Total explanatory capability was 66.4%.
5. Policy implementation, campus human resource, curriculum leadership, general accomplishment, educational budgets and resource, and school’s external resource
made an efficient description of categories of students’ learning and achievement on principal’s competence indicator. Total explanatory capability was 69.3%.
6. School administration, curriculum leadership, decision-making on administrative affairs, students’ learning and achievement, and general accomplishment made an efficient description of categories of policy implementation on principal’s competence indicator. Total explanatory capability was 75.6%.
7. Curriculum leadership, school administration, general accomplishment, school’s location, education background, and decision-making on administrative affairs made an efficient description of categories of instruction leadership on principal’s competence indicator. Total explanatory capability was 49.2%.
8. Policy implementation, decision-making on administrative affairs, educational budgets and resource and knowledge management made an efficient description of categories of school administration on principal’s competence indicator. Total explanatory capability was 70.5%.
The suggestions are as follows:
A. The suggestions of principal’s training, evaluation and certification system
1. Principal’s professional competence indicators constructed by the research and the description of current principals’ competence can be a basis for elementary and junior high school principal’s training.
2. Principal’s competence indicators can be a basis for principal’s evaluation.
3. Criterion of principal’s certification can be constructed from the indicators of principal’s professional competence.
4. The arrangement for principal’s training, evaluation and certification system should emphasize the completeness of principal’s competence training.
B. The suggestions of principal’s professional development and growth plan
1. Resource network of principal’s professional competence can be built on the principal’s competence indicators and the current principal’s competence situation.
2. Realizing current principal’s competence situation can be a basis for principal’s professional development by.
3. Academic deliberation of principal’s professional development can be focused on difference of principal’s competence and subjects that are neglected.
C. The suggestions of principal’s professional renovation
1. Principal’s competence indicators and different competence can be a basis for development of principal’s professional competence.
2. Principal’s competence checklist can be framed as principal’s self-criticism, renovation and development.
3. Principal’s learning community web can be set up by network information platform.
The suggestions of further study are as follows:
1. The contents of the indicators should be adjusted according to educational trend.
2. The condition of principal’s competence could be tested and compared every year.
3. Competence of principals in private and public elementary and junior high schools could be compared and discussed.
4. Principal’s competence could be verified by different indicator’s construction.
中文部分：
三民書局新辭典編彙委員會(民76)。新辭典。台北：三民書局。
王文科(民83)。台灣地區國民中小學特殊教育發展指標之研究(1)－啟智教育部分。教育部社會教育司補助專案研究。new window
王保進(民82)。高等教育表現指標之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。new window
王保進(民86)。教育指標基本概念之分析。教育研究資訊，4(3)，1-17。new window
王保進、邱鈺惠(民90)。國民小學校長培育方案規劃之研究－以台北市為例。
國立嘉義大學：中小學校長專業成長制度規劃，(39-72)。高雄：復文。
王明賓、李斌(民88)。國外中小學校長培育目標之比較。載於王鐵軍(主編)，現代校長培訓：理念、操作、經驗，(284-292)。南京：南京師範大學出版社。
王麗雲、謝文全（民92）。我國高級中等以下學校校長培育、遴選、升遷制度調查研究。論文發表於國立政治大學教育學院、台北市立中山女子高級中學主辦之「中等學校行政革新」研討會，92年1月10-11日於國立政治大學舉行。收於該研討會論文集與研討記錄，頁17-49 。new window
王鐵軍(民88)。溝通、合作、借鑑－部分國家中小學培育的比較研究。載於王鐵軍(主編)，現代校長培訓：理念、操作、經驗，63-64。南京：南京師範大學出版社。
中華民國國立教育資料館(年代不詳)。校長專業發展資源服務系統－國民中小學校長專業能力發展標準。Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://192.192.169.230/edu_pdr/index.htm
田振榮等(民91)。建立技專校院提昇教學品質指標之研究報告。教育部技術及職業教育司委託專案研究。台北：教育部。
江文雄(民88)。校長做得好，不怕被評鑑：談校長評鑑的觀念。台北：台北市師範學院「現代教育論壇」。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(1996)。教育改革總諮議報告書。台北市：教育部。
沈姍姍(民87)。教育改革趨向與影響因素分析：國際比較觀點。教育資料集刊，23，39-53。new window
林明地(民89)。九年一貫課程校長課程領導與學校本位課程發展。國立台南師院校務發展文教基金會：九年一貫課程－從理論、政策到執行，(155-183)。高雄：復文。
林明地(民91)。學校領導：理念與校長專業生涯。台北：高等教育。

