Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/143338
|
| Title: | 協同視導指標建構之研究
Indicators Construction of the Collaborative Supervision |
| Authors: | 李修綺
Lee, Hsiu-Chi |
| Contributors: | 郭昭佑
Guo, Chao-Yu
李修綺
Lee, Hsiu-Chi |
| Keywords: | 協同視導
實習輔導教師
實習指導教師
實習學生
師資培育
教育實習
指標建構
概念構圖
Collaborative Supervision
Cooperating Teacher
University Supervisor
Student Teacher
Educational Practicum
Teacher Education
Indicator Construction
Concept Mapping |
| Date: | 2022 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-02-08 15:31:33 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究目的係為建構協同視導指標，以提供實習指導教師與實習輔導教師在教育實習上合作之參考，以期提升教育實習學生之實習品質。透過蒐集及彙整國內外文獻有關師資培育、教育實習及協同視導概念之相關研究，建構協同視導初擬指標。後續依專家適切性評估問卷意見修改指標，再以概念構圖做為研究方法，分析專家對於個別指標之重要性程度及分群意見，研究最終獲得個別指標及構面之重要性程度，並完成協同視導指標之建構。有關本研究之結論與建議歸納如下：
一、結論
（一）本研究協同視導指標系統可分為四構面共計30項指標。
（二）本研究之協同視導指標獲專家之高度認同。
（三）「協作指導成效：專業能力與專業精神」為最重要之協同視導指標構面。
（四）「協同視導雙方在視導過程之互動上維持多元暢通之溝通管道」為最重要之協同視導指標。
（五）不同對象對於協同視導構面及指標重要性程度之排序有其差異。
二、建議
（一）對於協同視導雙方進行教育實習視導之建議
1.本研究之協同視導指標可用來檢視教育實習之實習情形。
2.協同視導雙方應重視透過協同視導來提升學生專業能力及專業精神。
3.協同視導雙方應透過各種管道提升彼此間交流及溝通之機會。
4.協同視導雙方應避免在視導過程中產生角色或合作認知不對等形況。
（二）對未來相關研究領域之建議
1.協同視導指標建構可針對不同教育階段之實習。
2.協同視導指標建構應隨政策及法規不同而更新。
3.協同視導指標建構可採用不同研究方法進行探究。
4.協同視導指標建構可更廣泛參酌相關利害關係人之意見或國外實習制度研究。
This study aims to construct the indicators of the Collaborative Supervision, which provides a model of collaboration between university supervisors and cooperating teachers in educational practicum, and also improves the quality of educational practicum. Relevant research of teacher education, educational practicum and collaborative supervision from the local and foreign instances was collected and summarized to construct preliminary indicators of the Collaborative Supervision. After that, we modified preliminary indicators according to adequacy assessment questionnaires of experts. Concept mapping was adopted as research method to analyze experts` opinions on the importance of each indicator and classify the cluster of the indicators. Finally, we not only found the importance of each indicator and dimension, but also construct the system of indicators of Collaborative Supervision. The conclusions of this study are as follows:
Section One: The Conclusions
1.The indicators of the Collaborative Supervision are composed of 30 indicators and 4 dimensions.
2.The indicators of the Collaborative Supervision have been highly recognized by experts.
3.“The effectiveness of collaborative guidance: professional competence and professionalism” is the most important dimension of the indicator system for Collaborative Supervision.
4.“Cooperating teachers and university supervisors should enhance the opportunities for mutual exchange and communication through various channels” is the most important indicator in the system of indicators of Collaborative Supervision.
5.There are differences between the scholars and school faculty in the sequence of the importance for each indicator and dimension of Collaborative Supervision.
Section Two: The Recommendations
I.For the development of collaboration in educational practicum between cooperating
teachers and university supervisors:
1.The indicators of the Collaborative Supervision can be used to examine the practice situation of educational practicum.
2.Cooperating teachers and university supervisors need to improve student teachers’ professional competence and professionalism by Collaborative Supervision.
3.Cooperating teachers and university supervisors need to enhance the opportunities for mutual exchange and communication through various channels.
4.Cooperating teachers and university supervisors should avoid the unequal cognition of roles or cooperation in the process of supervision.
II.For related research fields in the future:
1.The Indicators Construction of Collaborative Supervision can be conducted to educational practicum of different education stages.
2.The Indicators Construction of Collaborative Supervision should be updated and revised with different policies and regulations.
