本研究主要探究臺北市國民小學「試辦教師專業發展評鑑」的方案改變理論的概念架構，透過以方案理論為基礎的評鑑來評鑑試辦學校的實施成效。
本研究採用文件分析和訪談法，歸納臺北市國民小學「試辦教師專業發展評鑑」的方案改變理論。研究者自編「臺北市國民小學試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施調查問卷」，以臺北市國民小學96學年度31所參與試辦的教師為研究對象，共發出778份問卷進行調查，回收之問卷採用SPSS for Windows 12.0版統計套裝軟體進行統計分析。
本研究根據實徵研究資料，獲致以下結論：
一、執行理論的「教師討論方案」面向落實情形最佳。
二、執行理論的落實情形介於「大多落實」至「全部落實」之間。
三、具不同任教身份、參與教師專業發評鑑的經驗和評鑑身分的教師，對執行理論的落實情形之知覺程度有顯著差異情形。
四、教師對方案理論「有助於教師進行教學反思及瞭解教學得失」的知覺程度最佳。
五、教師背景變項中的「任教年資」和「學校規模」對整體方案理論「協助教師專業成長」具顯著的預測力。
六、執行理論面向中的「教師專業成長活動」和「教師討論方案」對整體方案理論「協助教師專業成長」具顯著的預測力。
七、執行理論題項中的「學校評鑑人員根據專業發展評鑑結果，依教師整體需
求安排研習和進修活動」對整體方案理論「協助教師專業成長」具顯著的預測力。
基於上述結論，本研究對主管教育與學校行政單位、國民小學教師及後續研究提出下述建議：
一、對主管教育行政機關的建議
（一）協助學校發展專業社群，提升教師專業發展的成效。
（二）整合教師專業發展評鑑、教學輔導教師制度和發展性輔導系統的課程。
（三）提供法制面和實務面的支持，鼓勵學校持續參與試辦。
二、對國民小學行政單位的建議
（一）加強落實學校試辦經校務會議通過的程序。
（二）善用教師專業發展評鑑結果，妥善安排學校教師的進修或研習活動。
（三）加強落實評鑑規準的討論和編訂，凝聚教師對專業標準的共識。
（四）增進教師實師自我評鑑和觀察前會談的機制和知能。
（五）鼓勵學校評鑑人員運用學生或家長對教學反應的評鑑方式。
三、對國民小學教師的建議
（一）認識並接納教師專業發展評鑑的助益。
（二）參與試辦教師專業發展評鑑的討論和決策。
四、對後續研究的建議
（一）探究試辦個案學校的方案改變理論
（二）發展不同階段或形式的方案理論評鑑架構

The main purposes of this study were to analyze the program theoretical logic of the trial implementation of “Teacher Evaluation for Profession Development” in the elementary schools of Taipei City. The research had been done through theory-based evaluation to evaluate the implementation, the process and the outcome of the experimented schools that put the project into practice.
Documentary analysis of qualitative data and interviews were conducted in this study for formulating the program change theory. Questionnaires targeting at the teachers of the 31 trial schools at 96 Academic Year in Taipei City were designed and 778 questionnaires were distributed to carry out the investigation. Data from the questionnaires were statistically analyzed with SPPC for Windows 12.0 packaged software..
According to the findings of the study, conclusions are synthesized as follows:
I. The implementation of implement theory “teachers’ discussion on program” works the best.
II. The implementation of implement theory is between “majority” and “all”.
III. There is a significant difference in the teachers’ perceptions of implement theory in trial schools due to the differences of the participants’ position, the experience of the program, position in the program.
IV. Teachers have the highest perception of program theory “being contributive to teachers’ reflection”.
V. There is a significant correlation among “teachers’ work seniority”, “school size” and the program theory “facilitating teachers’ professional growth”.
VI. There is a significant correlation among “teachers’ professional growth activities”, “teachers’ discussion on program” and the program theory “facilitating teachers’ professional growth”.