林明地、陳金生(民88)。國小校長職前儲訓課程與有關措施之回顧與展望。教育行政論壇第五次研討會會議手冊，255-280。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所。
林文律(民88)。從校長必備能力看校長培育。國立教育資料館：現代教育論壇，5，168-178。new window
林文律、陳木金(民89)。台北市國民小學候用校長甄選方式之研究。台北：台北市政府教育局專案報告。
林振春(民82)。當前台灣地區成人教育需求評估方法之回顧與展望。成人教育雙月刊，11，31-38。
林逸青(民88)。中小學校長遴選制度之看法。國民教育，40(2)，68-72。
吳清山(民90)。中小學實施校長評鑑的挑戰課題與因應策略。教育研究月刊，new window
84，28-36。
吳政達(民88)。國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究。台北：國立政治大學教育系博士論文，未出版。new window
吳株榕(民91)。國民小學校長評鑑指標之研究－以南部地區為例。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
吳國榮(民92)。國民小學校長教學領導行為指標建構之研究。國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政研究所碩士論文，未出版。
吳順火(民88)。專業校長如何在遴選中贏得尊嚴。國民教育，40(2)，57-61。
吳家瑩、鄭文嵐(民94)。再省思校長角色之定位與學養基礎。教育研究月刊，129，48-60。new window
柯平順、林天祐(民85)。國民中小學校長主任培育之研究。台北：行政院教育改革審議委員會。new window
翁榮銅(民92)。技專校院知識資產指標建構之研究。台北：國立台灣師範大學工業教育學系博士論文，未出版。
秦夢群(民90)。教育在經濟發展上的角色與策略。知識管理與教育革新發展研討會，台北。new window
陳雅新(民92)。國民小學校長領導能力現況之研究。國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳玉山(民86)。能力基礎途徑應用在人力資源管理的研究－個人、工作及環境的整合。國立政治大學公共行政學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳文宗(民93)。國民小學校長專業成長需求調查研究－以嘉義縣市為例。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文，未出版。

郭工賓、郭昭佑(民91)。校長辦學績效評鑑之意涵探究。輯於淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所編，地方教育行政論壇研討會論文集(4-1-4-23)。私立淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所。
國立台北教育大學(民93)。校長領導實務推廣教育碩士學分班第一至第三期課程表。Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://www.ntue.edu.tw
國立台北教育大學(民94)。桃園縣九十四年國民中小學校長培育班第一階段至第四階段課程表。Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://www.ntue.edu.tw
黃正傑等(民85)。中小學基本學歷指標之綜合規劃研究。教育部委託台灣師範大學教育研究中心專案研究。台北：教育部。
張春興(民80)。現代心理學。台北：東華書局。
張鈿富(民84)。台灣地區教育指標建構之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告(編號：NCS-2413-h-0040002)。new window
張鈿富(民88)。教育政策與行政－指標發展與應用。台北：師大書苑。new window
張鈿富(民90)。教育指標理念簡介。「當代教育指標：國際比較觀點」，1-25。台北：學富。
張德銳、丁一顧(民90)。中小學校長評鑑制度的比較分析與改革芻議。國立嘉義大學：中小學校長專業成長制度規劃，115-146。高雄：復文。
張德銳、王保進、丁一顧(民91)。國民中小學校長專業能力發展標準及其資源檔之研究，輯於校長中心經營與校長專業發展國際研討會論文輯，213-235。國立台北師範學院中小學校長培育與專業發展中心。new window
張峰榮(民91)。從國小校長觀點看國小校長專業能力及培育課程之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
楊振昇(民88)。我國國民小學校長儲訓制度之困境及其因應策略。初等教育學刊，7，85-106。new window
楊振昇(民89)。校長證照制度與校長專業發展。輯於現代教育論壇(一)，第一次研討會會議手冊，51-61。new window
游靜秋(民86)。台灣地區環境品質指標建構之研究。台灣大學環境工程學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
潘慧玲、王麗雲、簡茂發、孫志麟、張素貞、張錫勳、陳順和、陳淑敏、蔡濱如(2004)。國民中小學教師教學專業能力指標之發展。教育研究資訊，12，4，129-168。new window
劉宜靜(民89)。高階行政人員核心能力之分析－五國的經驗與啟示。國立政治大學公共行政學研究所碩士論文，未出版。

