期刊專區/ Periodical Section

「教師評鑑2.0」：美國的經驗與對臺灣之啟示

“Teacher Evaluation 2.0”: Learning for Experiences of the United States of America and Implications for Taiwan

所屬期刊：	第13卷第1期 「教師培育與專業發展」 主編：南華大學幼兒教育研究所教授 陳竑濬
系統編號：	vol048_02
主題：	師資培育
出版年份：	2017
作者：	方朝郁; 方德隆
作者(英文)：	Chao-Yu Fang; Der-Long Fang
論文名稱：	「教師評鑑2.0」：美國的經驗與對臺灣之啟示
論文名稱(英文)：	“Teacher Evaluation 2.0”: Learning for Experiences of the United States of America and Implications for Taiwan
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：	中文
論文頁數：	32
中文關鍵字：	教師評鑑; 教師專業發展; 零件效應; 教師專業發展評鑑
英文關鍵字：	teacher evaluation; teacher professional development; Widget Effect; Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development (TEPD)
服務單位：
稿件字數：	19989
作者專長：	課程與教學; 教師評鑑; 教師專業發展
投稿日期：	2016/1/22
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	美國是最早實施教師評鑑的國家之一，近年研究卻發現評鑑功能不彰，暴露 出「零件效應」（Widget Effect）的問題，無助教師專業發展。相對於美國實施教 師評鑑已有多年經驗，臺灣繼推動教師專業發展評鑑之後，刻正進行教師評鑑立 法，尚未正式實施。他山之石，可以攻錯。本文旨在分析美國教師評鑑的問題與 革新之道，作為臺灣教師評鑑立法的參考。本研究採用文獻分析法，首先探討美 國傳統教師評鑑的問題，歸納分析美國教師評鑑的革新方向與初步成果。接著， 介紹臺灣教師評鑑的發展沿革，蒐集目前立法規劃的相關資料，條析評鑑制度草 案之內容重點。然後，以彙整相關研究所得之教師評鑑制度設計要素作為分析架 構，包括：評鑑目的、評鑑設計、評鑑內容、評鑑方法、評鑑人員、結果應用及 配套措施等七個面向，剖析美國經驗的啟示，作為臺灣教師評鑑立法及實施的參 考。
摘要(英文)：	The United States of America is one of the first countries to implement teacher evaluation. However, recent studies have found that evaluation tends to be dysfunctional due to the “Widget Effect”, which is not helpful for teacher professional development. This study aims to analyze the problems and renovation of teacher evaluation in US to gain implications for the legislation of teacher evaluation in Taiwan after try-outs of Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development (TEPD). In this project, the literature analysis method was adopted to first review the history and problems of teacher evaluation in US, summarize and analyze the suggestions for improvement of traditional teacher evaluation to propose the innovative directions for “Teacher Evaluation 2.0” and the initial results in the US. Secondly, the history and relevant information of the current Taiwanese teacher evaluation legislation was gathered and the content and focus of the draft was analyzed. Finally, the elements of the evaluation system design summarized in related researches were utilized as the analytical framework, including the following seven dimensions: evaluation purpose, evaluation design, evaluation content, evaluation methods, evaluators, the application of evaluation results and supporting measures. The implications were suggested to provide the reference for legislation and implementation of teacher evaluation in Taiwan.
參考文獻：	丁一顧、張德銳（2007）。臺北市教學輔導教師制度實施成效與問題的三年縱貫 研究。臺北市立教育大學學報，38（2），1-32。 王瑞壎（2009）。第一年參與試辦教師專業發展評鑑之歷史回顧。教師之友，50 （4），16-29。 方朝郁（2012）。六年之後—教師專業發展評鑑的成效、問題與展望。臺灣教育， 678，38-41。 方朝郁（2014）。初任教師形成性評鑑成效與影響因素之個案研究。教育學刊， 42，151-188。 行政院（2012，10 月）。行政院院會通過「教師法」修正草案。行政院全球資訊 網[ 即時新聞]。取自http://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content2.aspx?n=F8BAEBE9 491FC830&s=F1838CAD76CC1343 李奉儒（2006）。國中小學教師評鑑機制規劃之芻議：英國的經驗與啟示。教育 研究與發展期刊，2（3），193-216。 吳麗君、楊先芝（2009）。教師專業發展評鑑的文化故事。教育資料與研究， 89，89-118。 秦夢群 、張嘉原（2007）。中小學教師成績考核制度與問題分析。教育研究月刊， 158，115-124。 教育部（2011）。教育部補助辦理教師專業發展評鑑實施要點。臺北巿：作者。 教育部（2012）。教師法部分條文修正草案總說明。臺北巿：作者。 教育部（2013，6 月）。中小學教師評鑑相關制度公聽會與問卷調查開始囉！歡 迎各界提供建議！。教育部全球資訊網[ 即時新聞]。取自http://www.edu. tw/pages/detail.aspx?Node=1088&Page=19660&Index=3&wid=1112353C-88D0- 4BDB-914A-77A4952AA893 教育部（2014，4 月）。教育部對於推動中小學教師評鑑之說明。教育部全球資訊 網[ 即時新聞]。取自http://www.edu.tw/news1/detail.aspx?Node=1088&Page=2 3186&Index=1&WID=6635a4e8-f0de-4957-aa3e-c3b15c6e6ead 教育部（2016a）。教師專業發展評鑑將於106 學年度起轉型為教師專業發展支持 系統。教育部全球資訊網[ 即時新聞]。取自http://www.edu.tw/News_Content. aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=55BD57743E88E277 教育部（2016b）。教師專業標準指引。臺北巿：作者。 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。 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。 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。 張德銳（2012）。區分性教師評鑑制度的規劃與實施策略。臺北市立教育大學學報- 教育類，43（1），121-144。 馮莉雅（2010）。教師專業發展評鑑的實施與成效：以高雄市國小為例。教育研 究學報，44（2），85-109。 黃琇屏（2009）。