Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0728103-161306 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0728103-161306
論文名稱
Title
建構我國中小學教師素質管理機制之研究
A Study of the Construction of Quality Management System for Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in Taiwan
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
206
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2003-07-07
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2003-07-28
關鍵字
Keywords
教師資格取得、教師素質管理機制、不適任教師
the access of teacher qualification, teacher quality management system, incompetent teacher
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5691 次,被下載 3208
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5691 times, has been downloaded 3208 times.
中文摘要
摘 要

本研究首先分析美國近年來教師素質管理之理論基礎,以人力資源管理、績效責任與相關研究作為分析一九九O年代以來美國教師素質管理改革過程中各項論點的理論架構;其次,分析此次改革之背景與原因,並根據美國重要報告書和法案的內涵整理其具體的建議與做法,再檢討美國各州改革其教師素質的措施及改革過程中所運用的策略。然後依據研究目的、文獻探討之結果編製「台灣中小學教師素質管理機制意見調查問卷」,作為蒐集資料之工具;並以教師、學校行政人員、家長團體代表、教育學者、教育行政人員、民意代表、及教師團體代表為研究對象,進行問卷調查,經叢集取樣的方式,共取樣1,360名實施調查,回收有效問卷1,050份,有效問卷佔77.2%。調查資料之處理係以次數分配、百分比、平均數、標準差、單因子變異數分析等統計方式予以考驗,再依據統計結果進行分析討論,最後提出本研究之結論與建議。
在檢討美國教師素質管理機制之現況時,本研究針對教師資格取得、甄選任用、待遇與工作條件、評鑑及處理不適任教師等五個面向、就教師素質管理問題的認知與管理措施之施行等方面進行探討。本研究發現家長團體代表、民意代表與國小教師等三類受試者之間的態度最具顯著差異。至於教師素質管理的可行措施方面,發現除了根據教師實際表現考核敘薪、教師評鑑依其學生在學力測驗上表現、實施教師分級制度及校長進行教室觀察等措施呈現兩極化之外,大部份受試者對於提高教育學程錄取標準、施行師資培育機構評鑑、建立專業發展學校、成立全國教育專業標準委員會、設置初任教師輔導制度、學校每年公佈教育品質檢討報告、政府公佈全國教師素質評鑑報告、提高教師進修時數、協助不適任教師改進教學等措施均表示極度贊同。最後,本研究提出數項建議:(一)教師素質改革措施應採全方位模式進行,措施不宜瑣碎;(二)對師資培育機構進行篩選,並發佈教師素質評鑑報告,強化師資培育及評鑑制度;(三)建立不適任教師評定及通報機制,汰換不適任教師以提升教學品質;(四)教育行政機關應要求中小學提出教育品質檢討報告,藉輿論壓力提升學校行政效能;(五)建立初任教師輔導制度,使其能快速融入教學情境;(六)提高教師專業自主權,改善配課及教學時數過度負荷;(七)給予教師多元進修管道以取得各種專業證書,強化教學能力;(八)教師團體主動提出對教育改革之建議;(九)教師團體主動配合或參與教育主管機關提高教師素質管理相關機制之規劃。
Abstract
Abstract
In this study, the theoretical basis of the management of teacher quality in U.S.A. in recent years was examined from several aspects such as human resource management, accountability, and related studies. Based on these measures, the theoretical structures developed in the process of the management changes of teacher quality since 1990s were studied. Secondly, the background and reasons of the reform were analyzed, and some concrete suggestions and methods were concluded from the various U.S. education reports and bills. Then, from realistic points of view, the policies developed by different states during the process of reforms were also probed into. Then, a questionnaire was developed as a tool for data collection. The populations of the questionnaire survey included teachers, school administrators, the members of parents’ organizations, educational scholars, educational authorities, councilors and the representatives of teacher organizations. There were 1,360 samples, which contain 1,050 valid ones. The valid returned percentage was 77.2%. The data were testified through frequency distribution, percentage, means, standard deviation, one-way ANOVA, then were analyzed and discussed according to the results. Finally, the conclusions and suggestions were proposed as a result.