劉麗華(民89)。主管管理才能評鑑360度回饋對受評者態度的影響。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，未出版。
謝文全(民91)。學校行政。五南圖書。
實用英漢辭典編輯委員會(民71)。實用英漢辭典。台北：三民書局。
簡茂發、劉湘川(民82)。電腦式會議式大慧調查法及其在教育上之應用。資訊與教育雜誌，35，6-11。
蔡金田(民92)。英美兩國基本能力之訂定對我國國民中小學校長儲訓課程之啟示—以彰化縣國民中小學校長儲訓課程為例。教育政策論壇，6，2，85-106。new window
蔡金田(民93)。國民中小學校長隱性知識之研究—以彰化縣為例。台北市立師範學院初等教育學刊，18，99-128。new window
蔡惠瑜(民88)。台灣體育館指標之建立及其應用。私立輔仁大學應用統計研究所碩士論文，未出版。

英文部分：
American Association of School Administrators (2001). The school leadership
challenge. Strategies-for school system leaders on district-level change, 8, 1. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/strategies/index.htm
Australian Principals Center (2003). Learning the role: Through the eyes of beginning principals. Retrieved May 28, 2004, from http://www.apcentre.edu.au/research/area.htm
Baker, N. S., & Hoy, W.K. (2001). Tacit knoweledge of school superintendents: Its Nature, Meaning, and Content. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 1, 86-129.
Baker, N. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school superintendent: Its nature, meaning, and content. Educational Administration Quarterly . 37(1). 86-129.
Brenda, P (2004). The relationship between urban principal competence and educational goals and outcome. Morgan State University：The Disertation of Degree of Doctor of Education
Charlotte Advocates for Education (2004). Role of principal leadership in increasing teacher retention: Creativing a supportive environment executive summary. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.advocatesfored.org/publications/Principal﹪20exec﹪summary.pdf
Competency Development Gguide (2000). Competency development. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from: http://www.uotawa.ca/services/hr/per/comp_dev_e.html
Cuenin, S. (1987). The use of performance indicators in universities: An international survey. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 11(2), 117-139.
Cuttance, P. (1990). Performance indicators and the management of quality in education, EDRS ED333575.
DfEE (1992). Choice and multiple: The school framework . England: Department for Education and Employment.
DfEE (1999). National college for school leadership: A prospectus. England: Department for Education and Employment.
Duke, D. L. (1992). Concepts of administrative effectiveness and evaluation of school adminstrator. Paper presented at the Annual Mmeeting of the American
Education Research Dissertation, San Francico.
Durcan, J., & Oates, D. (1994). The manager as coach. London: Pitman.
Edmonds, R. R. (1997). Effective school for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37,15-27.
Edward , S., & Jones, G. (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in schools. Michael Fullan Ontario Institute for Studies in Education . University of Toronto.
Employers’ Organisation for local government (2000). Based on a competency model development for the authority. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/leadership/competencies/models.html
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge. London: Falmer.
Finn. C. E. (1987). Elementary and secondary education indicators in brief. Washington, DC: Office of education research and improvement.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J.P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
Jones, G. (2002). Knowledge-management in education：Enhance learning & education。USA. Stylus. Publishing In Edward Sallis.
Hallinger, P. (2001). School leadership development: Sate of the art at the turn of the century. Paper presented at the International conference on school leader preparation, licensure/Certification, selection, evaluation, and professional development, Taipei.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. In W. Greenfield(Ed). Instructional leadership: Concept, issues, and controversies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hebert, C. M., Weld, C., & Vernette, C (1999). Support staff training and career development centre. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.uotawa.ca/services/hr/per/comp_dev_e.html
Hughes, L. W., & Ubben, G. C. (1989). The elementary principal’s handbook: A guide to effective action. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (1996). Standards for school
leaders. State Education Assessment Center Supported by a grant from The
Pew Charitable Trusts.
Johnstone, J. N. (1981). Indicators of education systems. Paris: UNESCO.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The change of the new superintendence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kelly,C., & Peterson, K. D. (2000). The work of principal and their preparation: Addressing critical; needs for 21st century. Document prepared for the National Center on Education and the Economy/Carnegie.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundation of behavior research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Lam, Y. L. (2001). Balancing changes and stability: Implications for professional preparation and development of Hong Kong principals. Paper presented at the International conference on school leader preparation, Licensure/ Certification, selection, evaluation, and professional development, Taipei.
Lashway, L. (1997). Measuring leadership potential.(ERIC document reproduction service No. ED 409605).
Lessem, R. (1992). Total quality learning: Building a learning organization. Oxford: Blackwell.
Management Charter Initiative (1995). Senior management standard. Sheffield: MCI.
Michael, U., Barbara, Mc. C., & Mary, P. (2000). Tommorow’s Principal. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.middleweb.com/ContntsPrin.html
Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the education of school administration. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Morgan, G. (1986). Performance appraisal in the school system of outcome. Toronto: Ministry of Education.
Morgan, G. (1989). Riding the waves of change: Developing managerial competence for a turbulent World. Oxford: Jossey Bass.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1985). Performance-base preparation of principals: A framework for improvement. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (1993). Principals for our changing schools: The knowledge and skill base. Fairfax, VA: Author.
National College for School Leadership (2001). NCSL leadership development(WWW page). Retrieved April 5, 2004, from
http //www.ncsl.org.uk/index.cfm?pageID=1dev-index.
National College for School Leadership (2003). NCSL leadership development(WWW page). Retrieved April 5, 2004, from
http //www.ncsl.org.uk/index.cfm?pageID=1dev-index.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (1998). Interim professional standards for primary school principals. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/prin_doc.cfm
New Zealand Education Review Office. (1995). Core competencies for school principals. Retrieved October 10, 2003, from http://www.ero.nz/publications/eers1995/95no6h1.htm
Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (2000). Preparing to lead. Northwest Education Magazine, 5,3. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/spring00/textonly.html
Oakes, J. (1986). Educational indicators: A guide of policymakers. New Brunswick. NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education.
OECD (1992). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: Author.
Orr, M. T. (2001). Transforming or running aground: principals in systemic education reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Dissertation, Seattle, Washington, April 2001.
Parry, S. B. (1998). Just what is a competency? And should you care? Training, 6, 58-64.
Restine, N. (1997). Learning and development in the contexts of leadership preparation. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 117-130.


