本研究旨在建構國民中學適性輔導評估指標，當前在十二年國民基本教育的推動之中，落實學校的適性輔導工作是重點任務。首先藉由文獻探討適性輔導相關論述為基礎，初擬指標架構，運用專家問卷以及模糊德菲術（fuzzy Delphi method），並以桃園縣政府教育局行政人員、桃園縣國民中學校長、教務主任、輔導主任、輔導與諮商中心專業人員及教師為研究對象，透過問卷蒐集政策利害關係人之意見，共發出10 份專家問卷及16 份正式問卷。根據正式問卷填答結果，計算各層面、項目及指標之三角模糊數（triangular fuzzy number），再將其反模糊化（defuzzification），求得各層面、項目及指標之效用總值，自訂門檻值為0.6，篩選出3層面、17項目及37個指標，並以歸一化之方式確立各層面、項目及指標權重。各層面之權重由高至低依序為課程規劃與教學活動（33.9%）、組織與行政運作（33.6%）以及生涯檔案建置與應用（32.5%）。最後根據此指標架構對教育行政機關、學校及未來研究提出建議。 / The study aims to construct a junior high school adaptive counseling evaluation indicators. The implementation of adaptive counseling in the school becomes the foremost important task when promoted by the current 12-Year Basic Education. The study first applies a literature review to discuss the adaptive counseling related discourses as the foundation, drafting the indicator framework, and using expert questionnaire and fuzzy Delphi method to conduct the questionnaire survey on the administrative personnel of Department of Education, Taoyuan County, junior high school principles, directors of teaching affairs, counseling directors, counseling and experts at the consultation center, thereby to collect the opinions of policy stakeholders through questionnaires. A total of 10 expert questionnaires and 16 official questionnaires were issued. The results of official questionnaire then underwent calculation of triangular fuzzy numbers for the different levels, items and indicators, followed by defuzzification to yield the total valid values of the different levels, items and indicators. The self-developed threshold value is 0.6 with 3 levels, 17 items and 37 indicators selected, which is applied with normalization to validate the different levels, items and indicator weights. The weights of different levels are sorted in descending order, namely course plan and teaching activity (33.9%), organization and administrative operation (33.6%) and the career file establishment and application (32.5%). Finally, the study proposes suggestions for educational administrative agencies, schools and future researchers based on this indicator framework.

自Zadeh(1965)提出模糊集合論，將集合論之二值邏輯擴充至多值邏輯後，使得集合論更為完善，能更精確地描述實際問題之特性。由於教師評鑑的規準建構與測量方法皆深具模糊性，因此有必要針對評鑑問題之模糊特性，選擇適當之模糊理論。本研究以模糊德菲法以整合專家意見以建構評鑑指標，續以模糊層級分析法計算各指標間的相對權重。教師評鑑除考量量化指標外，由於質化指標常以語意詞句(linguistic terms)表達，故採取Chen和Hwang (1992)所提之轉換法將模糊評語集轉換為明確得點值(crisp score)。並利用模糊綜合評估以從事實際教師評鑑之結果分析，其中涉及不同運算算子間的差異比較。 本研究結果發現：教師評鑑指標體系包括教師評鑑指標共可區分為九大類主指標四十一項次指標。其主指標分別為「專業知識」、「教學準備能力」、「教學策略與實施能力」、「教學評量能力」、「運用教學資源能力」、「班級經營能力」、「專業責任」、「校務參與及服務績效」與「人際溝通能力」等九類；「專業知識類」次指標包括「任教科目的專門知識（含提供完整的知識架構）」、「教學方法的專業知識（含清楚教導概念）」、「課程與教材方面的知識（包括清楚目前的學習內容與先前的學習內容及未來的學習內容之間的關連）」、「教學情境的專業知識」、「輔導方面的知識（包括了解學生的心理）」與「學習與發展方面的知識（包括精熟學生背景知識和經驗）」等六項，「教學準備能力類」次指標包括「訂定教學計畫，妥善準備教具」、「根據學生學習需求及課程標準，訂定適合的教學目標」等兩項，「教學策略與實施能力類」次指標包括「教導認知、情意及動作技能的學習與遷移」、「教材展示精確又清楚」、「運用適當教學方法的技巧」、「對教學內容的解釋、舉例之能力」、「教學內容組織能力」、「引起並維持學生的學習動機與注意力」、「教學表達能力」、「傾聽兒童說話的技巧」、「促使學生延展其思考」等九項，「教學評量能力類」次指標包括「評量兒童表現並提供回饋與指導」、「根據評量結果改進教學歷程」、「適時而正確地評估學生進步情形」等三項，「運用教學資源能力類」次指標包括「妥善佈置教學環境」、「運用多樣教學資源」等兩項，「班級經營能力類」包括「輔導學生的能力（包括輔導學生因學業及日常生活所產生的困擾）」、「指導學生遵守生活常規，養成良好行為習慣」、「教室管理的技巧（包括建立愉快的班級氣氛、建立教室常規和程序）」、「有效運用獎懲手段」、「訂定適切的班級規範」與「創造適當的學習環境」等六項，「專業責任類」次指標包括「關懷與瞭解學生」、「工作勤惰」、「教學認真」、「教育信念」、「研究進修」與「敬業精神」等六項，「校務參與及服務績效類」次指標包括「主動積極協助校務推展」、「配合學校行政詳建各項學生檔案」、「對學校活動積極參與」等三項，「人際溝通能力類」包括「同儕教師溝通交流分享互動之能力」、「和家長保持溝通互動以維持良好的親師關係」、「建立和維持師生關係」、「教師能公平、公正地對待全部學生」等四項，合計四十一項次指標。 / Since Zadeh(1965) proposed the fuzzy sets theorem and further developed the theorem from　two-value logic to continues multi-value logic, the assembly theorem had become more completed and was capable of depicting the characteristics of real problem more specifically. Because the standard structure and measuring method of teacher appraisal are both ambiguous, it is necessary to adopt an suitable fuzzy theorem for this ambiguous characteristic of teacher appraisal. The study incorporated the opinions of specialists into structural evaluation indicator based upon Fuzzy Delphi and further calculated the relative weights among each indicator by Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. The teacher appraisal not only need to quantify the indicator but also to qualify them using linguistic terms to express. Therefore, the study adopted the Chen-Hwang (1992) transfer method to transform the ambiguous evaluation terms into specific crisp scores and used the composite of fuzzy evaluation to engage the analysis of real teacher appraisal involving differentiated comparison among individual operants. The outcomes of the study demonstrated that the indicator system of teacher appraisal including teacher appraisal indicator consist of 9 major indicator and 41 minor indicator. The 9 major indicator were professional knowledge, capability of teaching preparation, teaching strategy and implementation ability, capability of teaching assessment , capability of employing teaching resource, capability of class management, professional duty, involvement of school managing and service achievement, and capability of interpersonal communication. The 6 sub-indicator in the professional knowledge category includes professional knowledge of the specific discipline with a comprehensive knowledge structure, professional knowledge of teaching methods included a lucid teaching concept, professional knowledge of class and teaching material included understanding of the connection between the current and future learning contents. professional knowledge of teaching situations, professional knowledge of consulting included understanding of student psychology and professional knowledge of learning and developing included awareness of student background knowledge and experiences. There were two sub-indicator in the capability of teaching preparation (making a teaching agenda and preparing teaching tools, and planing a proper teaching goal based upon student learning need and class standard. The 9 sub-indicator in the teaching strategy and implementation ability were, understanding of guidance and learning and transferring of mental and physical skills, demonstration of teaching material precisely and clearly, employment of proper teaching skills, the interpretation of teaching contents and exemplification faculty, ability to organize teaching contents, inspire and maintain learning motivation and attention of student, faculty of teaching expression, listening skills concerning the child talk, and stimulate the extension of student thinking. The 3 sub-indicator in capability of teaching evaluation were, evaluation of child perfor-mance in order to render guidance and feedback, rescheduling the teaching agenda according to the evaluation outcomes, and accurately and timely evaluating student progression . The capability of employing teaching resource category consisted of implementing teaching environment congruently and adopting diversified teaching resources. The 6 sub-indicator in capability of class management were faculty of student guidance (consulting the student problems causing by class-learning and everyday activities), lead students to fellow the normal rules and to keep righteous behavior habits, class room managing skills ( establish an amicable classroom atermosphere and the classroom guidelines and procedures), proper employing award/ punish system, making the proper classroom paradigm, and create suitable learning environment. The 6 subindicator in professional duty were concerning and understanding students, working habits, teaching sincerity, teaching believe, advancing research, reverence to occupation, The 3 subin-dicator in involvement of school administration and service achievement were, actively assisting the school administration to implement, cooperating the school administration to establish the student records, actively engaging the school activities. The capability of interpersonal communication category composed of 4 subindicator, capability of communicating and interacting with teaching colleagues, capability of communicating and interacting with student parents and maintain a good teacher-parent relationship, establishing and keeping the teacher-student relationship, treating all student with equality and fairness. The grand total of sub-indicator were 41.