Title

驅動學校發展的資料運用:一所公立高中之實踐經驗

Translated Titles

A Public High School Experience on Data Using Process for School Development

Authors

張淑涵

Key Words

資料運用 ; 資料運用歷程 ; 學校發展 ; data use ; data using process ; school improvement

PublicationName

臺灣師範大學教育政策與行政研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2011年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

潘慧玲

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

自1980年代以來,歐美主要國家普遍以學校本位管理作為教育改革的主流策略,強調學校應作為教育的主體。學校被賦予更多自主經營的空間,學校成員也扮演更積極的角色。美國自2002年布希總統頒佈《不讓孩子落後法案》(No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB)後,講求標準本位績效責任使資料運用與科學本位研究成為美國教育文化的一部份,越來越多國家亦透過學校效能與改進國際學會(International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, ICSEI)分享資料運用的知識與經驗,以瞭解資料運用在不同教育體制和政策下的實施情況。 然而,綜觀我國針對資料運用之相關研究發現,其研究內容皆著重於瞭解目前我國各級學校之資料運用現況,此外,對於學校如何運用資料以促進學校發展的實踐歷程之探討更是付之闕如。基於此,研究者透過實際參與「評鑑導向的學校發展計畫」的過程中,採取質性的個案研究取徑,運用文件分析法、訪談法與觀察法蒐集資料,以瞭解個案學校─洛陽高中之背景脈絡,進而探討其一步步自「評鑑」、「診斷」、而「計劃」以促進學校改進的資料運用歷程,最後則進一步分析影響洛陽高中資料運用之因素。 根據研究結果,提出本研究的結論如下: 壹、洛陽高中在重新定位再出發的脈絡下參與資料運用計畫 貳、洛陽高中學校成員對於「評鑑導向的學校發展整合型計畫」從一開始的疑慮觀望轉為積極主動 參、大學研究團隊與洛陽高中之協作關係有助其實踐資料運用之循環歷程 肆、資料有助洛陽高中學校行政人員正視問題,資料運用歷程有助洛陽高中整體學校發展 伍、促動洛陽高中學校成員運用資料的因素為外在政策的壓力與校長的導入 陸、影響洛陽高中學校成員運用資料之因素有時間不足、教師認同與個人使用資料的能力 基於本研究的發現與結論,文末針對學校以及未來研究提出建議。

English Abstract

Since the 1980s, major countries from European and the U.S. generally regard school-based management as the mainstream of education reform strategy, and emphasized schools as an educational subject. Schools have been given more space to operate independently; members of the school also play a more active role. Since 2002, the U.S. President Bush issued the “No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB”, the emphases on standards-based performance make data use and science-based research as a part of American Education Culture. Many countries also share data using knowledge and experience through the International Association of School Effectiveness and Improvement, IESCI, to understand the data use process in different educational institutions and policy implementation. However, earlier studies on data use usually focus on schools at all levels to understand the current status of the data used, in addition, there is little study about how schools to use data to promote the practice of school development process. Based on this, the researcher through actual participation in “Evaluation-oriented School Development”, used qualitative case study as the research approach, through document analysis, interviews and observation to collect data. The purpose of this research was to understand the background of the case school context, and then explore its data using process form “Evaluating”, “Diagnosing”, “Planning” to improving. Finally, further analysis of the elements that affect data using in case school. Based on the results, the research proposed the conclusion as follows: 1. Lao-Yang High School engages “Evaluation-oriented School Development Plan” in the context of re-positioning. 2. Lao-Yang High School members’ attitudes of “Evaluation-oriented School Development Plan” were changed from doubts to active involvement. 3. The university research team and Lao-Yang High school’s collaborative relationship positively assisted the practice of case school to use data. 4. Data helped Lou-Yang high school administrators to address the issue, and data using process helped Lou-Yang high school’s sustainable development. 5. The pressure of the external policy and the principal’s leadership were the factors that motivated Lou-Yang high school members to use data. 6. The factors that influenced Lou-Yang high school members to use data were the lack of time, and teacher commitment and capacity of data use. Some suggestions for the education authority and future studies, according to the findings of this research were raised.