Sallis, E & Jones (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge
management in schools. Michael Fullan Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education . University of Toronto.
Schroder, L. M. (1989). Managerial competence: The key to excellence. Iowa: Kendall
Hunt.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Shipman, N.,Trop, B. W. & Murphy, J. (1998). Linking the ISLLC standards to pofessional development and relicensure. (ERIC document reproduction service No. ED420697).
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior
performance. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Teacher Training Agency (1996). The national standards for head-teachers. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http//www.ncsl.org.uk
The Institute for Education Leadership (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.iel.org
The National College for School Leadership (2001). Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http//www.nsclonline.gov.uk (2001.9.5)
The Principal’s Training Center for International School Leadership (1999, 2000, 2001). Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http//www.theptc.org/archives.html
Tim, W., Robert J. M., & Brian McNulty (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http//www.mcrel.org/PDF/LeadershipOrganizationDevelopment/5031RR_BalancedLeadership.pdf
Trotter, A., & Ellison, L. (1997). Understanding competence and competency. In Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (Eds.), School leadership for 21st century: A competency and knowledge approach (pp.36-53). London: Routledge.
Trotter, A, Davies, B., & Ellison, L. (1997). Determining and developing competencies in school. In Davies, B. and Ellison, L. (Eds.), School leadership for 21st century: A competency and knowledge approach (pp.54-67). London: Routledge.
Uhl, N. P. (1990). Educational model and approaches- Delphi technique. In H. J. Walberg & G.. D. Haertal. The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Velsor, E. V., & Leslie, J. B. (1992). Feedback to managers volume II: A review and comparison of sixteen multi-rater feedback instruments. Greensboro, North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J., (1985). Practical intelligence in real-word pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 436-458.
Webb, T. M. (1996). The perception of African American communities leaders regarding curriculum planning for minority students: A Delphi study. UMI Disseration Services, D’Youville College.
Windham, D. M. (1988). Effectiveness indicators in the economic analysis of educational activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 12(6),575-666.
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2001). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity in urban elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Dissertation, Seattle, Washington, April 2001.
 
 
 
 
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：533（臺灣：524，外國：9） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1541412 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67350182
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