VII. There is a significant correlation between “evaluators at school arrange teacher in-service according to the whole teachers’ demand based on the outcome of professional development evaluation” and the program theory “facilitating teachers’ professional growth”.
Based on the above-mentioned findings, several suggestions are offered for the authorities of educational administration, elementary schools, and future research.

中文部分
公館國小（2008）。臺北市大安區公館國民小學接受教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫。2008年11月1日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/schoolfile. jsp
王善美（2007，8月）。屏東縣東興國小實施教師專業發展評鑑計畫之經驗分享。載於教育部主辦之「96年度北區試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑經驗分享與檢討會」會議論文集（頁73-80），臺北縣。
王善美（2008，12月）。跨越中小學教師專業發展評鑑的挑戰－南部的經驗。載於教育部主辦之「改寫教師專業發展評鑑的文化故事系列研討會」會議論文集（頁1-7），臺北市。
王麗雲、侯崇博（2005）。應用方案理論進行評鑑：以嘉義縣市國小週三進修方案為例。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育評鑑的回顧與展望（頁219-249）。臺北市：心理。
王麗雲、潘慧玲（2000）。教師彰權益能的概念與實施策略。教育研究集刊，44，173-199。
民生國小（2008）。96學年度試辦教師專業發展評鑑計畫成果報告。2008年12月28日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/schoolfile.jsp
田振榮（2002）。建立技專校院提昇教學品質指標之研究報告（計畫編號：NSC90-006）。臺北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
行政院研究發展考核委員會（2001）。「二○○一年教育改革檢討與改進會議」重要結論及辦理期程表。2008年3月17日，取自http://www.rdec.gov.tw/public/ Attachment/53161456571.pdf
行政院教育改革審議委員會（1996）。教改總諮議報告書。2008年3月17日，取自http://www.sinica.edu.tw/info/edu-reform/
江惠真（2007，8月）教師專業發展評鑑計畫之實施經驗分享。載於教育部主辦之「96年度北區試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑經驗分享與檢討會」會議論文集（頁130-141），臺北縣。
余昆旺（2007）。教師專業發展評鑑實施意見之研究-以臺北縣市國民小學為例。臺北市立教育大學教育行政與評鑑研究所碩士論文，臺北市，未出版。
吳明隆（2007）。SPSS操作與應用：問卷設計分析實務。臺北市：五南。
吳興國小（2008）。臺北市信義區吳興國小96學年度教師專業發展評鑑試辦計畫(草案)。2008年11月1日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/schoolfile.jsp
汪履維、張德銳、饒見維（2006）。規劃教師專業成長方案結案報告。教育部教育研究委員會委辦規劃案。臺東縣：國立臺東大學附設實驗國民小學。
周紋如（2008）。臺東縣國小試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施現況與教師專業成長關係之研究。國立臺東大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺東縣。
周淑卿（2003）。教師敘事與當代教師專業的開展。教育資料集刊，28，407-420。
周愚文、張嘉育、張炳煌（2007）。綜合高中政策之評鑑與改進。國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與發展研究中心成果報告（研究計畫編號：CREED95），未出版。
林美真、李文旗、張哲維（2007）。學校本位教師專業發展評鑑之推動歷程－臺北縣竹圍國中為例。載於教育部主辦之「96年度北區試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑經驗分享與檢討會」會議論文集（頁113-122），臺北縣。
侯崇博（2004）。嘉義縣市國民小學教師週三進修方案之評鑑研究。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義縣。
柳雅梅（譯）（2006）。Roberts, S. M., & Pruitt, E. Z.著。學校是專業的學習社群：專業發展的合作活動與策略。臺北市：心理。
范國樑（2007，8月）。掬新興情，展活力心。載於教育部主辦之「96年度中區試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑經驗分享與檢討會」會議論文集（頁42-55），臺中縣。
桃源國小（2007）。臺北市桃源國小九十五學年度教師專業發展評鑑試辦成果簡述。2008年11月1日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/schoolfile.jsp
張一蕃（1997）。資訊時代之國民素養與教育。載於尹建中、李英明、張一蕃、瞿海源、羅曉南、謝瀛春、謝清俊（著）。資訊科技對人文、社會的衝擊與影響期末研究報告。行政院經濟建設委員會委託研究計畫。2008年11月1日，取自http://www.sinica.edu.tw/~cdp/project/01/index.html
張春興（2004）。教育心理學。臺北市：臺灣東華書局。
張德銳（1997）。教學評鑑。載於黃政傑（主編），教學原理（頁303-339）。臺北市：師大書苑。