When reflecting on the present conditions of U.S. teacher quality management, this research probed into five aspects: the access of teacher qualifications, selection and employment, payment and working conditions, assessment and dealing with incompetent teachers. The representatives of parents’ organizations, councilors and elementary school teachers had significant correlation with each other in the perceptions of teachers’ quality management problems and the measures. In addition, this study found that there were diversity in some aspects such as getting payment according to teachers’ actual performances, assessing teachers according to their students’ performance in exams, carrying out teacher career ladder program, and having principals observe in class. Most samples were quite unanimous in other aspects, such as raising the selection criteria of teacher education program, evaluating teacher education programs institutions, establishing professional development schools, setting up nationwide professional educational standard committees, implementing beginning teachers mentoring system, every elementary and secondary school posting reports on educational progress, the government posting nationwide teacher quality assessment report, raising teachers’ basic hours of professional development, helping incompetent teachers improve their teaching methods. Finally, this study will propose several suggestions:
1. The measures of the reform should be taken from all aspects.
2. To select teacher education programs, post reports on teacher quality assessment and strengthen the cultivation and assessment system.
3. To establish the way to assess and report unqualified teachers for dismissal in order to raise the teaching quality.
4. Central government will request each elementary and secondary school to propose each report on teaching quality to raise the efficiency.
5. To set up beginning teachers mentoring system to improve teaching quality.
6. To raise teachers’ professional recognition, correct the unreasonable long teaching hours and class distribution.
7.To give teachers various ways to get professional development to access different certificates to strengthen teaching abilities.
8. Teacher organizations will actively provide advices for education reform.
9. Teacher organizations will initiatively cooperate or participate with central government in the designing of the system in raising teacher quality.
目次 Table of Contents
目 次

第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機……………………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題………………………………………………………4
第三節 名詞釋義……………………………………………………………………6
第四節 研究範圍與限制……………………………………………………………8
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………………………9
第一節 教師素質管理之觀點分析…………………………………………………9
第二節 美國1990年代教師素質管理報告書之內容分析………………………30
第三節 相關研究之分析……………………………………………………….…45
第三章 研究之調查設計與實施……………………………………………………….52
第一節 研究假設………………………………………………………………….52
第二節 研究架構與流程………………………………………………………….53
第三節 研究方法與步驟………………………………………………………….55
第四節 研究樣本………………………………………………………………….57
第五節 研究工具………………………………………………………………….60
第六節 資料處理及統計方法…………………………………………………….71
第四章 美國教師素質管理機制……………………………………………………….73
第一節 有關提升美國教師素質之法案內容…………………………………….73
第二節 美國教師素質管理的現況與策略……………………………………….84
第三節 美國教師素質管理個案分析…………………………………………..109
第五章 調查結果與討論……………………………………………………………….118
第一節 樣本特性分析…………………………………………………………..118
第二節 「目前台灣教師素質管理之缺失」與「改進台灣教師素質之措施」 的統計分析整理………………………………………………………121
第三節 調查問卷開放式問題之分析…………………………………………..158
第六章 結論與建議……………………………………………………………………161
第一節 結論……………………………………………………………………..161
第二節 建議……………………………………………………………………..166
參考文獻………………………………………………………………………………..169
