Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/74297
|
| Title: | 英國與臺灣校長評鑑制度之比較研究
A Comparative Study on Principals’ Evaluation in the United Kingdom and Taiwan |
| Authors: | 施佩吟 |
| Contributors: | 湯志民
施佩吟 |
| Keywords: | 比較研究
校長評鑑制度
comparative method
principals’ evaluation |
| Date: | 2014 |
| Issue Date: | 2015-04-01 10:11:13 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究旨在進行英國與臺灣校長評鑑制度之比較研究，俾供政府部門、校長評鑑專責機構及校長做為之參考依據。為達成上述目的，本研究採用文件分析法與比較研究法為研究方法，蒐集英國與臺灣校長評鑑制度之相關文獻進行研究，以進行兩國校長評鑑制度之比較，並依據研究發現提出結論與建議。
綜合研究結果歸納出以下結論：
一、兩國皆針對校長相關評鑑立法，顯示兩國對於校長評鑑的重視程度。
二、英國與臺灣校長評鑑之實施目的皆確保校長辦學績效與專業成長。
三、英國校長評鑑專責機構為財團法人，臺灣校長評鑑專責機構為學術研究機構。
四、英國與臺灣校長評鑑前的訓練皆重視所有之參與人員，並根據評鑑的特性進行訓練：臺灣校長評鑑前的訓練包含評鑑的經驗分享，英國校長評鑑前的訓練包含其他校長們感興趣的議題講座；由於兩國在訓練時所花的時間不相同，經費也會有所差異。
五、兩國參與人員皆包括外部專家與校長，臺灣校長評鑑中的教育主管人員有參與，英國則未參與。
六、兩國校長評鑑召開之會議次數差不多；評鑑過程中，英國重視未來目標設定與檢核，臺灣重視校長辦學現況與提出建議。
七、臺灣校長評鑑指標包含六大層面與各六項指標，校長可以選填指標做為自評的內容，臺灣校長評鑑指標較英國深入明確，並較有選擇性；評鑑報告英國全以質性描述校長績效，臺灣則以質量並陳。
八、兩國校長評鑑結果皆為校長促進辦學績效與提升專業成長；英國校長評鑑結果做為調薪之依據，臺灣則根據結果提交專業成長報告書。
九、臺灣校長評鑑針對「改善後通過」的校長先由教育主管人員進行改善訪視，未能通過再由專責機構負責輔導追蹤評鑑；英國則是透過每年評鑑來檢討校長的辦學現況與改善情形。
本研究依據上述結論，分別針對教育行政主關機關、校長評鑑專責機構、校長及後續研究等四方面提出相關的具體建議，以供英國與臺灣兩國教育決策人員參考。
關鍵詞：比較研究、校長評鑑制度
This research mainly focuses on the comparative study on principals’ evaluation in the United Kingdom and Taiwan, and will be provided into the public sectors, institutes that are responsible for the principals’ evaluation, and principals for the references. The research methods are document analysis and comparative method. By collecting the related documents in the United Kingdom and Taiwan and comparaing the systems of these two countries bring out the conclusions and suggestions based on the reseach findings.
The conclusions derived from the research findings:
1. Both the United Kingdom and Taiwan legislated for the principals’ evaluation, and the enactment of the law shows the importance to the countries.
2. The purposes of the principals’ evaluation in the United Kingdom and Taiwan are to ensure the principals’ school performances and professional developememt.
3. The institute that is responsible for the principals’ evaluation in the United Kingdom is an independent consortium Corporate bodies; the institute that is responsible for the principals’ evaluation in Taiwan is academic research institute.
4. They value all the participants in both the United Kingdom and Taiwan, and provide the training programs based on the characteristic of the evaluation. In Taiwan, it concludes the experience sharing; in the United Kingdom, it has the workshop which the principals are interesting in. The difference in the length of the training programs makes the costs different.
5. The participants in the United Kingdom and Taiwan are included extra advisers and principals. In Taiwan, it also has educational authorities during the evaluation, but it doesn’t in the United Kingdom.
6. The numbers to have meeting in both countries are similar. In the evaluation, it puts more stress on future targets and examinations in the United Kingdom, and on the other hand, it brings out suggestions based on the principals’ school performances.
