本研究旨在探討國民小學教師同儕評鑑模式及其相關因素，並調查國民小學教師對教師同儕評鑑模式之認同度和教師同儕評鑑影響因素之知覺，進一步探討背景變項之影響，並了解兩者之間的相關程度，最終分析教師同儕評鑑影響因素對教師同儕評鑑模式之預測力。
為達上述目的，本研究首先採用文獻分析，結合評鑑、360度回饋理論和同儕評鑑理論之探析，發展出教師同儕評鑑模式。進而應用調查與訪問方法，以獲知國民小學教師對教師同儕評鑑模式和教師同儕評鑑影響因素之看法。
研究母群體來自台灣北部七縣市之公立國民小學教師。研究者於調查研究部分以多階段取樣方式選取79所學校，共計795位教師為研究樣本。實際回收之問卷為607份，回收率76.4%，有效問卷為600份，可用率為75.5%，並應用SPSS for Windows 11.5 統計套裝軟體進行資料分析。首先應用因素分析之方法選題、檢證構念效度，復進行信度分析，以檢證信度之良窳，最後應用t 檢定、單因子變異數分析、Scheffé 多重比較、Pearson積差相關、逐步多元迴歸分析等統計方法進行差異、相關和預測分析 。訪談部分，以立意取樣方式，選取四位受訪者進行結構式訪談，並以摘要歸納方式處理訪談資料。
根據研究結果之分析與討論，本研究獲得以下結論：
壹、 教師同儕評鑑之主要目的為促進教師專業發展。
貳、 教師同儕評鑑的模式可分為準備階段、評鑑階段和回饋檢討階段。
參、 影響教師同儕評鑑之因素為評鑑人員知能因素、信任感因素、校園民主因素、受評者個人因素和性別意識因素。
肆、 國民小學教師對教師同儕評鑑模式之認同度屬中高程度。
伍、 國民小學教師對教師評鑑影響因素的覺知程度不同。
陸、 不同最高學歷、服務年資、有無教師評鑑參與經驗之教師對教師同儕評鑑模式有不同之評價。
柒、 不同最高學歷、服務年資、學校規模之教師對教師同儕評鑑影響因素之覺知程度不同。
捌、 教師同儕評鑑影響因素與教師同儕評鑑模式為正相關。
玖、 教師同儕評鑑影響因素對教師同儕評鑑模式具有高度預測力。
根據上述結論，本研究提出對教育行政機關、學校、教師和後續研究之建議。

關鍵詞：國民小學、教師評鑑、同儕評鑑、專業發展

The aim of this study was to analyze the concepts, models, pros and cons of peer evaluation in teachers and to investigate the elementary school teachers’ perspective in the model of peer evaluation and it’s related factors.
First, reviewed the relevant literature to confer the concepts, development and connotation of peer evaluation. Second, analyzed the models, processes and the related factors of peer evaluation. Finally, applied questionnaire survey and interview to acquire elementary school teachers’ opinions.
795 questionnaires were selected from 79 schools out of the north of Taiwan by multistage random sampling. 607 questionnaires were returned, with 76.4% return rate. Of which 600 questionnaires were useable, with 75.5% valid return rate. The data were analyzed by SPSS for Windows 11.5, using descriptive statistics analysis, t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson product-moment correlation analysis and stepwise multiple regression analysis.
According to the findings, the results were summarized as follows:
1. The main purpose of peer evaluation was to promote teacher professional development.
2. The model of peer evaluation was divided into preparing stage, evaluating stage and reviewing feedback stage.
3. The related factors of peer evaluation were the capability of evaluator, trust, the democracy of school, teachers’ will and the gender consciousness.
4. The identity of the model of peer evaluation was medium-high level.
5. The levels of perception in the related factors of peer evaluation among elementary school teachers were significantly different.
6. The teachers from different academic background, service years and the experience of teacher evaluation showed different views on the model of peer evaluation.
7. The teachers from different academic background, service years and school scale showed different views on the related factors of peer evaluation.
8. There was a significant positive correlation between the related factors of peer evaluation and the model of peer evaluation.
9. The related factors had high predictability in the model of peer evaluation.
According to the conclusions above, some suggestions were made for the educational authorities, elementary schools, elementary school teachers and future researches.

Keywords：elementary school, teacher evaluation, peer evaluation, professional development

