從歷史制度論觀點剖析教師專業發展評鑑的政策變遷與延續

An Analysis of the Policy Changes and Continuities of Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development - from the Perspective of Historical Institutionalism

林思騏(Szu-Chi Lin) ； 陳盛賢(Sheng-Hsien Chen)

《師資培育與教師專業發展期刊》 11卷3期 (2018/12) Pp. 61-81

https://doi.org/10.3966/207136492018121103003

摘要

本研究採取歷史制度論的觀點，檢視教師專業發展評鑑政策變遷之內外生因素，探討教師專業發展評鑑政策之施行如何帶動教師專業發展，分析該政策各階段建構和影響因素，將整個教師專業發展評鑑執行變遷的路徑呈現。研究顯示教育部內部組織改造、教師專業發展評鑑轉型等因素為造成政策執行變遷的二個關鍵時期，而在各種危機與不可意料的非制度性因素中，擴大了我們對於教師專業發展的想像。其重點為：一、不同利益團體間對於教師專業發展評鑑的看法存在高度落差，進而以各種手段對該政策執行過程產生影響。二、雖然教師專業發展評鑑的執行過程暗潮洶湧，但受到教師必須要不斷成長且教師是專業等意識型態影響，該政策執行十年變易不大，對教師成長的意涵是一種無形的制度與典範的轉移。三、轉型後的教學革新模式與教師專業發展實踐方案並行不悖。唯實踐方案出現各縣市承辦人與教師對其純熟度與清晰度差異很大，恐造成「熟稔/陌生」及「熱衷/敷衍」兩極化現象出現，未來也可能還有虛應的問題出現。

關鍵字

教師專業發展評鑑 ； 歷史制度論 ； 政策變遷

並列摘要

From the viewpoint of historical institutionalism, this paper explored the internal and external factors influencing policy changes of teacher evaluation for professional development, TEPD, and the question as to how TEPD policies were implemented to trigger teachers' professional development. By looking into how TEPD policies were formed structurally at each phase and what factors impacted the policy during its implementation, this study presents the changing paths of the TEPD's implementation as a whole. The results indicate that changes in policy implemtation took place at two vital phases induced by the factors of the internal re-organization of the Ministry of Education and the transformation of TEPD. There are also climacteric, unpredictable non-structural factors during this period of time that inflate our understanding of teacher professional development. In short, the main findings are as follows. (1) With a huge gap between their understandings of TEPD, different interest groups tried various ways to influence policy implementation. (2) In spite of the periods of ups and downs, the policy has been implemented over the past ten years without major changes or revisions. The policy has created a paradigm and systematic shift for teacher professional development, because it highlights crucial ideologies such as ＂continuous growth as a teacher＂ and ＂teacher as a profession.＂ (3) The newly transformed teaching methodologies can be conducted concurrently with TEPD practices. However, it appears in each county/city that different teachers and different staff members in charge of the plan are not equally acquainted with the plan and that their comprehension of the plan varies significantly. In the future, a polarized predicament in terms of being familiar/unfamiliar and enthusiastic/perfunctory might arise, as could the problem of merely pretending to do the work yet not making any substantial progress.

並列關鍵字

teacher evaluation for professional development ； historical institutionalism ； policy changes

參考文獻

黃宗昊(2010)。歷史制度論的方法立場與理論建構。問題與研究。49(3)，145-176。

Dagley, D. L.,Orso, J. K.(1991).Integrating summative, formative modes of evaluation.National Association of Secondary School Principals.75(536),72-82.

Egelson, P.(1994).Teacher evaluation plans that support professional growth.,未出版.

Ellen, M. I.(1998).The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism.Olitics & Society.26(1),5-34.

Gorges, M.J.(2001).New Institutionalist Explanations for Institutional Change: A Note of Caution.Politics.21(2),137-145.