師資生教學表現評量的設計與實施經驗探究

Teaching Performance Assessment for Preservice Teachers: System Design and Implementation Experiences

10.3966/181665042018091403004

黃永和(Yung-Ho Huang)；張新仁(Shin-Jen Chang)

師資培育 ； 師資生 ； 教學表現評量 ； teacher education ； preservice teacher ； teaching performance assessment

教育研究與發展期刊

14卷3期（2018 / 09 / 30）

101 - 128

繁體中文

本研究的目的旨在以觀察式評量方法為基礎，設計發展適合國內師資培育情境的師資生教學表現評量方案，並且測試實施此一方案，分析測試實施經驗，以作為進一步設計發展的參考。本研究結果提出一師資生教學表現評量機制，包括教學實作任務、評分規準、觀察記錄工具、評量人員基本條件，以及標準化評量實施程序等。本評量的實施經驗顯示：一、就重要性而言，本教學表現評量獲評量人員及參與師資生的肯定，且有助於師培機構了解師資生在各項教學能力的優劣表現情形；二、就教學表現評量的時機而言，在教學實習課程中辦理可以強化師培機構的績效責任，提供師資生更多教學實踐機會；三、理解評量之檢測指標與檢核重點內涵可能是影響評量成績的關鍵因素；四、未來可再針對評量人員評分的信效度，增加教學觀察前會談或說明，應用本教學評量規準於師培相關課程，以及研擬錄影評審等議題進一步研究。

The aim of this study was to develop an observation-based assessment to assess the teaching performance of preservice teachers, and to examine and reflect on the experiences of implementing the new practice. This study helped to develop an assessment program that includes teaching performance tasks, scoring rubrics, observation tools, professional assessors, and standard procedures. The implementation results show that: (1) Preservice teachers and assessors perceived the assessment as a significant way for preparing high-quality teachers. (2) Data from the assessments can provide evidence of preservice-teacher strengths and needs that serve a useful purpose in improving the teacher preparation program. (3) Preservice teachers' understanding of assessment rubrics might be an important factor contributing to the teaching performance level. (4) Future research could explore the issues of how to improve the inter-rater reliability, conducting pre-observation interview, providing effective teaching training program in teacher education, and assessing teaching performance through videotape.

1. 邱于閔、詹惠雪(2015)。國民小學職前教師教學能力檢定評分量表建構之研究─以國立新竹教育大學教育學系為例。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，8(3)，1-28。
   連結：
2. 黃嘉莉(2012)。美國加州檢核職前教師表現制度之研究。教育研究與發展期刊，8(1)，93-124。
   連結：
3. Allen, J.,Gregory, A.,Mikami, A.,Lun, J.,Hamre, B.,Pianta, R.(2013).Observations of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary.School Psychology Review,42(1),76-98.
4. Arter, J.,McTighe, J.(2001).Socring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin.
5. Ball, D. L.,Forzani, F. M.(2009).The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education,60(5),497-511.
6. Brown, A. L.(1992).Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom setting.The Journal of the Learning Sciences,2(2),141-178.
7. Cohen, J.,Goldhaber, D.(2016).Building a more complete understanding of teacher evaluation using classroom observations.Educational Researcher,45(6),378-387.
8. Council of Chief State School Officers(2011).Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue.Washington, DC:Author.
9. Curby, T. W.,Johnson, P.,Mashburn, A. J.,Carlis, L.(2016).Live versus video observations: Comparing the reliability and validity of two methods of assessing classroom quality.Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,34(8),765-781.
10. Danielson, C.(2012).Observing classroom practice.Educational Leadership,70(3),32-37.
11. Danielson, C.(2007).Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
12. Darling-Hammond, L. (2012, July 29). To earn classroom certification, more teaching and less testing. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
13. Gallagher, H. A.(2004).Vaughn elementary's innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement?.Peabody Journal of Education,79(4),79-107.
14. Goldstein, J.(2013).Making observation count: Key design elements for meaningful teacher observation.Stanford, CA:Policy Analysis for California Education.
15. Gore, J.(2015).Evidence of impact of teacher education programs: A focus on classroom observations.Melbourne, Australia:Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.
16. Hibbard, K. M.,Wagenen, L. V.,Lewbel, S.,Waterbury-Wyatt, S.,Shaw, S.,Pelletier, K.,Wislocki, J. A.(1996).A teacher's guide to performance-based learning and assessment.Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
17. Isoré, M.(2009).Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review (OECD education working papers, No. 23).Paris, France:OECD.
18. Kane, T. J.(Ed.),Kerr, K. A.(Ed.),Pianta, R. C.(Ed.)(2014).Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the measures of effective teaching project.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
19. Kennedy, M. M.(Ed.)(2010).Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
20. Mertler, C. A.(2003).Classroom assessment: A practical guide for educators.Los Angeles, CA:Pyrczak.
21. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards(2016).What teachers should know and be able to do.Arlington, VA:National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
22. Steinberg, M. P.,Sartain, L.(2015).Does better obervation make better teacher? New evidence from a teacher evaluation pilot in Chicago.Education Next,15(1),71-76.
23. The Design-Based Research Collective(2003).Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.Educational Researcher,32(1),5-8.
24. 張新仁(2012)。臺灣中小學教師專業發展的推動策略。教育人力與專業發展，29(1)，13-24。
25. 張新仁、黃永和(2016)。,臺北市:國立臺北教育大學。
26. 張德銳(2009)。中小學教師專業發展評鑑實施問題與解決策略。研習資訊，26(5)，17-24。
27. 教育部(2012)。中華民國師資培育白皮書：發揚師道，百年樹人。臺北市:作者。
28. 曾憲政、張新仁、張德銳、許玉齡、馮莉雅、陳順和、劉秀慧(2007)。曾憲政、張新仁、張德銳、許玉齡、馮莉雅、陳順和、劉秀慧（2007）。高級中等以下學校教師專業發展評鑑規準（參考版）。臺北市：教育部。
29. 黃永和(2009)。情境學習與教學研究。臺北市:國立編譯館。
30. 黃嘉雄、洪福財、黃永和、蔡明學、陳淑珣、周慧玲(2008)。國小教師教學基本能力指標。國民教育，48(4)，60-67。
31. 羅婕妤(2014)。以效度觀點反思現今的教師甄試制度。臺灣教育評論月刊，3(2)，106-110。

1. 鄭漢吾,楊彥均(2023)。「臨床教學循環」運用於師資生教育實踐課程之探究－以體育教材教法為例。體育學報，56(S)，59-78。