參考書目
一、中文部份
石璧菱（2003）。國民小學實施學校本位教師評鑑之研究-以桃園為例。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
朱芳謀（2004）。屏東縣國小教師對教師評鑑態度之研究。國立屏東師範學院教育行政研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
吳明清（1991）。教育研究 : 基本觀念與方法之分析。台北市：五南。
吳政達（2002）。教育政策分析：概念、方法與應用。台北市：高等教育。
吳清山、張素偵（2002）。教師評鑑：理念、挑戰與策略。載於中華民國師範教育學會主編，師資培育的政策與檢討（179-212頁）。台北市：學富。
林榮彩（2002）。高雄市國小教師專業評鑑實施意見之研究。國立台南師範學院教師在職進修學校行政碩士學位班碩士論文，未出版，台南。
施樹宏（2004）。國小教師評鑑規準及實施程序之研究-以台北市為例。國立台北師範學院教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
徐崇文（1999）。以360度回饋探討影響主管人員行為改變意圖相關因素之實證研究。國立政治大學心理學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張清濱（2005）。教學視導與評鑑。台北市：五南。
張裕隆（1998）。三百六十度回饋（七）。國魂月刊，630，72-75。
教育部統計處（2006）。歷年來校數、教師、職員、班級、學生及畢業生數。2006年11月21日取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/STATISTICS/EDU7220001/ebooks/edusta/p4-31.xls。
盛宜俊（2004）。桃園縣國民小學教育人員對實施教師評鑑態度之調查研究。台北市立師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
許峰維（2004）。彰化縣國民小學教師對實施專業評鑑之意見調查研究。國立台中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
陳文堂（2004）。業務人員職能評鑑360度回饋對受評者態度之影響-以某外商藥廠為例。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，桃園。
陳世佳(2004)。以教師專業成長為目標之教師評鑑。教育研究月刊，127，33-44。
陳永發（2005）。國民小學教師同儕教學評鑑模式之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，高雄市。
陳玉琨（2004）。教育評鑑學。台北市：五南。
陳怡君（2003）。國民小學教師評鑑之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
陳雪琴（2003）。新竹縣國民小學實施學校本位教師評鑑之研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
傅木龍（1998）。英國中小學教師評鑑制度研究及其對我國之啟示。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
湯誌龍（2001）。中小學教師評鑑之研究：澳洲維多利亞省的實施經驗。比較教育，51，105-127。
馮莉雅（2002）。學生評鑑教師教學效能之探討。教育資料與研究，47，86-91。
馮莉雅（2003）。三種國中教師教學校能評鑑方式之關係研究:教師自評、教室觀察、學生評鑑。國立台北師範學院學報，16(1)，201-228。
黃德祥、薛秀宜（2004）。教師評鑑模式與發展趨勢。教育研究月刊，127，18-32。
黃耀輝（2002）。台北縣國民中學實施教師教學評鑑制度可行性研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
楊筱慈（1999）。「國中物理教師教室觀察評鑑工具」效化暨學生評鑑教師教學可行性之研究。國立高雄師範大學物理學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
劉麗華（2000）。360度主管管理才能評鑑360度回饋對受評者態度之影響。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園。
蔡慶堂（2002）。主管管理才能評鑑360度回饋對受評者態度之影響因素探討-以在台某外商化工廠為例。國立中央大學管理學院高階主管企管碩士班碩士論文，未出版，桃園。
戴佑全(2000)。台北縣市國民小學教師對「學生評鑑教師教學」意見調查之研究。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所士論文，未出版，台北市。
謝淑芬（2003）。三百六十度回饋應用於我國國中、國小教師績效評核之可行性研究。國立元智大學管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園。
簡成熙（1988）。國民中學實施「學生評鑑教師教學」可行性之研究－學生評鑑教師之影響因素暨教師與行政主管態度之探討。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
顏國樑（2003）。從教師專業發展導向論實施教師評鑑的策略。教育資料集刊，28，259-284。
蘇再添（2005）。台北市國民小學實施教師評鑑之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文，未出版，台北市。

