完全中學學校績效責任指標及學校績效責任報告卡之建構_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	完全中學學校績效責任指標及學校績效責任報告卡之建構
作者：	江書良
作者(外文)：	Chiang Shu-liang
校院名稱：	國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱：	教育政策與管理研究所
指導教授：	吳清山
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2006
主題關鍵詞：	完全中學；學校績效責任；學校績效責任指標；學校績效責任報告卡；Junior-Senior High School；School Accountability；School Accountability Indicator；School Accountability Report Card
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(11) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:2 共同引用:0 點閱:62

完全中學學校績效責任指標及學校績效責任報告卡之建構
摘要
本研究旨在建構完全中學「學校績效責任指標」與「學校績效責任報告卡」，以台灣地區公立完全中學為研究對象，採用文獻分析、問卷調查、焦點團體訪談等研究方法，來建構指標內涵，並輔以層級分析程序法（AHP）建構相對權重。本研究主要結論有以下五項：
一、完全中學學校績效責任指標架構及相對權重，可分為輸入（22.7%）、過程（45.4%）及輸出（31.9%）三個層面、十二項向度、七十項具體細目指標。
二、完全中學學校績效責任指標中有九項關鍵的具體細目指標：正式教師任用與師資結構合理情形、教師專長任教情形、提供有效學習情境、分析學生學習起點行為、發展班級層級教學課程、國高中課程決定機制運作情形、學生參與學校學習程度、課程與教學檔案呈現以及班級經營表現等，共佔有整體權重37.3%。
三、完全中學學校績效責任報告卡指標架構，有背景資源、學習支援以及成就表現三個層面、十二項向度、八十六項具體細目指標。
四、完全中學學校績效責任報告卡的十二項向度，均屬「重要」可用性向度，其中「營造良好學習環境與校園安全」屬「非常重要」。
五、三重高中學校績效責任報告卡，乃參考本研究學校績效報告卡指標內涵，經學校研究團隊建構而成，可激勵家長及社區人士更加關心子女及社區的教育情形，並且透過公開資訊的壓力及比較性，可激發學校成員，投入成就改善策略，提昇個人及學校表現績效。
基於「學校績效責任指標」及「學校績效責任報告卡」內涵之研究結果與討論，本研究分別對教育行政機關提出五項建議；對學校提出六項建議；對未來研究提出三項建議。
關鍵字：完全中學、學校績效責任、學校績效責任指標、學校績效責任報告卡

以文找文

The Construction of School Accountability Indicators and School Accountability Report Card in Junior-Senior High Schools in Taiwan
Chiang, Shu-Liang
Abstract
This study was aimed to construct the School Accountability Indicators and School Accountability Report Card for Public Junior-Senior High Schools in Taiwan. Employing documentary analysis, questionnaire survey, and focus group interview as techniques, the necessary data for the construction of the indicators were collected. Besides, the relative weight on the importance of the indicators was decided by using the analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
1. The weight scores for the School Accountability Indicators were 22.7% for Input, 45.4% for process, and 31.9% for output. The School Accountability Indicators were composed of 70 specific items and further grouped into 12 dimensions.
2. Nine key specific items of School Accountability Indicators in Junior-Senior High Schools weigh 37.3% out of the total seventy items. The nine key were staff structure, staff expertise, effective learning environment, students’ beginning behavior, curriculum development, mechanism for curriculum decision-making, students’ involvement in learning, curriculum and instruction files, and classroom management. The nine items were grouped into three aspects: first two can be grouped into input, the second four process, and the last three output.
3. The indicator structure of School Accountability Report Card in Junior-Senior High Schools includes 3 aspects, (background resources, learning support, and achievement performance), 12 dimensions(school resource, community resource, parent involvement, superior support, administration, curriculum and instruction leadership, learning environment, guidance service, student achievement, student behavior, teachers professionalism, and school performance), and 86 specific items.
4. The twelve dimensions of School Accountability Report Card in Junior-Senior High Schools were rated as “important” practical dimensions. Among them, “Building a good climate for Learning and School Safety” was categorized as a “very important” one.
5. The School Accountability Report Card of Taipei County San-Chong High School were constructed by the team of the school with referring the structure of the indicators developed in this study. The implementations of the Report Card in San Chong School were found to be very encouraging for parents and communities to pay more attention to their children and communities affairs. Pressure for the social public and the urge of the competition would push school personnel to work harder to perform well. It was also proved that the School Accountability Indicators and School Accountability Report Card would improve the accountability on personnel and school performance.
Based on the above research results, five suggestions for the Educational Administrative Organization, and six for Junior-Senior High Schools to implement the School Accountability Indicators and School Accountability Report Card were made. Moreover, three suggestions for the future study were recommended.
Keywords: Junior-Senior High School, School Accountability, School Accountability Indicator, School Accountability Report Card

