The purpose of this study was to explore whether National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) professional standards is applicable to Taiwan teacher education policy.
Based on review of literatures on NCATE professional standards and evaluation items of institution for teacher education in Taiwan, the researcher constructed four accreditation fields, nine professional standards and fifty-two professional indicators for accreditation standards of institutions for teacher education in Taiwan.
The Delphi method was adopted to acquire experts¡¦ opinions and suggestions about the fitness of accreditation standards and indicators. The study used purposive sampling. The samples were made up by the chiefs, teachers, and administrative staffs from the institutions for teacher education and the scholars of teacher education, 15 samples in sum. Each of them had to fill out three waves of Delphi questionnaires.
According to documentation and the Delphi questionnaires, the conclusions of this study were as follows:
I.Accreditation system
1.Lack of professional organization and internal unit for the accreditation system of Taiwan teacher education.
2.Lack of effective tracking mechanism in evaluation of institution for teacher education.
3.Lack of sufficient time for evaluation members to do on-site visit.
4.NCATE uses the ¡§quality¡¨ method to execute the accreditation process.
5.The result of the accreditation is difficult to achieve the purpose of improving school effectiveness.
II.In terms of professional standards
1.The professional standards of accreditation system include the four fields, ten professional standards and forty-one professional indicators.
2.¡§A-Input indicator¡¨ is the most important in the important rank.
3.¡§A-1-Education goals and features¡¨ is the most important in the important rank.
4.¡§A-1-1Education aim and vision¡¨,¡¨ A-1-3institution features¡¨, and ¡§A-2-3 Improvement measure¡¨ are the most important in the important rank.
5.The accreditation system of teacher education needs a set of standardized and specific standards, indicators, and criterions.
6.Lack evaluation items of ¡§Candidate performance¡¨, ¡§Faculty professional practices in teaching¡¨, and ¡§diversity¡¨ in the evaluation of institution for teacher education.
7.The cooperation between the institutions for teacher education and institutions for intern teachers were less concerned.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:NSYSU/oai:NSYSU:etd-0717110-211536 |
| Date | 17 July 2010 |
| Creators | Hung, Hsiao-ya |
| Contributors | Der-Long Fang, Jun-Chih, Liao, Pei-Yi, Chou, Ching-Hwa, Tsai |
| Publisher | NSYSU |
| Source Sets | NSYSU Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Archive |
| Language | Cholon |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.lib.nsysu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search/view_etd?URN=etd-0717110-211536 |
| Rights | not_available, Copyright information available at source archive |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds