本研究主要目的是在探究學校自我評鑑的實施、調查學校自我評鑑的利用與了解學校自我評鑑的評價。最後，根據結論提出建議，以供未來推動學校自評鑑之參考。
為達上述目的，本研究採用混合方法之連續的探究性設計為研究方法。先進行質性資料的蒐集與分析，接著根據質性階段的結果，編製研究工具（問卷）進行調查研究。訪談部分，總共訪談25人，以了解校長、主任、組長與教師對學校自我評鑑的看法與意見。問卷部分，共寄發問卷503份，實得有效問卷359份。最後，根據訪談結果與問卷調查結果，形成本研究的結論，並據以提出建議，以達研究目的。
根據訪談與問卷調查結果，歸納出下列數項結論：
一、學校實施自我評鑑的目的，除了滿足自我改善的需求之外，也是為了
因應上級評鑑的要求所做的準備工作。
二、學校實施自我評鑑的重點落在指標的了解、工作的分配、佐證資料的
蒐集與優缺點的檢核，至於「改善」功能的發揮，仍不理想。
三、學校自我評鑑實施人員主要是學校行政人員，學生、教師、家長與其
他外部人員少有參與。唯教師、家長與學生參與學校自我評鑑的重要
性，受到學校人員的認可。
四、激勵學校人員投入自我評鑑的原則計有：「清楚告知自我評鑑的作
法」、「簡化工作」、「校 長、主任以身作則」、「校長、主任與教
師建立良好情誼」、「資深同事經驗傳承」、「提前通知自我評鑑日
期」與「有賞無罰」。其中以「清楚告知自我評鑑的作法」、「簡化
工作」和「校長主任以身作則」最受肯定。
五、學校實施自我評鑑遭遇的困境有七項：文書工作繁重、評鑑次數太
多、學校成員投入意願低落、學校成員不清楚自我評鑑的目的、評鑑
指標不符合學校需求、教師不信任教育行政單局與教師無法參與決
策。其中以文書工作繁重及評鑑次數太多最為嚴重。
六、學校人員認為學校實施自我評鑑是「形式」大於「實質」。自主性自
我評鑑是學校人員最支持的評鑑類型，並期待與上級外部評鑑維持合
作的關係。
七、學校自我評鑑的過程利用情況並不理想，僅在個人層面稍具成效，組
織層面則是成效有限。
八、學校自我評鑑的結果利用優於過程利用，然而利用程度仍不理想。
九、阻礙學校自我評鑑利用的因素中，以「教育局（處）的虛應心態」、
「缺乏經費」與「同事相互推託工作」等三項因素最為嚴重。
十、學校自我評鑑具有許多功能，目前經常達成的功能有：反省學校業務
的辦理、改善教師的教學、改善學校的硬體設施、增進教師的專業成
長、引導學校資源的分配與改善學校本位課程，其餘優點只是「偶而
做到」。
十一、學校自我評鑑執行過程中會衍生一些缺失，包括：增加行政工作的
負擔、干擾教師的正常教學、破壞學校的和諧、損害教師的專業判
斷、成為政府控制學校的手段。其中增加行政工作的負擔、干擾教師
的正常教學與成為政府控制學校的手段對學校產生嚴重影響。
十二、學校自我評鑑在維持學校教育品質的必要性遭受質疑，唯今之計是
發揮自我評鑑「改善」的功能，進而逐漸建立教師對其的信任感。

關鍵字：學校自我評鑑、混合方法研究、評鑑利用、紮根理論

The main purpose of this study is to explore the implementation of school self-evaluation, to investigate the use of school self-evaluation, and to understand the assessment of school self-evaluation. Based on the conclusions, suggestions are made for the future reference to promote school self-evaluation.
In order to answer the above-mentioned purposes, this research adopts the continuous inquiry design with mixed methods. First, collected and analyzed qualitative data, based on the results of the qualitative phase collected, the tool of the research, a questionnaire is made. In the qualitative phase, interviews of a total of 25 principals, directors, team leaders and teachers were made to get a holistic view on the school self-evaluation of key persons. Out of 503 questionnaires, 359 valid questionnaires were collected. Finally, conclusions were drawn based on the interview and the survey results. Suggestions are made accordingly as follows:
1. Apart from satisfying the needs of self-improvement, the purpose of implementing self-evaluation in schools is to fulfill the request of supervisors.
2. The focus of self-evaluation by schools superficially fell on the understanding of indicators, the distribution of work, the collection of supporting information and the examination of strengths and weaknesses, lack of substantial improvement.
