本研究旨在探討台北縣國民中學學校教育人員知覺教學評鑑指標的重要程度，以及實施教師教學評鑑制度的人員、評鑑結果的運用、評鑑的時機、評鑑的方式等可行性意見，以為規劃建立教師教學評鑑制度之參考。
為達成以上目的，本研究首先以教師教學評鑑(teacher performance evaluation)作為關鍵字，搜集國內外相關文獻，深入探討並設計調查的概念架構，其次依循研究目的與待答問題編製「台北縣國民中學教師教學評鑑制度調查問卷」乙份作為調查工具，並以台北縣國民中學學校教育人員為施測對象，抽取有效樣本604人進行實證調查，調查所得資料，經臨界比、皮爾生積差相關係數、t考驗、單因子變異數分析、斯皮爾曼等級相關、肯德爾和諧係數、薛費事後比較等統計方法加以分析處理。
最後根據實際調查結果，歸納以下的結論：
一、教師教學評鑑指標的建構方面：本研究根據文獻分析、專家意見及預試信度、效度考驗所建構發展的六項評鑑類別：（一）教學規劃與準備；（二）教學實施與策略的運用；（三）班級經營與學習氣氛；（四）教師進修與專業成長；（五）溝通與合作；（六）教學評量與回饋等39項具體評鑑項目之教師教學評鑑指標調查問卷，是一信度佳、效度佳及因素分析佳的測量工具。
二、評鑑人員之意見方面：（一）評鑑制度參與制定的人員：教師教學評鑑制度的決定者，應為受評教師以及評鑑人員（主要為學科教師及學校行政人員）共同參與制訂，而在制訂過程中教育專業團體及學者專家亦可提供專業知識的諮詢建議；（二）實施教學評鑑制度的評鑑人員：教師教學評鑑人員應包括「內部評鑑」與「外部評鑑」的人員，並重視學生家長以及學生的參與評鑑過程；（三）評鑑人員的產生方式：由校內成員及教師同儕擔任評鑑人員，藉以建立以學校為本位之教師教學評鑑機制較具可
行性且易於推動實施。
三、評鑑結果的運用方面：以「協助教師了解，改進自身的教學，以提升教學績效」及「發現優良教師並予以獎勵」等二種評鑑結果的運用方式，較具可行性。
四、評鑑的時機方面：以每學年實施一次教學評鑑較可行。
五、評鑑的方式方面：應採行之行政程序為擬訂評鑑計劃、召開說明會、應告知受評者之評鑑結果、對評鑑者施予專業訓練、與受評者及相關人員共同研擬評鑑表等項；以教室觀察、訪談、教學檔案、問卷等方法蒐集評鑑資料；將課程的計畫、師生的互動情形、教學目標及教學理念之陳述、作業的樣本、教學效果的評估、自我專業成長上的記錄、重要他人的回饋及建議等項作為教學檔案評鑑資料的內容。
綜合上述研究結論，盱衡現行教師教學評鑑制度實施現況，本研究提出以下建議：（1）運用本研究所建構發展之教師教學評鑑指標以實施教師教學評鑑或提供給學校教師自我檢核教學效能；（2）成立常設性的「教師教學專業標準委員會」系統地研發教師教學評鑑指標；（3）評鑑制度之設計與制訂應邀請受評教師與評鑑人員共同參與決定；（4）實施教師教學評鑑之人員應包括「內部評鑑」與「外部評鑑」之人員；（5）教師教學評鑑制度之規劃設計應有後設評鑑（meta evaluation）機制；（6）加強教師教學評鑑人員的專業訓練；（7）將評鑑結果之運用方式定位為自我改善教學；（8）對於評鑑結果的處理與運用，應明確的說明與規範；（9）每學年實施一次教師教學評鑑；（10）完備各項行政程序；（11）加強宣導與溝通；（12）兼顧質化與量化的原則，以多元方式蒐集評鑑資料；（13）將教學專業檔案內容列入師資養成教育之教育實習課程，並鼓勵在職教師建置教學評鑑檔案。另外，本研究並針對進一步研究的作法提出若干建議。

A Study on the Feasibility of the Practice of Teacher Performance Evaluation of the Junior High Schools in Taipei County
Yaw-Huei Huang
Abstract
The study was mainly focused on the exploring of the opinion of the Taipei County junior high school teachers on the teacher performance evaluation. Besides, the opinions of the feasibility upon the following items and the difference among categorizations were discussed in this study. The items included: the evaluators, the use of the results, the evaluation timing on junior and senior teachers, the executive procedures, the methods of information collecting and the content of the teaching portfolios.
