:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國民中學校長360度評鑑指標之建構與實證研究
作者:林文展
作者(外文):LIN WEN CHAN
校院名稱:高雄師範大學
系所名稱:教育學系
指導教授:鄭彩鳳
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2009
主題關鍵詞:360度回饋校長評鑑校長360度評鑑自他評一致性360 degree feedbackprincipal evaluationprincipal 360 degree evaluationthe consistence of self-other assessment
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(2) 博士論文(5) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:225
本研究旨在依據360度回饋評鑑法建構國民中學校長360度評鑑指標,並探討指標應用之現況與重要性及其差異情形,據以提出結論與建議,期能有助於未來校長評鑑及學校經營效能之革新與發展,本研究之具體目的有六項:一、探討國內外校長評鑑與360度回饋評鑑之相關理論與研究,作為編製調查問卷與實證研究之參考。二、透過德懷術專家諮詢建構適用國民中學校長360度評鑑之指標。三、以360度評鑑進行實證性問卷調查研究,進一步修正評鑑之指標。四、實際檢證不同背景變項人員,在國民中學校長360度評鑑指標重要性與現況之差異情形。五、分析國民中學校長在評鑑指標現況自他評實際得分差異情形。六、根據研究結果,提供主管教育行政機關進行校長評鑑與學術單位往後研究之參考。
為達上述目的,本研究採取文獻蒐集、德懷術專家意見諮詢與實證調查研究等研究方法,指標建構歷程採取國內外相關文獻蒐集,加以統計歸納,整理出國民中學校長360度評鑑指標草案,先邀請專家學者、教育主管及國中校長閱讀與試填後,修正調整問卷內容,並透過德懷專家學者三次的審閱及施測,建構國民中學校長360度評鑑指標正式問卷。正式問卷施測採多階段抽樣方式進行取樣,抽取南部七縣市學校85所及教育局人員14人,總共抽取樣本人數1281人進行施測,調查問卷共回收重要性972份及現況1111份問卷,進行正式問卷資料統計分析。
依據本研究主要研究發現,歸納研究結論共有十二項,分述如后:
一、360度回饋是一種「多元來源回饋」技術,能反映出現今學校管理的多樣化與複雜性,可以做為校長評鑑指標建構之理論基礎。
二、校長360度評鑑指標係依360度回饋評鑑概念建構,包含六個領域、十八個層面及七十九項指標,兼具創意與本土化特色。
三、校長360度評鑑指標正式問卷經過內部一致性、探索性EFA及驗證性CFA因素分析交互考驗,具有良好信效度
四、校長360度評鑑指標調查問卷在南部七縣市國民中學抽樣學校的現況面,具有良好信效度
五、校長360度評鑑指標就整體、各領域、層面均具高度重要性,而以「專業倫理與責任」與「行政管理」領域有較高的重要性知覺。
六、校長360度評鑑指標之現況大致良好,其中以「專業倫理與責任」最為落實,「課程與教學領導」的表現明顯較其他領域不足。
七、各類人員對國中校長表現之期望與現實間存在明顯落差。
八、校長、家長、教師兼行政、女性校長、偏遠地區在校長360度評鑑指標的整體或個別領域上知覺到較高重要性。
九、教師兼行政、家長、校長、教育局人員、男性填表人、碩博士學歷校長、院省縣轄市學校知覺到校長360度評鑑指標現況在整體領域或個別領域上有較高的表現。
十、校長360度評鑑自他評統計分析之各領域部分以「專業倫理與責任」分數最高,「課程教學領導」得分最低,各類人員看法相當一致。
十一、校長360度評鑑自他評得分,以「校長自評」最高、「部屬他評」最低,校長自評分數高於所有他評及其平均數。
十二、南部七縣市國民中學大部分校長願意接受「360度評鑑」結果
回饋,也認同其評鑑結果,比現行單一考績更能夠反應真實工作
表現。
本研究依據主要發現與結論,針對國民中學校長、教育行政機關及後續研究者,提出多項參考建議。
This research is for the purpose to construct the 360 Degree Evaluation Indicators for Junior High School Principals based on the 360 degree feedback evaluation, and discusses the current situation of the application and the importance of the indicators , and the differences, as well to propose the conclusion and the suggestion through the research, expecting to be helpful for future principals’ evaluation and for the innovation and development of school management potency. The concrete goals of this research will be in six items: First, to discuss domestic and foreign evaluations for principals and the correlating theories and the research of 360 degrees feedback evaluation, and to establish the questionnaire and the empirical study through the research. Second, to construct the suitable indicators of the 360 degree evaluation for junior high school principals by the consulting of Delphi Method experts. Third, to comment by 360 degree evaluation conducting the empirical questionnaire survey research, and revise evaluation indicators. Fourth, to actually examine the variable personnel with different backgrounds, in the importance of the 360 degree evaluation indicators for junior high school principals and the differences of the current situation. Fifth, to analyze the different situations of the actual scores in the current situation for the evaluation indicators to comment themselves or from others for junior high school principals. Sixth, according to the result of the study, to provide the managers of the educational administration institution to carry on the reference of the principal evaluation and the academic unit in the future research.
In order to reach the above goals, this research adopts the documents collection, the advice from the consultation of Delphi experts, real diagnosis investigations, and so on. The construction course of indicator adopts the domestic and foreign correlating document collections, furthermore compiles statistics, reorganizes the 360 degrees evaluation indicators draft for junior high school principals, and first invites the experts、the managers of the educational administration and the junior high school principals to read and fill in questionnaire, and then to revise and adjust the content of the questionnaire, and construct formal questionnaire of junior high school principal 360 degree evaluation indicators through the 3-time scrutinizing and executing measurement of the Delphi experts. Formal questionnaire executing measurement picks the multi-stage sampling way to carry on the sample, extracting 85 schools of seven counties and cities in the south of Taiwan and 14 persons in the Bureau of Education. The total numbers of extracting the sample population are 1281 people to carry on executing measurement, altogether receiving the important 972 surveying questionnaire and the present situation 1111 surveying questionnaire, carrying on the material statistical analysis of the formal questionnaire.