3.Different research methods can be used to construct another indicator system of Collaborative Supervision in future.
4.The Indicators Construction of Collaborative Supervision can take into account the opinions of relevant stakeholders and educational practicum system of foreign instances more extensively. |
| Reference: | 壹、中文文獻
丁一顧（2015）。我國教育實習制度的沿革、問題與前瞻。載於吳清基、黃嘉莉（主編）師資培育：20年的回顧與前瞻（頁203-221）。中華民國師範教育學。
丁一顧、梁東民（2020）。臺灣教育實習制度的回顧與前瞻。幼兒教育，(329)，6-18。
丁一顧、張德銳（2010）。臺北市教學輔導教師教師領導與專業學習社群關係之研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊，10，55-84。
孔令泰（2003）。中等學校實習學生教育實習輔導策略之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學。
古明峰（2013）。一位實習指導教授與學校攜手協助實習生專業成長之個案研究。新竹教育大學教育學報，30(2)，65-100。
呂秀蓮（2014）。學校合作老師，實習指導教師與相互觀察的師資生協同輔助實習生學習的影響研究。教育研究與發展期刊，10(1)，1-22。
呂秀蓮（2015）。形式主義的師資職前「教育實習」改革刻不容緩。臺灣教育評論月刊，4（7），78-85。
呂秀蓮（2018）。美國職前教師實習課程規劃之個案研究：帶給臺灣教師實習之啟示。教育研究月刊，291，109-135。
呂文惠(2021)。鼓勵實習生參與教師專業學習社群以提升教學能力。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（5）。
呂木琳（1998）。教學視導－理論與實務。臺北：五南。
吳政達（2008）。教育政策分析：概念、方法與應用（二版）。高等教育。
吳政達、郭昭佑（1997）。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應用。教育與心理研究，20（2），217-242。
吳清山（2006）。師資培育的理念與實踐。教育研究與發展期刊，2（1），1-32。
吳清山（2005）。師資培育發展的困境與突破。研習資訊，22（6），23-29。
吳清基、黃嘉莉、張明文（2011）。我國師資培育政策回顧與展望。載於中華民國師範教育學（主編），我國師資培育政策回顧與展望（1-19）。心理。
吳淑禎（2013）。老師，你準備好了嗎？從十二年國民基本教育談師資培育的努力方向。教育人力與專業發展，30(4)。
吳姵蓉、郭美麟（2013）。「第三空間」課程觀的省思。臺灣教育評論月刊，2（7），89-91。
余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習：概念構圖之研究。商鼎文化。
余民寧、陳嘉成（1996）。概念構圖：另一種評量法。國立政治大學學報，73，161-200。
余民寧、潘雅芳、林偉文（1996）。概念構圖法：合作學習抑個別學習。教育與心理研究，19，93-124。
邱兆偉（1996）。美國專業發展學校理念的誕生與成長。比較教育通訊，39，1-12。
林淑梤、張惠博、段曉林（2009）。促進實習學生教學改變的夥伴實習輔導。教育科學研究期刊，54(1)，23-53。
林梅琴（2007）。教育實習輔導制度運用發展性教學輔導系統之策略。教育研究與發展期刊，3（1），1-32。
林明煌、陳文瑜（2020）。教育實習優質化：縮短理論到實務的最後一哩路。臺灣教育評論月刊，9(12)，8-12。
林政逸（2019）。師資培育白皮書發布後師資職前培育和教師專業發展之省思。教育研究與發展期刊，15(1)，1-28。
周祝瑛（2009）。比較教育與國際教改。臺北：三民。
高熏芳、王慧鈴(2002)。師資培育機構與中小學教育伙伴關係之研究—教育合作現況與需求之分析。淡江人文社會學刊，10，頁147-173。
孫志麟（2002）。〈專業發展學校：理念、實務與啟示〉。國立臺北師範學院學報，15，557-584。
孫志麟（2020）。未竟之路：素養導向教育政策分析。教育研究月刊，313，頁141-156。
陳美玉（1999）。教師專業學習與發展。台北：師大書苑。
陳嘉彌（2000）。另類的教師成長：師徒式專業成長構念之探析。國立花蓮師院學報，10，27-46。
張德銳（2000）。教育行政研究。五南。
張德銳（1996）。美國良師制度對我國實習輔導制度之啟示。初等教育學刊，5，41-64。
張清濱（2005）。教學視導與評鑑。五南。
張鈿富、吳慧子、吳舒靜（2010）。問題建構分析臺灣師資培育政策之規劃。教育研究與發展期刊，6（2）， 207-230。
教育部（2012）。中華民國師資培育白皮書。教育部。
教育部（2016）。中華民國教師專業標準指引。教育部。
許籐繼（2020）。混淆？認同？中小學實習輔導教師的角色困境與解決策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，9(12)，17-22。
符碧真、黃源河（2013）。打造「知識歐洲」的師資培育：對我國的啟示。教育研究與發展期刊，1，1-20。
符碧真、黃源河（2016）。實地學習：銜接師資培育理論與實務的藥方？教育科學研究期刊，61（2），57-84。
曾大千、陳炫任（2010）。論師培法令架構下之實習制度變遷與發展。教育科學期刊，9（2），143-164。
黃嘉莉（2019）。師資養成公費制度之歷史探究。教育科學研究期刊，64(2)，99-129。
