本研究旨在探討教育視導人員— 督學與學校行政人員及教
師之間的互動關係，期望透過深層的分析，來瞭解彼此間的互動
與需求，在教育不斷變革與發展中，尋求建構有效的視導策略與
模式。。主要研究內容包括：（一）探就視導制度形成的背景，
演進及功能角色。（二）分析視導中的理論與意識形態。（三）比
較不同背景變項之視導人員與學校行政及教師在角色體系、功能
體系、互動體系及評鑑體系之差異情形。就實施方法上，採用文
獻分析法、歷史研究法、調查研究法等進行相關之研究。
調查問卷以台北市國民中小學及高中職之教師、組長、主
任、校長和督學，為本研究之母群體；經過分層選取64 校，640
名學校人員，加上督學18 人，共658 人為研究對象。調查結果
以項目分析、因素分析及單因子變異數分析和Scheffe’事後檢定
等，進行資料處理分析。
根據文獻分析及問卷調查結果，本研究獲得以下的發現與結
1.督學、校長、主任、組長及教師在教育視導互動之間的關
(1)在角色體系的認知方面：除「不同性別」及「學校規
模」外，大多達到顯著差異；年資愈淺對視導角色的
(2)在功能體系的認知方面：除「不同性別」及「學校規模」等因素無關，與「與擔任職務」，「不同學歷」、「不
同階層」、「不同年資」等因素有關，服務十年以上未
滿十五年者，對於教育視導的功能最不認同。
(3)在互動體系的認知方面：除「學校規模」因素無關外，「不同階層」、「不同職務」、「不同性別」、「不同服務
年資」、「不同學歷」等，都有顯著差異。女性較不願
意接受視導，而校長對於視導的接受性高於其他人
員。
(4)在評鑑體系的認知方面：除「學校規模」因素無關外，
「不同階層」、「不同職務」、「不同性別」、「不同服務
年資」，及「不同學歷」都有影響。女性對於評鑑體
系的認同高於男生。校長對於視導「評鑑體系」信賴
度最高。
依據上述發現，本研究僅分別對教育行政機關和學校，提出
相關建議，作為未來教育視導發展改進與提升之參考。

The purpose of this study is to inguire the relation of education
supervisors with schools administrators and teachers. Through an
in-depth analysis, we hope to understand the relationship of their
interaction and needs. We are seeking to form an effective
supervision strategy and mold in the constant modification and
development of the education system. Thus, Education supervision is
a key factor of the education administration. The main research
contents are: 1. To discover the background of how supervision
system has formed, progressed and its role. 2. To analysis the theory
and concept of supervision. 3. To compare supervisors from different
background with school administration and teachers and to evaluate
the dissimilarity among Role-play system、Function system、
Interaction system and Evaluation system. The methods used in this
study are: documentation analysis、historical analysis、investigation
research and etc.
The survey is based on the teachers, team leaders, department
heads, principles and supervisors from the elementary schools, junior
high schools, senior high schools and vocational schools in Taipei.
We choose 64 of all the schools, 640 of all the school administration,
and 18 of all the supervisors after screening. There are 658 in total
for the research. The results come out through item analysis, factor
analysis, one way ANOVA, Scheffe’ after testing and etc.
According to the results from documentation analysis and
survey investigation, conclusions are as follows:
1.From the investigation of the education supervision
interaction between the supervisors, principals, department
heads, team leaders and teachers, we find:
(1) In the understanding of the role system: there are
distinguish differences, except “sexual difference” and
“school size”; the less experience they have, the lower
they agree with it.
(2) In the understanding of functional system: clear “sexual
difference” and “school size”, but look at “job
description”, “education background”, “job position”,
“working experience” and other factors, we find the
ones who have worked 10-15 years have the least
agreement towards it.
(3) In the understanding of interaction system: clear “school
size”, there is a distinguish difference in “different job
position”, “different job description”, “different sex”,
“different service years”, “different education
background” and etc. Women have the lower percentage
of willing to be observed, and principals have the higher
percentage of willing to be observed than other
positions.