張德銳（2004）。臺北市中小學教學輔導教師制度九十二學年度試辦成效問卷調查研究。2008年9月10日，取自http://mail.meps.tp.edu.tw/~unit134/bak/ product/ 2004_01.pdf
張德銳（2006a）。評介Charlotte Danielson和Tomas L. McGreal《教師評鑑－增強專業實務》。當代教育研究季刊，14（1），147-156。
張德銳（2006b）。臺北市教學輔導教師制度的回顧、現況與展望。教育行政與評鑑學刊，創刊號，1-22。
張德銳、蔡秀媛、許藤繼、江啟昱、李俊達、蔡美錦、李柏佳、陳順和、馮清皇賴志峰（2000）。發展性教學輔導系統：理論與實務。臺北市：五南。
教育部（2002a）。政府將推動「建立學生輔導新體制」—教學、訓導、輔導三合一整合實驗方案，請問該方案主要工作與未來發展及其進程為何？2008年3月17日，取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/DISPL/ EDU4033001/ faq/faq1.htm
教育部（2002b）。「九二八教師遊行」教育部應對之道及中小學教師評鑑制度專案報告內容。2008年3月17日，取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/ EDU_MGT/ E0001/EDUION001/menu01/ sub05/01050005b.htm
教育部（2003）。全國教育發展會議。2008年3月17日，取自http://www.edu.tw/ EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/SECRETARY/EDU8354001/2003/ discuss/2003index. htm?open
教育部（2006a）。教育部補助試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫。2008年2月23日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/downloads.jsp#o
教育部（2006b）。試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑宣導手冊。2008年3月17日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/download01.jsp?id=49#q1
教育部（2007a）。高級中等以下學校教師專業發展評鑑手冊。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2007b）。試辦中小學教師專業發展評鑑之評鑑規準（參考版）。2008年4月2日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/downloads.jsp
教育部（2008a）。教師專業發展評鑑宣導完整版。2008年4月2日，取自http://www.dyjh.kh.edu.tw/main_02.php?page=teacher_evaluate
教育部（2008b）。教師專業發展評鑑網－試辦現況。2008年11月1日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/census.jsp
教育部（無日期）。教師專業發展評鑑試辦現況。2008年4月2日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/census.jsp
教學輔導教師在臺北（無日期）。臺北市教學輔導教師制度沿革。2008年2月23日，取自http://mail.meps.tp.edu.tw/~unit134/xoops/html/modules/tinyd0/ index.php
郭為藩（2006，11月）。當前教育評鑑研究的主要議題。載於國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與發展研究中心主辦之「教育評鑑國際學術研討會」會議論文集（頁28-39），臺北市。
陳勝福（2005）。臺北市國民小學教師專業承諾與教師效能感之研究。臺北市立教育大學教育行政與評鑑研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳聖謨（1998）。美國教師評鑑制度的發展及其對我國的啟示。教育研究，6，176-179。
陳蘋琪（譯）（2006）。Bailey, K. M., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D.著。教師專業生涯發展－以自己為泉源。臺北市：湯姆生。
黃秀霞（2005）。臺北縣試辦國民中小學組織再造及人力規劃方案之研究-以方案理論為基礎的評鑑。國立臺灣師範大學教育學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
黃德祥、薛秀宜（2004）。教師評鑑的模式與發展趨勢。教育研究月刊，127，18-31。
楊麗珠（2005）。台中市國民小學教育人員對教師評鑑意見之研究。國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所，未出版，臺中市。
臺灣非營利組織研究網（2004）。國外NOP網站。2008年4月16日，取自http://npo.nccu.edu.tw/content/section03/item04/item04-7.php
劉美慧、黃嘉莉（2007，10月）。教師評鑑方案建構之臺灣制度分析。論文發表於國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與發展研究中心主辦之「東亞教育評鑑論壇」，臺北市。
歐陽教、高強華、王秋絨、李春芳、張德銳（1992）。教師評鑑模式之研究（編號：0017）。臺北市：教育部中等教育司。
歐陽教、張德銳（1993）。教師評鑑模式之研究。教育研究資訊雙月刊，1（2），90-100。
潘慧玲（2005）。邁向下一代的教育評鑑：回顧與前瞻。載於潘慧玲（主編），教育評鑑的回顧與展望（頁3-36）。臺北市：心理。
潘慧玲（2006）。讓教師評鑑成為專業發展的動力。教育廣播月刊，159，1-2。
潘慧玲、王麗雲、張素貞、鄭淑惠、林純雯（2007）。試辦中小學教師發展評鑑之方案評鑑。教育部委託專案報告。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學教育政策與行政研究所。