黃政傑（2020）。面對師資培育新挑戰。臺灣教育評論月刊，9(5)，1-8。
黃繼仁（2011）。我國師資培育改革的挑戰與展望：典範轉變的觀點。教師專業研究期刊，創刊，79-99。
曾素秋(2017)。中華民國教師專業表現指引對照現行師資培育制度之省思。臺灣教育評論月刊，2017，6（7），1-6。
楊俊鴻、歐用生（2009）。「第三空間」及其課程美學蘊義。教育資料與研究雙月刊，88，69-92。
楊志強、李雅婷(2021)。我國教育實習制度發展歷史沿革與實習期間代課問題芻議。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（10），44-50。
楊智穎（2019）。回應新課程政策變革的師資培育課程發展。臺灣教育評論月刊，8(4)，51-57。
詹志禹（2019）。臺灣實驗教育師資培育的困境與希望。中等教育，70(1)，8-16。
鄭景澤（2010）。師資培育三人舞—打造一個完備的教育實習制度。台灣師資培育電子報，5，1-3。
鄭景澤（2012）。互動關係？還是缺乏關係？談臺師資培育改革的動力源。臺灣師資培育電子報，33。
鄭美紅、鄧怡勳(2003)。透過院校合作促進中小學實習學生的專業發展。教育曙光，47，頁54–61。
潘宜如(2018)。我國師資培育之再思。臺灣教育評論月刊，7（2），頁 71-74。
閻自安(2019)。臺灣師資培育的歷史回顧與展望：品質持續提升。教育研究月刊，300，64-78。
謝念慈（2016）。十二年國民基本教育中學師資培育的有效教學：差異化的觀點。課程研究，11，19-45。
貳、英文文獻
Anderson, D. (2007). The role of cooperating teachers` power in student teaching. Education, 128, 307-323.
Awang, M. M., Jindal-Snape, D., & Barber, T. (2013). A Documentary Analysis of the Government’s Circulars on Positive Behavior Enhancement Strategies. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 203-208.
Baker, S. B. (1994). Mandatory Teaching Experience for School Counselors: An Impediment to Uniform Certification Standards for School Counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 33(4), 314–326.
Beach, Don M., and Judy Reinhartz.(2000). Supervisory Leadership: Focus on Instruction. Allyn and Bacon.
Beryl Duncan Wilson and Vanessa Rozzelle. (2005). Collaborative Supervision of Counseling Interns.http:/www.Counseling.org/resources.ACA
Berrill, D. P., & Addison, E. (2010). Repertoires of practice: Re-framing teaching portfolios. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1178–1185.
Blasé, J. and Blasé, J. (2000). Effective Instructional Leadership: Teachers’ Perspectives on How Principals Promote Teaching and Learning in Schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 130-141.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320082
Bourke, J. M. (2001). The role of the TP TESL supervisor. Journal of Education and Teaching, 27(1), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470120042546
Boudreau, P. (1999). The Supervision of a Student Teacher as Defined by Cooperating Teachers. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de l’éducation, 24(4), 454–459.https://doi.org/10.2307/1585898.
Brundage, S.(1996).What kind of supervision do veteran teachers need? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(1),90-94. http://web.ebscohost.com/
Buchberger, F., Campos, B. P., Kallos, D., & Stephenson, J. (2000). Green paper on teacher education in Europe. Umea, Sweden: Thematic Network on Teacher Education in Europe.