3. The personnel engaged in school self-evaluation implementation were mainly school administrators. Students, teachers, parents and other outsiders rarely participated. However, the participation of parents and students in school self-evaluation were recognized by school personnel.
4. Among 7 principles in motivating school personnel in self-evaluation, "clearly informing self-evaluation practices", "simplifying work" and "principal and director lead by example" are the most recognized.
5. Among 7 hindrance factors of school self-evaluation, the hectic paperwork and redundant too many assessments are the most serious.
6. School personnel thought the implementation of school self-evaluation of is rather superficial than substantial. Autonomous self-evaluation is a type of self-evaluation most supported by school personnel and expect to maintain cooperation with higher external reviewers.
7. The result of process use of school self-evaluation limited to individual level than organizational level, which was not ideal.
8. Though the result of result use of school self-evaluation showed a more frequent use than process use of school self-evaluation, which still failed to be ideal.
9. Three most serious factors, including "the perfunctory attitude of Educational authority", "lack of funds" and "mutual dodge work", hindered use of school self-evaluation.
10. School self-evaluation of served in many aspects. Most achieved functions were reflection on school operation, teacher teaching improvement, school hardware facility improvement, teacher professional development, school resource distribution guidance, and school-based curriculum refinement. Other than above were occasionally functioned.
11. Notorious drawbacks simultaneously generated in the process of school self-evaluation implementation were burdened administrative work, interfered teaching practice, and instrumentalized by government controls.
12. The necessity of maintaining the quality of school education through school self-evaluation was questioned. To re-establish trust among teachers, the researcher suggests that to appropriately perform the function of improvement in school self-evaluation would be a solution.

keyword：school self-evaluation、mixed methods research、evaluation use、grounded theory

一、中文部分
王保進（譯）（2002）。H. R. Kells著。大學自我評鑑（Self-study processes : a guide for postsecondary and similar service-oriented institutions and programs）。新北市：正中。
李允傑、丘昌泰（2009）。政策執行與評估。臺北市：元照。
宋曜廷、潘佩妤（2010）。混合方法在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55(4)，97-130。
吳明清（1991）。教育研究：基本觀念與方法之分析。臺北市：五南。
吳芝儀、廖梅花（譯）（2001）。A. Strauss & J. Corbin著。紮根理論研究方法（Basics of qualitative research）。嘉義市：濤石文化。
吳芝儀、李奉儒（譯）（1995）。M. Q. Patton著。質性評鑑與研究（Qualitative evaluation and research methods）。臺北縣：桂冠。
吳淑娟（譯）（2004）。信度與效度。載於黃光雄總校定，教育研究法規劃與評鑑（原作者：J. R. Fraenkel & N. E. Wallen）。高雄市：麗文。（原著出版年：2003）。
林曉雲（2015，9月25日）綠營五縣市拒絕教部統合視導。自由時報。取自由時報。http//news,ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/918482。
林葦芸（譯）（2006）。S. Lukes著。權力：基進的觀點（Power : A radical view）。臺北市：商周。
卓意屏（2006）。臺北市國民小學效務自我評鑑（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學國民教育研究所，臺北市。
許籐繼 (1995）。臺北市國民小學自我評鑑之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所，臺北市。
連世傑（2004）。臺北市國民小學效務自我評鑑之個案研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所，臺北市。
郭昭佑（2000）。學校本位評鑑。臺北市：五南。
郭昭佑（2005）。學校自我評鑑可行性探究。教育政策論壇，8(1)，159-184。
郭昭佑（2007）。教育評鑑研究：原罪與解放。臺北市：五南。
許添明、劉智豪（2008）。從國小校務評鑑論教育品質與管理之問題與對策。教育資料與研究雙月刊。81，153-178。
國際教育訊息電子報(2017年5月16日)。英國中小學的自我評鑑做為校務評鑑的一環【部落格文字資料】。取自http://fepaper. Naer.edu.tw/print?edm-no=125&content-no=6264
黃政傑（1987）。課程評鑑。臺北市：師大書苑。
黃嘉雄（2012）。影響小學對課程與教學評鑑發現利用之因素研究。課程與教學季刊，15(3)，1-26。
黃柏叡（譯）（2003）。研究倫理。載於黃光雄總校定，教育研究法規劃與評鑑（原作者：J. R. Fraenkel & N. E. Wallen）。高雄市：麗文。（原著出版年：2003）。
曾淑惠（2006）。高職學校評鑑阻礙之研究。教育政策論壇，9(3)，73-98。
彭玉宜（2004）。桃園縣國民小學校務自我評鑑之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立新竹教育大學進修部學校行政進修班，新竹市。
楊振昌（2005）。一所國民小學實施校務自我評鑑實務之研究（未出版碩士論文）。臺北市立教育大學教育行政與評鑑研究所，臺北市。
