隨著中國大陸經濟和社會的發展，華文教育受到了重視。為了精進華文師資教學效能，海外紛紛以不同模式進行在職教師培訓。其中，組成短期研習團來台或赴中國大陸研習培訓的模式乃在職師資培訓模式下的其中一種。為了了解短期研習方案規劃模式之課程設計、行政、學習等系統要素，以及方案實施中所面臨的難點及策略，本研究以「2013年新加坡地區華語教師短期研習團」為研究案例，探討其規劃與實施，並提出有效規劃與實施之具體建議。
　　本研究採用文獻分析及調查法。本研究對象為新加坡中、小學華文教師及H中心之研究員。研究方案按照教育行政組織建構組織架構，分為行政組、教學組、學員。同時依據教育行政計畫之步驟與程序，分為籌備、課程設計、實施及評估4階段。
　　本研究獲致結論如下：
一、 合作單位與對象：確定合作單位與對象。合作單位可為學員所屬機構或當地負責師資培育之機構。合作單位負責該地之招生、課程設置等行政協調事項。
二、 需求問卷調查：為了設計最符合研習對象之背景與需求的課程，同時了解研習對象之異質性、背景文化等主觀與客觀訊息，此調查於研習課程前務必進行。
三、 行政組（協調者）：必須充分提供研習對象之背景資料給予教學組。同時，行政組於課程設置上應考量不同研習對象的需求，為了最大幅度地滿足研習對象，行政組必須考量在地師資的專長，與合作單位共同商議出最佳的方案課程。
四、 財務預算：由於短期研習團從報名至成行之間人數仍會有變動，而且前期規劃即需投入人力及預訂場地、住宿，雙方需就經費及繳款部分充分溝通，確保經費來源無虞。
五、 方案評估：方案結束後針對課程、行政組、教學組及學習成效進行總結性評估。回饋問卷顯示93%的學員對行政組的親切與良好的服務態度感到滿意。86%的學員對研習方案課程與行政感到滿意。86%的學員認為授課講師的準備充分、有條理。
　　根據結論分析，對短期研習方案規劃與實施之建議如下：
一、 授課教師應調整短期研習方案之授課方式：由於研習對象多元，授課教師應充分利用分組的方式進行教學。在小組討論中，滿足個別化的討論、學習與分享。
二、 行政組應事先為教學組提供學員之需求分析、背景資料及當地教材 。
三、 增加課室控制觀察：除了總結性評量外，應增加課室控制觀察之形成性評量以作為成效評估與教學改進的依據。

With the fast development of China's economy and society, Chinese Language is becoming more important. Overseas Chinese teachers often come to Taiwan or mainland China for short-term training programs in order to improve their teaching abilities. Various aspects of the short-term training program models include planning of curriculum design, administration, strategies and difficulties during the implementation of the program; this study thereby investigated a case study of "2013 Singaporean Chinese Teachers' Short-Term Training Group," in order to make concrete recommendations for the planning and implementation of the program.
The research method used is literature analysis and surveys. The subjects of this study are Singaporean primary and secondary school Chinese teachers and researchers of H centers. Divided into administrative groups, teaching groups, and students, research was performed in accordance with the organizational construct and structure of educational administration organization. At the same time, the plan is in accordance with the steps and procedures of educational administration plan divided into preparation, curriculum design, implementation and evaluation.
The major findings of this study were as the following:
1. Institution with short term training program (ISTTR) and subjects attending the program must first be determined. ISTTR is responsible for administrative matters such as admission, recruiting students and curriculum, etc.
2. Demand Survey was performed before the program, in order to best meet the needs and background of each individual in the program, and also to understand the differences of their diversity and cultural background.
3. Administrative Group must provide sufficient background information of the students in the short term training group to the teaching group. The administrative group must also provide the curriculum based on the needs of the students. Teachers' expertise is also considered before implementation of the curriculum.
4. During the planning and implementation of the short-term training group, various changes regarding enrollment numbers may occur, therefore excellent communication from both sides is essential to cover various expenses of the short term training program.
5. Evaluation of the program, administration group and teaching group were conducted after the program. 93% of the participants were satisfied with the overall helpfulness and effectiveness of the administration group. 86% of the program participants were satisfied with the program and the administration. 86% of participants felt the instructors were well prepared and organized.
According to the conclusion above, the following suggestions are also provided for the planning and implementation of the short-term training program:
1. Because of the diversity of students and the nature of short term training programs, instructors can utilize more collaborating instruction in order to meet the needs of each individual during the group discussion.
2. Prior to the start of the program, administration group should provide the teaching group with the participants' demand analysis, background information and local teaching materials.
3. Classroom observations can be performed in order to evaluate and improve the teaching abilities of the program instructors.

中國社會科學院語言研究所詞典編緝室（2005）。現代漢語詞典 （第五版）。北京：商務印書館。
中國視聽教育學會、中國視聽教育基金會（1988）。系統化教學設計。臺北市：師大書苑。
王文科、王智弘（2007）。教育硏究法 （第十一版）。臺北市：五南。
吳清山（2004）。學校行政（第六版）。臺北市：心理。
宋如瑜（2008）。華語文教師的專業發展：以個案為基礎的探索。台北市：秀威資訊科技。
林子斌（2011）。新加坡師資培育制氷與教師素質。各國師資培育制度與教師素質現況，277-296。台北市：教育部。
林柏安（2000）。教學輔導教師培訓方案之成效評估研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育政策與行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
陳嘉彌、鍾文郁、楊承謙、柯瓊惠、謝元（譯）（2002）。Thomas R. Guskey著。專業發展評鑑。臺北市：五南。
張慶勳（1997）。研究方法。臺中市：滄海。
張慶勳（1998）。 學校教育與行政（初版）。高雄市：高雄復文。
郭芳君（2006）。短期華語與文化研習班之課程設計。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
國民教育法（2011）。台北市：教育部。
馮觀富（2002）。教育行政學Q&A。臺北市：風雲論壇。
黃光雄、蔡清田（1999）。課程設計 : 理論與實際。臺北市：五南。
黃光雄（主譯）（2005）。Daniel L. Stufflebeam, Athony J. Shinkfield著。系統的評鑑 : 理論與實務的自我教學指引。臺北市：師大書苑。
黃德永（2011）。來華泰國中小學漢語師資培訓情況調查。漢語國際傳播研究，1，123-131。
虞莉（2007）。美國大學中文教師師資培養模式分析。世界漢語教學，1，114-123。
鄭彩鳳（2003）。學校行政 : 理論與實務。高雄市：麗文文化。
劉克明、劉敏（譯）（2005）。David E. Kern著。醫學教育之課程發展-六個階段的方法。新北市：藝軒。
謝文全（2012）。教育行政學（第四版）。台北市：高等教育。
羅婉亭（2011）。跨文化視訊華語教學之師資培訓研究。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
羅國英、張紉（譯）（2007）。Emil J. Posavac, Raymond G. Carey著。方案評估 : 方法及案例討論。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
Brown, James Dean (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principle of language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Daniel L. Stufflebeam, George F. Madaus, Thomas Kellaghan (2000). Evaluation models : viewpoints on educational and human services evaluatio. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Goldstein, I. L.(1993). Training in Organizations : Needs assessment ,Development, and Evaluation.3rd ed., Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1960). Techniques for evaluation programs. Journal of the Amerivan Society of Training Directors, 14(1), 13-18.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluation training programs: the four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.