No description available.

This qualitative study sought to identify the common behaviors and practices of principals in high achieving standards-based schools. Three schools were examined in the study. These schools were selected from a ten county area and had demonstrated consistent and unusual growth on the Academic Performance Index (API). The practices of principals were identified through a phenomenological study of the experiences of successfully implementing a standards-based instructional system. Principals were interviewed individually, and focus groups of teachers were interviewed separately. Both groups were asked about the principal behaviors and practices that led the school to achieve academic success. Principals and teachers across the three sites identified similar practices including high expectations of students and staff, planning and goal setting based on student achievement data, frequent monitoring of student achievement, teacher collaboration, principal classroom visits, principal visibility on campus, principal accessibility, and a school culture that promoted trust and team work.

這是集合專家智庫與教師協同研究團隊共同參與、分享與學習的旅程。其研究目的在於釐清教改相關詞彙的真正意涵，探究標準取向課程理論與實踐的相關策略及其配套，以建構一合理可行的標準取向課程發展模式，從而成就課程變革由混沌轉為清明的契機。首先，透過文獻探討與工作坊研習，集體慎思標準、能力指標、核心問題、科際整合、指標性評分等關聯性意義及其對課程變革的影響，瞭解學校課程地圖的規劃、課程發展路徑、及評量機制的更新；次而對照台北美國學校的實地觀摩體驗，參與研究教師協同配合學校教學，進行英語文與其他學科整合的課程設計；最後在台北二所國中，以協同行動研究方法，進行理論與實作交互辯證的實驗教學，探索標準取向課程落實在教室現場的可行性。運用觀察、訪談、錄影、日誌與反省札記等，自2003年9月至2004年6月，長期實地觀測參與研究教師進行課程構思、實作與反省的歷程，比較學生的實作表現的差異，分析標準取向課程實施的方式及其限制，了解核心問題、指標性評分的功能，及其對學習邁向深度理解的影響。綜合研究分析與討論，獲致以下的結論： 1. 篩選標準是展示優質教學的重要手段，而標準的落實必須是團隊分享而非獨立作業。核心問題與探究學習則是邁向理解學習的關鍵指標。 2. 課程是為解決問題才產生的，科際整合的課程應該是用來解決課程需碎片段的組合，並提供更多的關聯性。有助於學生袪除傳統知識的刻板印象，主動積極擴展學習的視野。 3. 協同行動研究即是一解決問題，探究學習的歷程，它需要熱情、協同、好奇、反省與承諾，它也是增進教師專業知能成長的有力方式。 4. 能力的培養不是速成的，必須採標準與指標性評分活用於教室教學，以規準引導，範例說明，運用實作表現重組學生的知識基模，化為智慧能力，以落實多元質性評量的真意。 5. 課程改革應以期望學習成果或意圖的學習成果做為領域的課程目標，透過單元課程融入情意價值的潛移默化，以展現課程美學。 同時，陳述研究心得與建議，並對後續進階研究作出具體的規劃。簡言之，整體研究均在揭示：如何使學生喜歡上課，享受學習樂趣，擁有契而不捨的探究精神與實作能力，以彰顯教育改革的核心價值。 / This was a school reform study to enhance teachers’ capacity. The purpose of the research was to explore the standards-based curriculum development and build an accessible procedure. The whole process including three periods: (1)Group deliberation period, the researcher and partners learned a great deal about the practical knowledge needed to meet the objective of the study in the workshop. And then widely sifted the literature review materials. (2)Development period, the researcher and teammate made two problem-based interdisciplinary curriculum. And design rubrics to improve the approach of performance based assessment. (3)Implementation period, The field study with collaboration is to investigate the trial outcomes. There are five conclusions resulted from the study, which were as follows: (1)Standards, benchmarks and essential questions are key factors to curriculum quality. (2)The integrated curriculum program is to enhance students’ learning toward enduring understanding, and help them to become independent learners. (3)Teachers’ teamwork and professional conversation is the best policy to solve problems. (4)Professional capacity development is the critical mission of schooling. (5)The goal of curriculum renewal is to empower students to be active learners thus taking responsibility for their own studies. Above all, Teachers as transformative knowledge workers, think globlly, and act locally, to generate exciting new learning models and real-world performance standards. Meanwhile, the researcher does a follow-up project that support the creation and adoption of interdisciplinary curriculum frameworks to reflect today’s complicated socities.. / 第一章　緒　　論……………………………………………………… 1 第一節　研究背景、動機與重要性………………………………　5 第二節　研究目的…………………………………………………… 13 第三節　研究問題………………………………………………… 14 第四節　研究限制…………………………………………………　 15 第五節　名詞釋義…………………………………………………　 17 第二章　文獻探討……………………………………………………… 21 第一節　標準的核心理念及其與課程的關係…………………… 23 第二節　深度理解、核心問題與標準的關連性 ………………　42 第三節　科際整合課程意義與設計原則…………………………　57 第四節　探究學習與批判思考教學………………………………　71 第五節　指標性評分意涵及其應用 ……………………………　95 第六節　多元智慧的教師知識管理……………………………… 113 第三章　研究方法與實施策略…………………………………… 127 第一節　進入教室場域前的準備工作………………………… 128 第二節 研究者的相關經驗與研究方式……………………… 131 第三節　進入教室場域的研究策略……………………………… 134 第四節　研究資料蒐集與整理分析…………………………… 145 第五節　研究品質多元觀點的建置…………………………… 149 第四章　研究發現與討論分析(一)……………………………… 153 第一節　課程慎思與文獻探究…………………………………… 154 第二節　課程發展與科際整合…………………………………… 166 第三節　課程實踐與行動探究 (一)…………………………… 183 第四節　課程實踐與行動探究（二）…………………………… 201 第五章　研究發現與討論分析(二)……………………………… 211 第一節　知識藝術與建構學習…………………………………… 212 第二節　科際整合與教室評量…………………………………… 219 第三節　心智習性與知識管理…………………………………… 226 第四節　思考教學與閱讀理解…………………………………… 236 第六章　結論與建議………………………………………………… 245 第一節　結論與省思……………………………………………… 246 第二節　分享與建議……………………………………………… 254 參考資料……………………………………………………………………… 237 附　　錄 附錄一………………………………………………………………………… 261 附錄二………………………………………………………………………… 271 附錄三………………………………………………………………………… 295 附錄四………………………………………………………………………… 321 附錄五………………………………………………………………………… 337

