1 |
國民中小學校校長評鑑指標系統建構之研究 / A Study on Construction of the Principal Evaluation Indicators system for Elementary and Junior High Schools朱佳如 Unknown Date (has links)
本研究旨在建構國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統,了解指標系統之權重,並提出結論與建議,以供主管教育行政機關實施校長評鑑之參考,並提供後續研究之參考。
在研究方法部分,首先,以文獻分析探討校長評鑑之理論分析,了解校長評鑑之意義、相關概念、目的與程序;探討國內校長評鑑之現況;探討國內校長評鑑之相關研究;探討校長評鑑指標系統之建構,並初擬本研究國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統。第二,以專家審查問卷調查10位專家學者對本研究初擬之指標系統之意見。第三,採模糊德菲法問卷,以18位專精於校長評鑑之專家學者以及富實務經驗之校長為研究對象,以進行本研究指標系統之篩選。第四,採層級分析法問卷,以前揭篩選之指標系統為基礎建構問卷,同樣對18位研究對象進行調查,以建構本研究指標系統之權重。
根據研究之結果與分析,歸納本研究結論如下:
一、本研究建構之國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統共三階層,計有六大領域,十二個向度,三十八項指標。
二、本研究建構之國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統之第一階層各領域相對權重,排序如下:「課程與教學領導」領域佔23.3%、「學生與教師成長」領域佔21.7%、「行政領導與管理」領域佔19.9%、「政策與校務推展」領域佔13.9%、「專業成長與素養」領域佔12.1%、「資源與公關管理」領域佔9.1%。
三、本研究建構之國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統之第二階層各向度相對權重,在「課程與教學領導」領域下,以「教學領導」向度較重要,佔65.1%;在「學生與教師成長」領域下,以「學生學習」向度較重要,佔65.3%;在「行政領導與管理」領域下,以「行政領導」向度較重要,佔66%;在「政策與校務推展」領域下,以「校務推展」向度較重要,佔70.1%;在「專業成長與素養」領域下,以「理念操守」向度較重要,佔70.6%;在「資源與公關管理」領域下,以「資源管理」向度較重要,佔54.6%。
四、本研究建構之國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統之第三階層各指標相對權重,在「教學領導」向度下,以「協助教師實施多元與適性的教學與評量」最重要,佔38.5%;在「課程管理」向度下,以「主持課程發展會議,帶領教師規劃與實施學校課程」最重要,佔41.9%;在「學生學習」向度下,以「培養品德良好、身心健康的學生」最重要,佔29.2%;「教師成長」向度下,以「鼓勵教師參與課程教學研究,促進課程教學效能與創新」最重要,佔40.9%;「行政領導」向度下,以「激勵教職員工生動機,塑造學習文化與共同領導」最重要,佔31.3%;「人力管理」向度下,以「展現知人善任能力,使教職員工適才適所」最重要,佔46.6%;「校務推展」向度下,以「依照學校背景、特性與需求,型塑共享的學校願景」最重要,佔39.5%;「政策執行」向度下,以「將重要教育政策與法令融入校務發展計畫,並落實與檢討」最重要,佔44.9%;「理念操守」向度下,以「具有良好品格操守,遵守專業倫理規範」最重要,佔36.7%;「專業成長」向度下,以「具有專業責任感與服務熱忱,以專業領導同仁」最重要,佔47.7%;「資源管理」向度下,以「妥善運用各項資源,營造優質教學環境」最重要,佔36.7%;「公共關係」向度下,以「與家長、社區維持良好關係,促進交流與資源共享」最重要,佔51.9%。
最後,本研究根據研究結果,提出相關建議,俾供教育主管機關、國民中小學校長以及後續研究之參考。 / The purpose of the study is to construct the principal evaluation indicators system for elementary and junior high schools, understand the weights of the indicators system, and provide conclusions and suggestions for education administrative institutions to implement principal evaluation and future study.
As for research methods, firstly, by literature review, discussing the theory basis of the principal evaluation to understand the signification, related concepts, purposes, and procedure; discussing the domestic current status of the principal evaluation; discussing the domestic related studies of principal evaluation; discussing the construction of the principal evaluation indicators system, and preliminarily develop the principal evaluation indicators system for elementary and junior high schools. Secondly, investigating the suggestions of 10 experts by questionnaire. Thirdly, selecting the indicators system by fuzzy Delphi method questionnaire for 18 experts and principals. In the final stage, constructing the weights of the indicators system by Analytic Hierarchy Process questionnaire for the same 18 experts and principals.
The main conclusions are as follow:
1. The principal evaluation indicators system for elementary and junior high schools consists with 6 areas, 12 dimensions and 38 indicators in total.
2. The weights of 6 areas are: ‘curriculum and instructional leadership’ area (23.3%), ‘student and teacher growth’ area (21.7%), ‘administrative leadership and management’ area (19.9%), ‘policy and school affair promotion’ area (13.9%), ‘professional growth and integrity’ area (12.1%), ‘resource and public relations management’ area (9.1%).
3. The weights of 12 dimensions are as follow: in ‘curriculum and instructional leadership’ area, ‘instructional leadership’ dimensionis more important( 65.1%); in ‘student and teacher growth’ area, ‘student learning’ dimension is more important( 65.3%); in ‘administrative leadership and management’ area, ‘administrative leadership’ dimension is more important( 66%); in ‘policy and school affair promotion’ area, ‘school affair promotion’ dimension is more important( 70.1%); in ‘professional growth and integrity’ area, ‘idea and moral integrity’ dimension is more important( 70.6%); in ‘resource and public relations management’ area, ‘resource management’ dimension is more important( 54.6%).
4. The weights of 38 indicators are as follow: in ‘instructional leadership’ dimension, ‘assisting teachers to implement diverse and adaptive instruction and assessment’ is most important(38.5%) ; in ‘curriculum leadership’ dimension, ‘directing curriculum development conferences, and leading teachers to plan and implement curriculum’ is most important(41.9%); in ‘student learning’ dimension, ‘training moral and healthy student’ is most important(29.2%); in ‘teacher growth’ dimension, ‘encouraging teacher to participate curriculum and instructional research, and promoting curriculum and instructional innovation and efficacy’ is most important(40.9%); in ‘administrative leadership’ dimension, ‘encouraging faculty and student motivation, and shaping learning culture and participating leadership’ is most important(31.3%); in ‘human resource management’ dimension, ‘picking the right man for the right job’ is most important(46.6%); in ‘school affair promotion’ dimension, ‘according to school background, feature and needs, establishing shared school vision’ is most important(39.5%); in ‘policy implementation’ dimension, ‘integrating important education policies into school development plans, implementing and reviewing the school development plans’ is most important(44.9%); in ‘idea and moral integrity’ dimension, ‘possessing moral integrity, and compling with profession ethics’ is most important(36.7%);in ‘professional growth’ dimension, ‘possessing professional responsibility and service enthusiasm, and leading members by profession’ is most important(47.7%); in ‘resource management’ dimension, ‘properly using resources, and shaping high quality instructional environment’ is most important(36.7%); in ‘public relations’ dimension, ‘maintaining good relation with patents and community, promoting exchange ,and sharing resources’ is most important(51.9%).
In conclusion, the findings and results in hope of providing suggestions for educational administrative institutions, elementary and junior high school principals, and future study.
|
Page generated in 0.0246 seconds