First of all, a literature review was made upon “teacher performance evaluation”, and a “Junior High School Teacher performance Evaluation Questionnaire” was administered. According to the valid sample of 604 respondents of the Taipei County junior high school teachers, the following results were obtained:
I.On the construction of teacher performance evaluation validity: according to the literature review, the experts’ suggestions and the reliability of the pre-test, the six categorizations of the evaluation are: (1) the plan and preparation of teaching; (2) the practice and strategy; (3) the class management and the learning atmosphere; (4) the on-job training and professional growth; (5) communication and collaboration; (6) the evaluation of teaching and feedback. The 39-item questionnaire with concrete evaluation items was proved an accountable and reliable testing method.
II.On the opinions on the evaluators:
1.The participants: the respondents consider the decision of the evaluation should be made by both evaluators and teachers who receive the evaluation. The suggestions made by professional, organizations and experts may be adopted also.
2.The evaluators to practice the evaluation: the respondents recognize the “self and peer evaluation” most while the evaluations of the school administration, the experts, the students’ parents, and the students are also recognized. The evaluation should include both “internal” and “external” members.
3.The organizing of the evaluators: the organization of the evaluators should include the administration and the teacher representatives to meet the very need of the teachers.
III.On the use of the evaluation results: “helping the teachers understand and improve their teaching to have the effectiveness enhanced”, and “discovering the well-performed teachers and have them rewarded” have more feasibility .
IV.On the timing of the evaluation: It is more practical that teachers should receive annual evaluation.
V.On the methods of evaluation:
1.The following procedures should be adopted: the planning of the evaluation, a meeting of specification, the notification of the results, the professional training for the evaluators, and an evaluation list meeting common welfare.
2.The methods of data collecting: should include: classroom observation, interview, teaching files, and questionnaires.
3.The content of teaching portfolios should included: the teaching plan, teacher-student interaction, the declaration of the teaching goals and belief, the sample of students’ assignments, the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, the record of professional growth, and the feedback and suggestions from important reviewers.
In view of current practice of teacher performance evaluation, several suggestions drawing on made as follows:
1.Apply the criteria for teacher performance evaluation constructed in this study to promote teacher performance evaluation or provide the criteria to in-service teachers as a means to self-examining instructional effectiveness.
2.Set up a regular ‘Committee of Standard Teacher Performance’ to systematically devise the criteria for teacher performance evaluation.
3.Invite evaluators and teachers who are to receive evaluation to jointly decide upon the design and formation of the evaluation system.
4.Include both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ members for the evaluation.
5.Incorporate a meta-evaluation mechanism into the design of the evaluation system
6.Enforce the training of evaluators.
7.Interpret the result of the evaluation as a means of conscious-raising to improve teaching performances.
8.Provide specific explanations and regulations for the application of the results.
9.Conduct teacher performance evaluation once every school year.
10.Make complete the administrative procedures.
11.Promote the concept and encourage communication.
12.Consider both the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis of research data and collect information in an extensive manner.