(4) In the understanding of evaluation system: clear “school
size”, there is effects towards “job position”, “job
description”, “sexual difference”, “serving years” and
“education background”. Women have the higher
agreement than men. Principals have the highest
confidence towards it.
In conclusion, the research only give relative suggestions to
education administration and schools for the reference of future
education supervision development and improvement.

一、中文部分
王文科（民83）。課程與教學論。台北市：五南。
台北市政府教育局（民91）。台北市政府教育局督學行政手冊。
台灣省政府（民71）。台灣省政府公報。春字，2。
古博文（民89）。英國教育視導制度之研究。國立台灣師範大學
教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
李祖壽（民67）。教育視導與教育輔導（上、下冊）。台北市：黎
明文化事業公司。
李祖壽（民71）。我國教育視導制度應有之發展方向。台灣教育，
376，13-18。
李才棟、張如珍、潭佛佑、李淑華（主編）（1996）。中國教育管
理制度史。南昌：江西教育。
李芝安（民90）。英國學校視導制度之研究— 以教育標準署之學
校視導為例。國立台灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出
版，台北市。
江文雄（民67）。強化地方教育視導功能改善教育風氣之研究。
台北市：正中書局。
呂木琳（民87）。教學視導— 理論與實際。台北市：五南。
行政院教改會（行政教育改革審議委員會）（民85a）。第三期諮
議報告書。台北：行政院。
行政院教改會（行政教育改革審議委員會）（民85b）。教育改革
總諮議報告書。台北：行政院。
吳清山（民80）。教育行政。台北市：心理出版社。
吳福源（民80）。台灣省各縣市督學甄選制度之研究。國立政治
大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
吳培源（民88）。英國教育視導制度。高雄：復文。
多賀秋五郎（民65）。近代中國教育史料。台北市：文海。
余瑞霖（民71）。開創教育視導新境界，台灣教育，376，19-28。
呂愛珍（民63）。我國地方教育視導人員任務研究。國立台灣師
範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
林天祐、蔡菁芝（民90）。教育評鑑的理論分析。教育研究月刊，
91。
林武（民79）。各國教育視導制度比較。高雄：復文。
邱錦昌（民80）。教育視導制度理論與實際。台北：五南。
邱錦昌（民87）。我國教育視導制度改進之研究。教育部教育研
究委員會委託國立政治大學教育系專題研究成果報告，未出
版。
紀海泉（民71）。國民教育視導之方向。台灣教育，376，35-38。
孫邦正（民43）。教育視導大綱。臺北市：臺灣商務印書館。
張正藩（民66）。教育視導。台北市：幼獅。
張明貴（民70）。意識形態與現代政治，台北：桂冠。
張明輝（民85）。改進中小學教育視導的相關課題。教改通訊，
21，27-29。
張建仁（1991）。明代教育管理制度研究。華東大學博士論文。
台北：文津出版社。
張建邦（民61）。行為科學與教育行政。台北：驚聲文物出版。
張清濱（民83）。台灣省教育視導績效評估之研究。國立政治大
學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
255
張復興（民91）。督學視導實務改進之研究— 以台北市國民中學
為例。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出
版，台北市。
張瑞璠、王承緒（主編）（1997）。中外教育比較史綱。濟南：山
東教育出版社。
張潤書（民65）。行政學。台北市：三民書局。陳茂同（1998）。
歷代職官沿革史。華東師範大學出版社。
陳孝彬（主編）（1999）。教育管理學。北京：北京師範大學出版
社。
陳秋美（民68）。台灣省各縣市地方教育視導工作研究。國立政
治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳英豪（民82）。台灣省政府教育廳八十二學年度第一學期第一
次視導工作會報。南投：台灣省政府教育廳。
黃光雄（編譯）（民78）。教育評鑑的模式。台北市：師大書苑。
黃明仁（民57）。台灣省各縣市教育視導制度之研究。國立政治
大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
黃昆輝（民61）。視導工作的新趨勢。師友月刊，65。
黃昆輝（民78）。教育行政學。台北市：東華。
黃政傑（民79）。課程評鑑。台北市：師大書苑。
黃榮宗（民83）。我國縣市督學工作壓力與行政合理性的關係。
國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
楊振昇（民87）。邁向二十一世紀我國教育視導制度之反省與發
展。教育政策論，1 卷，2 期，84-91。
歐用生（民92）。課程典範再建構。台北市：麗文。
蔡保田、邱錦昌（民76）。台灣地區國民小學教育視導工作之調
查。台灣省教育廳委託國立政治大學教育系專題研究，未出
版。
謝文全（民74）。教育行政。台北市：文景。
謝文全（民82）。教育行政— 理論與實際。台北市：五南。
謝文全（民87）。教育行政— 理論與實際。台北市：五南。
謝文全、林新發、張德銳、張明輝（編著）（民87）。教育行政學。
台北：空中大學。
謝藝娟（民80）。台灣省縣市督學工作滿足感之研究— 由激勵保
健因素來探討。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出
版，台北市。
羅淑芬（民87）。中英教育視導制度之比較研究。國立暨南國際
大學比較教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，南投。