潘慧玲（2004）。邁向下一代的教育評鑑：回顧與前瞻。載於國立臺灣師範大學教育研究中心主編，教育評鑑：回顧與展望學術研討會（頁11-23）。臺北市：臺灣師範大學教育研究中心。
鄭淑惠（2015）。國民中小學校務經營中的自我評鑑現況研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊，17，67-78。
劉北成、楊遠嬰（譯）（1992）。規訓與懲罰：監獄的誕生（原作者：M. Foucault）。臺北市：桂冠。（原著出版年：1990）
關鍵評論（2015年9月24日）。得獎教師：政府的善意缺乏對基層的了解，反而是拖垮教育的元兇【部落格文字資料】。取自https://www.thenewslens.com/article/25286
盧增緒（1995）。論教育評鑑觀念之形成。載於中國教育學會主編，教育評鑑（頁3-60）。臺北市：師大書苑。
謝文全（2003）。教育行政學。臺北市：高等教育
翻轉教育2.0(2015年9月23日)。104年全國SUPER教師獎，高中職組全國首獎莊福泰老師的得獎感言【部落格文字資料】。取自https://sites.google.com/a/dlsh.tc.edu.tw/flipall/home/xue-si- da-shi-shi-xin-de-fen- xiang/104nianquanguosuperjiaoshijianggaozhongzhizuquanguoshoujiangzhuangfutailaoshidedejiangganyan

二、西文部分
Adems, J. E. (1994). Implementing program equity: Raising the Stakes for educational policy and practice. Educational Policy, 8(4), 518-534.
Alkin, M. & Coyle, K. (1988). Thoughts on evaluation misutilization. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 14(3) , 331-340.
Alkin, M.C. & Taut, S.M.(2003). Unbundling evaluation use. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 1-12.
Arrowsmith, R. (2001). A right performance :The performing school. London, U.K. : Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (2001). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy. In D. Gleeson & C. Husbands.(Eds.), The performing school: Managing teaching and learning in a performance culture(pp.210-216). London, U.K.: Routledge Falmer.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teachers’ soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Educational Policy. 18(2), 215-228.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Baughman, S., Boyd. H.H. & Franz, N. K.(2012). Evaluation and program planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 329-336.
Bauman, R. (1996). From pilgrim to tourist-or a short history of identity . In S. Hall, & P. DuGay, (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp.18-36). London, U.K.: Sage .
Brighouse, T. & Woods, D. (1999). How to improve your school？. London, U.K.: Routledge.
Caldwell, B. & Spinks, J.M. (1992), Leading the self-managing school. London, U.K.: Falmer Press.
Castells, M. (2001). Information technology and global capitalism. In W. Hutton & A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge living with global capitalism. London, U.K. : Vintage.
Carlyle, D. & Woods, P. (2002). Emotions of teacher stress. London, U.K. : Cromwell Press.
Chapman, C. (2008). Towards a framework for school-to-school networking in challenging circumstances. Educational Research, 50(4), 403-420.
Chapman, C. & Sammons, P. (2013). School self-evaluation for school improvement：What works and why？Retrieved from : https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/~/media/EDT/Reports/Research/2013/r-school-self-evaluation-2013.pdf
Christie, C. A. & Alkin, M. C. (1999). Further reflections on evaluation misutilization. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 1-10.
Church, C.& Rogers, M.M. (2006). Designing for results: Integrating monitoring and evaluation in conflict transformation programs. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground. File: ///c: Users/user/Downloads/manualpart1.pdf
Coe, R. & Visscher, A. J. (2002). Drawing up the balance sheet for school performance feedback systems. In A. J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds) School improvement through performance feedback. Lisse, Netherlands : Swets & Zeitlinger B. V.
Coe, R. & Visscher, A. J. (2002). School improvement through performance feedback. Rotterdam, Netherlands : Swets & Zeitlinger.
Cohen, D., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education(5th Ed.). London, U.K. : Routledge.
Cousins, J. B. & Leithwood, K.A.(1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56, 331-364.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks,CA : Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2004). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, U.K. : SAGE.