壹、中文部分……………………………………………………………………..169
貳、英文部分……………………………………………………………………..172
附錄……………………………………………………………………………………..180
參考文獻 References
參考文獻

壹、中文部分
Lawrence, S. K.著(1999)。人力資源管理─取得競爭優勢之利器(Human resource management: a tool for competitive advantage)(劉秀娟、湯志安譯)。臺北:揚智。(原作1997年出版)。
方忠斌(民89)。國民中學教師對教師分級制度知覺之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所,台北市。
王文科(民90)。教育研究法,台北,五南。
王順平(民81)。美國教師能力測驗之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立台灣師範大學教育研究所,台北市。
王慧鈴(民89)。師資培育機構與中小學教育伙伴關係之研究:教育合作內涵之現況與需求。未出版之碩士論文,私立淡江大學教育科技學系,台北縣。
「老師 也需要定期檢定」--科教師資,學者建議應建立分級及證照制度。(民91,12月21日)。聯合報,3版。
吳貞宜(民90)。中小學教師待遇之內涵與制度類型之探討。教育研究資訊,9(1),頁121-133。
吳清山、黃美芳、徐緯平合著(民91)。教育績效責任研究。台北:高等教育。
沈翠蓮(民90)。美國師資培育改革的省思-以教學與美國未來國家委員會報告書為例。教育研究資訊,9(3),頁142-158。
汪履維(民88)。「中小學教師基本素質」研究與評量上一些「技術面」與「非技術面」的考量,在台灣師範大學教育學院編,。中小學教師素質與評量研討會研討報告-會議手冊即論文實錄。台北,教育部。
周春美(民82)。我國高級中等學校職業類科專業科目教師赴公民營機構研習意願及其影響因素之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所,彰化市。
施吟詹(民89)。美國公立學校教師素質。上網日期:91年9月11日。網址: http://www.edu-fair.com/reports/HighSchoolStudent3.html
施冠概(民83)。提昇教師素質的具體方案。視聽教育,208,頁35-45。
流浪教師 2 年甄試30次全落榜--甄選不上 年年代課 年年考試 年年流浪到他校 感嘆學歷實力是其次 有錢有勢最重要。(民91,11月25日)。聯合報,6版。
胡俊鍔(民90)。台北市職業學校組織再造之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立台灣大學國家發展研究所,台北市。
秦夢群(民90)。美國199O年代後之教育改革及對我國之啟示?教育資料與研究,43,頁 1-8。
高雄市政府教育局(民91)。高雄市各級學校不適任教師審議處理要點。
高縣教師甄選 謠傳有白手套--查證後,發現有人散布謠言,縣長叮嚀改採不分區甄試,更公平。(民92,3月31日)。聯合報,18版。
張煌熙(民,85)。九十年代美國聯邦的教育改革。載於黃政傑(主編),各國教育改革動向,頁1-19。台北:師大書苑。
張瑛珊(民89)。我國中小學教師職級制度研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立中山大學教育研究所,高雄市。
張德銳(民89)。從中美兩國教師證照制度之比較談如何提升我國教師素質。台北市立師範學院學報,31,頁1-15。
教育部(民84)。教師法。
教育部(民90)。高級中等以下學校及幼稚園教師分級及審定辦法(草案)。
郭玉霞(民85)。教育專業地位的維護與師資素質的提高。國立台南師範學院初等教育學報,9,頁479-486。
陳麗珠(民89)。美國教師薪給制度改革趨勢之研究,高雄師大學報,11,頁157-179。
單文經編(民87)。美國教育研究-師資培育及課程與教學。台北:師大書苑。
彭森明(民85)。美國中小學教師素質之分析與評量。教育資料與研究,8,頁33-44。
彭森明(民88)。中小學教師基本素質規範與師資培育。在台灣師範大學教育學院編,中小學教師素質與評量研討會研討報告-會議手冊暨論文實錄。臺北,教育部。
彭韻萍(民90)。我國國民小學教師證照制度之研究。未出版之碩士論文,台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所,台北市。
黃裕城(民89)。中小學教師適任與不適任的探討。課程與教學季刊,2(2),頁85-100。
楊深坑主編(民90)。各國中小學教師在職進修制度比較研究。台北,揚智。
楊慶麟(民89)。學校本位教師分級制度可行評估之研究--以國民小學為例。未出版之博士論文,國立政治大學教育研究所,台北市。
蓋浙生(民88)。教育財政學。台北:師大書苑。
劉明秋(民80)。教師生涯發展及其影響因素分析。諮商與輔導,70,頁43-45。
劉慶仁(民87)。美國教師素質現況與改進措施。師友,367,頁34-36。
劉慶仁(民89a)。美國師資培育的挑戰與改革。文教新潮,4(3),頁5-13。
劉慶仁(民89b)。美國教育改革研究。台北,國立教育資料館。
劉慶仁(民90)。績效責任:美國當前教育改革的趨勢。教育資料與研究,43,頁30-38。
潘慧玲(民83)。美國初中教師證照制度之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立台灣師範大學教育研究所,台北市。
蔡培村主編(民85)。教師生涯與職級制度。高雄,麗文。
蔡清華(民86)。美國師資培育改革之研究。高雄,復文。
簡茂發(民86)。中小學教師應具備的基本素質。教育研究資訊,5(3),頁1-13。
簡茂發、彭森明、李虎雄(民87)。教育部八十五年度國民中小學教師基本素質之分析與評量專案研究計畫。台北市:國立台灣師範大學。
鄺執中(民88)。我國小學教師任用制度之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立高雄師範大學教育系,高雄市。
蘇進雰(民87)。中小學教師職級制度之理論研究與實證分析。未出版之博士論文,國立台灣師範大學教育研究所,台北市。

貳、英文部分
Allen, L., & Glickman, C. (1996). Restructuring and renewal: capturing the power odd democracy. Hingham, MA: Kluwer.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Andrew, M., & Schwab, R. L. (1995). Has reform in teacher education influence teacher perform? An outcome assessment of graduates of eleven teacher education programs. Teacher Education, 17, 43-53.
Anson, R., & Fox, J. (1995). Studies of education reform. Phi Delta Kappa, 77, 16-18.
Bennett, S. J. (1997). Empowering teacher, empowering leadership: A mute-site case study of school restructuring and accountability for student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego, CA.
Bennett, C. I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity at a Big Ten University through Project TEAM: A Case Study in Teacher Education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 21-29.