潘慧玲、王麗雲、簡茂發、孫志麟、張素貞、張錫勳、陳順和（2004）。發展國民中小學教師教學專業能力指標之研究。教育部委託專案報告。臺北市：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究中心。
蔡玉對（2006）。臺北市國民中小學教育人員對教學輔導教師制度之意見調查研究。臺北市立教育大學教育行政與評鑑研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
蔡宗河（2005）。英國《學科領導人標準》對我國教師專業發展的啟示。教育研究集刊，51（3），101-133。
鄭正昇（2008）。花東地區國小教師專業發展評鑑試辦現況與成效評估研究。國立臺東大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺東縣。
盧增緒（1998）。論教育評鑑觀念之形成。載自中國教育學會（主編），教育評鑑（頁3-59）。臺北市：師大書苑。
謝麗貞（2007）。國小教師參與教師評鑑態度與教學效能關係之研究。國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
鍾文琳（2003）。我國綜合高中教師效能感之研究。國立臺北科技大學/技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
顏淑惠（1999）。國民小學教師情緒管理與教師效能之研究。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
懷生國小（2008）。96學年度試辦教師專業發展評鑑計畫成果報告。2008年12月28日，取自http://tpde.nhcue.edu.tw/schoolfile.jsp
羅國基（2006）。竹苗地區國小教育人員對「試辦教師專業發展評鑑實施計畫」意見調查之研究。國立新竹教育大學人資處學校行政碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
饒見維（1996）。教師專業發展：理論與實務。臺北市：五南。

英文部分
Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service. (1986). Teachers dispute ACAS independent panel: Report of the appraisal and training working group. London: ACASCAI.
Annunziata, J. (1997). Linking teacher evaluation and professional development. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 288-302). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Axelson, R. D. (2003). Toward theory-based approaches for analyzing and enhancing postsecondary student success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona, Tempe, Arizona.
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2006). Applications of program theory in realword evaluation. In M. Bamberger, J. Rugh & L. Mabry (Eds.), RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bean, M. K. v. O. (2007). Physical activity in elementary school girls: Implementation and theory-based evaluation of Girls on the Run. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Beerens, D. R. (1990). Evaluating teachers for professional growth: Creating a culture of motivation and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Bickman, L. (1996). The application of program theory to the evaluation of a managed mental health care system. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19(2), 111-120.
Bickman, L. (2000). Summing up theory. New Direction for Evaluation, 87, 103-112.
Birckmayer, J. D. & Weiss, C. H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice: What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407-431.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. E. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.328-375). New York: Macmillan.
Bullock, A. A., & Hawk, P. P. (2001). Developing a teaching portfolio: A guide for preservice and practicing teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beverly, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435-455.
Carvalho, S., & White, H. (2004). Theory-driven evaluation: The case of social funds. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(2), 141-160.