二、西文部份
Anderson, L.W. & Pellicer, L. O. (2001). Teacher peer assistance and review: A practical guide for teachers and administrators. CA: Corwin Press.
Ashbaugh, J. B. (2001). Professional community and peer review in public education: A study of two school districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, California.
Bader, G. E. & Bloom, A. E. (1992). How to do a peer review. Training & Development, 46(6) , 61-64.
Baily, D. B. (1983). Comparison of teacher, peer and self-ratings of classroom and social behavior of adolescents. Behavioral disorders, 8(3), 153-160. ERIC Document.EJ291628.
Basilio, E. L. (2002). Veteran teacher perceptions of the Grossmont model of Peer Assistance and Review (PAR). Is it a viable alternative to traditional evaluation? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego, California.
Batstone, G. (1990). Educational aspects of medical audit. British Medical Journal, 301,326-328.
Beeby, C. E.(1966). The quality of education in developing countries. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
Beerens, D. R. (2000). Evaluating teachers for professional growth: Creating a culture of motivation and learning. CA: Corwin press.
Budman, M., & Rice, B. (1994). The rating game. Across the Board, 31(2), 34-38.
Church, H. A., & Bracken, W. D. (1997). Advancing the state of the art of360-degree feedback: Guest editors' comments on the research and practice of multirater assessment methods. Group & Organization Management, 22(2), 149-161.
Council of Biology Editors(1991). Peer review in scientific publishing: Papers from the First International Congress on peer review in biomedical publication . Chicago: Council of Biology Editors.
Dassler, G. (2004). A framework for human resource management (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Donabedian, A. (1980). Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Vol. I. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press.
Duke, D. L. (1995). Teacher evaluation policy: from accountability to professional development. NY：State University of New York Press.
Durham, N. R. (2005). Peer evaluation as an active learning technique. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(4), 338-345.
Edwards, M. R., & Ewen, A. J. (1996). 360 feedback : The powerful new model for employee assessment and performance improvement.
NY : AMACOM.
Ervasti, R. Y. (2005). Firefly or eternal flame? A historical case study of a peer review effort in a large suburban school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas, Minnesota.
Foskett, N., & Lumby, J. (2003). Leading and managing education：international dimensions, London, Paul Champman In Bush, T. & Middlewood, D. (2005). Leading and managing people in education. Sage.
Garavan, T.N., Morley, M. & Flynn, M. (1997). 360 degree feedback : Its role in employee development. Journal of Management Development, 16, 134-138.
Gil, S. L. (2001). Principal peer evaluation: Promoting success from within, CA : Corwin Press.
Gitlin, A., & Smyth, J. (1989). Teacher evaluation：Educative alternatives. London : The Falmer Press.
Goldstein, J. (2004). Making sense of distributed leadership: The case of peer assistance and review, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,26(2),173-197.
Goldstein, J., & Noguera, P. A. (2006). A thoughtful approach to teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership. 63(6), 31.
Greguras G. J., Robie, C. & Born, M. P. (2001). Applying the social relations model to self and peer evaluations. The Journal of Management Development, 20, 5-6；ProQuest Education Journals pg.508.
Grol, R., & Lawrence, M. (1995). Quality improvement by peer review. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guba, E G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. CA: Sage.
Irvine, D., & Irvine, S. (Eds.)(1991). Making sense of audit. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press.
Kauchak, D., Peterson, K., & Driscoll, A. (1985). An interview study of teachers’ attitudes toward teacher evaluation practices. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 19(1), 32-37.
Keig, L. (2000). Formative peer review of teaching: Attitudes of faculty at liberal arts colleges toward colleague assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1),67-87.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance:
Methods, theory, and applications. NY: Academic Press.
Lawrence, M., & Schofield, T. (Eds.) (1993). Medical audit in primary health care. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Lieberman, M. (1998). Teachers evaluating teachers: Peer review and the new unionism. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers college Record, 91(4),509-536.
Lyke, B. J. (2002). An evaluation of a peer-coaching program for high school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Roosevelt University, Chicago.
Magin, D., & Helmore, P. (2001). Peer and teacher assessments of oral presentation skills：How reliable are they? Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 287-298.
Manning, R. C. (1988). The teacher evaluation handbook： Step by step techniques and forms for improving instruction. NJ：Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs.
Margulus, L. S., & Melin, J. A. (2005). Performance appraisals mage easy: Tools for evaluating teachers and support staff. CA: Corwin Press.
Morris, M. (2003). Ethical considerations in evaluation. In Kellaghan, T., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds), International handbook of educational evaluation: Part one(pp303-328). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2003). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Belmont, CA: Thomson / Wadsworth.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Nadler, D. A. (1997). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based methods. Reading Mass: Addision-Wesley.
Nolan, J. F., & Hoover, L. A. (2005) . Teacher supervision and evaluation: Theory into practice (Update Ed.). Hoboken, NJ :Wiley/Jossey-Bass Education.
Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation：A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices（2nd Ed）. CA : Corwin Press.
Poster, C., & Poster, D. (1993). Teacher appraisal :Ttraining and implementation(2nd Ed.). NY : Routledge.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior(10th Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rogers, G., & Badham, L. (1992). Evaluation in schools: Getting started on training and implementation. NY : Routledge.
Sandra, M. (1992). Evaluation : 10 significant ways for measuring and improving traning impact. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th Ed.). CA: Sage.
Shaw, C. (1980). Aspects of audit: The background. British Medical Journal, 280,1256-1258.
Shinkfield, A. (1995). Principal and peer evaluation for professional development.In Shinkfield, A. J. & Stufflebeam D. L. (Eds), Teacher evaluation：Guide to effective practice（pp302-319）. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Smoliak, W. (2001,Winter). Peer review. Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Retrieved from http://www.saee.ca/policy/D_012_DDD_LON.php
Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Handbook on educational specialist evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY：Eye on Education.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1973). An introduction to the PDK book : Educational evaluation and decision-making. In Worthen, B. R. & Sanders, J. R. (Eds.). Educational evaluation: Theory and practice. CA: Wadsworth.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation : A self-instructional guide to theory and practice. Boston : Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Stufflebeam, D. L., Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T. (Eds.)(2000). Evaluation models : Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation, Boston : Kluwer Academic.
Tenbrink, T. D. (1974). Evaluation: A practical guide for teachers. NY: McGrew-Hill.
Tipple, C. (1989). Measuring achievement, Education, 29, 1989.
Tomlinson, H. (2000). 360 degree feedback-How does it work? Professional development today, 5(2), 93-98 . In Tony Bush& David Middlewood, Leading and managing people in education. CA: Sage.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vinson, M. N. (1996). The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback: Making it work. Training & Development, 50(4),11-12.
Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of 360 feedback : How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity. Houston, Tex：Gulf Publisher.
Warech, M. A., & Smither, J. W. (1998). Leadership quarterly, 9(4), 449-474.