Bents, M., & Bents, R. (1990). Perceptions of good teaching among novice, advanced beginner and expert teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Bowles, S., & Levin, H. M. (1968). The determinants of scholastic achievement-An appraisal of some recent evidence. Journal of Human Resources, 3, 3-24.
Burns, R. (2000). We know how, what's stopping us: Generating effective teaching and learning. Education Journal, 28(2), 63-83.
Burrup, P. E., Brimley, V. J., & Garfield, R. R. (1999):Financing education in a climate of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bush, G.. W. (2002). No child left behind. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb
Campanile, C. (2001, December.6). Uncertified teachers at record high. The New York Post, pp. A1.
Chavez, E. (2002.1.3). Federal teacher goal is blasted: Congress’ mandate that instructors get credentials in 4 years is called unrealistic. Retrieved August 30, 2002, from http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/1406807p-1483491c.html
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Cornett, L. M., & Gaines, G.. (1997). Accountability in the 1990s: Holding schools responsible for student achievement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED406739).
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ascher, C. (1991). Creating accountability in big city schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED334339).
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999a). America’s future: Educating teachers. The Education Digest, 64(9), 18-23.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999b). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy: University of Washington.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999c). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring and qualified teacher for every child. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 55-57.
Education Commission of the States (2001). Accountability. Retrieved August 25, 2002, from http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Did teachers’ verbal ability and race matter in the 1960s? Coleman revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14(1), 1-21.
Elmore, R. F. (1990). Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco: Josses Bass.
Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education,44(1), 55-63.
Ferguson, R. F. & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Fetler, M. (1999, March). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7. Retrieved May 9, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu
Firestone, W. A. (1991). Education Reform from 1983 to 1990: State Action and District Response. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Floden, D. E., Goertz, M. E., & O’day, J. (1995). Capacity building in systemic reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 19-21.
Fowler, R. C. (2003, April). The Massachusetts Signing Bonus Program for New Teachers: A model of teacher preparation worth copying? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(13). Retrieved May 1, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n13/.
Fuller, E. J. (1999). Does teacher certification matter? A comparison of TAAS performance in 1997 between schools with low and high percentages of certified teachers. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129-146.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivikin, S. G.. (2001). Why public schools lose teachers’ national bureau of economic reacher. NBER working paper series 1050 Massachusetts avenue.
Helfand, D. (2001). Lack of qualified teachers undermines state reforms. Retrieved August 30, 2002, from http://www.latimes.com/news/education
Hellfritzch, A. G.. (1945). A factor analysis of teacher abilities. Journal of Experimental Education, 14, 166-169.
Hickok, E. W. (2002). Teacher quality accountability systems: The view from pennsylvania. Teacher Quality, edited by Izumi L. T. & Evers, W. M., the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junoir University.
Jordan, H. R., Mendro, R. L., & Weerasinghe, D. (1997). Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement. Paper presented at the National Evaluation Institute, Indianapolis.

Kane, M. B., & Khattri, N. (1995). Assessment reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 30-32.
Kogan, M. (1988). Educational accountability: An analytical overview. London: Hutchinson.
LaDuke, D. V. (1945). The measurement of teaching ability. Journal of Experimental Education,14, 75-100.
Lewis, A. C. (1998). ‘Just say no‘ to unqualified teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(3), 179-180.
Lipsk, D. B., & Bacharach, S. B. (1983). The single salary schedule vs. merit pay: An examination of the debate. Collective Bargaining Quarterly,11(4), 1-11.
Lori, M., Greg, F., Orlofsky, Ronald, A., Skinner, & Scott, S. (2002). The state of the states. Educational Week: Quality Counts 2002. Retrieved May 9, 2002, from
(1)http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/achieve-t1b.htm
(2)http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/achieve-t1c.htm
(3)http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/quality-t1.htm
(4)http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/quality-t1b.htm
(5)http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/quality-t1c.htm
(6)http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/quality-t1d.htm
(7)http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/quality-t1e.htm
(8)http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/reports/quality-t1f.htm
Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996a). Educative accountability policy research: Methodology and epistemology. Educational administration Quarterly, 32(1), 80-106.
Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996b). Educative accountability: Theory, practice, policy and research in educational administration. Oxford, OH: Pergamon.
McCarthy, M. M. (1990). Teacher testing programs. In J. Murrphy(Ed.), The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases(pp. 189-214). Berkeley: Mucuthan.
Miami-Dade Community (2002.1.14). Fill the teacher gap - MDCC seeks four-year education program. Prepared by the Republican Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce.