以文找文

參考文獻
壹、中文部分
王保進（1993）。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，台北市。 new window

王前龍、張汝秀（1998）。臺灣與日本新世紀中小學階段課程改革趨勢之比較分析。2006年9月16日，取自http://www.nyes.tcc.edu. new window

tw/tmenu/m5/九年一貫教與學/chap8/24.asp
李勝富（2000）。教育管轄權的改革。2005年8月28日，取自http://www.houstoncul.org/eduinfo/e2000006.htm/
余霖、湯志民、何耀彰、許照庸、惠沁宜、游壁如（2005）。臺灣地區完全中學現況與未來發展之研究。台北市：臺北市立大直高級中學。
吳政達、郭昭佑（1997）。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應用。教育與心理研究，20（2），217-242。 new window

吳政達（2000）。台灣高職實用技能班教育政策執行評估指標體系建構與應用。暨大學報，4(1)，43-68。 new window

吳政達（2002）。教育績效責任之內涵與作法。教育研究月刊，96，34-48。 new window

吳清山（2000）。學校績效責任的理念與策略。學校行政雙月刊，6，3-13。
吳清山（2001）。教育發展研究。台北市：元照。
吳清山 (2002)。學校行政研究的重要課題與未來方向。教育研究月刊，100，23-31。 new window

吳清山、林天祐（2001）。教育名詞-績效責任。教育研究月刊，83，139-140。 new window

吳清山、黃美芳、徐緯平（2002）。教育績效責任研究。台北市：高等教育文化。 new window

吳清基（2005）。優質學校。台北市：台北市教育研究中心。
孫志麟（1998）。國民教育指標體系的建構與應用。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。 new window

孫志麟（2003）。評鑑什麼？-大學教學表現指標之建構。2006年8月28日，取自edtech.ntu.edu.tw/course/plan/92_conference_
file/evaluation%20standard.pdf
涂順安（2002）。我國完全中學實施現況之研究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
徐緯平（2001）。國民小學學校教育績效責任指標之建構。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所，碩士論文，未出版，台北市。 new window

張鈿富（1999）。總體、地方、學校層級教育指標建構與運用。國科會整合型計畫第一年研究成果報告。（NSC87-2411- H-260-005-F16）。
台北市：國立台灣師範大學教育學系。
張德銳、李俊達（2001）。美英兩國的績效責任運動及其對我國中小學教育的啟示。論文發表於國立教育資料館舉辦之「全球化的教育改革」學術研討會，台北市。 new window

陳紅蓮（2006）。台北縣立高中學校績效責任指標之建構。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所，碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
郭昭佑（2000）。概念構圖法在評鑑指標建構上之應用-以國民中學校務評鑑指標建構為例。教育政策論壇，3(2)，173-203。 new window

曾淑惠、謝宗穎、江岳勳（2003）。高級中等學校績效責任衡量項目研究。2006年9月28日，取自http://www.ntut.edu.tw/~ tsengsh/
/write/C-14.pdf
黃美芳（2002）。美國學校教育績效責任制及其在我國實施可行性之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。 new window

黃政傑、張明輝、周愚文（1996）。完全中學課程規劃及相關配合措施之研究。台北市：國立台灣師範大學教育研究中心。
黃振球（1992）。績優學校。臺北市：師大書苑。
黃淑梅（2005）。國民中學學校教育績效責任指標建構。國立臺南教育大學教育經營與管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
楊錦洲、鄭來宇、林俐孜、陳順興（2004，11月）。大學院校績效衡量指標之建立。載於中華民國品質學會「第40 屆年會高雄市分會第30屆年會暨第10屆全國品質管理」研討會論文集（頁23-24）
，高雄市。
劉樞遠（2002）。由日本文部省網站管窺日本中高一貫學校。2005年9月9日，取自http://www.hgjh.hlc.edu.tw/knowledgem/japan6-9.doc
劉慶仁、吳鐵雄(1996)。從ECS論壇暨年會談美國各州教育改革。教育資料與研究，13 ，55-62 。 new window