Crowie, M. , Taylor, D. & Croxford, L. (2007). Tough, intelligent accountability in Scottish secondary schools and the role of Standard Tables and Charts: A critical appraisal. Scottish Educational Review. 39(1), 29-50.
Demetriou, D. & Kyriakides, L. (2012). The impact of school self-evaluation upon student achievement: a group randomization study. Oxford Review of Education, 38(2),149-170.
Department of Education and Science.(2016). Looking at our school 2016: A quality frame work for primary school. Dublin, Ireland : DES.
Department of Education and Science.(2016). School self-evaluation guidelines 2016-2020(primary). Dublin, Ireland : DES
Devos, G. (1998). Conditions and caveats for self-evaluation. The case of secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 421493).
Devos, G. & Verhoeven, J. C. (2003). School self-evaluation－conditions and caveats: The case of secondary schools. Educational Management and Administration. 31(4), 403-420.
Earley, P. (1996). School imorovement and Ofsted insoection: the research evidence. In P. Earley, B. Fidler & J. Ouston(Eds), Improvement through inspection？Complementary approaches to school development(pp.11-22). London, U.K. : David Fulton.
Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation .Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage..
Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. & Tymms, P. (2002). Technical and ethical issues in in dicator systems: Doing things right and doing wrong things. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 10(6), 1-25.
Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. London, U.K. : Sage.
Fleischer, D.F. & Christie, C. A.(2009). Evaluation use : Results from a survey of U.S. American evaluation association members. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(2), 158-175.
Foucault, M. (1979). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp.87-104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (Eds.) (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London, England : Falmer.
Gallagher, M. (2010). Are schools panoptic? Surveillance & Society, 7(3/4),262-272.
Gerth, H.H. & Mills, C.W.(Eds.)(1991). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London, England : Routledge.
Gray, J. & Wilcox, B. (1995). Good school and bad school: Evaluating performance and encouraging improvement. Buckingham, England : Open University Press.
Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farrell, S., & Jesson, D. (1999). Improving schools: Performance and potential. Buckingham, England : Open University Press.
Greene, J. C. , Caracelli,V.J. & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11,255-274.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA：Sage.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, Changing time: teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern world. London, England : Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. (Ed)(1998). International handbook of educational change. Dordrecht, Netherlands : Kluwer.
Hall, C. & Noyes, A. (2009). School self-evaluation and its impact on teachers’ work in England. Research Papers in Education, 24(3),311-334.
Harris, A. (2000). Effective leadership and departmental improvement. Westminster Studies in Education. 23, 81-90.
Harris, A. (2002). School improvement: What’s in it for schools？New York, NY : Routledge Falmer.
Hesse-Biber, S.N. & Leavy, P. (2011). Practice of qualitative research(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hennink,M., Nutter,I. & Bailey, A. (2011).Qualitative research methods. London, England : Sage.
Henry, G.T, & Mark, M.M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 293-314.
Hofman, R.H., Dijkstra,N. Hofman, W.H.A. (2009). School self-evaluation and student achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,20(1),47-68.
Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London, England : Routedge Falmer.
Hoy,C., Bayne-Jardine, C., & Wood, W. (2000). Improving quality in education. London, England : Falmer Press.
Hulley, W. & Dier, L. (2005). Harbours of hope: The planning for school and student success process. Bloomington, IA: National Educational Service.
Israel, M. & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for scientists: Between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. London, England : Sage.
Janssens, F.J.G. & van Amelsvoort, G (2008). School self-evaluations and school inspections in Europe: An exploratory study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 15-23.
Johnson, R. B. (1995). Qualitative research in education. SRATE Journal, 4(1), 3-7.
Johnson, B. & Turner, L.A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori , A. & Teddlie, C.(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research(pp.297-320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Johnson, K., Greenseid, L.O., King, J.A., Lawrenz, F. & Volkov, B.(2009), Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 377-410.
Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In Abbas Tashakkori & Charles Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research(pp273-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage..
Kirkhart, K.E.(2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. New Dikection Evaluation, 88, 5-21.
Kyriakides, L. & Campbell, R.J. (2003). Teacher evaluation in Cyprus：Some conceptual and methodological issue arising from teacher and school effectiveness research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 21-40.
Kyriakides, L. & Campbell, R.J. (2004). School self-evaluation and school improvement: a critique of values and procedures. Studies in Educational Evaluation,30,23-36.
Kyriakides, L., Campbell, R.J. & Christofidou, E. (2002). Generating criteria for measuring teachereffectiveness through a self-evaluation approach: A complementary way of measuring teacher effectiveness. School effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(3), 291-325.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antonniou, P. & Demetriou, D. (2010). A systhesis of studies searching for school factors: Implications for theory and research. British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 807-830.
