本研究旨在探討有關高職教師評鑑制度的相關理念、了解我國高職教師對評鑑實施策略之看法差異性、了解我國高職教師對評鑑指標之看法差異性、以建構高職教師評鑑實施策略與評鑑指標。本研究以台灣地區公私立高級職業學校(不包括高級中學附設職業類科及綜合中學)之教師為母群體，以分層隨機方式抽取公立學校30所，私立學校30所，每校14名，樣本共計840份進行問卷調查；另輔以資深教師訪談等方式進行資料收集分析與討論。
本研究以「高職教師評鑑之研究調查問卷」與「高職教師評鑑之研究訪談大綱」為工具。問卷獲得之資料採用T考驗（T-Test）、單因子變異數分析（ANOVA）及雪費事後比較（Scheffe' Posterior Comparisons）分析。獲得之重要結論與具體建議如下。
壹、重要結論：
一、本研究獲得我國高職教師評鑑制度之意義、目的、方法、程序、與配套措施等重要理念。
二、不同背景因素的教師對教師評鑑策略看法仍有差異存在。
三、除性別與選擇不同委辦評鑑機構兩種背景因素之教師對評鑑指標看法沒有差異外，其餘不同背景教師對教師評鑑指標的看法仍有差異存在。
四、高職教師評鑑之策略可分別以：教師評鑑的功能、評鑑規劃階段項目、評鑑平時準備階段項目、評鑑小組評鑑階段項目、教師評鑑之委員代表性等方面探討。
五、高職教師評鑑指標可分為：教學知能、教學態度、學生輔導、行政服務、及品德與專業等五個領域；其中除了學生輔導未細分次領域外，其餘均有二至三項的次領域；次領域下再細分共有六十八項細項。
貳、建議事項：
一、及早準備規劃我國高職教師評鑑制度。
二、教師評鑑頻率以每二至三年由教育主管單位進行專業評鑑一次為原則。
三、高職教師評鑑有其獨特性，不宜與一般中小學一起規劃評鑑制度。
四、為求評鑑之公平性，宜由教育主管單位成立評鑑小組執行評鑑。
五、高職教師評鑑採漸進式的進行規劃，宜先行試辦後再擴大辦理。
六、評鑑指標應由教育主管單位成立之評鑑小組擬定大綱，至於各評鑑細項目指標，則由各校自行發展，再報各主管機關核定。
七、教師評鑑與公務人員新制考績制度之結合有待進一步的研究。
八、學校宜加強宣導教師評鑑的意義與其功能，建立教師教學評鑑的共識。
九、以行動研究方案進行教師評鑑試辦活動。
十、建議私立學校加強教師評鑑理念的溝通。
十一、各校組成評鑑指標規劃小組，擬定與發展各校特色指標。
十二、各校應訂立評鑑計畫，依計畫準備各項教師評鑑工作。
十三、各校應研訂教師評鑑手冊，以供教師參考及後續研究的建議。
十四、主動參與教師評鑑，以促進教學成效與教師專業成長。
十五、在平時規劃與準備教學檔案階段，隨時督促自我教學成長。
十六、後續研究可以高職個別類科教師評鑑實施之研究及高職教師分職級、薪級之研究為題，繼續作深入地探討。

This research aims to study the related conception of the appraisal system of vocational high school teachers, to understand the different views of the appraisal implementation strategies, to understand teachers different views on the appraisal index, so as to build up an appraisal implementation strategies and index for the vocational high school teachers.
This research takes the teaches who teach at public and private vocational high school in Taiwan as mother body, randomly draws 30 public schools and 30 private schools, 14 teachers respectively, and gets 840 copies of questionnaire to be the investigation samples in total, in addition to interview senior teachers to collect more information as for analyst and discussion.
This research uses “ A Research Questionnaire for Vocational High School Teachers Appraisal “ and “ A Research Interview Outline for Vocational High School Teachers Appraisal “ as tools. T-Tset, ANOVA and Scheffe’ Posterior Comparisons are used to analyze the information getting from abovementioned tools.
1. Important Conclusions:
(1) This research gets important conception on the meaning, purpose, method, procedure as well as relative programs on the appraisal system of the vocational high school teachers in Taiwam.
(2) Teachers in different background elements still exist different views on the appraisal strategies.