Based on the main researching discovery of the study, inducing 12 items of research conclusion, as followings:
1. 360 degree feedback is one of “the multiple-source feedback”
technologies, which can reflect the diversification and complexity on nowadays school administration management, and may do for the theoretic basis of the principal evaluation indicator construction.
2. Principal 360 degree evaluation indicators are based on the concept of the 360 degree feedback evaluation, containing six domains, 18 levels, and 79 indicators, having both creativity and local characteristics.
3. After the internal uniformity, the factor analysis of the exploring EFA and confirmation CFA testing alternately, the formal questionnaire of the principal 360 degree evaluation indicators has good reliable and validity
4. At the sampling school present situation in the junior high school of seven counties and cities in southern Taiwan, the formal questionnaire of the principal 360 degree evaluation indicators also has the good reliable and validity
5. Principal 360 degree evaluation indicators on the whole, various domains, levels have the highly importance, but “the administration management domain” and “the specialized ethics and the responsibility” have the higher important consciousness .
6. The present situation of the principal 360 degree evaluation indicators is approximately good, in which most carries out by “the specialized ethics and the responsibility”, the performance of “curriculum and teaching leadership” compares other domains to be insufficient obviously.
7. Each kind of personnel has the obvious difference to the expectation and the reality of junior high school principal performance.
8 At the whole or individual domains of principal 360 degree evaluation indicators, principals, parents, teachers serving administration concurrently, feminine principals, the remote districts have consciousness of the higher importance.
9.The teachers serving administration concurrently, parents, principals, the Bureau of Education personnel, the male human filling questionnaire, principals having Masters’ or Doctors' degree, county or province or municipal schools have consciousness that the present situation on the principal 360 degree evaluation indicators have the higher performance in the overall or the individual domain.
10. In each domain of the statistical analysis in the principal 360 degree evaluation, the score in “the specialized ethics and the responsibility” is the highest of all, and which in “the curriculum teaching leadership” is the lowest. The viewpoints of each kind of personnel are quite consistent.
11.In principal 360 degree evaluation from principals themselves or other men, the score “from the principal self” is the highest of all, but the score “from the subordinate” is the lowest. The score “from the principal self” is higher than all of the assess from the others and the mean score .
12.Most of the junior high school principals in south seven county cities are willing to accept the feedback result of“360 degree evaluation”, and also approve the result of it, and comparing to the present sole service rating, which can response the performance of the real work.
According to the main discovery and the conclusion, this research put forward many reference proposals in view of junior high school principals, the educational administration institution and the following researchers.
shington DC: APA.
參考文獻

一、中文部分

丁一顧、張德銳(2004)。360度回饋在中小學教師評鑑上的應用。初等教育學刊,18,1-24。new window
王文科、王智宏譯(1999)。焦點團體訪談-教育與心理學適用。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
王冬雅(2004)。雲林縣國民小學實施校長評鑑制度之研究。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
王如哲(2007)。美國中小學校長評鑑制度及其啟示-兼論校長專業發展。北縣教育,62,14。
王保進(2001)。國民中小學校務評鑑模式之內涵分析。教育研究月刊,91,52-62。new window
王貴香(2006)高雄市國民小學校長評鑑指標建構之研究。國立中山大學教育研究所論文,未出版,高雄市。
王雅玄(1998)。德懷術(Delphi)在課程評鑑上的應用。教育資料與研究,25,43-46。
王麗雲(2000)。台南縣國民中小學校長評鑑量表。台南:台南縣政府教育局。
台南市政府(2005)。台南市國民中學校務績效評鑑。台南市:台南市政府。
江文雄(1998)。校長評鑑可行性探討。教師天地,96,10-18。
朱淑雅(1999)。校長評鑑制度之初探。國民教育,40(2),98-103。