Questa ricerca presenta una panoramica introduttiva delle principali variabili (storiche, sociali, economiche, istituzionali, culturali, ideologiche e valoriali) che condizionano il policy-making educativo degli Stati Uniti e descrive le riforme e innovazioni più significative introdotte negli ultimi trent’anni nel sistema scolastico americano. Quali fattori socio-culturali, urgenze storiche, azioni e convinzioni politiche stanno alla base delle riforme in atto? Come stanno mutando gli equilibri di potere fra governo federale, stati membri e autorità locale e quali sono le ricadute di questo riallineamento sulla governance scolastica? L’approccio seguito per esaminare le principali riforme ed innovazioni (dal movimento per gli standard comuni, al collegamento fra i test scolastici e accountability per i risultati, alle charter school) è quello proprio della policy research, disciplina pressoché sconosciuta a quanti s’interessano di problematiche pedagogiche in Italia ma che può arricchire la capacità di lettura e comprensione di molte questioni dibattute quando si parla di riforme dell’istruzione. / this research provides a comprehensive introduction to the field of education policies in the United States. Blending together theoretical analysis and practical examples, it examines the main variables (history, economy, demographics, political structures, ideologies, values, political culture) that influence the policy environment. What social and economic needs does the U.S. education system cater to? What sociocultural factors, pressing historical circumstances, political choices and actions and beliefs (independent) underlie the current education reforms? What are the implications of the shift of power over education policy from the school and local levels to the federal and state levels? Current issues such as charter schools, high-stakes testing, standards-based reform, and school choice are analyzed in retrospective and perspective using a policy research approach to public problems and policy alternatives. Almost unknown to Italian educational experts, particularly in academia, policy research can expand our general understanding and knowledge about problems and choices when education reform is under discussion.

This study provided information for policymakers and practitioners by comparing performance of eighth grade students in 2007 on state standardized reading assessments and by the four census-defined regions identified by NAEP. NCLB required states to set their own performance standards and to create their own data collection instruments resulting in increased transparency of student performance data and a lack of uniform accountability systems. The inability of educators, policy-makers, and the general public to make state-by-state comparisons in the area of reading was the catalyst for the study. NAEP data were collected from NCES and state performance data were collected from the USDOE SY 2006-2007 CSPR to determine if a relationship existed between eighth grade students' state scores and NAEP scores in the four census-defined regions. Data were further disaggregated by low socioeconomic students and by nonwhite students. A regression analysis was statistically significant in predicting: a) the state proficient and above scores from the NAEP proficient and above scores, b) the low socioeconomic state proficient and above scores from the NAEP proficient and above scores in the West census-defined region, and c) the nonwhite state proficient and above scores from the NAEP proficient and above scores in all regions. A regression analysis was not statistically significant in predicting low socioeconomic state proficient and above scores from the low socioeconomic NAEP proficient and above scores in the Midwest, South and Northeast regions.