(3) The teachers from the same sex or choosing the same organization to operate the appraisal affairs show the some views on teacher’s appraisal index, the teachers in different background elements still show their different views on the appraisal index.
(4) The strategies for the teacher’s appraisal are divided into functions, items in project level, items in ordinary preparation level, items for the appraisal unit in appraisal level and representation of the appraisal teachers.
(5) The appraisal index is divided into five categories as teaching knowledge and ability, teaching attitude, students counseling, administration service, as well as personal character and profession. Except students counseling does not have its sub-category, the rest have two or three sub-categories, and 68 items following the sub-categories.
2. Suggestions:
(1) Suggestions to the educational administration:
(a) Program the appraisal system of the vocational high school teachers earlier.
(b) The frequency of the appraisal should be conducted by the educational administration once every two or three years.
(c) The appraisal for vocational high school is unique, it should not be programmed with ordinary high schools and elementary schools.
(d) For the fairness, the appraisal should be conducted by educational administration.
(e) The appraisal should take gradual programs, from an experimental basis to overall practice.
(f) The outline of the appraisal index should be set up by the educational administration, different schools can develop their items and get approval by their educational administration.
(g) It takes further research on the combination of the teachers
appraisal and governmental employees service grading.
(2) Suggestions to schools:
(a) Schools should enhance the publicity on the meaning and the function of teacher’s appraisal, so as to build up teachers common consensus.
(b) Taking action research project to conduct experimental practice.
(c) The private schools should enhance their communications with teacher in the ideal of the appraisal.
(d) Each school should establish its own appraisal index unit for setting up its own specific index of the school.
(e) Each school should establish its own appraisal program for its own work.
(f) Each school should have its own teacher’s appraisal manual for teacher’s reference.
(3) Suggestions to teachers:
(a) Teachers should positively participate in the teacher’s appraisal, in order to improve their teaching effect and professional growth.
(b) During the ordinary teaching file preparation period, teachers should force themselves in self-teaching-growth.

一、中文部分
王立行、饒見維(民81)。教育專業化與教育實習的實施。載於中華民國師範教育學會(主編)，教育專業(頁183-209)。台北:師大書苑。
朱淑雅(民87)，國民小學教師評鑑效標之研究。國立台北師範大學國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)
行政院教育改革審議委員會(民84)。第一期諮議報告書。台北:作者。
吳政達(民87)。教師遴選制度改革與教師評鑑。載於國立新竹師範學院(主編)，教育改革的理念與做法（頁163-193)。新竹:國立新竹師範學院。
吳政達(民88)，國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究 –模糊德菲術、模糊層級分析法與模糊綜合評估法之應用。國立政治大學教育系博士論文(未出版)
吳培源（1999），英國教育視導制度。高雄：復文圖書。
吳清山（民83），美國教育組織與行政。台北：五南。
洪榮昭(民84)，我國高級工業職業學校專科目教師師資檢定之內涵架構及模式研究。國科會專案研究。
秦夢群(民86)。教育行政:實務部分。台北:五南。
高強華(民84)。論提昇教師專業成長的「教師評鑑」。載於中國教育學會(主編)，教育評鑑(頁247-272)。台北:師大書苑。
高雄市政府教育局(民89)，高雄市高級中等以下學校教師教學專業評鑑試行要點草案。http://www.kcta.org.tw/rule/rule_view.asp?No=67 (2001/4/13)
張德銳(民81)。國民小學教師評鑑之研究。載於中華民國師範教育學會(主編)，教育專業(頁241-284)。台北:師大書苑。
教育改革委員會(民84)。第一期諮議報告書。台北:作者。
教育部(民87)，公立學校教職員成績考核辦法。中華民國八十七年七月一日教育部臺(87)參字第八七○七○七七一號令修正發布。
臺北市政府局（民91），臺北市90學年度第二學期公私立高國中校長會議手冊(頁52-54頁)
教育部(民91)。教育部對公立中小學教師考核評鑑的方向。2002年10月2日取自http://www.edu.tw
郭玉霞(民83)。美國近年來教師評量的發展與革新。載於中國教育學會(主編)，教育改革(頁239-254)台北:師大書苑。
陳瑞榮(民84)，工業職業學校教師評鑑模式之研究。頁77-81。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)
陳聖謨（民87），美國教師評鑑制度的發展及其對我國的啟示。教育研究，第6期，p.p.176-179。高雄：國立高雄師範大學教育學系。
陳聖謨(民88)，國民小學教師教學反省之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系研究所博士論文。(未出版)
傅木龍（1998），教育評鑑－英國中小學教師評鑑制度研究。台北：師大書苑。
傅木龍(民87)，英國中小學評鑑制度研究及其對我國之啟示。國立政治大學教育學系研究所博士論文(未出版)。
湯誌龍(民90)，中小學教師評鑑制度之研究--澳洲維多利亞省的實施經驗。比較教育，第51期，頁105-127。
湯誌龍(民90)，中小學教師評鑑制度可行性之研究－澳洲維多利亞省實施經驗。八十九年度行政院人事行政局公教人員出國專題研究報告。(未出版)
湯誌龍、劉寶貴(民90)，高職教師評鑑可行方案之探討。技職教育新意涵國際學術研討會。論文編號：A16。2001.10.17~19. (http:/tve.adsldns.org:978/seminar/)
湯誌龍、劉寶貴(民91)，高職教師對教學評鑑之意見分析。技術與職業教育，第70期，頁22-25。
黃光雄(民72)，能力本位師範教育，高雄：復文書局。
黃坤錦(民84)，「從教師專業論教師評鑑」，中國教育學會主編，教育評鑑，p.229-246。
黃炳煌(民84)，高級中學以下學校及幼稚園教師資格檢定可行方案之研究。教育部專案研究。
詹志禹(民86)。教評會新聘良師的專業規準。中等教育，48(3)，12-15。
歐陽教(1992)，教師評鑑模式之研究。(協同研究人員：高強華、王秋絨、李春芳、張德銳、李孟文、蔡清田)國立台灣師範大學教育研究中心專題研究報告。NO.0017，1-189。
歐陽教(民74)，朽木可雕－－問題與對策。學校倫理研究，頁161-181。
歐陽教、張德銳(1993)，教師評鑑模式之研究，教育研究通訊，1:2，頁90-100。
蔡培村(民85)，我國實施中小學教師職級制度的基本構想。蔡培村主編：教師生涯與職級制度。頁157-160。高雄：復文圖書。
謝文全(民78)。教育行政:理論與實務。台北:文景。
簡紅珠(民82)。教學評鑑的內涵與實施。載於伍振鶩＜主編＞，教育評鑑(頁173-189)。台北:南宏。
簡紅珠(民83) ，促進教師專業成長的新途徑---國小教師教學評鑑系統。教育改革專題研討會，中國教育學會。(與張德銳、裘友善、高淑芳、成虹飛、張美玉合著)
簡茂發.李虎雄等(民86)，中小學教師應具備的基本素質。教育研究資訊,5(3)，1-13。
羅文基(民85)，從生涯理論論教師職級制度的推展。蔡培村主編：教師生涯與職級制度。頁19-20。高雄：復文圖書。
羅清水（2002），教師專業發展的另一途徑－談教師評鑑制度的建立。2002年9月24日，取自http://www.iest.edu.tw/issue/j1/v16n1/1.htm
蘇秋永(民85)，高中教師評鑑之研究－高中教師自我評鑑量表之發展。頁2。淡江大學教育資料科學研究所碩士論文。(未出版)

二、英文部分

Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL). (1993). Appraisal and you. London：ATL.
Beare, H. (1989). The Australian Policy Context. Edited by Lokan, J. and McKenzie, P., Teacher Appraisal Issues and Approaches. Australia, Victoria: the Australia Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Beerens, D., R. (2000). Evaluating Teachers for Professional Growth.,CA California: Crowin Press, Inc.
Bollington, R., Hopkins, D., & West, M .(1990). An introduction to teacher appraisal: A Professional development approach. London: Cassell.
DEET (2000). New Career Structure For Victorian Teachers. Department of education, employment and traninghttp://ww.eduvic.vic.gov.au/career.htm (10. Nov. 2000)
Department of Education and Science (DES). (1983). Teaching quality. London：HMSO.
Department of Education and Science (DES). (1986). Education Act(No.2) . London：HMSO.
Department of Education and Science (DES). (1991). School Teacher Appraisal Circular (No.12/91). London：HMSO.
Department of education Victoria (1996a). Professional Recognition Program for Teacher.Guidelines. Australia Melbourne: community information service, department of education.
Department of Education Victoria (1996b). Professional Recognition Program for Teacher. Applying the professional standards in annual review and probation- level I. Australia Melbourne: community information service, department of education.
Directorate of School Education Victoria (1995). Professional Recognition Program for Teacher. Annual review guidelines. Australia Melbourne: community information service, department of education.
Divid, H. (1987). Appraising teacher performance in NorthCarolina. Educational Leadership, 44(7), 40-44 .
Educational testing service, ETS. (1992,2001). Praxis - The Praxis Series: Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers. http://www.ets.org/textonly/prep.html (2002/9/28)
Emil J. Haller and Kenneth A. Strike (1986). An Introduction to Education Administration. New York: Longman, pp..293,299-302,307-308.
G. Redfern(1980).Evaluating Teachers and Administrators: A Performance bjectives Approach. Boulder, Colo: Westiew Press, p.21-23.
Harvey-Jones, J. (1989). Making it happen. London：Fontana.
Holmes, T. (1992). Teacher appraisal：guidelines for appraisers and appraisees. London：Borough of Hillingdon.
House, E. R.(Ed.)(1973). School evalucation:The politics and process.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
Ingvarson, L., and Chadbourne, R. (1998). Self-Managing Schools and Professional Community: the Professional Recognition Program in Victoria’s Schools of the Future. Australian Educational Researcher. Vol. 25 (2). PP.61-93.
Iwanicki, E. F. (l990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In J. Milllman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. l58-174). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988).The personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Jones, J. (1993). Appraisi and staff development in school. London：David Fulton.
Loup, K.S. , Garland, J.S. , Ellett, C.D., & Rugutt, J.K. (1996).Ten years later: Findings from a republication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 10(3), 203-226.
McColskey, W. & Egelson, P. (1993). Designing teacher evaluation systems that support professional growth. Washington,DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 662)
McKenna, B. H. (1981). Context/Environment Effects in Teacher Evaluation. Edited by Millman, J. Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. P.13. California: Sage Publication, Inc.
Millman, J. (1981). Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. P.36. California: Sage Publication, Inc.
Morrison, G. S. (1997). Teaching in America. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Natriello,G.(1990).Intended and unintended consequences:Purposes and effects of teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L.Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp.35-45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nevo, D. (1995). School-Base Evaluation: A Dialogue for School Improvement. Great Britain: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Peterson, K., D. (2000). Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices. PP. 121. California: Corwin Press, Inc.
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational evaluation (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon.
Sanders, T. (1994). A new model: For quality assurance in teacher education. NCATE Quality Teaching, 3(2), 4-5.
Shinkfield, A. J. ,& Stufflebeam, D. L. (1995). Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate.Educational Researcher. 15(1). 4-12.
Stake, R. E. (1989). The evaluation of teaching. In H.Simons & J. Elliott (Eds.), Rethinking appraisal and assessment (pp.13-19). Bristol: PA, Open University Press.
STCP (1994). Teacher Appraisal. An information paper for teachers. Australia Melbourne: The standards council of the teaching profession.
STCP (2000). Teaching in Victoria, (http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/standco/sc_qual2.htm, 2000/10/31) Australia Melbourne: The standards council of the teaching profession.
Susan S. Stodolsky(1990). Classroom observation. In Jason Millman & Linda Darling-Hammond. The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Newbury Park, California: Corwin Press, Inc. pp179-180.
Townsend, R. (1970). Up the organisation. London：Hodder and Stoughton.
Williams, D. (1994).Issues in teacher education and professional development in the United States: Implications for Australia. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 143)
Winter, R. (1989). Problems in teacher appraisal: An action research solution? In H. Simons & J. Elliott (Eds.), Rethinking appraisal and assessment (pp.44-54). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Wise, A. E., & Leibbrand, J. (1993). Accreditation and the creation of a profession of teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2),133-136.
Wragg, E. C. (1994). A national survery of teacher appraisal 1992-1994：Preliminary analaysis. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Oxford University, 10th Oct. 1994.