江文雄(1999)。校長做得好、不必怕評鑑。教育資料與研究,28,17-21。
江文雄主持,張德銳、唐宗虎、張明輝、林炎旦、黃三吉、曾淑惠、黃裕城研究(1999)。台北市中小學校長評鑑方案之探討。台北市政府教育局委託研究論文。
江志正(2003)。變革時代中國民教育階段校長領導的取向。教育研究月刊,111,84-99。new window
何永福、楊國安(1993)。人力資源策略管理。臺北市:三民。
李珀(2000)。教學視導。台北市:五南。
吳和堂、李清良(2001)。高雄市國小實施教師評鑑之研究:以一所國小為例。載於國立新竹師範學院第八次教育行政論壇,349-360。
吳明清(1995)。教育研究-基本觀念與方法分析。台北市:五南。
吳明隆(2008)。結構方程模式-AMOS的操作與應用。台北市:五南。
吳松江(2005)。臺北縣國民中學校長評鑑制度之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
吳勁甫(2003)。競值架構應用在國民小學校長領導行為與學校組織效能之研究。高雄師範大學教育研究所之碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。new window
吳株榕(2001)。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,屏東市。
吳財順(1999)。國民小學校長評鑑制度之研究。台北:台北縣政府教育局。
吳清山(1989)。國民小學管理模式與學校效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,台北市。new window
吳清山(1991):學校行政。台北:心理出版社。
吳清山(2001)。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,84,28-36。new window
吳清山,林天佑(2002)。德懷術。教育研究月刊,92,127。
吳淑妤(2002)。國民小學校長評鑑標準歷程與方法之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
吳順火(1999)。專業校長如何在遴選中贏得尊嚴。國民教育,40(2),57-61。
吳順火(2008)。論述專業 追求卓越-臺北縣中小學校長試辦「校長評鑑」成果報告。北縣教育,62,47-56。
吳錦森(2001)。國民小學校長評鑑制度之研究。國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中市。
吳德業(2000)。苗栗縣國民小學校長評鑑制度實施現況之調查研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育所碩士論文,未出版,新竹市。
吳德業(2001)。誰來評鑑校長。教育資料與研究,40,37-41。new window
吳鴻櫻(1996)。南部七縣市國民小學校長領導效能之調查研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台南市。
呂木琳(1998)。教學視導-理論與實務。台北市:五南。
呂金燮(2000)。資優兒童問題解決能力實作評量之建構研究。特殊教有研究集刊,19,279-308。new window
宋宏明(2006)。國民中學校長評鑑規準研究。北師大學校行政碩士班碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
宜蘭縣政府(1999)。實施國民中小學校長辦學績效評鑑。宜蘭縣:宜蘭縣政府。
彼得.杜拉克(2007)。經理人要做什麼-杜拉克談五維管理。台北:樸實文化。
林上渝(2002)。我國高中校長辦學績效評鑑指標建構之研究。國立台北師範學院/國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。new window
林天祐(1999):新世紀國民中小學校長任用的探討。教育資料與研究雙月刊,28,14-16。台北:國立教育資料館。new window
林文律(1999a):校長職務與校長職前教育、導入階段與在職進修。教育資料與研究雙月刊,29,1-8。new window
林文律(1999b)。校長評鑑。學校行政,1,45-58。
林文律(1999c)。美國校長證照制度。國立台北師範學院學報,13,65-90。new window
林文律(1999d)。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(2000)。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。
林文展(2008)。360度回饋在我國中小學校長評鑑之應用。教育研究,16,147-161。
林玉玲(1999)。回饋預期一致性、程序公平、組織支持、個人特質對360度回饋態度及行為改變意圖之影響。國立政治大學心理學系碩士論文,未出版。
林明地(2005)。校長學-工作分析與角色研究取向。台北:五南。
林清山(1988)。多變量分析統計法。台北:東華。
林逸青(1999)。中小學校長遴選制度之看法。國民教育,40(2),68-72。
林錦杏(2000)。國民小學校長專業成長需求之研究。國立台北師範學院碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
林靜怡(1999)。校長認知型態、領導形式與領導效能之相關研究-以花蓮縣國民小學為例。國立東華大學碩士論文,未出版,花蓮縣。
林麗婷(2006)。國民中小學校長評鑑面臨的問題與因應之道。網路社會學通訊期刊,55。2006年5月15日,取自http//society. nhu.edu.tw/e-j/55/55-23.htm
邱皓政(2005)。量化研究法(二):統計原理與分析技術修訂版。台北:雙葉圖書公司。
侯世昌(2000)。台北縣國民小學校長評鑑之研究。台北:台北縣政府教育局。
柯三吉(1998)。公共政策理論、方法與台灣經驗。台北:時英。
胡英楗(2001)。基隆市國民小學校長評鑑指標建構之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
范傑倫(2001)。360 度回饋與績效改善之縱貫性實證研究。政治大學心理研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
倪慧心(2003)。多源回饋系統促進員工行為發展之性格及認知因素之探討。私立東吳大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,台中市。
孫志麟(2000)。國民教育指標體系建構之研究。國立台北師範學院學報,13,121-148。new window
孫邦正(1973)。國民小學行政。台北:正中書局。
徐坤裕(1999)。多源績效評估影響之探討。元智大學管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,桃園縣。
徐崇文(1999)。以360度回饋探討影響主管人員行為改變意圖相關因素之實證研究。國立政治大學心理學系碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
徐慶勳(1990)。有其學校,必有其校長-國民小學校長角色期望與角色行為差距之研究。國教之友,42(2),49-52。
秦夢群(1997)。教育行政:理論部分與實務部份。台北:五南。
翁福元(2001)。中小學校長評鑑制度之初探:以阿拉巴馬州為例,載於國立嘉義大學國民教育所(主編),中小學校長專業成長規劃(147-174)。高雄:復文。
馬榮助(2004)。高雄市國中校長行政溝通行為與校長領導效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
高雄市教育局(2008)。高雄市國民中學學校評鑑實施計畫。高雄市:高雄市教育局。
高雄縣政府(2000)。國民中小學校長辦學情形問卷。高雄縣:高雄縣政府。
高義展(1998)。國民小學學校教師會組織功能、影響型態與學校效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
高薰芳(1998)。校長評鑑之應為與難為。教師天地,96,19-24。
秦夢群(2002)。國民中小學校長評鑑指標之建構:以階層分析法為主。行政院國家科學委員會專案研究報告(NSC91-2413-H-004- 002)。臺北市:國立政治大學教育學系。
基隆市政府(2000)。基隆市國民中小學校務評鑑實施計劃。基隆市:基隆市政府。
張永欽(2002)。台北市立國民小學校長領導行為塑造學校組織文化與學校效能之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
張明輝(1999a)。學校教育與行政革新研究。台北:師大書苑。new window
張明輝(1999b)。九0年代中小學學校教育革新之策略與展望。教育研究集刊,43,103-137。new window
張明輝(1999c)。紐西蘭中小學及地區學校校長專業標準。2007年12月10日,取自http://web.cc.ntnu.edu.tw/~minfei/紐西蘭中小學及地區學校校長專業標準.