Bullough, R. V., & Draper, R. J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors, university supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 407-420.
Burden, P. (1982). Developmental supervision: Reducing teacher stress at different career stages. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Education National Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Bureau, W. (1993). Seeing supervision differently: The processes of facilitating change in a veteran teacher’s beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Caires, S., & Almeida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision: The student teachers` perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education – EJPE, 22, 515-528.
Calderhead, J. (1996). The Role of the Mentor in the Preservice and Inservice Education of Teachers. Paper presented at the International Conference on Basic Education, Hong Kong, 5-6 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73317-3_11
Chalies, S., Bruno-Meard, F., Meard, J., & Bertone, S. (2010). Training preservice teachers rapidly: The need to articluate the training given by university supervisors and cooperating teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 26(4), 767-774. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.012
Chizhik, E. W., Chizhik, A. W., Close, C., & Gallego, M. (2017). SMILE (Shared Mentoring in Instructional Learning Environments): Effectiveness of a Lesson-Study Approach to Student-Teaching Supervision on a Teacher-Education Performance Assessment. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(2), 27–47. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN= EJ1140371&lang=zh-tw&site=ehost-live
Clement, M. C. (2002). What cooperating teachers are teaching student teachers about classroom management. The Teacher Educator, 38(1), 47-62.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167272
Colburn, A. (1993). Creating Professional Development Schools. Fastback 352. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED359146.pdf
Cornelissen, F., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y., Van Swet, J., Beijaard, D. & Bergen, T. C. M.(2014). Leveraging the relationship: Knowledge processes in school-university research networks of master’s programmes. Research Papers in Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2014.919522
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (with LePage, P., ammerness,K., & Duffy, H.).(2005).Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962
Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and Education. The Educational Forum, 50, 241-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764
ETUCE (European Trade Union Committee for Education) (2008). Teacher education in Europe - An ETUCE policy paper. Brussels.
Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Longman.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-266. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312006002207
Ganser, T. (1996). What do mentors say about mentoring?. Journal of Staff Development, 17(3), 36–39.
Gannon, S. (2010). Service learning as a third space in pre-service teacher education. Issues in Education Research, 20(1), 21-28.
http://www.iier.org.au/iier20/gannon.pdf
Grossmann, P., Hammerness, K. & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
Glickman, C.D., (1981). Developmental supervision: Alternative approaches for helping teachers to improve instruction. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2004). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (9th ed.). Pearson Education.
Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. (1980). Models of Supervision: Determining One’s Beliefs Regarding Teacher Supervision. NASSP Bulletin, 64(440), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658006444019
Glickman, D., Gordon, S. P., & Gordon, J. M. R. (2007). Supervision and instructional leadership, a developmental approach (7th ed.). Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P., & Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2014).Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education.
Goodlad, J. I., & Keating, P. (1994). Access to Knowledge: The Continuing Agenda for Our Nation’s Schools. Revised Edition.
Gray, J. (1999). A Collaborative Model for the Supervision of Student Teaching.
Griffin, G. A. (1986) Clinical teacher education. In J. Hoffman & S. Edwards (Eds.). Reality and reform in teacher education (pp. 1-24). Random House.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a Sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3
Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R. Houston(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514–534).Macmillan Pub-lishing.
Hesjedal, E., Hetland, H., & Iversen, A.C. (2015). Interprofessional collaboration: self‐reported successful collaboration by teachers and social workers in multidisciplinary teams. Child & Family Social Work, 20, 437-445.
Holmes Group.(1995). Tomorrow’s Schools of Education. East Lansing,.
Huberman, M.(1993). The lives of teachers. (Jonathan Neufeld, Trans.) Teachers College Press.
Ingrid Gross(2015).A Comparative Case Study of the Professional Development School (PDS) and Traditional Pre-Service Teacher Education Models. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 7 (1),4-8.
Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, SAGE.
Koerner, M., Rust, F., & Baumgartner, F. (2002). Exploring roles in student teaching placements. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 35–58.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J. & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), https://doi.org/10201041
Klein, E. J., Taylor, M., Onore, C., Strom, K. & Abrams, L. (2013). Finding a third space in teacher education: Creating an urban teacher residency. Teacher Education, 24(1), 27-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.711305
Lovell, John Thomas, and Wiles, Kimball.(1983).Supervision for better schools. (5th ed). Englewood Cliffs, Pretice-Hall.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Educational Schools .Project.