7. In Taiwan, it has 6 levels and 6 indicators for each level. Principals choose indicators in each level as self-evaluations. The design for the levels and indicators in Taiwan is more considerate and selective than in the United Kingdom. The reports in the United Kingdom are presented in qualitative description; the reports in Taiwan are presented in both qualitative and quality description.
8. The principals’ evaluations in the United Kingdom and Taiwan are for boosting school performances and enhancing professional development. In the United Kingdom, results of the principals’ evaluation are used for the adjustment of the salary; in Taiwan, principals should hand in the professional development reports based on the results.
9. As to the principals who pass after remedy, the staff belonged to administrative authorities for education will have some visits for the improvements. In Taiwan, if the principals will not pass after the visits, the institute will take over the evaluations of the guidance; in the United Kingdom, the evaluations are held every year to examine the principals’ performances and the improvements.
Based on the conclusions on the research, there are several suggestions provided for educational authorities, institutes for the evaluation, principals and the operation of the principals’ evaluation in the future.
Key words: comparative method, principals’ evaluation |
| Reference: | 中文部分
中華民國統計資訊網（2014）。國民生產毛額之處分年1981以後。取自 http://ebas1.ebas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=NA0102A5A&ti=%B0%EA%A5%C1%A5%CD%B2%A3%A4%F2%C3B%A4%A7%B3B%A4%C0-%A6~（1981%A5H%AB%E1）&path=../PXfile/NationalIncome/&lang=9&strList=L
王冬雅（2003）。雲林縣國民小學實施校長評鑑制度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中正大學，嘉義縣。
王如哲（2007）。美國中小學校長評鑑制度及其啟示--兼論校長專業發展。北縣教育，62，14-20。
王鳳雄、劉幸真（2011）。校長評鑑之趨勢與省思。學校行政，76，234-254。
朱佳如（2014）。國民中小學校長評鑑指標系統建構之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
朱淑雅（1999）。校長評鑑制度之初探。國民教育，40（2），98-103。
何文純（2010）。日本學校評鑑與我國校務評鑑之探究。取自，http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/89/A14.htm
吳松江（2005）。臺北縣國民中學校長評鑑制度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
吳株榕（2001）。國民小學校長評鑑指標之研究∼以南部地區為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東師範學院，屏東縣。
吳淑妤（2002）。國民小學校長評鑑標準歷程與方法之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。
吳清山、王湘栗（2004）。教育評鑑的概念與發展。教育資料集刊，29（1），1-26。
吳清山、蔡菁芝（2006）。英美兩國教育績效責任之比較分析及其啟示。師大學報， 51（1），1-21。
宋宏明（2006）。國民中學校長評鑑規準之調查研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
李奉儒（2008）。中央集權與教育市場：英國師資培育制度變革之探究。教育研究與發展期刊，4（1）。
周幸吟（2001）。中英中小學校長培訓與任用制度之比較研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。
林文津（1999）。校長評鑑。學校行政，1，45-58。
胡英楗（2001）。基隆市國民小學校長評鑑指標建構之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。
秦夢群（2010）。臺灣校長培育制度與課程之研究。「國立政治大學教育學院頂尖大學計畫99年度分享會」發表之論文，臺北市。
張清楚（1996）。國民小學校長成績考核之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺北市立師範學院，臺北市。
張德銳（1998）。以校長評鑑提升辦學品質---談校長評鑑的目的、規準、與程序。教師天地，96，4-9。
教育部（2001）。教育部九十年度施政目標與重點。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2010）。國民中小學校長辦學績效評鑑參考手冊。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2011a）。教育部100年度施政目標與重點。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2011b）。十二年國民基本教育實施計畫。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2012a）。國小平均每班學生人數及生師比。取自 https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/important/OVERVIEW_M06.XLS
教育部（2012b）。國中平均每班學生人數及生師比。取自 https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/important/OVERVIEW_M05.XLS
教育部（2012c）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。取自 http://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000342
教育部（2013a）。教育統計指標之國際比較。臺北市：作者。
教育部（2013b）。歷年校數,教師,職員,班級,學生及畢業生數（39~102 學年度）。取自 https://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/main_statistics/seriesdata.xls