羅淑芬（民90）。英國學校視導制度。載於李奉儒（主編），英國
教育：政策與制度。嘉義：濤石文化。
羅虞村（民84）。領導理論研究。台北市：文景。
二、英文部分
Acheson, K.A, & Gall M.D. (1997). Techniques in the clinical
supervision of teachers: preservice and inservice application. 4th
ed. New York, Longman.
Alfonso, R. J. & Goldsberry, L.(1982). Colleagueship in Supervision
of Teaching. 1982 Yearbook ed. Sergiovanni ,J.T. Alexandria ,
Va. : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development ,
1992 .
Baber, W.L. , Garrett, M.T. & Holcomb-Mccoy, C. (1997). Vison a
model of culture for counselor. Counseling and Values, 41,
184-193.
Barion, W. H. & Brueckner, L. J.(1955). Supervision: A social
Process. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Barr, A.S. (1947). Supervision-Democratic Leadership in the
Improvement of Learning. New York: Appleton0Century-Croft.
BBC（May 30, 2000）. Education “Call to scrap school inspections”.
Beach, M. D. & Reinhartz, J.(1989). Supervision focus on instruction.
N.Y. : Harper & Row.
Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervision and teachers: A private cold war.
Berkeley. Calif. : McCutchan.
Bolin, F.(1986). Perspectives on the definition of supervision.
Wingspan, Vol. 3. No. 1.
Brighouse, T. & Moon, B. (1995). School inspection . Great Britain:
Redwood.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching(1990). The258
condition of Teaching. N.J.:Carnegie foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Cleg, D. and Billington S.(1994). Making the most of your
inspection ： Primary. London,” The Falmer Press.
Cogan, M. L.(1973). Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Costa, A. & Garmsto, R.（1994）.Cognitive coaching: A foundation
for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M.W.(1995). Policy and
supervision. in C.D. Glickman (ed.) .Supervision in transition ,
Alexandria, Va: ASCD.
DFEE(1997). Excellence in schools. London: The Stationery Office.
Doll, R. C.(1983). Supervision for staff development : Ideas and
application . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Drucker, P. (1974). Management. New York: Harpen & Row.
Drucker, P. (1996). The Effective executive. New York: Harperomd
Row.
Dull, L.W. (1981). Supervision: School leadership handbook.
Columbus, Ohio: Bell & Howell.
Dull, L. W. (1999). “Supporting New Teachers”, In Educational
Leadership 56, may, 19-29.
Eisner, E.（1982）. An artistic approach to supervision. In T.
Sergiovanni (ed.). Supervision of teaching: ASCO yearbook.
Alexadria, CA: ASCD.
Eye, G. G. & Lanore, A. N.(1965). Supervision of instruction : A phase of administration. NewYork: Harper & Row.
Eye, G. G. , Lanore, A. N. & Robert, D. K. (1971). Supervision of
instruction, 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.
French, J. R. P. & Raven, B.(1959). “The bases of social power” in D.
Cartwright (Ed.) Studies in social power. Ann Arbor,Michigan:
University of Michigan.
Firth, G. R. & Pajak, E.(1998). Handbook of research on school
supervision. New York: Mcamillan.
Frimen, P.C., Allen K.D.,Kerwin, M.L.E & Larxelere R.(1993).
Change in modern psychology: A citation analysis of the
Kuhnian thesis. American Psycho logist , 48, 40-49.
Fullan, M.(1993). Change forces : Probing the depths if educational
reform. New York: The Falmer Press.
Garmston, R. J. , Lipton, L. E. & Kaiser, K. (1999). “ The
psychology of supervision” in Handbook of research on school
supervision, New York.
Gillespie, K. R. (1981). Creative supervision. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Glanz, J. & Neville, R. F.(1996). Educational supervision:
Prespectives, issues and contriversies. Norwood, Mass:
Christopher-Gordon.
Glatthorn, A. (1984). Differentiated supervision. Alexandria, Va:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1984.
Glickman, C. D. ,(ed.). (1992). Supervision in transition. 1992 yearbook. Alexandria. va: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1992.
Glickman, C.D. , Gordon, S.P. & Gordon, J.M. (1997). Supervision
of instruction-A developmental approach. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Glickawan, C. D. , Gordon, S. P. & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998).
Supervision of Instruction: A developmental approach, 4th ed.
Boston: Allyn Bacon 1998.
Gohammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Gohammer, R., Anderson, R.H & Krajewski, R.J.(1993). Clinical
supervision-special methods for the supervision of teachers.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Goldsberry, L. (1997). Do teachers benefit from supervision ? In J.
Glant and R. F. Neville.(eds.). Educational supervision
-perspectices, issues, and controversies. Norwood, Mass:
Christopher-Gordon.
Goodlad, J.I.(1984). A place called school. New York: Mcgrow-Hill.
Good Carter(1973).The Dictionary of Education. McGaw : Hill Book
Company.
Grumet, M.R. (1978). Supervision and situation: A methodology of
self report for teacher education. A paper presented at the ABRA
annual meeting.
Guba, E.G.(1967). Diffusion of innovations, Educational Leadership,
25: 292-95.
Harris, B. M. (1985). Supervisory behavior in education. N.J. :
Prentice Hall.
Hunter, M. & Russell, D.(1977). How can I plan more effective
lessons ? in Instructor 87.
Hyman, R. T. (1975). School administrator’s handbook of teacher
supervision and evaluation methods. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. :
Prentice-Hall.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994).
The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA.:Sage.
Kast, F. E. & Resenzweig, J. E.(1979). Organization and
management: A system and contingency approach. New York:
Mcqraw-Hill.
Kneneth, D. B. & Paul, S. (1948). Functional roles of group
members,The Journal of Social Class,4(2), 25-35.
Knoll, K.M.(1987). Supervision for better instruction-practical
technigues for improving staff performance. Englewood Cliffs,
N. J. Prentice-Hall.
Leithwood, K.A. (1987). “Using the principal profile to assess
performance”. Educational Leadership, 45,1,64.
Lewin, k.(1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper &
Row.
Likert, R. (1967). The Human organization. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lovell,J.T. & Wiles,K. (1983). Supervision for better schools, (5thed.). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Magnnson,S. ; Wilcoxon,S.A. ; Norem,K.(2000).A pofile of lousy
supervision：experienced Counselor’s perspectives. in
Counselor-Education and supervision V39,3：p.189-202.
Marks, J. R. ,Stoops, E. & Kingstoops, J.J. (1985). Handbook of
educational supervision : A guide for the practice. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Mondy, R.W. , DeHay, J. M. & Sharplin, A. D. (1983). Supervision .
New York: Random House.
Mosher, R. L. & Purpel, D.E. (1972). Supervision: The reluctant
profession. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Nolan, J. and Francis,P. (1992). Changing perspectives in curriculum
and instruction. In Supervision in transition . The 1992 yearbook
of the Association for supervision and Curriculum Development,
edited by C.D. Glickman, Alexandria, va: ASCD.