教師專業發展評鑑試辦現況、困境與因應策略。教育資料與研究， 89，71-88。 黃嘉莉（2008）。NCATE 師資培育認證制度問題之探討。教育政策論壇，11（3）， 113-142。 劉美慧、黃嘉莉、康玉琳（2007）。臺灣教師評鑑制度之分析。當代教育研究， 15（3），37-68。 潘慧玲、王麗雲、張素貞、吳俊憲、鄭淑惠（2010）。試辦中小學教師專業發展 評鑑之方案評鑑（II）。教育部委託專案研究。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學教 育政策與行政研究所。 潘慧玲、陳文彥（2010）。教師專業發展評鑑促進組織學習之個案研究。教育研 究集刊，56（3），29-65。 顏國樑（2003）。從教師專業發展導向論實施教師評鑑的策略。教育資料集刊， 28，259-286。 Accomplished California Teachers. (2015). A coherent system of teacher evaluation for quality teaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(17), 1-22. Benedict, A. E., Thomas, R. A., Kimerling, J., & Leko, C. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: What every special education teacher should know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(5), 60-68. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating fi ndings from the MET project’s three-year study. The Education Digest, 78(8), 59-62. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Chiefs’ research primer: A summary of Measures of Effective Teaching’s (MET) recent findings, gathering feedback for teachingcombining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Washington, DC: Author. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 12-15. Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 35-39. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enchance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Goldrick, L. (2002). improving teacher evaluation to improve teaching quality. (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generateon evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hazi, H. M., & Rucinski, D. A. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student learning: A fi fty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5), 1-22. Hinchey, P. H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn from research. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Jerald, C. (2012). Ensuring accurate feedback from observations. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Kane, T. J., Staiger, D. O., & Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Policy and Practice Brief. MET Project. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Kersten, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principals’ insights and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 36(1), 47-67. Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J., & Toth, M. D. (2013). Teacher evaluation: That makes a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1989). What teachers should know and be able to do. Detroit, MI: Author. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2015). State of the states 2015: Evaluating teaching, leading and learnings. Washington, DC: Author. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2017). Running in place: How new teacher evaluations fail to live up to promises. Washington, DC: Author. Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY : Eye On Education. The New Teacher Project. (2007). Hiring, assignment, and transfer in Chicago public schools. Brooklyn, NY: Author. The New Teacher Project. (2010). Teacher evaluation 2.0. Brooklyn, NY: Author. Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. education sector reports Education Sector. 1201 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036. Viviano, T. (2012). Charlotte Danielson or national board Certification: A comparison and contrasting of two major national frameworks for teaching. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 27(2), 114-119. Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed For Quick Review, 75(2), 31-35. White, B. R., Cowhy, J., Stevens, D. W., & Sporte, S. E. (2012). Designing and implementing the next generation of teacher evaluation systems: Lessons learned from case studies in five illinois districts. research brief. Consortium on Chicago School Research. 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637. Williamson, R. (2011). Teacher evaluation. research brief. Pittsburgh, PA: Education Partnerships.