劉慶仁（2000）。美國教育改革概況表（1994-2000）。2005年9月9日，取自http://www.houstoncul.org/eduinfo/ e2000015.htm
劉慶仁（2001）。績效責任：美國當前教育改革的趨勢。教育資料與研究，43，30-40。 new window

潘慧玲（2004）。教育論文格式。台北市：雙葉書廊。
蔡菁芝（2006）。英美學校績效責任及其對我國的啟示。台北市立教育大學國民教育研究所，博士論文，未出版，台北市。 new window

羅淑芬（1998）。中英教育視導制度之比較研究。國立暨南大學比較教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，南投縣。

貳、英文部份
Alkin, M. C. (1975). The design and implementation of accountability systems. In W. J. Gephart (Ed.), Accountability: A state, a process, or a product? (pp. 21-37). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Bennett, S. J. (1997). Empowering teacher, empowering leadership: A multi-site
case study of school restructuring and accountability for student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego, CA.
Berlage, L., & Terweduwe, D. (1988). The classification of countries by cluster andby factor analysis. World Development, 16(12), 1527-1545.
California State Department of Education (1995). Model school accountability
report card. Retrieved April 24, 2001, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ope/
epic/sarc/msarc/intro.html
California State Department of Education (2001). School accountability report card: San Benito elementary school. Retrieved April 24, 2001, from
http://www.atas.k12.ca.us/acctreportcards/ se99-00.html
California State Department of Education (2005a). Testing & accountability.
Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/
California State Department of Education (2005b). Public schools accountability act. Retrieved December 16, 2005, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ ac/pa/
index.asp
California State Department of Education (2005c). School accountability
report card (SARC) Reported for School Year 2004-05. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://www.rbusd.org/Adams% 20Middle
%20School.pdf
Carlmont High School (2004). School accountability report card. Retrieved November l6, 2005, From http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/definitions
04.asp.
Chelimsky, E. (1997). The coming transformations in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish(Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A Handbook (pp.1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Chipman Middle School (2004). School accountability report card. Retrieved November l8, 2005, From http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/definitions04
.asp.
Chippendale, P. R. (1977). Introduction. In P. R. Chippendale, & P. V. Wilkes (Eds.), Accountability in education (pp. xiii-xv). St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland.
Cibulka, J. G., & Derlin, R. L. (1995). State education performance reporting policies in the U.S.: Accountability´s many faces. International Journal
of Educational Research, 23(6), 479-492.
Colorado State Board of Education (2005). School accountability reports:
A Five-Year Review of Progress (2000-2005). Retrieved December 16, 2005, from http://reportcard.cde.state.co.us/reportcard/pdf/sar5yearreport.pdf
Coons, J., & Sugarman, S. (1978). Education by choice: The case for family control. Los Angeles: University of California.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991a). Creating accountability in big city schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.ED428455)
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991b). Accountability Mechanisms in Big City School Systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED334311)
Day, P., & Klein, R. (1987). Accountability: Five public services. New York: Tavistock.
Dorn, S. (1998). The political legacy of school accountability system. Education policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved October 20, 2005, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n1.html
Education Commission of the state (1998). Accountability state and community responsibility. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 419277)
Education Commission of the States(1999).Education accountability systems in 50 states.(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 428455)
Education Commission of the state (2000). Accountability: The progress of Education Reform 1999-2001. Retrieved October 20, 2005, from http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp? page=/html/issues.asp
Education Commission of the state (2002). Accountability. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.ecs.org/ clearinghouse/39/95/3995.doc
Education Week (2000). Accountability. Retrieved October 09, 2005, from http://www.edweek.org/cgi-bin /texis/search_more?querystring
=Accountability+guidelines&date=datespan&sYear=1999&sMonth=1&sDay=1&eYear=1999&eMonth=12&eDay=31&PrimaryCategory=/ew/articles&SecondaryCategory=ew_commentary&OrderBy=
Education Week (2001a). Accountability. Retrirved December 05, 2005, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qu01
Education Week (2001b). Quality counts 2001: A better balance. Retrirved December 05, 2005, from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qu01
Education Week (2005). Issues:accountability. Retrirved December 05, 2005, from http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/accountability/index. html?querystring=Accountability
Elliott, E. J. (1991). Education counts: An indicator system to monitor the nation’s educational healthy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services
No. ED 334279)
Elmore, R. F. (1990). Introduction: On changing the structure of public schools. In R. F. Elmore & Associates (Eds.), Restructuring Schools: The next generation of educational reform(1-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1999). The new accountability. Retrieved December 05,2005, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rb27.pdf
Gordon, C. (2005). Indicators of schools of quality. Retrieved December 05,2005, from http://www.nsse.org/resources_ tools/index.cfm? pg=
iqVol1.cfm
Gronlund, N. E. (1974). Determining accountability for classroom instruction: A title in the current topics in classroom instruction series. New York: Macmillan.
Guenin, S. (1987).The use of performance indicators in universities: An international survey. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 11(2), 117-139.
Jennifer, L. N. W. (1999). Selecting educational accountability indicators: Exploring states and local performances. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota, MN.
Johnstone, J. N. (1981). Indicators of education systems. London: UNESCO.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation(1981). Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kogan, M. (1988). Educational accountability: An analytical overview. London: Hutchinson.
Kuchapski, R. (1998). Accountability and the social good: Utilizing Manzer’s liberal framework in Canada. Education and Urban Society, 30(4), 531-545.

