:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:校本課程評鑑-R.Stake回應式評鑑取向之運用與檢討
作者:陳錦蓮
作者(外文):Chen Jiin Liarn
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:黃嘉雄
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2007
主題關鍵詞:課程評鑑回應式評鑑取向個案研究後設評鑑curriculum evaluationresponsive evaluation approachcase studymetaevaluation
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(1) 博士論文(2) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:81
本研究旨在探究Stake回應式評鑑取向之理論與實務,建構展現回應式評鑑取向特質之國內校本課程評鑑架構,並以一個學校為個案,實際執行回應式評鑑,協助個案學校修正其課程方案,供學校教育人員進行課程評鑑時之參照,並藉以豐富國內課程評鑑研究之成果。探究焦點在於回應式評鑑取向之核心觀念、評鑑實務、應用與應用之評估。具體的運用包括回應式評鑑架構之設計與實施,包含十個事件,個案研究為主要的研究方法,研究個案為一所學校校本課程方案,採調查、觀察、訪談及文件分析等方法蒐集資料。最後遵循Stufflebeam之引導,實施後設評鑑。
根據研究結果,本研究獲致以下結論:
壹、個案學校課程方案之「書面課程」待加強,在課程目標、年級目標的範圍及順序及課程計畫均需改進。
貳、個案學校課程方案之「教導課程」,內容太多,惟多樣化教學深受肯定。
參、個案學校課程方案之「習得課程」具高品質。
肆、個案學校課程方案之「測驗課程」非常薄弱。
伍、個案學校課程方案之「課程形成」除獲得學校行政人員全力支持,教師群的角色認知,追求專業的精神及樂在教學的熱誠是課程形成關鍵。
陸、本次Stake回應式評鑑取向之運用,具高度效用性、可行性、適當性及精確性,可提供作為學校課程評鑑工作的具體指引。
最後依據結論,本研究針對個案學校校本課程方案、回應式評鑑取向之應用及後續研究提出建議。
The main purpose of the study was to explore the theory and the practice of R. Stakes’ responsive evaluation approach and to construct an evaluation framework for school-based curriculum in Taiwan, which exhibits features of the approach. Besides an elementary school was chosen to conduct a Responsive Evaluation study. The researcher helped the school modify its curriculum program and provided educators with some references for their curriculum evaluation, hopefully to make some contributions to the studies on domestic curricular evaluation.
The study focused on exploring the core ideas, evaluation practice, application and the assessment of application based on responsive evaluation approach. It was applied to the design and implementation of the evaluation framework with ten events involved and case study as the main research method. Examination, observation, interviews and documents analysis were used in the data collection. The Stufflebeam’s evaluation principle was then adopted to carry out the meta-evaluation.
The following findings were obtained as the results of the study:
1. “The written curriculum ” of the school-based curriculum needs to be improved, especially with regard to curriculum goals, the scope, sequence of different grade objectives, and curricular project.
2. “The taught curriculum” of the school-based curriculum was too heavy-loaded, but the versatility in teaching activities was approved.
3. “The learned curriculum” of the school-based curriculum was a high-quality work.
4. “The tested curriculum” of the object school’s curriculum program needs to be reinforced.
5. “The curriculum development” of the school-based curriculum proved that, besides the support of all the administrative personnel of the school, the teachers’ recognition of their roles as a teamwork, the pursuing spirit for professional knowledge, and teachers’ zeal consist of the keys to successful curriculum development.
6. The application of Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Approach was proved to be of high effectiveness, feasibility, adequacy and accuracy. It provided teachers in the school with a practical guideline in their curriculum evaluation.
Based on the findings, suggestions were presented to the object school for its school-based curriculum and its application of responsive evaluation approach, and the future study on the same subject.