13.Incorporate teaching portfolios into the curriculum of teacher training and encourage in-service teachers to establish portfolios for teaching evaluation.
Keywords：Teacher performance evaluation, Junior high school

一、中文部分
王文科(民76)。「公立學校教職員成績考核辦法」簡評。現代教育，6期，頁21-26。
王文科(民83)。教育研究法。台北市：五南。
王保進(民88)。視窗版SPSS與行為科學研究。台北市：心理。
公立學校教職員成績考核辦法（民87年修正發布）。
白青平(民89)。台北縣市國民小學初任教師工作困擾與解決途徑之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
江文雄(民71)。國民中小學實施教學評鑑之研究。台中：台灣省政府教育廳。
江啟昱(民82)。CIPP評鑑模式之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
伍振鷟（編）(民82)。教育評鑑。台北市：南宏。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(民85)。教育改革總諮議報告書。台北市：行政院教育改革審議委員會。
朱淑雅（民87）。國民小學教師評鑑指標之研究。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
呂木琳(民87)。教學視導-理論與實務。台北市：五南。
李安明(民87)。我國國小校長教學領導之研究與省思。教育研究資訊，6（6），121-146。
吳明清(民83)。教育研究一基本觀念與方法分析。台北市：五南。
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。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
吳清山(民81)。學校效能研究。台北市：五南。
徐美惠、高薰芳(民85)。重視教師評鑑落實「教評會」功能。台灣教育，544期，頁11-19。
高強華(民84)。論提升教師專業成長的教師評鑑：教育評鑑。台北市：師大書苑。
秦夢群(民86)。教育行政：實務部分。台北市：五南。
陳木金（民86）。國民小學教師教學效能評鑑量表編製之研究。台北：藝術學院學報，61期，頁221-251。
陳惠萍（民86）。檔案在教育實習課程之運用。載於國立台東師範學院教育研究所（主編），2000行動研究～展望本土教育改革學術研討會論文集第二集（649-691頁）。台東：國立台東師範學院。
教師法（民84年公布）。
張春興(民80)。張氏心理學辭典。台北市：東華書局。
張紹勳等(民89)。SPSS FOR WINDOWS 統計分析-初等統計與高等統計。台北市：松崗。
張德銳(民81)。國民小學教師評鑑之研究。新竹市：國立新竹師範學院。
張德銳(民83)。教育行政研究。台北市：五南。
張德銳(民85a)。國民小學教師成績考核系統之研究。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告。
張德銳等(民85b)。發展性教師評鑑系統。台北：五南。
張德銳（民88）。我國中小學教師評鑑的檢討與展望。師友月刊，381期，頁5-8。
張慧淳(民77)等。教師考核辦法之檢討及改進。現代教育，11期，頁107-118。
郭昭佑(民88a)。學校本位評鑑的觀點及其建構。師友月刊，389期，頁40-43。
郭昭佑(民88b)。學校層級評鑑的新趨勢－學校本位的觀點。研習資訊，l6(5)，69-79。
郭昭佑(民89)。學校本位評鑑。台北市：五南。
游家政（民83）。國民小學後設評鑑標準之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
馮莉雅（民90）。國中教師教學效能評鑑之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，高雄市。
單文經（民90）。教學引論。台北市：學富。
黃光雄(民78)。教育評鑑的模式。台北市：師大書苑。
黃光雄主編(民79)。教育概論。台北市：師大書苑。
黃政傑(民79)。課程評鑑。台北市：師大書苑。
黃政傑(民82)。課程教學之變革。台北市：師大書苑。
黃政傑(民88)。落實教學評鑑的實施。教師天地，99期，頁39-45。
傅木龍（民84）。英國中小學教師評鑑制度研究：教育評鑑。台北市：師大書苑。
傅木龍（民88）。在文化特性中建立制度。師友月刊，381期，頁14-19。
楊文雄(民69)。教育評鑑之理論與實際。台中：台灣省政府教育廳。
詹棟樑（民84）如何對教師進行評鑑：教育評鑑。台北市：師大書苑。
詹志禹(民85)。中小學教師選聘的專業判準。北縣教育，4期，頁33-36。
蔡碧璉(民82)。國民中學教師專業成長與其形象知覺之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
歐用生(民85)。課程與教學革新。台北市：師大書苑。
歐陽教、高強華、王秋絨、李春芳、張德銳(81)。教師評鑑模式之研究。台北市：國立臺灣師範大學教育研究中心專題研究成果報告。
盧增緒(民79)。教育評鑑的問題輿趨向。載於台灣師範大學(主編)，教育評鑑的內涵與趨勢論文集。台北市：編者。
盧增緒(民84)。論教育評鑑觀念之形成。載於中國教育學會(主編)，教育評鑑，3-59。台北市：師大書苑。
戴佑全(民89)。台北縣市國民小學教師對「學生評鑑教師教學」意見調查之研究。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。
謝文全(民78)。教育行政—理論與實際。台北市：文景。
謝文全（民82）。教職員考績制度探討。教師天地，64期，頁32-36。
謝文全(民86)。學校行政。台北市：五南。
簡茂發、單文經(民84)。制式與非制式評量方法評析。載於中國教育學會(主編)，教育評鑑，61-92。台北市：師大書苑。
簡紅珠(民86)。專業導向的教師評鑑。北縣教育，16期，頁18-22。
羅清水(民88)。教師專業發展的另一途徑－談教師評鑑制度的建議專業導向的教師評鑑。研習資訊雙月刊，十六卷一期，頁1-10。
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。淡江大學教育資料科學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北縣。
二、英文部分
Alvik,T.(1995).School-Based Evaluation:A Close-up.Studies in Educational Evaluation,21,311-343.
Armstrong, S. R.（1988). Perceptions of principals and teachers toward mandated teacher evaluation. Oklahoma State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 9104022)
Barton, J., & Collins, A. (1993). Portfolios in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education.44, 200-211.
Bridges, E.（1986）.Managing the incompetent teacher. Eugene, Oreg: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Chelimsky, E. (1997). The coming transformations in evaluation .In E. Chelimsky, & W.R. Shadish (Eds.). Evaluation for the 21st century, 1-26.CA:SAGE.
Cronbach, L. J. (1983). Course improvement through evaluation.In G. F. Madaus, M. Scriven,& D.L. Stufflebeam,(Eds.) , Evaluation models—Vievpoints on educational and human services evaluation ,pp.102. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Cyril, & Poster, D. (1991). Teacher appraisal：A guide to training. New York, NY: Routledge.