教育部（2014）。組織架構。取自 http://www.edu.tw/websetting/
list.aspx?Node=1030&Type=1&Code=2010&Index=1&WID=6635a4e8-f0de-4957-aa3e-c3b15c6e6ead
莫永榮（2004）。政府服務委託外包的理論與實務：臺灣經驗。行政暨政策學報，39，75-104。
郭工賓（2000）。校長辦學績效評鑑基本概念之探討。研習資訊，17（5），67-77。
陳忠本（2004）。國民小學校長評鑑之研究－以屏東縣國民小學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。屏東師範學院，屏東縣。
陳梅娥（2002）。模糊德菲術在國小校長評鑑指標系統建構之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，新北市。
湯志民（2002）。中小學校長遴選制度之評議。教師天地，118，20-27。
黃美蓮（2001）。英美圖書館專業人員認可與檢定之比較研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
黃國彥（2000）。文件分析法。取自 http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1303274
黃維詩（2001）。臺北市國民小學學校本位校長評鑑之實施方式與標準建構（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺北師範學院，臺北市。
黃韻寧（2002）。新竹縣國民中小學校務評鑑實施狀況之調查研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台北師範學院，臺北市。
新北市政府教育局（2012）。新北市國民中小學校長評鑑規劃及試辦計畫。新北市：作者。
新北市政府教育局（2014）。組織職掌。取自 http://www.ntpc.edu.tw/_file/
2052/SG/25500/39345.html
新北市政府教育局（2014）。新北市國民中小學校長評鑑規劃及試辦計畫。新北市：作者。
溫明麗 （2006）。1988 以降英國教育改革對台灣教育的啟示。教育研究月刊，148（1），5-16。
臺北市政府教育局（2014）。現行學制。取自 http://www.edunet.taipei.gov.tw/
ct.asp?xItem=1859756&ctNode=33668&mp=104001
劉世閔、吳育偉（2004）。家長教育選擇權：教育公平與績效的雙刃劍。國民教育研究學報，12，19-39。
劉慶仁（1999）。美國中小學教育改革的趨勢--從學童教育卓越法談起。文教新潮，4，3-7。
蔡金柱（2003）。高雄市國民小學校長評鑑制度規劃之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中山大學，高雄市。
鄭新輝 （2003）。英國中小學校長評鑑政策的發展及其啟示。南師學報，37（1），129-153。
鄭新輝（2001）。國民中小學校長評鑑系統之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北市。
鍾榮茂（2005）。高雄縣國民小學教育人員及家長對校長評鑑意見之調查研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中山大學，高雄市。
西文部分
André-Bechely, L. (2005). Public school choice at the intersection of voluntary integration and not-so-good neighborhood schools: Lessons from parents’ experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 267-305.
Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (1998). Performance management: The new realities. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Asif, M., Awan, M. U., Khan, M. K., & Ahmad, N. (2013). A model for total quality management in higher education. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 1883-1904.
Bereday, G. Z. (1964). Comparative method in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bolton, D. L. (1980). Evaluating administrative personnel in school systems. New York: Teachers College Press.
Brown, M., Rutherford, D., & Boyle, B. (2000). Leadership for school improvement: The role of the head of department in UK secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(2), 237-258.
Bunda, M. A. (1979). Accountability and evaluation. Theory into Practice, 18(5), 357-362.
Cambridge Dictionary Online. (2014a). English definition of “evaluation”. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/
business-english/evaluation
Cambridge Dictionary Online. (2014b). English definition of “system”. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/system
Cameron, K. S. (1984). The effectiveness of ineffectiveness. In Staw, B.M., & Cunmings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 235-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cerny, P. (1997). Paradoxes of the competition state: The dynamics of political globalization. Government and Opposition, 32(2), 251-274.
Chen, R. J. (2008). Privatizations of state schools in England: An anatomical process. 2nd International Conference on Education Models in Global Society. Symposium conducted at Ljubljana University, Slovenia.
Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 22-31.
Clement, B. (2004). Potters Bar firm to get bonus just for doing its job. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/
potters-bar-firm-to-get-bonus-just-for-doing-its-job-567005.html
Combs, A. W. (1973). Accountability from a humanistic perspective. Educational Researcher, 2(19), 19-21.
Cullen, K. (1997). An evaluation of the United Kingdom`s national system of headteacher appraisal. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(2), 103-130. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)00007-2
Department for Education (DfE). (2011). Children`s homes: National minimum standards. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education (DfE). (2012a). Teacher appraisal and capability: A model policy for schools. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education (DfE). (2012b). The education (school teachers` appraisal) (English) regulations 2012. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education (DfE). (2013a). The national curriculum in England: Key stages 1 and 2 framework document. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education (DfE). (2013b). The national curriculum in England: Key stages 3 and 4 framework document. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education (DfE). (2013c). Department for Education organisation chart as of 30 September 2010. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education (DfE). (2014). Schools and curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/browse/education/school-life
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1999). Learning to Succeed : A new framework for post-16 learning. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education and Science (DfES). (1988). Education reform act 1988. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2005a). Skills: Getting on in business, getting on in work. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2005b). Higher standards, better schools for all. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2006). The education (school teacher performance management) (English) regulation 2006. London: The Stationery Office.
Eden District Council. (2014). Organisational structure. Retrieved from http://www.eden.gov.uk/your-council/organisational-structure
Elliott, J., Bridges, D., & Ebbutt, D. (1981). School accountability: The SSRC Cambridge accountability project. London: Grant McIntyre.
Farnsworth, K. (2004). Corporate power and social policy in a global economy: British influence under in the influence. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Farnsworth, K. (2006). Business in education: A reassessment of the contribution of outsourcing to LEA performance. Journal of Education Policy, 21(4), 485-496.
Farnsworth, K., & Gough, I. (2000). The enhanced structural power of capital: A review and assessment. In I. Gough (Ed.), Global capital, human needs and social policies (pp. 77-104). London: Palgrave.
Fuller, B. (1986). Defining school quality. In J. Hannaay & M. E. Lockheed (Eds.), The contributions of the social sciences to educational policy and practice: 1965-1985 (pp. 33-69). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Gane, V. (1986). Secondary headteacher appraisal: The nub of credibility. Bristol: NDC.
Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. J., & Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, choice, and equity in education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gipps, C. (1990). National assessment: A comparison of English and American trends. In Broadfoot, P., Murphy, R., & Torrance, H.(Eds.), Changing Educational Assessment: International Perspectives and Trends (pp.53-64). London: Routledge.
Glasman, N. S. (1979). A perspective on evaluation as an administrative funtion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(5), 33-44.
Glasman, N. S., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Principal evaluation in the United States. In Kellaghan, T., & Stufflebeam, D.L. (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (pp. 643-669). Boston, Dordrecht & Lancaster: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Glasman, N. S., & Nevo, D. (1988). Evaluation in decision making: The case of school administration. Boston, Dordrecht & Lancaster: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
GOV. UK. (2014). Education in the UK. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219167/v01-2012ukes.pdf
Grimshaw, D., Vicent, S., & Willmott, H. (2002). Going privately: Partnership and outsourcing in UK public services. Public Administration, 80, 475-502.
Hastings, J. S., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2005). Parental preferences and school competition: Evidence from a public school choice program. NBER Working Paper no. 11805. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hatcher, R., & Hirtt, N. (1999). The business agenda behind Labour’s education policy. In Allen, M., Benn, C., Chitty, C., Cole, M., Hatcher, R., Hirtt, N., & Rikowski, G. (Eds.), Business business business: New Labour’s education policy (pp.12-23). London: Tufness Press.
Hewton, E., & West, N. (1992). Appraising primary headteachers: Challenge, confidence, and clarity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hoglund, B., & McClung, C. (2012). Teaching quality impacts student achievement. ASQ Primary and Secondary Education Brief, 5(3).
Hsiao, H.-C., Lee, M.-C., & Tu, Y.-L. (2013). The effects of reform in principal selection on leadership behavior of general and vocational high school principals in Taiwan. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(3), 421-450.
Hughes, P. (1988). The challenge of identifying and marketing quality in education. Sydney: The Australian Association of senior Education Administrators.
Hunter, C., Elliott, J., Marland, D., & Wormald, E. (1985). Teacher education and teaching quality. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(1), 97-116.
Johnson, K. A., Sachdeva, A. K., & Pellegrini, C. A. (2008). The critical role of accreditation in establishing the ACS Education Institutes to advance patient safety through simulation. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 12(2), 207-209.
Kim, J.-S., & Hwang, Y.-J. (2014). The effects of school choice on parental school participation and school satisfaction in Korea. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 363-385.