一、中文部分
王巧媛(2004)。國民中學推動學校本位課程評鑑之研究--以一所國民中學為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
朱錦繡(2005)。學校本位課程評鑑之研究--以穎源國小為例。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士班論文(未出版)。
古嫊琴(2003)。學校本位課程評鑑之研究--以一所國小鄉土教育課程為例。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
伍振鷟主編(1993)。教育評鑑:課程評鑑的新典範。台北:南宏圖書公司。
何福田、曾憲政(2004)。國民中小學九年一貫課程評鑑模式及其規準之研發與試用。台北:教育部。
吳怡青(2004)。生命教育課程方案評鑑之研究--以彰化縣文青國小為例。國立新竹教育大學進修部課程與教學碩士班碩士論文(未出版)。
吳清山、高新建、黃幸美、葉興華,張素偵﹙2002﹚。學校本位課程評鑑之研究。國立教育資料館委託台北市立師範學院初教系執行。台北:台北市立師範學院。
吳秀金(2002)。學校本位課程發展之課程評鑑-以台東縣瑞源國小為例。臺東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
李子建、黃顯華(1996)。課程:範式取向和設計。台北︰五南。new window
邱旭美(2002)。建構學校本位課程評鑑方案之行動研究-以一所國小之鄉土活動課程為例。國立新竹師範學院學校行政研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
邱麒忠(2002)。苗栗縣國民小學學校本位課程評鑑指標之建立。國立新竹師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
林佩璇(2001)。學校本位課程評鑑。教育研究資訊,9(4),83-96。new window
林佩璇(2002)。學校本位課程評鑑的知識基礎-教師實踐知識。教育研究集刊,48(3),183-210。new window
林佩璇(2004)。學校本位課程-發展與評鑑。台北:學富文化。new window
林佩璇(2005)。學校本位課程評鑑--作為教師實踐知識的伸展臺。國立台new window
北師範學院學報,18(1),95-124。
林維佳(2002)。實作評量在藝術與人文領域之運用研究。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
官孟貞(2005)。國小教育人員對學校本位課程評鑑規準及實施策略意見之調查研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文(未出版)。new window
洪士訓(2005)。學校本位自然科學課程發展之評鑑活動。台中師範學院自然科學教育學習碩士論文(未出版)。
高新建(2002)。學校本位課程評鑑的相關概念。教育資料與研究,44,1-13。new window
莊世雄(2004)。國民小學學校本位課程評鑑指標之研究-以彰化縣為例。明道管理學院,教學藝術研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
施孟和(2002)。九年一貫課程學校總體課程計畫之評鑑-以高雄市國民小學為例。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。林佩璇(2001)。學校本位課程評鑑。教育研究資訊,9(4),83-96。new window
曾淑惠(2004)。教育評鑑模式。台北:心理。new window
黃光雄(編譯)(1989)。教育評鑑的模式。台北:師大書苑。
黃光雄、楊龍立(2000)。課程設計:理論與實作。台北︰師大書苑。
黃政傑(1991)。課程設計。台北:東華書局股份有限公司。
黃政傑(1994)。課程評鑑(四刷)。台北:師大書苑。
黃嘉雄﹙2002﹚。彈性學習節數課程評鑑架構與規準。載於九年一貫課程改革的省思與實踐(頁315-348)。台北:心理出版社。
黃嘉雄(2004a)。課程評鑑概念分析。教育資料集刊,29,209~224。new window
黃嘉雄(2004b)。釐清泰勒的課程評鑑觀。國立台北師範學院學報,17(1),27~50。new window

黃嘉雄(2004c)。台北縣市8所個案國民小學彈性學習節數課程之評鑑研究。台
北市:國科會專題研究計畫成果報告(計畫編號NSC 92-2413-H-152-005)。例。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。林佩璇(2001)。學校本位課程評鑑。教育研究資訊,9(4),83-96。new window
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。new window
郭金嬋(2004)。以ISO9001:2000建構學校本位課程評鑑之研究∼以高雄市前鎮區民權國民小學為例。國立中山大學,教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
陳美如(2001)。促發課程改革的永續機制:「教師即課程評鑑者」的理論探究。國立政治大學學報,83,55-87。
陳美如(2002)。台灣課程評鑑的回顧與展望。國立高雄師範大學教育系教育學刊,18,87-112。new window
陳美如(2003)。學校本位課程評鑑。教育研究月刊,111,149-151。new window
陳美如、郭昭佑(2001a)。教師如何從事課程評鑑:從賦權增能評鑑理念談起。教育研究,88,83-93。new window
陳美如、郭昭佑(2001b)。學校本位課程發展評鑑指標建構初探。師大學報:教育類,46(2),193-212。new window
陳美如、郭昭佑(2001c)。學校本位課程評鑑之研究。國科會89 年度專案研究。計畫編號NSC89-2413-H-081B-003。new window
陳美如、郭昭佑(2003a)。學校本位的課程評鑑模式之建構與特質分析。載於歐用生、陳伯璋(主編),課程與教學饗宴。高雄:復文圖書公司。new window
陳美如、郭昭佑(2003b)。學校本位課程評鑑—理念與實踐反省。台北:五南圖書公司。new window
陳春滿(2001)。高中職軍訓課程護理領域之評鑑。國立台北護理學院醫護教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。new window
陳銘偉(2004)。國小學校本位課程評鑑標準建構之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
游家政(2002)。學校本位課程評鑑的規準。載於歐用生、莊梅枝(主編),自省與前瞻—課程改革向前跑(頁306~317)。台北縣:中華民國教材研究發展學會。new window
教育部(2000)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北:教育部。
教育部(2003)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程綱要。台北:教育部。
張富棠(2004)。國民小學教師對藝術課程評鑑知覺之研究。明道管理學院教學藝術研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
莊世雄(2004)。國民小學學校本位課程評鑑指標之研究-以彰化縣為例。明道管理學院,教學藝術研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
張瓊文(2004)。課程內涵與教學策略並重的綜合活動課程評鑑規準之設計與實施。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文(未出版)。
蔡文正(2006)。學校本位課程評鑑工具設計與實施之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系博士論文(未出版)。new window
蔡佩芳(2005)。國小教師參與學校本位課程評鑑之研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
蔡婷婷(2005)。臺北市國民小學英語課程評鑑規準建構之研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
蔡清田(2004)。學校課程實施與評鑑。載於高新建(主編),課程綱要實施檢討與展望(上) (頁152~174)。台北:台灣師大。new window
黃政傑(1994)。課程評鑑(四刷)。台北:師大書苑。