Lashway, L. (1999). Holding schools accountable for achievement. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Services No. ED 434381)
Leithwood, K., & Earl, L. (2000). Educational accountability effects: An international perspective. Peabody Journal of Education. 75(4), 1-18.
Levin, H. (1974). A conceptual framework for accountability in education. School Review, 82(3), 363-391.
London Borough of Islington (2004). Islington’s strategy for promoting inclusive education full report. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://www.islingtonschools.net/DownloadableDocuments/Services/
Framework.pdf
Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996). Educative accountability policy research:
Methodology and epistemological. Educational Administration Quarterly,
32(1), 80-106.
Maryland State Department of Education (2000). Maryland school performance report. Retrieved April 24, 2001, from http://msp.msde. state.
md.us/introduction/index.asp
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral Education and Cultural Services Department (2004). The head teacher’s report. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://www.wirral-mbc.gov.uk/ governors/
GOV49.DOC
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2006). Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/criteria
Michigan Accountability Task Force(2001), Michigan Education Assessment Program. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.
michigan.gov/documents/MEAP_info_01_95339_7.pdf

NASBE (1998). Public accountability for student success: Standards for education accountability systems [Electronic version]. Retrieved September18,2005 from http://www.nasbe.org/Educational_Issues
/PASS_Rpt.pdf
National Governors Association. (1999). Standards, assessment, and accountability. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.nga. org
/center/topics/1,1188,D_413,00.html
NEA Student Achievement Team (2001). Data-Driven decision making andschool report cards. Retrieved December 18, 2005,from http://
www.nea.org/accountability/reportcards.html
Norlin-Weaver, J. L. (1999). Selecting education indicators: Exploring states and local performances. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, MN.
Oakes, J. (1986). Educational indicators: A guide for policy makers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 315920).
Oakes, J. (1989). What educational indicators? The case for assessing the school contex. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 181-199.
Odden, A. (1990). Educational indicators in the United States: The need for analysis. Educational Research, 19(5), 24-29.
OFSTED (2003). Handbook for inspecting secondary schools. Retrieved December l6,2005,from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/ index.
cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=3266
OFSTED (2004). Handbook for 14–19 area inspections. Retrieved December l6, 2005, from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/ index. cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=3757

Oxford Dictionary (2006). Retrieved September 26, 2006, from http://
www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/criterion?view=uk
Pateman, T. (1982). Accountability, values and schooling. In T. Becher & S. Maclure (Eds.), Accountability in education (pp. 61-94). Windsor, Berks: NFER-Nelson.
Porter, A. C. (1991). Creating a system of school process indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(1), 13-29.
Rothman, R. (1995). Measuring up: Standards, assessment, and school reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scheerens, J. (1991). Process indicators of school functioning: A selection based on the research literature on school effectivensss. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 17, 371-403
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. in R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation( pp. 39-83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNallg.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation(39-83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Organization, market and community as strategies
for change: What works best for deep changes in schools. In Hargreaves,
A. (ED), International Handbook of Educational Change, 576-595. London: Kluwer.
Smith, M. S. (1988). Educational indicators. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(7), 487-491.
Solana Santa Fe School (2004). School accountability report card. Retrieved November l6, 2005, From http://www.cde.ca.gov/ ta/ac/sa/definitions04.asp.
Stern, J. D. (1988). The condition of education: Elementary and secondary
education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 356519).
Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman,H. O. & Provus, M. M.(1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, IL: Peacock
The cornerstone of California's Public Schools Accountability Act ( 2005). Retrieved December l6, 2005,from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
The Education (Schools) Act (1992). Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1992/Ukpga_19920038_en_1.htm
The Oxford English (2005). Retrieved October 18, 2005, from http://mslin.ee.
ntut.edu.tw:2000/cgi-bin/oxford_dict/dic.pl?account
U. S. Congress (2002). Public Law 107–110 107th Congress An Act. Retrieved December 05, 2005, from www.ed.gov/ legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrirved December 05, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05879.pdf
U. S. Department of Education (2002). Strategic plan 2002-2007. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http:// www.palmbeach. k12.fl.
us/StaffDev/stratplan2002-07.pdf
Walker, W. G. (1977). What on earth is accountability? In P. R. Chippendale & P. V. Wilkes (Eds.), Accountability in education (pp. 3-20). St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland.
Wanger,R.B.(1989). Accountability in education: A philosophical inquiry. New York : Routledge
Washington State Academic Achievement and Accountability Commission (2000). Accountability system recommendations. Retrieved September 23, 2006, from www.k12.wa.us/accountability

