| Summary: | 博士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 特殊教育系所 === 103 === This study aims to construct the indicator system for the administrative evaluation of the special education schools in Taiwan, which is supposed to promote the school effectiveness. Through literature analysis and four focus-group interviews, the researcher formed the preliminary indicator system. Then the evaluation items, evaluation indicators and its criterion were modified according to three times of Delphi questionnaires, and thus the construction of the indicator system was completed. This indicator system of school evaluation consists of 6 evaluation items, 35 indicators and 171 criterions. The researcher further investigated the school staff’s approval of this indicator system through questionnaire on approval degree, and the relative weight on the importance of the indicators was decided by adapting Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Finally, based on the weight system of the indicators, the researcher interviewed the experts on the appropriateness of this indicator system.
The result and conclusion of this study are stated as follows.
1.The analysis of approval degree
(1)There is no significant difference between the approval degree of evaluation items and indicators among educators of different gender or educational stages.
(2)There is also no significant difference between the approval degree of evaluation items of different types of school. And no significant difference is found between the evaluation indicators, except for “dormitory environment and management“, the approval degree of which in the schools for visually impaired is higher.
(3)There is no significant difference between the approval degree on the evaluation items of special-education workers of different positions, level of education, and special-education background. Significant difference is found in part of evaluation indicators.
(4)In part of the evaluation items and evaluation indicators, there is significant difference between the approval degree of special-education workers of different age, length of service, and experience of participating in school evaluation.
2.The analysis of weight system
(1)Among the six evaluation items in this indicator system, “teaching and practicum” weighs 32.17%, which is the highest. Then hierarchically,
“Administrative management and leadership” weight 30.06%.
“Student affair and counseling ” weight 16.25%
“Support and transition service” weight 9.80%
“Facilities and resources” weight 6.92%
“Community interaction and effectiveness ” weight 4.80%
(2)Among the 35 evaluation indicators in this study, 6 indicators has the weight higher than 5%:
“Principal leadership” weight 10.34%
“Course planning and design” weight 9%
“Individual education program” weight 8.17%
“Administrative regulation and operation” weight 6%
“Effective teaching and assessment”weight 5.96%
“School development planning” weight 5.14%
(3)Among the 35 evaluation indicators in this study, 7 indicators has the weight lower than 1.00%:
“Facility management and maintenance” weight 0.97%
“Parent network and participation” weight 0.92%
“Dormitory environment and management” weight 0.75%
“Resource integration and service” weight 0.69%
“School reputation and development” weight 0.61%
“Community relations and cooperation” weight 0.54%
“Library and information appliances” weight 0.47%
Based on the result of this study, suggestions are offered to the education administration, special-education schools and future studies.
|
|---|