Lai, E. (2014). Enacting principal leadership: Exploiting situated possibilities to build school capacity for change. Research Papers in Education(ahead-of-print), 1-25.
Lawrence, M. (2012). Head teacher performance management: A briefing for governing bodies 2012. Retrieved from http://www.northamptonshire.gov.
uk/en/councilservices/EducationandLearning/governors/Documents/Other%20Documents/Head%20teacher%20PM%20%20Briefing%20for%20governing%20bodies%20August%202012.ppt
Maps of World. (2014). UK latitude and longitude map. Retrieved from http://www.mapsofworld.com/lat_long/united-kingdom-lat-long.html
Moore, H. (1988). Appraisal and the headteacher. In L. Bell (Ed.), Appraising teachers in school: A practical guide (pp. 137-153). London: Routledge.
Mountford, J. (1988). The role of critical friends in school evaluation. School Organization, 8(3), 255-260.
National College of Teaching and Leadership. (2014). Effectively managing headteacher performance. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Naylor, A. R., Rothwell, P. M., & Bell, P. R. F. (2003). Overview of the principal results and secondary analyses from the European and North American randomised trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, 26(2), 115-129. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/ejvs.2002.1946
Ouston, J., Fidler, B., & Earley, P. (1998). The educational accountability of schools in England and Wales. Educational Policy, 12(1), 111-123.
Palmer, L., Finn Jr, C., Manno, B., & Vanourek, G. (1997). Charter schools in action: Final report. Washiongton, DC: Hudson Institute.
Poister, T. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rikowski, G. (2005). Silence on the wolves: What is absent of our health care. Brighten, UK: University of Brighten Education Research Center.
Schneider, M., Marschall, M., Teske, P., & Roch, C. (1998). School choice and culture wars in the classroom: What different parents seek from education. Social Science Quarterly, 79(3), 489-501.
Scrivens, E. (1997). Assessing the value of accreditation systems. The European Journal of Public Health, 7(1), 4-8.
Seyfarth, J. T. (1996). Personnel management for effective schools. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Simkins, T. (2000). Education reform and managerialism: Comparing the experience of schools and colleges. Journal of Education Policy, 15(3), 317-332. doi: 10.1080/02680930050030455
Stufflebeam, D., & Webster, W. (1988). Evaluation as an administrative function. In Boyan, N. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp.569-601). New York: Longman.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). Country statistical profile: The United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/country-statistical-profile-united-kingdom_20752288-table-gbr
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2014). Enterprise training in developing countries: Overview of incidence, determinants, and productivity outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dev/2731650.pdf
The US-UK Fulbright Commission. (2014). UK School System. Retrieved from http://www.fulbright.org.uk/study-in-the-uk/k-12-study/uk-school-system
Trethowan, D. (1987). Appraisal and target setting: A handbook for teacher development. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Turner, G., & Clift, P. (1985). A first review and register of school and college based teacher appraisal schemes. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Whitfield, D. (2001). Public services or corporate welfare: Rethinking the nation state in the global economy. London: Pluto Press.
Williams, R. (2002). Managing employee performance: Design and implementation in organizations. London: Thomson.
Witte, J. F., Sterr, T. D., & Thorn, C. A. (1995). Fifth-year report, Milwaukee parental choice program. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Political Science and the Robert La Follette Institute of Public Affairs.
World Bank. (2014a). School enrollment, primary (% gross). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR/countries/GB--XS?display=graph
World Bank. (2014b). Pupil-teacher ratio, primary. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRL.TC.ZS/countries/GB--XS?display=graph
World Bank. (2014c). School enrollment, secondary (% gross). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.SEC.ENRR/countries/GB--XS?display=graph
World Bank. (2014d). Pupil-teacher ratio, secondary. Retrieved from http://search.worldbank.org/quickview?name=Pupil-%3Cem%3Eteacher%3C%2Fem%3E+%3Cem%3Eratio%3C%2Fem%3E%2C+secondary&id=SE.SEC.ENRL.TC.ZS&type=Indicators&cube_no=2&qterm=uk+puple+teacher+ratio
World Bank. (2014e). School enrollment, tertiary (% gross). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR/countries/GB--XS?display=graph |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
教育行政與政策研究所
101171012
103 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101171012 |
| 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 |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101201.pdf | 1432Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 568 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