Topic Category 教育學院 > 教育政策與行政研究所
社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. 吳清山、蔡菁之(2006)。英美兩國教育績效責任之比較分析及其啟示。師大學報:教育類,51(1),1-21。
    連結:
  2. 吳建華(2002)。國民小學推動組織學習之個案研究:以九年一貫課程實施為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文。台北市,未出版。
    連結:
  3. 林其賢(2009)。學校層級資料導向決策系統資料內容之研究:臺北市國民小學校長之意見調查。淡江大學教育科技學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。新北市,未出版。
    連結:
  4. 陳紹賓(2009)。資料導向決定在國民小學校長願景領導應用之研究─以臺北縣為例。國立台北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文。台北市,未出版。
    連結:
  5. 鄭淑惠(2009)。教育評鑑的效用性:促進組織學習的觀點。新竹教育大學教育學報,26(2),57-88。
    連結:
  6. 賴志峰(2003)。美國2001年No Child Left Behind Act 之測驗本位績效責任制度。初等教育學刊,14,135-160。
    連結:
  7. Chen, E., Heritage, M. & Lee, J.(2005). Identity and monitoring students’ needs with technology. Journal of education for students placed at risk, 10(3), 309-332.
    連結:
  8. Hargreaves, D. H., & Hopkins, D. (1993). The empowered school: The management and practice of development planning. London: Cassell.
    連結:
  9. Jennifer L. S., & Kathryn P. B. (2008). Leadership Lessons From Schools Becoming “Data Wise”. Harvard education letter, 24(1), 1-3.
    連結:
  10. Luo, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling for high school principals' data-driven decision making: An analysis of information use environments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 603-634.
    連結:
  11. McLaughlin, C, & Black-Hawkins, K. (2007). School-university partnerships for educational research-distinctions, dilemmas and challenges. Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 327-341.
    連結:
  12. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    連結:
  13. Park,V. & Datnow,A. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. Learning & leading with Technology, 37(7), p18-21.
    連結:
  14. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    連結:
  15. 中文部分
  16. 王世英、謝雅慧(2005)。從資料驅動決定觀點簡介國立教育資料館教育資源。教育資料與研究雙月刊,67,37-52.
  17. 李懿芳、江芳盛 (2006)。美國教育行政。載於江芳盛、鍾宜興(主編),各國教育行政制度比較(頁149-195)。台北市:五南。
  18. 吳芝儀、李奉儒(譯)(1994)。M. Patton著。質的研究與評鑑。台北市:桂冠。
  19. 吳清山、林天佑(2006)。教育名詞:資料驅動決定。教育研究月刊,143,140。
  20. 吳清山、黃美芳、徐緯平 (2002)。教育績效責任研究。台北市:高等教育。
  21. 吳建華、謝發昱、黃俊峰、陳銘凱(2003)。個案研究。載於潘慧玲(主編),教育研究的取徑:概念與應用(頁199-236)。台北市:高等教育。
  22. 林天祐(主編)(2003)。教育行政學。台北市:心理。
  23. 林佩璇(2000)。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於質的研究方法(頁239-259)。高雄市:麗文。
  24. 柯瑞英(2008)。優質學校改進計畫簡介:香港為例。教育研究與評鑑中心電子報,9。2010 年 11 月 3 日,取自:http://epaper.creed.ntnu.edu.tw/index.php?id=52。
  25. 張文穗(2010)。臺北縣國小學校行政人員應用資料導向決定及其相關因素之研究。國立臺北市立教育大學教育行政與評鑑研究所碩士論文。台北市,未出版。
  26. 張奕華、張敏章(2009)。數位時代中提升學校效能新途徑:科技領導與DDDM模式。教育研究月刊,188,112-122。
  27. 張佳琳(2010)。美國閱讀教育政策發展之探究。教育資料與研究雙月刊,93,183-216。
  28. 陳明印(2002)。美國2001年初等及中等教育修正法案之分析。教育研究資訊,10(1),205-228
  29. 梁歆、黃顯華(2010)。大學與學校協作下學校發展主任的理念、策略與角色─香港優質學校改進計畫的個案研究。教育研究集刊,56(1),99-126。
  30. 潘慧玲(主編)(2003a)。教育研究的取徑。台北市:高教。
  31. 潘慧玲(2003b)。社會科學研究典範流變。教育研究資訊,11(1),115-144。
  32. 潘慧玲(2006)。以評鑑促進學校革新之思考。載於吳武典、高強華(主編),優質、創新與前瞻─郭為藩教授七秩華誕祝壽論文輯(頁337-351)。台北市:學富。
  33. 潘慧玲(2010a)。驅動學校革新的評鑑機制。論文發表於載於財團法人中華民國學校行政研究學會、國立臺灣師範大學教育系暨教育政策與行政研究所聯合舉辦之「新世紀學校革新之挑戰與展望」國際學術研討會,台北市。
  34. 潘慧玲(2010b)。評鑑導向的學校發展整合型計畫之子計畫二:評鑑導向的學校發展中資料驅動決定之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫書。台北市:國立臺灣師範大學教育學系。
  35. 鄭淑惠(2007)。探究評鑑如何影響教師的專業成長:以個案研究為例。載於中華民國師範教育學會(主編),教師評鑑與專業成長(頁93-125)。台北市:心理。
  36. 劉名峯(2007)。國民小學校長應用資料導向決定之研究。國立台北教育大學國民教育學系碩士班。台北市,未出版。
  37. 賴志峰(2004)。證據本位之教育政策之理念與啟示。初等教育學刊,17,83-104。