Leung, C. K. L. (2005). Accountability versus school development: Self-evaluation in an international school in Hong Kong. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(1), 2-14.
Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide tosensitive research methods. London, England : Sage.
Leviton, L.C. & Huges,E.F.X.(1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A reiew and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5, 525-548.
MacBeath, J. (1999). Schools must speak for themselves: The case for school self-evaluation. London, England : Routledge Falmer.
MacBeath, J. (2000). Self-evaluation in European schools: A story of change. UK: Taylor.
MachBeath, J. (2004). Democratic learning: The challenge to school effectiveness. New York, NY : Routledge Falmer.
MacBeath, J. (2005). Self-evaluation: Background, principles and key learning. Nottingham, England : NCSL.
MacBeath, J. (2006). School inspection and self-evaluation：Working with the new relationship. London, England：Routledge..
MacBeath, J. (2008). Leading learning in the self-evaluating school, School Leadership and Management, 28(4), 385-399.
MacBeath, J. & McGlynn, A. (2002). Self-evaluation: What’s in it for school?. London, England : Routledge Falmer.
MacBeath, J. Schratz, M., Meuret, D. & Jakobsen, L. (2000). Self-evaluation in European schools: A story of change. UK: Routledge Falme.
MacGilchrist, B. (2004). The intelligent school. London, England : Sage.
Maxcy, S.J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In Tashakkori , A. & Teddlie, C.(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research(pp.51-90). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Madeus, G. , Scriven, M., & Stuffledeam, D. (1983). Evaluation models. Lancaster, England : Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Marsh, D. & Odden, A. R. (1991). Implementation of the California mathematics and science curriculum frameworks. In Odden, A. R.(Ed.), Education policy implementation(pp219-240). Albany: State University of New York.
Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McNamara, G. & O’Hara, J. (2005). Internal review and self-evaluation- The chosen route to school improvement in Ireland？Studies in educational Evaluation, 31, 267-282.
McNamara, G. & O’Hara, J. (2008). The importance of the concept of self-evaluation in the changing landscape of education policy. Studies in Educational Evaluation,34,173-179.
McNamara, Gerry, O’Hara, J., Lisi , P.L. & Davidsdottir, S. (2011). Operationalizing self-evaluation in schools : experiences from Ireland and Iceland. Irish Educational Studies, 30(1),63-82.
Meijer, P.C., Verloop, N. & Beijaard, D. (2001). Similarities and differences in teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 171-184.
Mertens, D. M. (1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation,20(1), 1-14.
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In Abbas Tashakkori & Charles Teddlie(Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp.135-164). Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage
Meuret, D. & Morlaix, S. (2003). Conditions of success of a school’s self-evaluation: Some lessons of a European experience. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 14(1), 53-71.
Mortimore, P. (1998). The road to improvement: Reflections on school effectiveness. Lisse, Netherlands : Swets & Zeitlinger.
Moss, P. (1994). Sure start. Journal of Education Policy, 19, 631-634.
Narciss, S., Koerndle, H. & Dresel, M. (2011). Self-evaluation accuracy and satisfaction with performance: are there affective costs or benefits positive self-evaluation bias? . International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 230-240.
Nevo, D. (1995). School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school improvement. Oxford, England :Pergamon.
Nevo, D. (2001). School evaluation: internal or external？Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(2), 95-106.
Nevo, D. (2002). Dialogue evaluation : combining internal and external evaluation, In D. Novo. (Ed.). School-based evaluation:An international perspective（pp3-16）. Oxford, England : Elsevier Science.
Olssen, M., Codd, C. & O’Neill, A.(2004). Education policy, globalization, citizenship and democracy. London, England : Sage Publications.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Johnson,R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In Abbas Tashakkori & Charles Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp351-384). Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Utilization-focused evaluation in Africa. Paper presented at the Inaugural Conference of the African Evaluation Association, Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from http://preval.org/documentos/00552.pdf
Patton, M.Q.(2008). Utilization focused evaluation(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .
Pedder, D. & MacBeach, J. (2008). Organisational learning, approaches to school leadership and management: Teacher’s values and perceptions of practice. School Effective and School Improvement. 19(2), 207-224.
Perryman, J. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: disciplinary mechanism and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2),147-161.
Plowright, D. (2007). Self-evaluation and Ofsted inspection. Educational Management administration & Leadership,35(3),373-393.
