策劃學校發展的資料運用：一所高中個案研究

Data Use in School Development Planning: A High School Case Study

10.6209/JORIES.2014.59(1).06

潘慧玲(Hui-Ling Pan)；張淑涵(Shu-Han Chang)

資料運用 ； 資料驅動決定 ； 塑義理論 ； data use ； data-driven decision making ； sensemaking theory

教育科學研究期刊

59卷1期（2014 / 03 / 01）

171 - 195

繁體中文

二十一世紀在國際評比的推波助瀾下，學生學習成效再度成為各國教改的重要議題，而資料驅動決定（data-driven decision making）在原本講求績效責任的教育脈絡中，更成為協助學校謀求改進發展以提升學生學習的重要作法。惟國內對此尚屬陌生，故為拓展國內資料運用（data use）之學校實務與學術探究，本研究試圖透過大學與高中之協作計畫，探討資料運用在一所個案高中現場之操作情形。在採用觀察、訪談與文件分析方法蒐集本個案研究所需資料後，發現個案學校經由不同資料之結合，解讀與診斷學校問題，進而研訂改進之行動方案。其中也呈顯了學校成員從懷疑到覺得受用的塑義（sensemaking）過程。而校長領導、成員的時間、能力與認同度是影響學校資料運用之關鍵性條件。

Propelled by the international comparison of student achievement in the twenty first century, student learning caught the world's attention and became critical to the agenda of education reform. Data-driven decision making plays a crucial role in assisting school improvement and enhancing student achievement; however, data use remains a relatively new concept for audiences in Taiwan. To enrich school practices and academic data use, this case study explored how a high school used data through collaboration with a university. Observation, interview, and document analysis were employed to collect data. The results indicated that the school had integrated different data to diagnose its weaknesses and problems. An improvement action plan was developed based on the data. It was also observed that school members who were initially suspicious gradually changed their attitude, finding the use of data to be meaningful in their sensemaking process. Effective principal leadership, as well as the time, capacity, and willingness of school members, were critical conditions for the successful use of data within schools.

1. 吳清山、蔡菁芝(2006)。英美兩國教育績效責任之比較分析及其啟示。師大學報：教育類，51(1)，1-21。
   連結：
2. 林其賢、高熏芳(2009)。資料導向決策系統之設計：校長決策領導的新思維。學校行政，62，80-97。
   連結：
3. 張奕華、彭文彬(2012)。高中職校長資訊使用環境對資料導向決策影響之研究。學校行政，79，20-42。
   連結：
4. 梁歆、黃顯華(2010)。大學與學校協作下學校發展主任的理念、策略與角色─香港優質學校改進計畫的個案研究。教育研究集刊，56(1)，99-126。
   連結：
5. 陳佩英、焦傳金(2009)。分散式領導與專業學習社群之建構：一所高中教學創新計畫的個案研究。教育科學研究期刊，54(1)，55-86。
   連結：
6. National Center for Educational Achievement. (2009). Just for the kids. Retrieved from http://www.just4kids.org
7. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (n.d.). Quality school portfolio decision supporting system: Transforming data into information. Retrieved form http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/overheads/OTHER/Egyptian.ppt
8. Barnes, F. D.(2004).Inquiry and action: Making school improvement part of daily practice.Providence, RI:Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
9. Bernhardt, V. L.(2002).The school portfolio toolkit: A planning, implementation, and evaluation guide for continuous school improvement.Larchmont, NY:Eye on Education.
10. Bernhardt, V. L.(2009).Data use: Data-driven decision making takes a big-picture view of the needs of teachers and students.Journal of Staff Development,30(1),24-27.
11. Bernhardt, V. L.(2005).Using data to improve student learning in high schools.Larchmont, NY:Eye on Education.
12. Coburn, C.(2001).Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,23(2),145-170.
13. Dean, J. S.(2007).Mesa, AZ.,Capella University.
14. Dimmock, D.(Ed.)(1993).School-based management and school effectiveness.New York, NY:Routledge.
15. Earl, L. M.,Katz, S.(2006).Leading schools in a data-rich world: Harnessing data for school improvement.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
16. Fullan, M. G.(1991).The new meaning of educational change.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
17. Glazier, J.(Ed.),Powell, R. R.(Ed.)(1992).Qualitative research in information management.Englewood, CA:Libraries Unlimited.
18. Honig, M.(Ed.)(2006).New directions in education policy implementation.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
19. Luo, M.(2008).Structural equation modeling for high school principals' data-driven decision making: An analysis of information use environments.Educational Administration Quarterly,44(5),603-634.
20. MacGilchrist, B.,Mortimore, P.,Savage, J.,Beresford, C.(1995).Planning matters: The impact of development planning in primary school.London, UK:Paul Chapman.
21. Marsh, J. A.,Pane, J. F.,Hamilton, L. S.(2006).Making sense of data-driven decision making in education.Santa Monica, CA:RAND.
22. McLaughlin, C.,Black-Hawkins, K.(2007).School-university partnerships for educational research-distinctions, dilemmas and challenges.Curriculum Journal,18(3),327-341.
23. Mclntire, T.(2002).The administrator's guide to data-driven decision making.Technology & Learning,22(11),18-27.
24. Means, B.,Gallagher, L.,Padilla, C.(2007).Teachers' use of student data systems to improve instruction.Washington, DC:Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
25. Murphy, J.(Ed.),Hallinger, P.(Ed.)(1993).Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts.Newbury Park, CA:Corwin Press.
26. Park, V.,Datnow, A.(2009).Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making.School Leadership and Management,29(5),477-494.
27. Patton, M. Q.(1997).Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
28. Rankin, L.,Ricchiuti, L.(2007).Data-driven decision making: Five questions to help make sense of your data.Connected Newsletter,14(1),4-6.
29. Russell, D. M.,Stefik, M. J.,Pirolli, P.,Card, S. K.(1993).The cost structure of sensemaking.INTERCHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,Amsterdam, the Netherland:
30. Spillane, J. P.(1998).State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations.American Educational Research Journal,35(1),33-63.
31. Steele, J. L.,Boudett, K. P.(2008).The collaborative advantage.Educational Leadership,66(4),54-59.
32. Wagner, T.(2001).Leadership for learning: An action theory of school change.Phi Delta Kappan,82(5),378-383.
33. Weick, K. E.(1995).Sensemaking in organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
34. Wohlstetter, P.,Datnow, A.,Park, V.(2008).Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,19(3),239-259.
35. 王世英、謝雅惠(2005)。從資料驅動決定觀點簡介國立教育資料館教育資源。教育資料與研究，67，37-52。
36. 張文穗(2010)。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan，國立臺北市立教育大學=Taipei Municipal University of Education。
37. 陳紹賓(2009)。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan，國立臺北教育大學=National Taipei University of Education。
38. 劉名峯(2007)。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan，國立臺北教育大學=National Taipei University of Education。
39. 潘慧玲(2010)。促進學校發展之評鑑機制。新世紀學校革新國際學術研討會，臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:

1. 賴志峰、秦夢群(2016)。一所高級中學校長領導之個案研究。逢甲人文社會學報，33，119-151。
2. 潘慧玲(2017)。促動改變的扳手：學習共同體影響學校變革之分析。教育科學研究期刊，62(4)，209-239。
3. 潘慧玲(2018)。驅動學校改進的評鑑機制。學校行政，118，126-144。
4. 王為國(2020)。國小教師對綜合活動領域課綱之釋意研究。當代教育研究季刊，28(1)，75-108。
5. (2015)。國民中小學校務經營中的自我評鑑現況研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊，17，67-86。
6. (2019)。高等教育資料跨域整合與應用之倡議。高等教育，14(1)，1-39。
7. (2020)。支持教師專業發展的學校氣氛之個案研究。臺東大學教育學報，31(2)，39-77。