  38. 謝文全(2005)。教育行政學。台北市:高等教育。
  39. 優質學校改進計畫(2009)。優質學校改進計畫的理念與實踐。優質學校改進計畫通訊,5,2。
  40. 韓培爾(1998)。應用社會科學研究法。台北市:商務。
  41. 西文部分
  42. Alkin, M. C., & Taut, S. M. (2003). Unbundling evaluation use. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29 (1), 1-12.
  43. Amanda D., Vicki P., & Brianna K. (2008). Acting on data: How urban high schools use data to improve instruction. Retrieved April 9, 2011, from http://www.newschools.org/files/ActingonData.pdf.
  44. Bernhardt, V. L. (2000). Intersections: New routes open when one type of data cross another. Journal of Staff Development, 21(1), 33-36.
  45. Bernhardt, V. L. (2004).Continuous improvement: It takes more than test scores. ACSA Leadership, November/December, 16-19.
  46. Bernhardt, V. L. (2005). Using data to improve student learning in high schools. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
  47. Bernhardt, V. L. (2009). Data use: Data-driven decision making takes a big-picture view of the needs of teachers and students. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1), 24-27.
  48. Barnes, F. D. (2004). Inquiry and action: Making school improvement part of daily practice. Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Providence, RI: AISR.
  49. Bracey, G. W. (2006). How to avoid statistical traps. Educational Leadership, 63(8), 78-82.
  50. Breiter, A., & Light, D. (2006). Data for school improvement: Factors for designing effective information systems to support decision-making in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (3), 206-217.
  51. Christopher, A. T. (2002). Data use in the school and classroom: The challenges of implementing data-based decision making inside school.(WCER working paper No. 2002-2)
  52. CRESST Web (n.d.). Stepping up 2008-2009. Retried May 15, 2009, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/about.html
  53. Dean, J. S. (2007). A study of decision-making practices by urban Arizona Public school principals: Data-driven decision-making praxis. Umpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Mesa, AZ.
  54. Earl, L. M., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading schools in a data-rich world: Harnessing data for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,.
  55. Education Commission of the States. (2001). No child left behind issue brief data-driven decision making. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from database (ERIC document reproduction service No. ED468334).
  56. Gentry, D. R. (2005). Technology supported data-driven decision-making in an Oklahoma elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma Graduate college, Norman, OK.
  57. Just for the kids (2009). Retried November 21, 2009, from http://www.just4kids.org.
  58. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
  59. Mary, A. L. (2001). Data-driven high school reform: The breaking ranks model. (OERI No. ED-01-CO-0010)
  60. Mclntire, T. (2002). The administrator’s guise to data-driven decision. Technology & Learning, 22(11), 18-27.
  61. NCREL. (2004). Guide to using data in school improvement efforts. Retrieved July 13, 2010, from http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebllk.pdf.
  62. QSP Web(n.d.). QSP Web. Retried May 5, 2008, from http://qsp.cse.ucla.edu/.
  63. Stake, E. R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.