Mohrman, A., Mohrman, S. A. & Odden, A. (1996). Aligning teacher compensation with systemic school reform: Skill-based pay and group-based performance awards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 51-71.
Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children, 5(2), 113-127.
National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Teacher quality : A report on teacher preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Retrieved September 2, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/990128.html
National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Schools and staffing survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author, Teachers college, Columbia University.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1997). Doing what Matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: Author, Teachers college, Columbia University.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1997). Draft standards for quality professional development schools. Retrieved August 25, 2002, from http://www.ncate.org/projects/pds/standint.html
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1998.9.25). Program standards for elementary teacher preparation. Washington, DC : NCATE.
Norlin-Weaver, J. L. (1999). Selecting educational accountability indicators: Exploring states and local performances. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, MN.
Odden, A. (2000). New and better forms of teacher compensation are possible. Phi Delta Kappan,81(5), 361-366.
Odden, A., & Kelly, C. (1996). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.
Olson, L. (2002.1.9). Testing systems in most states not ESEA-ready. Education Week, 21(16), 26-27.
Paige, R. (2002.3.13). Testimony on no child left behind: A blueprint for education reform. Retrieved October 5, 2002,]from http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/03-2001/010313/html.
Pay-For-Performance (2002). Teacher quality issues. Retrieved November 5, 2002, from http://www.tqclearinghouse.org/
Rallis, S. F. & Macmullen, M. M. (2000). Inquiry-Minded Schools: Opening Doors for Accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 766-73.
Reed, A. J. S., & Bergemann, V. A. (1995a). A study guide based upon In the classroom: an instruction guide to education(2nd. Ed.). Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group.
Reed, A. J. S., & Bergemann, V. A. (1995b). In the classroom: An introduction to education. Guilford, CO: Dushkin Publishing Group/Brown and Benchmark Publishers.
Riley, R. W. (1999). Quality of teacher education. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Washington, DC.
Rivers, J. C. (1999). The impact of teacher effect on student math competency achievement. Ed. D. diss., University of Tennessee, U.S.
Rossi, R., & Grossman, K. (2002.1.17). Teacher shortage at ‘crisis’ level. Chicago Sun-Times.
Rottenberg, C. J., & Berliner, D. C. (1990). Expert and novice teachers conceptions of common classroom activities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Sack, J. L. (2000.2.23). Candidates tout teacher-quality proposals. Education Week, p. 25-29.
Sanders, T. (1993). A state superintendent looks at national accreditation. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(2), 165-168.
Sanders, W. L., Saxton, A. M., & Horn, S. P. (1997). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System: A quantitative, qutcomes-based approach to educational assessment. Grading Teachers, Grading Schools, edited by J. Millman, Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Sikula, J. (1990). National Commission Reports of the 1980s. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Edited by W. R. Houston. NY: Macmillan.
Skinner, W. A. (1947). An investigation of factors useful in predicting teaching ability. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Manchester,United Kingdom.
Swanson, A. D., & King, R. A. (1997). School finance : Its economics and politics. New York: Long man Publishers.
Swanson, J. (1995). Systemic reform in the professionalism of educators. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), p.36-39.
The Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s Teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.
The Holmes Group (1990). Tomorrow’s Schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.
The Holmes Groups (1995). Tomorrow’s Schools of Education. East Lansing. MI: Author.
The University of Texas at Austin.(1998). Certification programs for teaching in the public schools of Texas(1998-2000). Austin TX: Author.
Title Ⅱ (2001). Data collection –State reports. Retrieved September 11, 2002, from http://www.title2.org
U.S. Department of Education (1999). Regarding the educational excellence for all children act of 1999. Retrieved November 25, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/05-1999/esea-stmt.html
U.S. Department of Education (1998.9). Promising practices: New ways to improve teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education (1998.12). Improving Teacher Quality, Recruitment, and Preparation. Retrieved May 9, 2002, from http:// www.ed.gov/inits/FY99/1-teach.html
U.S. Department of Education (1998.9). A talented, dedicated, and well-prepared teacher in every classroom . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education (1999.3). Educational excellence for all children act of 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education (2000). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1999, January). Teacher quality : A report on teacher preparation and qualifications of public school teachers( NCES 1999-080). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education (1997, July). The seven priorities of the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 6, 2002, from : http://www.ed.gov/updates/7priorities/index.html
Wenglinsky, H. (2000.10). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom Bach into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service.
Wilson, S. M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2001.2). A case of successful teaching policy: Connecticut’s long-term efforts to improve teaching and learning: A research report. Seattle. WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education , 53(3), 190-204.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57-67.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code