Chen, H. T. (1990a). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, H. T. (1990b). Theory-driven evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chen, H. T. (1997). Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory-driven evaluations. New Direction for Evaluation, 74, 61-72.
Chen, H. T. (2004). The roots of theory-driven evaluation: Current views and origins. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences (pp. 132-152). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7, 283-302.
Christie, C. A., & Alkin, M. C. (2003). The user-oriented evaluator’s role in formulating a program theory: Using a theory-driven approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 373-385.
Clark, C. M. (1992). Teachers as designers in self-directed professional development. In A. Hargreaves & M. G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development, (pp. 75-84). New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Clark, C. M., & Petersons, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-295). New York: Macmillan.
Clarke, D. & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967.
Clement, M. & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81-101.
Conrad, K. J., & Buelo, J. R. (1990). Developing and testing program classification and function theories. New Direction for Evaluation, 47, 73-92.
Cook, T. D., Habib, F-N., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Shagle, S. C., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1999). Comer's school development program in prince George's county, Maryland: A Theory-Based Evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 543-598.
Coultas, V. (2005). Commitment to professional development. In M. Cole (Ed.), Professional values and practice: Meeting the standards (pp. 131-143). London: David Fulton.
Czerniak, M. C., Lumpe, A. T., & Haney, J. J. (1999). Science teachers' beliefs and intentions to implement thematic units. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 123-145.
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 12-15.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, Va. : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an Era of reform. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Davidson, E. J. (2000). Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation. New Direction for Evaluation, 87, 17-26.
Day, C. (1993). Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development. British Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 83-94.
Dodd, A.W. (1996). A very different kind of teacher education program: Professional development schools. NASSP Bulletin, 80(580), 30-37.
Donaldson, S. I. (2005). Theory-driven program evaluation in the new millennium. In E. Stern (Ed.), Evaluation research methods (pp. 31-61). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Donaldson, S. I. (2005). Using program theory-driven evaluation science to crack the da vinci code. New Direction for Evaluation, 106, 65-84.
Donaldson, S. I., Street, G., Sussman, S., & Tolber, N. (2001). Using meta-analyses to improve the design of interventions. In S. Sussnam (Ed.), Handbook of program development for health behavior research and practice (pp. 449-466). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Duck, D. L., & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). Beyond minimum competence: Evaluation for professional development. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 116-132). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Engstrom, M. E. (1999). Teachers' perceptions of their professional growth needs in translating multiple intelligence theory into practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of South Dakota, Vermillion.
Evertson, C., & Holley, F. (1981). Classroom observation. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 90-109). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development un systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643-658.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Funnell, S. C. (2000). Development and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance. New Direction for Evaluation, 87, 91-102.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gascon, G. M. (2006). An application of theory-driven evaluation in educational measurement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teaching and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-392.
Hackett, J. (2005). Exploring the links among professional development, teacher performance, and student achievement: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Maine, Orono, Maine.
Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Using program theory to replicat e successful programs. New Direction for Evaluation, 87, 71-78.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holmes, E. (2005). Teacher well-being: Looking after yourself and your career in the classroom. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Hord, S. M. (2008). Professional learning communities. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1), 40-45.
Huang, R. & Bao, J. (2006). Towards a model for teacher professional development in China: Introducing Keli. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 279-298.
Iwanicki, E, F. (1990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 158-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnson, K., Young, L., Foster, J. P., & Shamblen, S. R. (2006). Law enforcement training in southeast Asia: A theory-driven evaluation. Police Practice and Research, 7(3), 195-215.
Kaplan, L. S. & Owings, W. A. (2002). Teacher quality, teaching quality, and school improvement. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: a neglected species. Houston: Gulf.
Leeuw, F. L. (2005). Trends and developments in program evaluation in eneral and criminal justice programs in particular. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 11, 233-258.
Lipsey, M. W. (2007). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. New Direction for Evaluation, 114, 30-62.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Mark, M. M. (1990). From program theory to tests of program theory. New Direction for Evaluation, 47, 37-52.