張明輝(1999d)。英國學校效能與學校革新研究。2007年12月10日,取自http://web.cc.ntnu.edu.tw/~minfei/englishschool effectiveness.htm。
張明輝(2003)。英國中小學校長評鑑。2007年7月28日,取自http://web.ed.ntnu.edu.tw/~minfei英國中小學校長評鑑. html。
張素貞(2001)。台北縣國民小學校長評鑑制度之研究。發表於國立台北師院中小學校長培育證照、甄選、評鑑與專業發展研討會,台北。new window
張素貞等(2002)。台北縣國民小學校長評鑑之研究。台北縣:台北縣政府教育局。
張振成(1997)。教學評量的新趨勢-實作評量與檔案評量。中等教育,48(6),90-94。new window
張清楚(1996)。國民小學校長成績考核之研究。台北市立師範學院碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
張清楚(1999):正視中小學校長之培育、任用與評鑑現職校長的看法。教育資料與研究雙月刊,28,22-28。new window
張裕隆(1997a)。360 度回饋(一)。國魂,624,73-75。
張裕隆(1997b)。360 度回饋(二)。國魂,625,71-73。
張裕隆(1997c)。360 度回饋(三)。國魂,626,82-84。
張裕隆(1999)。我國「管理才能評鑑工具」發展及信效度分析研究。國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。(計畫編號:NSC872413H004007)
張裕隆(2001)。360度回饋與傳統上司評鑑對領導效能預測力之比較。應用心理研究,10,167-197.new window
張德銳(1992)。國民小學教師評鑑之研究。新竹:國立新竹師範學院。new window
張德銳(1998)。以校長評鑑提升辦學品質--談校長評鑑的目的、規準與程序。教師天地,96,4-9。
張德銳(1999)。國民中小學校長評鑑系統的初步建構。初等教育學刊,7,15-38。new window
張德銳、丁一顧(2000)。美國中小學校長評鑑制度及校長專業發展。教育資料研究,37,52-57。new window
張德銳、丁一顧(2002)。美國中小學校長評鑑制度及校長專業發展。載於國立教育資料館舉辦之「現代教育論壇(六)」(頁482-489),台北市。new window
張曉琪(2007)。UNESCO品質教育內涵與實施。教育研究月刊,160,164-173new window
張麗雲、蔡清華(1997)。結合國小實習教師專業成長與評鑑教學檔案的建置與應用。1997年師資培育的理論與實際國際學術研討會,屏東師院。
梁坤明(2000)。臺北縣校長評核制度之研究。學校行政,6,51-59。
梁坤明、張素貞、潘教寧等(1999):台北縣校長評核制度之研究。學校行政雙月刊,3。
許世卿(2000)。中國式領導行為模式在我國製造業之應用研究。彰化師範大學工教系博士論文,未出版,彰化市。new window
許世燦(2003)。國民中學校長行政溝通行為、組織氣氛與領導效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
郭工賓(2001)。國民小學校長辦學績效評鑑指標建構之研究。台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
郭乃瑋(1999)。探討影響員工對三百六十度績效評估態度之因素。東吳大學企業管理學系碩士班碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
郭昭佑(2000)。教育評鑑指標建構方法探究。國教學報,13,251-278。
郭昭佑(2001)。學校本位評鑑。台北:五南。new window
郭昭佑(2004)。讓訊息趨近於真實:藉鏡於360度回饋看教育人事評鑑。教育研究資訊,12(4),107-128new window
郭昭佑(2007)。教育評鑑研究:原罪與解放。台北:五南new window
陳木金(1999)。從特別權力關係看我國中小學校長之評鑑與甄選。國民教育,40(2),19-27。
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2005)多變量分析方法-統計軟體應用(第四版)。臺北:五南。
陳忠本(2004)。國民小學校長評鑑之研究-以屏東縣國民小學為例。屏東師範學院教育行政研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東市。
陳梅娥(2002)。模糊德菲術在國小校長評鑑指標系統建構之研究。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北縣。
陳義明(1992)。校長怎樣扮演十項全能的角色。師友,186,15-26。
曾榮祥(2006)。學校經營效能指標建構與應用之研究:以平衡計分卡管理策略為依據。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,高雄市。new window
黃光雄編譯(1980):教學目標與評鑑。高雄:復文圖書。
黃芳銘(2004)。結構方程模式:理論與應用。台北:五南書局。
黃政傑(1987)。課程評鑑。台北:師大書苑。
黃政傑、李隆盛(1994)。國民小學教育評鑑之研究。國科會委託案。
黃政傑、李隆盛等(1998):國民中小學教育評鑑之研究。台北:國立台灣師範大學教育研究中心。
黃振球(1990)。學校管理與績效。臺北市:師大書苑。new window
黃振球(1992)。績優學校。臺北:師大書苑。
黃維詩(2001)。臺北市國民小學學校本位校長評鑑之實施方式與標準建構。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
新竹市教師會(2006)。新竹市教師會校長評鑑問卷。新竹市:新竹市教師會。
楊文雄(1980)。教育評鑑之理論與實際。台中縣:台灣省政府教育廳。
楊振昇(2000)。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
楊振昇 (2001)。教育改革中學校領導者角色之因應。2006年3月2日,取自http://www.edpl.tku.edu.tw/2-03.doc
萬新知(1998)。國民小學校長行政溝通行為,組織溝通氣氛與校長領導效能之關係研究。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台南市。new window
廖裕月(1998)。國小校長轉化領導型式與領導效能之研究:以北部四縣市為例。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
劉志遠(譯)(2005)。五維管理:卓越經理人的第一本書(Peter F. Drucker著, 5-D Management for Manager)。台北:霍克(旭昇代理)。
劉岡憬(1998)。以360 度回饋探討主管人員自他評一致性與領導效能關係之實證研究。國立政治大學心理研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
蔣居和(2002)。以管理才能測驗、360度回饋探討軍中受訓幹部之個人-工作契合與學習反應、學習成效之關係。國立政治大學/心理學研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
蔡金田(2006)。國民中小學校長能力指標建構與實證分析之研究。國立中正大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。new window
蔡金柱(2004)。高雄市國民小學校長評鑑制度規劃之研究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
蔡保田(1968)。學校調查。台北:商務書局。
蔡政明(2003)。國民小學校長課程領導與教師教學效能之研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中市。
蔡耀坤(2002)。我國警察分局長管理才能評鑑之研究-360度回饋法之運用。中央警察大學行政警察研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北縣。
鄭彩鳳(1996)。競值途徑應用在高中職校長領導角色、學校組織文化與組織效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學博士論文,未出版,高雄市。new window
鄭彩鳯(2006)。校長競值領導效能指標之建構與衡量-行為複雜性觀點之問卷設計與實證研究。高雄:復文。
鄭彩鳳 (2007)。校長競值領導效能研究-理論、指標與衡量。台北:高等教育出版。
鄭彩鳳、吳慧君(2007)。國小校長競值領導效能360度回饋與行為改變意圖關係之研究。載於國立台灣師範大學教育系「公義社會與教育行政革新」國際學術研討會論文集(1-30)。new window
鄭彩鳳、吳慧君(2009)。國小校長競值領導效能評估、360度回饋態度與行為改變意圖關係之研究。教育政策論壇,12(2),177-217.new window
鄭彩鳳 (2009)。教師評鑑360度回饋的理念與教師意見調查研究。教育研究月刊,178,58-70。new window
鄭淑娟(2004)。苗栗縣國民小學校長壓力管理與領導效能關係之研究。國立台北師範學院教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文,未出版。
鄭新輝(2002)。國民中小學校長評鑑系統建構的基本理念。南師學院初等教育學報,15,183-236。new window
鄭新輝(2003)。英國中小學校長評鑑政策的發展及其啟示。南師學院初等教育學報,37(1),129-153。new window
鄭新輝(2007)。校長辦學檔案管理與評鑑。高雄市96學年度各級校長聯席會議演講稿。
鄭瀛川、王榮春、曾河嶸(1997)。績效管理。世台管理顧問公司。
賴慧玲(2002)。英國初任校長領導與管理專業進修方案(HEADLAMP)應用於我國之調查研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
閻自安(2002)。360度績效回饋對教師評鑑的啟示。發表於臺灣教育政策與評鑑協會主辦第二次第方教育行政論壇,台北市。
謝文全(1999)。中小學校長培育、任用、評鑑制度。教育資料與研究,28,1-5。new window
謝文全(2000)。中小學校長培育、任用、評鑑制度。現代教育論壇,4,75-79。
謝文全(2002)。學校行政。台北:五南圖書。
謝文全(2003)。教育行政學。臺北市:高等教育。
鍾榮茂(2006)。高雄縣國民小學教育人員及家長對校長評鑑意見之調查研究。國立中山大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
羅英豪(2000)。國民中學校長辦學績效評鑑指標之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
羅清水(1995)。台灣省國民中學校長考核制度之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北市。
羅清水 (1999)。校長評鑑與專業發展。教育資料與研究雙月刊,29,30-39。new window
關季明(2007)。ISO 9001:2000 品質管理系統與系統文件製作。中華民國品質學會。
蘇錦麗(1997)。高等教育評鑑--理論與實際。台北:五南圖書。new window
蘇錦麗、吳德業(2001)。校長辦學檔案在校長評鑑中之應用。載於國立新竹師範學院,校長評鑑研討會論文集(158-181)。

二、西文部分

Airasian, P. W., & Gay, L. R. (2003). Educational research:Competencies analysis and application(7thed.).Englewood Cliffs, N. J. :Prentice-Hall.
Alvik, T. (1995). School-based evaluation: A close-up. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 311-343.
American Association of School Administrators. (2001). The school leadership challenge. Strategies for school system leaders on district-level change, 8, 1. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http:// www. aasa. org / publications/strategies/index.htm.
Anderson, M. E. (1991). Principals: How to train, recruit, select, induct and evaluate leaders for America's schools. Oregon: University of Oregon.
Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 349-356.
Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 24-38.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-164.
Atwater, L. E., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A.(1995). The influence of upward feedback on self and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 35-60.
Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 423-426.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P.(2000). An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53, 275-297.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation for structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.
Barber, M.(1992). Education and the teacher union. London: Cassell.
Bargman, L. K. (1970). The role of the elementary school principal: An analysis of the literature & research since 1960. Dissertation Abstracts International, 4, (31), Octorber.
Becker, T. E., & Klimoski, R. J. (1989). A field study of the relationship between the organizational feedback environment and performance. Personnel Psychology, 42, 343-358.
Becton, J. B., & Schhracder, M.(2004). Participant input into rater selection:Potenial effects on the quality and acceptance of ratings in the context of 360-degree feedback. Public Personnel Management, 33(1), 23-32.
Beehr, T. A., Ivanitskaya, L., Hansen, C. P., Erofeev, D., & Gudanowski, D. M.(2001). Evaluation of 360-degree feedback ratings: Relationships with each other and with performance and selection predictors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 775-788.
Bennell, J. (2003). Evaluation methods in research. London:Continuum.
Berk, A. R.(1986). Performance assessment: Methods and applications. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bernardin, H. J., Alvares, K. M., & Cranny, C. J.(1976). A recomparison of behavior expectation scales to summated scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 564-570.
Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, W. R.(1984). Performance appraisal : Assessing human behavior at work. Boston : PWS-KENT.
Bernardin, H. J. (1986). Subordinate appraisal: A valuable source of information about managers. Human Resource Management, 25(3), 39-60.
Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1987). Can subordinate appraisal enhance managerial productivity? Sloan Management Review, 28(4), 63-73.
Bernardin, H. J., Dahmus, S. A., & Redmon, G. (1993). Attitudes of first-line supervisors toward subordinate appraisal. Human Resource Management, 32, 315-324.
Bernardin, H. J., Hagan, C., Ross, S., & Kane, J. S. (1995). The effects of a 360-degree appraisal system on managerial performance. Paper presented at the tenth annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. D. (1986). The effective principal,(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bohl, D. L. (1996). Minisurvey : 360-degree appraisals yield superior result, survey shows. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26(3), 20-24.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multiframe, multisector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30, 509-534.
Bonnell, D. A. (1993). Scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy Theory, techniques and applications. (New York: VCH)
Bracken, D. W., Dalton, J., Jako, R. A., McCauley, C. D., & Pollman, G. P. (1997). Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes? Greensbro, North Carolina, Centre for Creative Leadership.
Brenda, P. (2004). The relationship between urban principal competence and educational goals and outcome. Morgan State University:The Dissertation of Degree of Doctor of Education.
Brown, G., & Irby, B. J. (1997). The Principal portfolios. Thousand Oaks, Calif:Corwin Press.
Byrne, B. M.(1998). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer-Verlag
Cardy, L. R. & Dobbins, H. G. (1994). Performance appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Cinicinnati: South-Western.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.
Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied psychology in human resource management (5th ed.). N. J. : Prentice Hall.
Chaika, G. (1998). The principles of principal assessment. Education World, Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.education-world. com/a_admin/admin079.html.
Chang, Y. L. (1999). 360-degree feedback and managerial performance: A new perspective of managerial assessment and development in Taiwan. Paper presented at Annual Conference of International Council of Psychologists. Salem, Massachusetts, U. S. A.
Church, H. A., & Bracken, W. D.(1997). 360-degree feedback systems. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Special Issue of Group & Organization Management , June.
Cronbach, L. J. (1983). Course improvement through evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human service evaluation (pp.101-115). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Daniel, L. D.(1992). Concepts of administrative effectiveness and the evaluation of school administrators. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6, 103-121.
Davis, E. D.(1981). Teachers as curriculum evaluation. London Boston:George Allen & Unwin.
Deleon, L., & Ewen, A. J. (1997). Multi-source performance appraisals. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17(1), 22-36.
DeNisi, A. S., & Mitchell, J. L. (1978). An analysis of peer ratings as predictors and criterion measures and a proposed new application. Academy of Management Review, 3, 369-374.
Department for School-Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (2001). Director / Principal Assessment Questionnaire.
Devries, D. L., Morrison, A. M., Shullman, S. L., & Gerlach, M. L.(1986). Performance appraisal on the line. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
DES. (1991). School teacher appraisal circular (No. 12/91). London: HMSO.
DFES. (2001). The education (school teacher appraisal)(England) regulations 2001 (No. 2855).London: The stationary office.
Ding, L., Velicer, W., & Harlow, L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 119-143.
Dominick, P., Reilly, R., & McGourty, J. (1997). The effects of peer feedback on team members behavior. Group and Organization Management, 22, 508-520
Duke, D. L. (1992). Concepts of administrative effectiveness and evaluation of school administrators. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6, 103-121.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis , Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
Edmonds, R. R. (1997). Effective school for the urban poor. Educational Leadership ,37, 15-27.
Edmonds, R.(1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-23.
Education and Employment Committee. (1999). The work of OFSTED. London: The Stationery Office.
Edwards, R. M. (1989). Making performance appriasals meaningful and fair. Business, July-September, 17-22.
Edwards, R. M. (1990). An alternative to traditional appraisal systems. Supervisory Management,3.
Edwards, R. M., & Ewen, J. A.(1996). 360 degree feedback : The powerful new model for employee assessment & performance improvement. New York: AMACOM.
Ellett, C. (1992). Principle evaluation and assessment, in Alkin, M. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 1026-1031. New York : Macmillan Publishing Co.
Ernest, C.T. (2000). The influence of behavioral complexity on global leadership effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC.
Fetterman, D. M., & Wandersman, A.(Eds.).(2005). Empowerment evaluation: Principles in practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Fleming, N. J. B. (2003). A study of principal and teacher judgments of principal leadership orientations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland College Park, MD.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication, Inc.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50.
Fowler, W. J. (1991, 4). What are the characteristics of principals identified as effective by teachers ?Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association, Chicago, IL.(ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 347695)
Fox, S., & Dinur, Y. (1988). Validity of self-assessment: A field evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41, 581-592.
Gail, J.(2003). Shake things up. Training, 40(9), 14-15.
Gane, V., & Morgan, A. (1992). Managing head teacher appraisal. London: Paul Chapman.
Gardner, J. W.(1990). On leadership. New York, NY:The Free Press
Garrett, W. R., & Flanigan, J. L. (1991). Principal evaluation: A definitive process. Journal of School Leadership,1(1),74-86.
Gay, L. R.(1992). Educational research competencies for analysis and application. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ghazali, H. (2001). Principal evaluation. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from http://www.mascis.org/main/frame.htm.
Gibson, C. B. (1995). An investigation of gender difference in leadership across four countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 255-275.
Gil, L. S. (1998). Principals evaluating peers. School Administrator, 55(9), 28.
Gilbert, C.(1990). Membrane conductance changes associated with the response of motion sensitive insect visual neurons. Zeit. Natureforsch, 45: 1222-1224.
Gill, R.(2006). Theory and practice of leadership. Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications.
Ginsberg, R., & Berry, B.(1990). The folklore of principal evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 3, 205-230.
Glaser, R. (1991). Expertise and assessment. In M. C. Wittrock & E. L. Baker, Testing and cognition(pp.17-30).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Glasman, N. S., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Role-based evaluation of principals: Developing an appraisal system. In K.
Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113(5), 475-508.
Granberg, S. E.(2000). A critical examination of African leadership and leadership effectiveness among the Churches of Christ in Meru, Kenya. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Open University, England.
Groff, M. L. (2002). Elementary instructional leadership: Factors that affect performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Saint Louis University, Louis, MO.
Gross, F.A., &Levy, P. E.(1998). Do 360-degree feedback appraisal predict managerial effectiveness?Paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the society for industrial and organizational psychology¸ Inc. Dallas Texas.
Hall, J. L., Leidecker, J. K., & DiMarco, C. (1996). What we know about upward performance appraisals: facilitating the future use of UPA, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(3), Fall, 1996: 209-226.
Halling, P. (2001). School leadership development: State of are out the turn of the century. 發表於2001年3月3日、3月4日,第七次教育行政國際學術研討會之論文,台北:國立台北師範學院。
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. In W. Greenfield(Ed). Instructional leadership: Concept, issues, and controversies(pp.15-27).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hambrick, D. C. (1989). Putting top managers back the strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 5-15.
Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs. behavior complexity, and firm performance. Human Relations, 46. 543-574.
Hatridge, D. G. (1978). Public school principal performance appraisal policies in Missouri, University of Missouri, Columlia.
Harry, T. (1998). 360 degree feedback. School Leadership & Management. 18(2). 291-292.
Hazucha, F. J., Hezlett, A. S., & Schneider J. R.(1993). The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32, 325-351.
Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C., (1995). Changing conceptions and practices in performance appraisal. In Ann Howard, (Ed.), Frontiers of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: The Changing Nature of Work(pp.45–81), Jossey-Bass.
Hegarty, W. (1974) . Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes in supervisor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 764-766.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage:Women’s ways of leadership. New York, NY: Currency.
Hellawell, D. (1992). Who should appraise the headteacher? In M.Hattershey. (ed) (1992). The appraisal of headteachers, (pp.35-51). London:Cassell.
Hellawell, D., & Hancock, N. (1997). Appraisal for primary heads. Professional Development Today, 1, October, 29-39.
Henderson, M. J. (1990). Leadership styles of medical technology supervisors and student performance outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(10), 4434A.
Hewton, E., & West, N. (1992). Appraisal primary headteachers: Challenge, confidence, and clarity. Buckingham: Open University.
Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach toward leadership: An extension of the concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49(7), 917-946.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt. J, G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the leadersplex model. Journal of Management, 23 (3). 375-408
Hughes, W. L., & 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.
Ivancevich, J. M.(1977). Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419.
Iwanicki, E. F. (1990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In J.Millman & L.Darling-Hammond (Eds.). The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp.158-174).California: Sage.
Jefferson Academy. (2001). Junior high principal evaluation 1997-1998.
Johnson, J. W., & Ferstl, K. L.(1999). The effects of interpreter and self-other agreement on performance improvement following upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 52, 271-303.
Jones, J. (1993). Appraisal and staff development in school. London: David Fulton.
Jones, J. E., & Bearley, W. L. (1996). 360 feedback. HRD Press.
Kaiser, H. F.(1974). An index of faction simplicity, Psychometric, 39, 31-36.
Kaplan, R. E. (1993). 360-degree feedback plus: Boosting the power of coworker ratings for executives. Human Resource Management, 32, 299-314.
Karen, M. D.(2001). The power of 360-degree feedback. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 35-36
Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District (2001). Principal Evaluation Form.
Kilcullen, R. N.(2001). Identifying motivation and interpersonal performance using peer evaluations. Military Psychology, 13,73–88.
Kim, H., & Yukl, G. (1995). Relationships of managerial effectiveness and Advancement to Self-reported and Subordinate-reported leadership Behaviors from the Multiple linkage Model. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361-377.
Klagge, J. (1995). 360-degree sociometric feedback for individual and organization change. Public Administration Quarterly, 19(3), 352-366.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
Kyle, W. L., & Steve, F. (2002). Expatriate development:The use of 360-degree feedback.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L.(1980). Performance ratings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
Lassiter, D. (1996). A user guide to 360-degree feedback. Performance & Instruction, May/June, 12-15.
Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Lawler, E. E. (1967). The multitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 369-381.
Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. D. (1997). The art and science of 360 degree feedback . Jossey-Bass/ Pfeiffer. San Francisco.
London, M., & Beatty, W. R. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 32, 353-372.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48, 803-839.
Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D.A.(1987). Behind the mask:The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
Lynch, G. J. (2000). Effective leadership behavior: Competing values and objective outcomes in selected municipal departments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Alba
Mabe, P., & West, S. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability:A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 282-296.
MacBeath, J., & McGlym, A.(2002). Self-evaluation:What in it for schools? Lodon:Routledge Falmer.
Massachusetts Department of Education . (1995) . Common wealth of Massachusetts regulations on evaluation of teachers and administrators 603 CMR 35.00 and principles of effective teaching and effective administrative leadership.
Mathias, J., & Jones, J. (1989). Appraisal of performance: Teachers' guide. Oxford: NFER-NELSON.
Maxwell, J. C.(2005). The 360 degree leader: Developing your
Influence from anywhere in the organization :Thomas Nelson / 2005 / Hardcover
McMahon, G., & Gunnigle, P. (1994). Performance appraisal: How to get it right, Institute of Personnel Management (I), Productive Personnel Ltd., Dublin.
Mcmillan.(2000). Educational research:Foundational for the consumer(3rd). N. Y:Addison Wesley Longman.
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J. R. (1965). Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review, 43, 123-129.
Michael, U., Barbara, M. C., & Mary, P. (2000). Tomorrow’s principal. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.middleweb. com/ ContntsPrin.html
Milliman, J. F., Zawacki, R. A., Norman, C., Powell, L., & Kirksey, J. (1994). Companies evaluate employees from all aspects. Personnel Journal 73, 99-103.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row, p.59.
Mohan, T. (2000). Leadership styles in information technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 75, 235-241.
Mondy, R. W., &Noe, R. M. (2005). Human resource management.(9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Edition.
Morgan, G. (1986). Performance appraisal in the school system of outcome. Toronto: Ministry of Education.
Mortimore, P.(1987). School examination results in ILEA. London, Inner London Education Authority.
Moses, J., Hollenbeck, G. P., & Sorcher, M. (1993). Other people’s expectations. Human Resource Management, 32(21), 283-297.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1997). Psychology applied to work- An Introduction to Industrial and organizational psychology.臺北:雙葉書廊。
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3)313-351.
Munchinsky, M. Paul. (1997) . Psychology applied to work : An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology(5th ed.). Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, California:Sage.
Murphy, J., & Rodi, M. S.(2000). Principal evaluation: A review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Nadler, D. A.(1977). Feedback and organization development:Using data-based methods. Reading, Mass:Addison-Wesley.
Nancy, C., & James, H. S. (2006). What are principal expected to do? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 221-237.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration.(1993). Principals for our changing schools: The knowledge and skill base. Fairfax. VA: Author.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M.(2003). Human resource management. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Nowack, K. M. (1993). 360-degree feedback: The whole story. Training and Development Journey, 47(1), 69-72.
Parsons, T. (1959). The school as a social system: Some of its functions in American society. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 297-318.
Parsons, B. A. (2002). Evaluative inquiry:Using evaluation to promote student success. Califorina:Corwin Press.
Peters, S., & Bagenstos, N. T. (1988). State mandated principal evaluation: A report on current Practice. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 5-9,1988).(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.ED 292889)
Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation:A comprehension guide to new directions and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage
Popham, W. J.(1993). Educational evaluation. Prentice Hall.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness triteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-377.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-bass.
Quinn, R. E.(2004). Building the bridge as you walk on it: A guild for leading change. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Hass.
Rachel, W.(2002). Leadership style awareness helps mangers. Women in Business, 54(1), 20-23.
Reilly, R. R., Smither, J. W., & Vasilopoulos, N. L.(1996). A longitudinal study of upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 49, 599-612.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E.(2004). Evaluation:A systematic approach. Lodon:SAGE
Salvemini, N. (1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time. Personnel Psychology, 48, 1-34.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), AERA Monograph series on Curriculum Evaluation (No.1). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practive perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Shinkfield, A. J. (1994). Principal and peer evaluation of teachers for professional development. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(3), 51-66.
Shore, L. M., & Thornton Ⅲ, G. C. (1986). Effects of gender on self- and supervisory ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 115-129.
Smither, J. W., London, M., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Salveminim, N.(1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time. Personnel Psychology, 48, 1-34.
South Carolina State Dept. of Education, Columbia. Div. of Public Accountability. (1990). Management by results model, extended evaluation model, combination model. South Carolina principal incentive program 1990-91. South Carolina: South Carolina State Dept. of Education, Columbia. Div. of Public Accountability.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334654).
Starinchak, E. C. (1994). Paradoxical leadership: The relationship between behavioral complexity and effectiveness leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
State Board of Education, North Carolina (2001). Standards for Principal and Assistant Principal Evaluation.
Statham, A. (I987). The gender model revisited: Difference in the management styles of men and women. Sex roles,16,409-429.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). Education and decision making. Boloomington, IN:Phi Delta Kappa.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J .(2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Sudman, S. (1976). Applied sampling. NY: Academic Press.
Taipei American School(2003). Taipei American school professional growth and evaluation handbook: A standard-based and multiple data source approach. Taipei: Author.
The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation(1994). The program evaluation standards. (2nd ed.), Sage, Thusand Oaks, CA.
The Teacher Training Agency(1997). Prestigious new training for experienced headteachers. Retrieved Dec 13, 2007, from http:// www. coi.gov.uk/ coi/depts/GTT/coi4845d.ok.
Thompson, M. D. (2002). Gender leadership orientation, and effectiveness : Testing the theoretical models of Bolman & Deal and Quinn. Sex Roles, 42(11/12), 969-992.
Til, W. V. (1978). Secondary education: School and community, Honghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Tornow, W. (1993a). Perception or reality: Is multi-perceptive measurement a means or an end?Human Resource Management, 32, 221-230.
Tornow, W. (1993b). Introduction to special issue on 360-degree feedback. Human Resource Management, 32, 262-271.
Umbach, H. N. (1993). Effects of sex, leadership and task structure on leadership effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MO
Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S., & Leslie, J.(1993). An examination of the relationships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 32, 249-264.
Waldman, A. D., & Atwater, E. L.(1998). The power of 360 feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Waldman, A. D., & Atwater, E. L.(2001). Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of an upward feedback process. Group and Organization Management, 26(2), 189-205.
Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393-423.
Weeks, J. (1992). Headteacher appraisal and school review, in M. Hattersley(Ed.) The Appraisal of the Headteachers. pp.11-22. London: Cassell.
Wexley, K., & Klimoski, R. (1984). Performance appraisal: Organizational behavior & personnel psychology, Homewood, 367.
Wherry, R. J., & Bartlett, C. J. (1982). The control of bias in ratings: A theory of rating. Personnel Psychology, 35, 521-551.
Whisler, T. L., & Harper, S. F. (Eds). (1962). Performance appraisal: Research And practice, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1983). Principles of school administration, Charles E. Merrill Publish Company, A Bell and Howell Company, Columbus.
Williams, S. W. (1964). Educational administration in secondary schools, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
William Greenfield.(1987). Instructional leadership. Boston:Allyn and Bacon, Inc., p.238-240.
Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (l987). Educational evaluation:Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
Wragg, E. C. (1988). Teacher appraisal: A practical guide. London: Macmillian Education.
Yammarino, F. J., &Atwater, L. E. (1993). Understanding self- perception accuracy: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 32 , 231-247.

Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1997). Do managers see themselves as others see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 35-44.
Yukl, G., & Leipsinger, R. (1995). 360-degree feedback:What to put into to get the most out of it. Training, 32, 45-51.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Wa
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE