國民小學教師專業發展評鑑指標建構之研究－以桃園市為例

A Study of the Construction of Teachers' Professional Development Evaluation Indicators for Elementary Schools in Taoyuan City

10.6712/JCPA.201706_(20).0003

陳靜薇(Chen, Ching-Wei)；廖益興(I-Hsing Liao)

教師專業發展評鑑 ； 重要性表現分析法 ； 層次分析法 ； Teachers' Professional Development Evaluation ； Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) ； Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

中華行政學報

20期（2017 / 06 / 01）

37 - 57

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討國民小學教師專業發展評鑑指標之建構的適宜性。主要目的是回答下列三個問題：一、教師對教師專業發展評鑑指標內容的「重要性」與「可行性」的認知如何？二、評鑑指標上應繼續保持與需優先改善的項目內容如何？三、評鑑指標應繼續保持與需優先改善的項目之相對權重值如何？本研究採問卷調查法，以桃園市國民小學教師為研究對象，共計發放858份問卷，回收有效問卷654分，有效問卷回收率76.22％，運用IPA篩選出繼續保持與需優先改善項目，再以AHP層級分析法對15位專家進行調查，計算出各項指標之相對權重值，得到研究結果如下:一、對教師專業發展評鑑指標重要性認知程度在「大致重要」到「重要」之間，以「課程設計與教學」層面得分最高，「研究發展與進修」層面得分最低。二、對教師專業發展評鑑指標可行性認知程度在「大致可行」與「可行」之間，以「課程設計與教學」的層面得分最高，「研究發展與進修」層面得分最低。三、在教師專業發展評鑑指標上應繼續保持的檢核重點有32項，佔46.4％，需優先改善的檢核重點有12項，佔17.4％。「班級經營與輔導」層面是四個層面中權重比最高者。

This study is for the purpose of exploring the construction of teachers' professional development evaluation indicators for elementary school in Taoyuan city. The main objectives of this study are shown as the following: 1) To survey Taoyuan city elementary school teachers' importance and feasibility at teachers' professional development evaluation. 2) To find out the evaluation indicators to keep on and to be improved. 3) Analyze the teachers' professional development evaluation indicators contents and relative weights. All collected data were analyzed by Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) method. And Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied to analyze indicators contents and relative weights by surveying 15 experts. The conclusions are as the following: 1.The importance at teachers' professional development evaluation is above the mid level, between generally important and important. The highest importance is the ＂curriculum design and teaching＂ dimension. The lowest importance is the ＂research development and educational training＂ dimension. 2.The feasibility at teachers' professional development evaluation is above the mid level, between generally feasible and feasible. The highest feasibility is the ＂curriculum design and teaching＂ dimension. The lowest feasibility is the ＂research development and educational training＂ dimension. 3.After IPA analysis, there are 32 descriptors and up to 46.4 % of them fall within the ＂keep up the good work＂ area. There are 12 descriptors and up to 17.4 % of them fall within the ＂concentrate here＂ area. The highest weight value of the four dimension is the ＂classroom management and counseling＂ dimension.

1. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluations(1994).The Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs.Thousand Oaks:Sage.
2. Madaus, F. F.(ed.),Scriven, M.(ed.),Stufflebeam, D. L.(ed.)(1983).Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation.Norwell:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. Millman, J.(Ed.),Darling-Hammond, L.(Ed.)(1990).The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers.Thousand Oaks:Sage.
4. Saaty, Thomas L.,Vargas, Luis G.(2012).Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.New York:Springer Science＋Business Media.
5. Stufflebeam, D. L.(2001).Evaluation Checklists: Practical Tools for Guiding and Judging Evaluations.American Journal of Evaluation,22,71-79.
6. Stufflebeam, D. L.(2001).Evaluation Models.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
7. 林新發、林上渝(2004)。高中校長辦學績效評鑑指標。教育資料集刊，29，139-168。
8. 張德銳(2004)。專業發展導向教師評鑑的規劃與推動策略。教育資料集刊，29，169-193。
9. 許明峰(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。新竹，國立新竹教育大學學校行政學系。
10. 陳怡君(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺中，國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所。
11. 傅木龍(1998)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北，國立政治大學教育學系。
12. 曾憲政、張新仁、張德銳、許玉齡、馮莉雅、陳順和、柯汝穎(2007)。教育部委託專案研究教育部委託專案研究,新竹:國立新竹教育大學。
13. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（下）。中國統計學報，27(7)，13767-13870。
14. 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989)。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（上）。中國統計學報，27(6)，13707-13724。

1. 賴協志(2018)。國民中學適性教育指標建構及其成效評估之研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊，23，85-117。
2. 林斌(2022)。校園霸凌防制政策成效評估指標之建構：政策工具之觀點。教育學誌，48，1-39。
3. 盧筱筠(2020)。華語導遊服務角色之探討：導遊與遊客之觀點。觀光旅遊研究學刊，15(2)，43-59。
4. 王馨葦(2022)。應用情境式學習法在大學實務課程之教學成效探討。大學教學實務與研究學刊，6(1)，77-108。