Plowright, D. (2008). Using self-evaluation for inspection: how well prepared are primary school headteachers?. School Leadership & Management. 28(2),101-126.
Popkewitz, T. S. & Brennan, M. (1998). Restructuring of social and political theory in education: Foucault and a social epistemology of school practices. In T. S. Popkewitz & M. Brennan (Eds.) Foucault’s challenge : Discourse, knowledge, and power in education (pp.3-35). NewYork, NY : Teachers College Press.
Preskill, H. & Caracelli, V.(1997). Current and developing conceptions of use TIG survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18, 209-225.
Preskill, H., Zuckerman, B. & Matthews, B.(2003). An exploratory study of process use: Findings and implications for future research. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 423-442.
Rea, J. & Weiner, G. (1998). Cultures of blame and redemption when empowerment becomes control: Practitioners’ views of the effectiveness schools movement. In R.Slee, G. Weine & S. Tomlinson (Eds.), School effectiveness for whom？Challenges to the school effective and school improvement movement（pp21-31）. London, England : Falmer Press.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 421-439.
Russel, N. & Willinsky, J. (1997). Fourth generation educational evaluation: The impact of a post-modern paradigm on school based evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 3(3),187-199.
Ryan, T. G. & Telfer, L. (2011). A review of school self-assessment processes: Ontario and beyond. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(3), 171-191.
Sabatier, P. & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8（4）, 538-559.
Scheerens, J. (2002). School self-evaluation: Origins, definition, approaches, methods and implementation. In David Nevo(ed.). School-Based Evaluation: An Internstional Perspective（pp35-69）. Amsterdam, Netherlands : Oxford.
Scheerens, J. (2004). The evaluation culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(2), 105-124.
Scheerens, J. & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, England : Elsevier Science Ltd.
Schildkamp, K., Visscher, A., & Luyten, H. (2009). The effects of the use of a school self-evaluation instrument. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(1), 69-88.
Schildkamp ,K., Vanhoof, J. Petegem,P.V. & Visscher, A. (2012). The use of school self-evaluation results in the Netherlands and Flanders. British Educational Research Journal, 38(1),125-152.,
Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London, England : Temple Smith.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1995). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (3 rd Ed.). Boston, MC : Allyn Bason.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The life world of leardership . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spring, J. (2004). How educational ideologies are shaping global society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power, technology, and knowledge. Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield.
Swanson, A.D. (1992). Educational restructuring: international perspectives. Journal of Education Policy, 7(2),135-137.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quanitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research：From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In Abbas Tashakkori & Charles Teddlie(Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp.671-702). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage
Teddlie, C & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international Handbook of school effectiveness research. London, England : Falmer Press.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In Tashakkori , A. & Teddlie, C.(Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research(pp.3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori,A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28.
Vanhoof,J. & Ven Petegem, P. (2007). Matching internal and external evaluation in an era of accountability and school development: lessons from a flemish perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation,33,101-119.
Vanhoof, J. & Ven Petegem, P. (2011). Designing and evaluating the process of school self-evaluations. Improving Schools,14(2),200-212.
Vanhoof, J., Ven Petegem, P. & De Maeyer, S. (2009). Attitudes towards school self-evaluation. Studies in Educational Evalution,35,21-28.
Van Meter, D. S. & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptional framework. Administration and Society, 6(4), 445-488.
Van Petegem, P. (2005). Shaping school policy: School effectiveness research as a source of inspiration for school self-evaluation. Leuven, Belgium : Acco.
Visscher, A. J. & Coe, R. (2003). School performance feedback systems: conceptualization, analysis and reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 321-350.
Watling, R., Arlow, M. (2002). Wishful thinking: Lessons from the internal and external evaluations of an innovatory education project in northern Ireland. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(3), 166-181.
Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Häkkinen, K. & Hämäläinen, S. (1998). External inspections or school self-evaluation？ A comparative analysis of policy and practice in primary schools in England. British Educational Research Journal, 24(5), 539-566.
Weiler, H. N. (1993). Control verus Legitimation. In Hannaway & M. Carnoy(Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp.55-83). San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E. & Birkland, S.(2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluation after DARE. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 12-30.
Wong, M.N.C. & Li, H. (2010). From external inspection to self-evaluation: a study of quality assurance in Hong Kong kindergartens. Early education and Development,21(2),205-233.
Wrigley, T. (2007, July 1). Book Review [Review of the book School inspection and self-evaluation: working with the new relationship, by J. MacBeach ]. Improving Schools, 10(2), 199-200.