Datta, L.(1994). Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful coexistence and beyond. New Directions for Program Evaluation , 61,51-68.
Davison, M.L. (1983). Multidimensional scaling. New York : John Wiley and Sons.
Dietz, M. (1995). Using portfolios as a framework for professional development. Journal of Staff Development,16, 40-43.
Dwyer, C.A. (1994). Criteria for performance-based teacher assessments: validity, standards, and issues. Journal of personnel evaluation,8 (2),151-184.
Dwyer, C. A., & Stufflebeam, D. (1996). Teacher evaluation. In Berliner, D.C., & Calfee, R. C. (Ed.): Handbook of educational psychology（pp.35-49）. New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
Eisner, E.W. (1982). An artistic approach to supervision. In T.J. Sergiovanni (ed), Supervision of teaching (ASCD1982 Yearbook)（pp.23-34）. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Follman, J. (1995). Elementary public school pupil rating of teacher effectiveness. Child Study Journal,25(1),57-58.
Fowler F.C.(2000).Policy Studies for Educational Leaders：An Intoduction. NJ: Prentice -Hall.
Greene, J. E. (1971). School personnel administration. Radnor, PA：Chilton Book Company.
Harris, B.M.,＆Hill, J.(1982).The DeTEK handbook. National Educational Laboratory Publishers, Inc.
Hill, J.C. (1986). Curriculum evaluation for school improvement. IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Holdzkom, D., & Brandt, R. M.（1995）. From accountability to professional empowerment in North Carolina. In L. D. Daniel (Ed.),: Teacher evaluation policy-from accountability to professional development,46-57. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Indrebo, A.M. (1992). Some central dilemmas of leadership in school-based evaluation. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication no.77) （pp.32-56）.Lillehammer, DH: Oppland College.
Indrebo, A. M., Monsen, L.,& Alvik, T.(1993).School-based evaluation: Three Norwegian studies .Paper presented at the AERA annual, meeting, Atlanta, April 12-16.
Jarvis, O. T., & Pounds, H. R. (1969). Organizing supervising and administration, the elementary school. West Nyack, NY: Parker publishing Company.
Joint committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1981). Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, J. (1993). Appraisl and staff development in school. London: David Fulton.
Kelly, C. (2000). From policy to performance: Weaving policy and leadership strategies to improve student achievement, In Jones, B.A.(Ed.),Educational Leadership ：Policy Dimensions in 21 Century（pp.73）.Stanmford, CT: Ablex.
Loughran, J. & Corrigan, D.(1995).Teaching portfolios: A strategy for developing learning and teaching in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,11, 565-577.
Millman, J., ＆, Darling－Hammond, L.（1990）.The new handbook of teacher evaluation：Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Osterman,K. F., &, Kottkamp, R.B.(1993).Reflective Practice for educators. Newbury Park, NY: Corwin.
Schram, T.(1995).Using portfolios to mediate learning and inquiry among interns and teachers. Teaching Education,7(2),71-80.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Stake, R.E. (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation , 121-132. Chicago, IL: Rand McNallg.
Scriven, M.（1994）.Duties of the teacher. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8,151-184.
Seyfarth, J.T. (1991). Personal management for effective schools. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Simons, H. (1992).Towards professional schools: The state of the art of school-based evaluation. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication no.77),46-58.Lillehammer, DH: Oppland College.
Stake, R. E. (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Stufflebean, D. L. et al.(1971).Education evaluation and decision making. Indianapolis, IN: Phi Delta KapPa.
Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman, H.O., & Provus, M.M. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Tenbrink, T.D. (1974). Evaluation: A practical guide for teachers. New York, NY: McGraw -Hill.
Tiller, T. (1993). Wolf in sheep’s clothing. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication no.77), 13-28. Lillehammer,DH: Oppland College.
Richardson, V.（2001）.Standard Setting in Teaching: Changes in Licensing, Certification, and Assessment. Handbook of research on teaching（4th ed）.Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.
Wolf, K, (1991).The school teacher’s portfolio: Issues in design, implementation, and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan,73, 129-136.
Wolf, K., & Dietz, M, (1998). Teaching portfolios: Purposes and possibilities, Teacher Education Quarterly. 25(1).9-23.
Wolf, K., & Siu - Runyan, Y. (1996). Portfolio purposes and possibilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,40 (1),30-37.
Wolf. K. (1996). Developing an effective teaching portfolio. Educational Leadership,53, 34-37.
Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J.R. (1987).Educational Evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York, NY: Longman.
Wragg, E. C. (1988). Teacher appraisal : A practical guide. New York, NY：Macmillian.