Webster's Online Dictionary. (2006). Retrieved September 26, 2006, from http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/standard#Top
Windham, D. M. (1988). Effectiveness indicators in the economic analysis
of educational activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 12(6), 575-666.
Yeatman, A. (1990). Bureaucrats, technocrats, femocrats: Essays on the contemporary Australian state. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	臺灣國民中小學校長道德領導指標與實踐策略之建構
2.	體育教師專業能力對國小學生學習滿意度與學習成效之影響
3.	英國學苑的學校本位管理與績效責任之研究
4.	臺灣學校型態實驗教育品質保證的內涵與發展策略
5.	社會網絡分析應用在初任校長導入方案對校長專業發展成效分析之研究
6.	臺灣學校績效責任議題研究之回顧分析：以1984~2018年期刊論文為範疇
7.	啟動校長核心領導力：初任校長導入方案培力配方及其成效之研究
8.	翻轉班級經營品質的新視野：教師績效責任領導
9.	國民中學教師績效責任指標之建構
10.	應用層級分析法(AHP)建構國小環境教育評選之系統
11.	從能力本位到素養導向教育的演進、發展及反思
12.	我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標之研究：概念構圖法的調整應用
13.	「國民小學校長績效責任領導量表」之發展
14.	大學校院體育發展策略之評估--模糊德爾慧法之應用
15.	中高齡瑜珈教學指標建構與應用

1.	新自由主義下的高等教育治理－以「我國大學評鑑制度」為例
2.	NGO自我評鑑個案研究-以中華民國童軍總會應用GSAT為例
3.	國民小學校長微觀政治領導、組織信任與學校效能關係之研究
4.	政府組織改造歷程與發展之研究：以教育部為例
5.	科技大學教師專業背景、教師教學表現與學生學習成就之關聯：階層線性模式分析
6.	臺灣檢察組織評核指標之建構---以組織動態能耐為觀點
7.	大專校院行政主管心靈領導與行政效能關係之研究─以行政人員工作活力與幸褔感為中介變項
8.	國民小學校長美學領導指標體系建構之研究
9.	國民中學兼任行政教師行政專業能力指標建構與實證分析之研究
10.	國小校長學習領導、學校組織學習與學校效能關係之研究
11.	臺灣教育工作者的靈性教育觀
12.	國小資優教育成效指標之建構
13.	國民小學校長道德領導行為、學校創新、組織溝通與學校效能徑路模式之建構與驗證
14.	國民小學校長正向領導、教師正向心理資本、教師組織承諾與學校效能關係之研究
15.	大學行政人員知覺校長正向領導、心理資本、敬業奉獻與工作效能關係之研究

1.	教育論文寫作與實用技巧
2.	國家與部落的對峙 : 日治時期的臺灣原住民教育
3.	師資教育的未來 : 政策與實踐
4.	教師評鑑 : 理論與實務
5.	教育評鑑研究 : 原罪與解放
6.	教育政策與評鑑研究 : 追求卓越
7.	學校本位課程評鑑 : 理念與實踐反省
8.	教育績效責任研究
9.	國小校長轉化、互易領導影響學校組織文化特性與組織效能之研究
10.	學校本位評鑑
11.	學校組織轉化領導研究
12.	教育政策與行政 : 指標發展與應用
13.	學校組織行為
14.	學校領導的永續思維--校長領導的永續思維
15.	「學校評鑑模式」-- 兩個國家的實例與啟示

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