McIntyre, D. J., & Byrd, D. M. (2000). Research on Effective Models for Teacher Education. Teacher Education Yearbook VIII.
Menter, I. (2016). Teacher education-making connections with curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward & J. Pandya. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp.1015-1028). SAGE reference.
Melser, N. A. (2004). The Shared Supervision of Student Teachers: Leadership, Listening, and Lessons Learned. The Professional Educator, 27(1-2), 31.
Mtika, P., Robson, D. & Fitzpatrick, R. (2014). Joint observation of student teaching and related tripartite dialogue during field experience: Partner perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39(July), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.006
Moir, E. (2003). Launching the Next Generation of Teachers through Quality Induction.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working Toward Third Space in Content Area Literacy: An Examination of Everyday Funds of Knowledge and Discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.
Moswela, B. (2010). Instructional Supervision in Botswana Secondary Schools: An Investigation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209351811
Pajak, E. (2000). Clinical supervision and psychological functions: A new direction for theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17, 189–205.
Pane, D. (2007). Third space theory: Reconceptualizing content literacy learning. Florida International University, USA.
Pedler M. Burgoyne J. & Boydell T. (1997). The learning company : a strategy for sustainable development (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Phompun, C., Thongthew, S., & Zeichner, K. (2013). The Use of the Hybridity Theory and the Third Space Concept to Develop a Teaching Identities Enhancement Program for Student Teachers.
Phompun, C., Thongthew, S., & Zeichner, K. (2013). Pre-service teacher education in thailand in the third space. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 9(1), 11-20,51.https://search-proquest-com.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/docview/1346942828?
accountid=10067
Puchner, L. D. & Taylor, A. R. (2006). Lesson study, collaboration and teacher efficacy: Stories from two school based math lesson study groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 922-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.011
Putnam, R. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029001004
Revans, R. (2011). ABC of action learning. Farnham: Gower..
Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching in to family and community Endeavors. An orientation. Human Development, 57(2/3), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000356757
Steele, A. R. (2017). An Alternative Collaborative Supervision Practice between University-Based Teachers and School-Based Teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 582–599. http://search.ebscohost.com.autorpa.lib.nccu. edu.tw/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1150992&lang=zh-tw&site=ehost-live
Silva, D. Y. & Dana, N. F. (2001). Collaborative supervision in the professional development school. Joumal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16(4), 305-321.
Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Blackwell.
Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, Karen Rut Gísladóttir & Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir (2015) Using Self-Study to Develop a Third Space for Collaborative Supervision of Master`s Projects in Teacher Education.Studying Teacher Education, 11(1), 32-48, DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2015.1013026
Taylor, M., Klein, E. J. & Abrams, L. (2014). Tensions of reimagining our roles as teacher educators in a third space: Revisiting a co/autoethnography through a faculty lens. Studying Teacher Education, 10(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17425964.2013.866549
Thongthew, S. (2011). Teacher training and teacher education in Thailand. International handbook on teacher education worldwide. 2, 535-552.
Tiller, T. (2006). Aksjonslæring – forskende partnerskap i skolen. Motoren i det nye læringsløftet. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.
Trochim, W. M. K. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. In W. M. K. Trochim (Ed.) A Special Issue of Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16.
Welch, M., & Sheridan, S. M. (1995). Educational partnerships: Serving students at risk. Ft. Harcourt Brace.
Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education,49(1),26. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A20197648/AONE?u=googlescholar&sid=googleScholar&xid=a596cafd
West, J. F. (1990). Educational collaboration in the restructuring of schools. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0101_2
Wiyono, B. B., & Rasyad, A. (2021). The Effect of Collaborative Supervision Approaches and Collegial Supervision Techniques on Teacher Intensity Using Performance-Based Learning. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211013779.
Willegems, V., Consuegra, E., Struyven, K., & Engels, N. (2017). Teachers and pre-service teachers as partners in collaborative teacher research: A systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 230–245.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in College- and University-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89-99.
Zepeda, S.J., & Ponticell, J.A. (1995). The supervisory continuum: A developmental approach. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Practitioner, 22(1), 1–4.
Zepeda, S.J.,(2016).Instructional Supervision.(4th ed.). Routledge. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
教育行政與政策研究所
106171006 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106171006 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育行政與政策研究所 ] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 100601.pdf | | 3594Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
