| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 特殊教育學系 === 90 === In order to ensure the quality of education evaluation, we need the concept of meta-evaluation. “Special education meta-evaluation” named by the study means the evaluation of full process of special education evaluation. For the work of special education meta-evaluation, we need a set of “special education meta-evaluation indicators”, which was the purpose of the study.
The structure and items of the indicator system were established by two approaches--“semi-structure interviews” and “the delphi techniques”. Besides, we applied “analytic hierarchy process” to establish the weight system of the indicator system.
The result of the study included 5 first-order indicators. They were displayed by weights ranks as follows：“the functions of special education evaluation”, “special education evaluators”, “special education evaluation items”, “the results of special education evaluation”, and “the style of special education evaluation”. Besides, the 5 first-order indicators included some second-order or third-order indicators.
“Special education evaluators” included 2 second-order indicators. They were displayed by weights ranks as follows：“the competent evaluators”, and “the arrangement of evaluators and the plan of evaluators’ responsibilities”. Besides, the 2 second-order indicators included some third-order indicators.
“The arrangement of evaluators and the plan of evaluators’ responsibilities” included 3 third-order indicators. They were displayed by weights ranks as follows：“evaluators of multiple backgrounds”, “the same evaluators in full evaluation process”, and “evaluators’ responsibilities”.
“The competent evaluators” included 6 third-order indicators. They were displayed by weights ranks as follows：“collecting and checking multiple data”, “respect for evaluatees”, “the understanding of evaluand”, “interactions with other evaluation participants”, “the skills of overcoming evaluation problems”, and “evaluators who are trustworthy and identified”.
“Special education evaluation items” included 6 second-order indicators. They were displayed by weights ranks as follows：“planning according to laws and showing task directions”, “comprising effect evaluation items”, “concrete and clear”, “following individualized spirits”, “identified by evaluatees”, and “grasping points”.
“The functions of special education evaluation” included 5 second-order indicators. They were displayed by weights ranks as follows：“promoting progress”, “understanding true conditions”, “promoting school staff’s emphasis on special education”, “conveying thinking”, and “encouraging excellent performance”.
“The style of special education evaluation” included 6 second-order indicators. They were displayed by weights ranks as follows：“sufficient evaluation time”, “prudent grading way”, “the opportunities of interactions with evaluatees”, “normalizing evaluation”, “encouraging self-evaluation” and “considering negative influences”.
“The results of special education evaluation” included 4 second-order indicators. They were displayed by weights ranks as follows：“constructive suggestions”, “credible evaluation results”, “concrete disclosure after discussion”, and “as the base of tracing or next evaluation”.
At the end of the study, the study made some suggestions for the utilization of the indicators and further study.
Key words：Special Education Evaluation, Meta-evaluation Indicators
|
|---|