Nolan, J. (1997). Can a supervisor be a coach? In educational
supervision-perspectives, issues. and controversies, ed. by Glant
J. & R.F. Neville. Norwood, Mass: Christopher-Gordon.
OFSTED(1995). Four main tasks of OFSTED. London: OFSTED.
OFSTED(1997). Instructions for tendering for school inspection
contracts. London: OFSTED.
OFSTED(1998). HM Inspectors of schools in England. London:
OFSTED.
Oliva, P. F. & Pawlas,G. E. (2001). Supervision for today’s schools.
6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Owens, R. G. (1970). Organiztional behaviors in school. Englewood
Cliff N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Pajak, E. (1993). Approaches to clinical supervision. Norwood, MA :
Christopher-Gordon.
Peters, T.J. & Waterman, R. H.(1982). In search of excellence:
Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York: Harper
& Row.
Pfeiffer, I.L. & Dunlap, J.B.(1982). Supervision of teachers-A guide
to improving instraction. Phoenis: Oryx Press.
Popham, W. J. (1971). Practical ways of improving the curriculum
via measurable objectives, In the Bulletin of the National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
Popham, W.J.(1988). Educational evaluation (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliff, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
Ross, N. L. & Evans, M.D.(1980). Handbook for effective
supervision of instruction. N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council(1998). Assuring
excellences: The future roles and structure of the advisory
service.
Schain, R.L. (1988). Supervising instruction: what is it and how to do
it. New York: Educators Practical Press.
Sergiovanni T. J. & Starratt J. Robert(1988). Supervision-Human
perspectives, 4th ed. New York: McGroaw-Hill.
Sergiovanni, T. J.(1992).Moral authority and the regeneration of
supervision. In Supervision in Transition, 1992 yearbook.
Sergionanni T. J. & Starratt, J. R.(1998a). Supervision-Human
perspectixes, (4th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. J.(1998b). Supervision: A
redefinition, (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Singhal R. P. , Bhagia N. M. , Kalpande V. A. & Nair T.K.D. (1986).
School inspection system : A modern approach. Navin Shahdara
Delhi: Roopak Printers.
Smyth, W.J. (1991). Teacher as collaborative learners. Philadephia,
PA: Open University Press.
Snyder, k. (1981).(Clinical supervision in the 1980’s .). Educational
Leadership, 38,7.
Spears ,H. (1953). Improving the supervision of instruction.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Stufflebeam, D.L., Madaus, G. F. & Kellaghan, T. (2000). Evaluation
models : Viewpoints on educational and human services
evaluation. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Sullivan, C. G. (1997). “Is staff development supervision ?” Edited
by J. Glanz & R. F. Nevelle. In Educational
Supervision-Perspectives, issues, and controversies. Norwood,
MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Tanner,D. & Tanner, L. N. (1987). Supervision in education :
problem and practices. New York: Macmillan.
Tennessee Department of Education(1991). State model for local
evaluation of administrators / supervisors. Nashville, Tennessee.
Tracy, S. I.(1999). Model and approach, in Handbook of research school supervision. New York.
Tyler, R. W.(1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction.
Chicago：University of Chicago Press.
Unruh , A. (1970). Supervision for change and innovation. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Waite, D. (1997). Do teachers benefit from supervision ? In
Educational supervision-perspectives, issues, and controversies.
Edited by Glant , J. & Neville, R. F. Norwood, Mass:
Christopher-Gordon.
Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (1986). Supervision-A guide to practice. (2 ed.).
Columbus Ohio: Bell & Howell company.
Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (1991). Supervision-A guide to practice. (3 ed.).
New York：Macmillan.
Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (1996). Supervision-A Guide to Practice.( 4th
ed.) Englewood Cliffs: N.J. Merrill.
Wilson, T. A.(1995). Notes on the American fascination with the
English tradition of school inspection. Cambrige Journal of
Education,25,1：89-96.
Wood, C. J.(1999).Human dimensions of supervision, in Handbooks
of research on school supervision. New York.
Woods, D. & Orlik, S. (1994). School Review and Inspection.
London : Kogam page Limited.
Worthen, B. R. & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Education
evaluation-alternative approaches and practical guidelines.
White Plains, New York: Longman.