蔡敏玲(1996)。教育質性研究者請在文本中現身:兩項重要思慮。 國民教育,37(2),23-28。
蔡敏玲(1999)。尋找教室團體互動的節奏與變奏-教育質性研究歷程的展現。台北:桂冠圖書。new window
蔡孟育(2000)。一所國民小學鄉土教學活動課程發展、實施與評鑑之研究。 國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
楊龍立、潘麗珠(2005)。課程組織:理論與實務。台北:高等教育文化。
劉碧賢(2004)。國民小學綜合活動學習領域學校課程計畫評鑑規準之研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
鄭全成(2002)。國小社會學習領域課程計畫評鑑規準之研究。國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
盧增緒(1995)。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3-59)。台北,師大書苑。
謝金枝(2005)。國小教師層級課程評鑑模式建構之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系博士論文(未出版)。new window
羅玫玲(2005)。應用評鑑規準於國小綜合活動學習領域課程計畫之研究。中原大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
蘇錦麗(1997)。高等教育評鑑—理論與實際。台北:五南圖書公司。new window

二、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). Stakes’responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 92, 7-21.。
Bates, R. (1986). Evaluating school: A critical approach. Geelong: Deakin Univesity Press.
Bator, J. (1986). The development of a holistic responsive evaliation procedure for secondary art educational programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.
Chenoweth, J. D. (2002). An evaluation of the using information technology program at East Tennessee State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University.
Cronbach, L. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers' College Record, 64(8), 672-83.
Davis, E. (1980). Teachers as curriculum evaluators:A process model & principles of procedure. Sydney, Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gallant, B. A. (1998). An evaluation of the National Coaching Certification Program level two technical course for the sport of judo. Unpublished master’s thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Schooling for democracy: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. London & New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Curriculum leadership. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Glatthorn, A. A. (2000). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested. Thousand Oaks, CA: Crowin press.
Gredler, M. E. (1996). Program evaluation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis. London, Britain: Fulmer Press.
House, E. R. (2001). Responsive evaluation (and its influence on deliberative democrative evaluation). New Directions for Evaluation, 92, 23-30.
House. E. R. & Howe. K. R.(2000). Professional Standards and Principle for Evaluation. In Kellaghan, T., Madaus, G. F. & Stufflebeam, D. L.(Eds.), (2nd ed.). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 457-461). Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Janes, D. P. (1993). The study of the application of a selected evaluation methodology in a higher education, distance education setting. Unpublished master’s thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluation of educational programs
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kennedy, M. F., & Kettle, B. W. (1995). Using a transactionist model in evaluating distance education programs. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24, (2), 159-170.
Kerr, B. D.(1997). A responsive evaluation of a graduate distance education course offering: Education 6104, Foundations of Program Evaluation . Unpublished master’s Thesis, Memeorial University of Newsfondland.
Kettle, B. W. (1994). A study of the application of a modified transactionist program evaluation model to a non-formal distance education course for community-based adult literacy providers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Memeorial University of Newsfondland.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Berverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Liang, X. (2001). An evaluation of a public university's ESL Program for international graduate students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University.
Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M. S., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (1st ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in ealuation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Petrillo, A. J. (1992). Responsive evaluation of mathematics education in a community of Jos, Nigeria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Pittman,R. S. (1985). Evaluation in the social studies curriculum: A responsive evaluation model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylavania.
Posner, J. G. (1995). Analyzing the Curriculum. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Inc.
Portelli, J. P. (1987). On defining curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(4), 354-367.
Raheja, K. K. (1988). Evaluation of a nursing education program using Stake's Countenance Evaluation Model. Unpublished master’s Thesis, Northern Illinois University.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Leviton, L.C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation. Newbury Park, MA: Sage.
Scriven, M. (1977). The methodology of evaluation. In A. A. Bellack & H. M. Kliebard (Eds.), Curriculum and evaluation (pp. 334-371). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: perspective, paradigm and possibility. New York: Macmilian.
Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Retrieved on Janauary 25, 2005, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/CIRCE/Publications/CIRCE_Publications.html
Stake, R. E. (1970).Objectives, priorities, and other judgment data. Retrieved on Janauary 25, 2005, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/CIRCE/Publications/CIRCE_Publications.html
Stake, R. E.(1975a). An interview with Robert Stake on responsive evaluation. In
R.E. Stake(Ed.), Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach
(pp.33-38). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Stake, R. E. (1975b). To evaluate an arts program. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10 (3-4), 115-134.
Stake, R. E. (1976). Evaluating education programes. The need and the response. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study in social inquiry . The Educational Researcher, 7, 5-8.
Stake, R. E.(1979). Validating representations-the evaluators responsibility . In R. Perloff (Ed.), Evaluator Interventions: Pros and Cons(pp. 55-70). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1980). Quality of education and the diminution of local control in schools in the United States. In U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Needs of elementary and secondary education in the 1980’s (pp. 161-168). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Stake, R. E.(1981). Case study methodology: an epistemological advocacy. In W. Welch (Ed.), Case study methodology in educational evaluation. University of Minnesota Press.
Stake, R. E.(1986a). An evolutionary view of education improvement. In E. House (Ed.), New directions in educational evaluation (pp. 89-102). London: Farmer.
Stake, R. E.(1986b). Quieting reform: Social science and social action in the urban youth program. University of Illinois Press.
Stake, R. E.(1990).Responsive evaluation. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel(Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 75-77). New York: Pergamom Press.
Stake, R. E. (1991). Retrospective on the countenance of educational evaluation. In M. W .Mclaughlin & D. C. Phillips,(Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (pp. 67-88). Chicago: NSSE.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In In Madaus, G. F., Kellaghan, T. & Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.), (2rd ed). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 343-362). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stake, R. E. (2004). Standard-based evaluation & responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in social education. Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation.
Stake, R. E. & Trumbul, D. J. (1982). Naturalistic generalization. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7 (1-2), 1-12.
Stake, R. E., Stenzel, T., Hoke, G & Stenzel, N.(1986). Evaluation study of the Indiana Department of Education Gifted and Talented Program.
Retrieved on Janauary 25, 2005, from
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/circe/RFW/Index.html
Stake, R. E., Davis, R., & Guynn, S. (1997). Reader focused writing program evaluation. Retrieved Janauary 25, 2005, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/circe/RFW/Index.html
Stake, R. E., DeStefano, L., Harnisch, D., Sloane, K. & Davis, R.(1997). Evaluation of the National Youth Sports Program. Retrieved Janauary 25, 2005, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/circe/RFW/Index.html
Stanley, W. B. (1992). Curriculum for Utopia: Social reconstructionism and critical pedagogy in the postmodern era. New York: SUNY Press.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1969). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision-making. In H. B. Walcott (Ed.), Improving educational assessment and an inventory of measures of affective behavior (pp. 41-73). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and National Education Association.
Stufflebeam, D. L.(2000). The methodology of metaevaluation .In Madaus, G. F., Kellaghan, T. & Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.), (2rd ed). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 457-461). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tamir, P. (1985). (Ed.).The role of evaluators in curriculum development. Sydney: Croom Helm.
Thorpe, M. (1993). Evaluatimg open and distance learning (2nd ed.). Essex: Longman.
Tyler, R. W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction (29th Ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1975). Specific approaches to curriculum development. In J. Schaffarzick & D. H. Hampson (Eds.). Strategies for curriculum development (pp. 17-33). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidences. New York: Longman.
Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R. & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Young, C. A. (2001). Technology integration in inquiry-based learning: An evaluation study of students' implementation and perceptions of a Web-based electronic portfolio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE