從理論到實踐：關係系統評鑑於評鑑能力建置之應用

Su-Ching Lin; Fu-Nan Su

doi:10.6209/JORIES.202403_69(1).0004

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2025/01/01~2025/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2025/04/01~2025/06/30

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P99 - 130

社会科学 > 教育学

DOI： 10.6209/JORIES

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

从理论到实践：关系系统评监於评监能力建置之应用

From Theory to Practice: Applying the Relational Systems Evaluation to Evaluation Capacity Building

林素卿(Su-Ching Lin) ；舒富男(Fu-Nan Su)

教育科学研究期刊； 69 卷 1 期 (2024 / 03 / 01) ， P99 - 130

繁体中文;英文 DOI： 10.6209/JORIES.202403_69(1).0004

文化能力；评监思维；评监能力；评监能力建置；关系系统评监； cultural competency ； evaluative thinking ； evaluative capacity ； evaluative capacity building ； relational systems evaluation

0 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (35) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

Program evaluation involves the systematic collection of information about a program to improve its quality (Rossi et al., 2004). Program evaluators may be program stakeholders rather than neutral third parties; this is particularly the case when educators are asked to design and implement curriculum reforms. In the case of Taiwan's 12-year compulsory education curriculum, teachers are expected to design, implement, and evaluate the curriculum (the program) to ensure quality. This study used relational systems evaluation (RSE) as a model for evaluative capacity building (ECB) to equip teachers in different fields to evaluate interdisciplinary programs. Unlike a traditional evaluation model, which views the program as something set in stone to be implemented, RSE is based on a picture where a program and its implementation inform and shape each other for the program's objectives to be achieved from the ground up (Bollinger, 2021). RSE is a cyclic process in which the local program context is evaluated in light of the relationship of program components to the whole. The changes to be effected, the scope of the evaluation, and the evaluative competencies to be developed are laid out in partnership with stakeholders using systems evaluation protocol (SEP). SEP, RSE, and ECB conceive of educators as both program practitioners and program evaluators who must thus have strong evaluative knowledge and skills (Trochim & Urban, 2021). RSE is derived from theoretical approaches such as evolutionary evaluation (EE), relational developmental systems theory, and systems thinking (ST). In EE, all programs are viewed as cycles, and evaluation is integral to each cycle. In evaluating a system, evaluators must select an appropriate evaluation model that fits the current stage of the program's cycle (Trochim & Urban, 2021). In RSDT, a program's environment drives development and change, and evaluators must consider whether the program requires adjustment based on the local environment or context (Bornstein, 2006). Finally, in ST, evaluators must consider the dynamic relationship between parts of the program to the whole program when implementing changes. Moreover, evaluators must establish program boundaries to determine the scope of the evaluation, identify the causes of strengths and weaknesses, and determine the critical outcomes to be measured. In RSE, all these processes are seen to build evaluative competencies in a collaborative SEP process (Chauveron et al., 2021; Urban, Archibald et al., 2021). ECB is a dynamic and intentional process for improving individual evaluation motivation, knowledge, skills, and attitudes; strengthening a team's ability to conduct evaluations; continually optimizing evaluation quality; and making evaluation routine (Buckley et al., 2015; Clinton, 2014; Labin et al., 2012). This study analyzed three evaluative domains: evaluative thinking (ET), cultural competency (CC), and evaluative capacity (EC). Buckley et al. (2015) observe that ET is the core of ECB, which requires continual analysis and rethinking. Without ET, reviews stagnate, fail to get at essential qualities, and induce inappropriate or incorrect corrections. CC refers to the position and attitude of the evaluator toward the culture of the organization. CC recognizes that any decision made during the evaluation process reflects the values of the evaluator, from a statement of the purpose of the evaluation to the collection and analysis of data and interpretation and application of the results (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2014; Frierson et al., 2002). EC refers to the basic competence of the evaluator in identifying stakeholders; establishing the intention, purpose, problem, and scope of the evaluation; selecting or developing assessment tools; collecting and analyzing evaluation data; and using evaluation results to improve a program (Frierson et al., 2002). Although several studies have discussed the implementation of ECB, empirical research on this topic is limited (Wandersman, 2014). Moreover, only two empirical studies have applied the RSE model to ECB (Chauveron et al., 2021; Urban, Linver et al., 2021). These studies have indicated that RSE is an effective model for enhancing participants' ET and EC. However, no studies applying RSE have been conducted in Taiwan. This study had two primary goals: (1) To implement an RSE-ECB model to improve reforms of Taiwan's 12-year compulsory education system, and (2) to translate the theoretical insights from these models into practical steps or programs through a series of workshops and self-directed learning modules. Through this process, the study will expand the literature on ECB by exploring its application to Taiwan's unique cultural landscape of compulsory education reform. In ECB, the evaluation skills individuals acquire must be implemented in their workplace with the support of leaders in their organization (Chauveron et al., 2021; Labin et al., 2012); for teachers, these leaders would be their principal or department heads. Therefore, this study recruited a total of eight teachers in the disciplines of science and technology, art, and the humanities from one rural and one urban junior high school in addition to the principals of these schools. The study enabled these stakeholders to collaborate in employing ECB in the design, implementation, and assessment of a program of curriculum reform grounded in RSE theories. The secondary goals of this study were to (1) analyze participant responses to determine the effectiveness of the ECB program; (2) analyze changes in participants' ET, CC, and EC; (3) analyze participants' application of RSE perspectives in developing school-wide curriculum evaluation measures; and (4) analyze participants' views on the RSE model. This study adopted a mixed-method design. This study collected data on ET, CC, and EC scale scores and from ECB workshop satisfaction questionnaires, feedback sheets, e-portfolio professional growth files, and interview records. The participants provided positive feedback about the ECB workshops, and their ET, CC, and EC scores significantly improved. The school-wide curriculum evaluation measures they developed reflected RSE perspectives and the unique demands of each school's curriculum. According to the participants, compared with the traditional linear evaluation model, which only incorporated feedback at the end of the school year, the RSE model reflected the essential objectives of the curriculum and enabled real-time feedback for program revisions. Furthermore, the RSE model helped practitioners determine whether the curriculum met the needs of students and the community. In short, the RSE model provided a useful and comprehensible curriculum evaluation method for teachers and principals, although its implementation was not without challenges.

参考文献 ( 35 ) 〈TOP〉

林素卿, S.-C.,叶顺宜, S.-I.(2014)。档案评量於国中英语教学应用之个案研究。教育科学研究期刊，59(2)，111-139。
连结：
American Evaluation Association. (2011). American Evaluation Association statement on cultural competence in evaluation. https://www.eval.org/Community/Volunteer/Statement-on-Cultural-Competence-in-Evaluation
Archibald, T.(2021).The role of evaluative thinking in the teaching of evaluation.Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation,35(3),310-319.
Bollinger, R.(2021).A view from the outside: Reflections on relational systems evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation,169,117-123.
Buckley, J.,Archibald, T.,Hargraves, M.,Trochim, W. M.(2015).Defining and teaching evaluative thinking: Insights from research on critical thinking.American Journal of Evaluation,36(3),375-388.

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址