Marquart, J. M. (1990). A pattern-matching approach to link program theory and evaluation data. New Direction for Evaluation, 47, 93-108.
Martin-Kniep, G. O. (1990). Capturing the wisdom of practice: Professional portfolios for educators. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mayo, R. (1997). Trends in teacher evaluation. The Clearing House, 70(5), 269-270.
Meichtry, Y., & Smith, J. (2007). The impact of a placed-based professional development program on teachers’ confident, attitudes, and classroom practices. The Journal of Environment Education, 38(2), 15-31.
Mercier, C., Piat, M., Peladeau, N., & Dagenais, C. (2000). An application of theory-driven evaluation to a drop-in youth center. Evaluation Review, 24(1), 73-91.
Millman, J. (1981). Student achievement as a measure of teacher competence. In J. Millman (Ed), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 146-166). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Murdock, D. P. (2007). School-wide behavioral support: A theory-based program implementation study of positive behavioral interventions and support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
National Research Council (2001). Testing teacher candidates: the role of licensure tests in improving teacher quality. Washington: National Academy Press.
Nesman, T. M., Batsche, C., & Hernandez, M. (2007). Theory-based evaluation of a comprehensive Latino education initiative: An interactive evaluation approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(3), 267-281.
Osterman K. F., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective practice for educators: Improving school through professional development. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
Peterson, P. L. & Comeaux, M. A. (1990). Evaluating the systems: Teachers’ perspective on teacher evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 3-24.
Petrosino, A. (2000). Whether and why? The potential benefit of including program theory evaluation in meta-analysis. New Direction for Evaluation, 87, 59-70.
RAND (2008). History and Mission. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://rand.org/ about/history/
Richards, J., & Nunan, D. (1990). Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Riggin, L. J. C. (1990). Linking program theory and social science theory. New Direction for Evaluation, 47, 109-120.
Rogers, P. J. (2005). Program theory: Not whether programs work but how they work. In E. Stern (Ed.), Evaluation research methods (pp. 3-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rogers, P. J. (2007). Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on. New Direction for Evaluation, 114, 63-67.
Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. ( 2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Direction for Evaluation, 87, 5-14.
Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A system approach. (Sixth ed.). London: Sage.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scriven, M. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 244-271). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Smith, N. L. (1990). Using path analysis to develop and evaluate program theory and impact. New Direction for Evaluation, 47, 53-60.
Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 92-113). New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.
Stodolsky, S., Dorph, G. Z., & Rosov, W. (2008). Teacher professional development in congregational settings. Religious Education, 103(2), 240-261.
Stronge, J. H. (1997). Improving schools through teacher evaluation. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp.1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stronge, J. H., & Ostrander, L. P. (1997). Client survey in teacher evaluation. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 129-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Brethower, D. M. (1987). Improving personnel evaluations through professional standards. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 125-155.
Taylor-Powell, E., & Henert, E. (2008). Developing a logic model:Teaching and training guide. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/ pdande/index.html
Travers, R. M. W. (1981). Criteria of good teaching, In J. Millman (Ed.). Handbook of teacher Evaluation (pp. 14-22). Bevevly Hills, CA: Sage.
Tucker, P. D., & Kindred, K. P. (1997). Legal consideration in designing teacher evaluation systems. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 59-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Mclaughling, M. W., & Berstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A case study effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Weiss, C. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501-524.
Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. (2nd ed.). N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Weiss, C. H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice: What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407-431.
Weiss, C. H. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluation? New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 35-45.
Weiss, C. H. (2007). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Direction for Evaluation, 114, 68-81.
Wenzhi, L. (2004). The ”grapheme combination method”: Teaching and learning Chinese characters through associative links. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
Wheatly, K. F. (2005). The case for reconceptualizing teacher efficacy research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 747-766.
Wheeler, P. H., & Scriven M. (1997). Building the foundation: Teacher roles and responsibilities. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (pp. 27-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Wilson, J. D. (1988). Appraising teaching quality. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Mclaughling, M. W., & Berstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A case study effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23-48.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.