(18.210.12.229) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/03 16:21
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:鍾玉珍
研究生(外文):Yu-Chen Chung
論文名稱:可選式績效本位薪酬制度可行性之研究-以公立高中職教師薪酬制度為例
論文名稱(外文):The Feasibility Study on Alternative Teacher Performance-based Compensation System in Public High School of Taiwan
指導教授:鍾瑞國鍾瑞國引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ruey-Gwo Chung
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:人力資源管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:中文
論文頁數:163
中文關鍵詞:教師薪酬績效本位薪酬
外文關鍵詞:teacher's compensationperformance-based compensation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:271
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
摘 要
本研究旨在研議改進我國現行公立高中職教師薪酬制度,提出制定多樣化、可選擇的績效本位薪酬制度建議,並初步探究可選式績效薪酬在我國實施之可行性。為確認我國公立高中職教師如採行可選式績效薪酬制度,在內外部組織環境影響下,整體薪酬與績效設計需考量的方案與配套措施,作為改進教師薪酬決策依據。本研究提出四種可選式績效本位薪酬方案,有:技能或能力本位敘薪、團體績效獎金、個人績效獎金與績效風險獎金方案四種。並藉由專家訪談、Delphi調查問卷發展出制定績效薪酬考量面向:薪酬制訂、績效特性、環境配合、組織特性及制度組織適配等五種,最後以AHP調查問卷建構技能或能力本位敘薪各知能指標之權重。研究樣本包括Delphi調查問卷專家16人,AHP調查問卷11人。
本研究Delphi專家問卷調查結果,專家同意改革我國公立高中職教師薪酬,並歸納出結論為:(一)整體薪酬與績效特性面向:專家同意可選式績效薪酬,但對於教師選擇權限大小,同意程度不同;可選式績效薪酬各方案之同意情形不一;專家同意依技能或能力敘薪,但知能規準細目待探討;專家同意個人績效獎金多樣化方式;績效評量方式與細節待持續探討;(二)環境組織以及制度與組織適配面向面向:本研究建議之提高績效薪酬可行性措施均獲得支持;確保績效薪酬財源之籌措方式均獲同意;專家不同意放寬績效獎金請領條件,堅持績效薪酬制度嚴謹性;專家同意設置專業教學認證與績效評鑑機關。
本研究AHP調查問卷結果,技能或能力本位敘薪之三個構面以「直接能力」為最重要;「直接能力」之知能因素指標以教學內容佔最重要;「間接能力」知能因素指標以學生考試與評量佔最重要;「領導活動」知能因素指標以研發高品質教材最重要。整體知能因素指標優先考量的前三位為「教學內容」、「教學設計」及「教學策略」。
依據研究結論,本研究提出管理意涵為:(一)整體薪酬制定與績效面向:考量建立高中職教師可選式績效本位薪酬制度;適當分權,落實學校自主與教師自主;依據我國特有文化環境改進績效薪酬制度;依薪酬功能將教師本薪、學術研究費與獎金分離;將技能或能力本位敘薪制度與「教師分級制」及「教師績效評鑑」作適當結合;尋求適合我國國情之獎金與本薪比;(二)環境與組織配合以及制度與組織適配面向:善用教師會的影響力;成立專業的民間教學認證機關;建立公平教師績效評量機制;落實學校自主,依各校特性自訂學校績效目標;善用薪酬及各種人力資源管理方案提升教學品質;學校文化比行政機關適推動可選式績效本位薪酬。最後提出未來研究建議,期供教育行政機關訂定教師績效薪酬與後續研究之參考。
Abstract
The study aimed to provide an alternative teacher performance-based compensation system and to explore the practicability of performance-based compensation in public high school of Taiwan. Four programs of the alternative teacher performance-based compensation were provided in the study, including skills or competency-based pay, group performance awards, individual performance-based awards and pay at-risk performance awards.
In order to probe the contextual variables that may affect the compensation system implementation and success, the researcher offered five aspects of contextual factors for examining the compensation system design. Components of the contextual variables included characteristics of the environment, characteristics of the organization, the organization’s base pay system, the organization’s variable pay plan, and the fit between compensation and organization. Sixteen experts were enrolled in the research for the development of Delphi technique questionnaires and another eleven for the AHP questionnaires. The results gained from Delphi technique questionnaires were that (1) paying system aspect:experts showed their preference to teacher performance-based compensation; experts advocated for school-based performance award programs; experts agreed with skills or competency-based pay program and disliked paying at risk performance awards ; individual-based performance awards should be diversified; the evaluation systems need to be more sophisticated, (2) environment, organization and the fit between compensation and organization aspect: responds showed that it was important that a performance-based compensation plan had a sustainable funding source; experts tended to agree to a research establishment as a board for profession teaching standards.
The results from AHP questionnaires were that (1) for whole dimenstions, “depth skills” were more important than ”breadth skills” and “leadership activities”, (2) for “depth skills”, “contents” were the most important, (3) for “breadth skills”, “evaluating students’ achievement” was the most important, (4) for “leadership activities”, “developing high-quality curriculum” was the most important. Implications of the results and suggestions for the future reseaches were discussed in the end of this research
目 錄
中文摘要 …………………………………………………………….Ⅰ
Abstract ……………………………………………………………Ⅲ
目錄 ………………………………………………………………… Ⅴ
表目次 ……………………………………………………………… Ⅶ
圖目次 ……………………………………………………………… Ⅷ
第一章 緒論 …………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 ……………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的 ……………………………………………… 4
第三節 研究範圍 ……………………………………………… 4
第四節 研究流程 ……………………………………………… 4
第五節 名詞釋義 ……………………………………………… 6
第二章 文獻探討 ……………………………………………… 8
第一節 薪酬理論與相關研究………………………………… 8
第二節 可選式績效本位薪酬制度與相關研究……………… 21
第三節 我國公立高中職教師薪酬制度……………………… 46
第三章 研究方法 ……………………………………………… 53
第一節 研究架構…………………………………………………53
第二節 研究對象 ……………………………………………… 55
第三節 研究工具 ……………………………………………… 57
第四節 調查實施 ……………………………………………… 62
第五節 資料分析 ……………………………………………… 64
第四章 研究結果與討論 ……………………………………… 66
第一節 Delphi調查問卷資料分析…………………………… 66
第二節 AHP問卷調查資料分析………………………………… 87
第五章 結論與建議 …………………………………………… 91
第一節 研究主要發現 ……………………………………… 91
第二節 研究結論 ……………………………………………………97
第三節 研究建議 ………………………………………………… 105
第四節 研究限制 ……………………………………………… 112

參考文獻 …………………………………………………………… 113

附錄
附錄一 專家審查名單………………………………………………125
附錄二 專家訪談名單…………………………………………… 127
附錄三 Delphi調查問卷專家名單……………………………… 129
附錄四 AHP調查問卷專家名單…………………………………… 131
附錄五 專家訪談大綱………………………………………………… 133
附錄六 Delphi第一次調查問卷……………………………………135
附錄七 Delphi第二次調查問卷……………………………………143
附錄八 Delphi第三次調查問卷……………………………………151
附錄九 AHP調查問卷…………………………………………………160

表目次
表2-1 薪酬理論相關研究與論述內涵………………………………12
表2-2 本薪發放之類型與依據基礎…………………………………15
表2-3 教師支領本薪之類型…………………………………………15
表2-4 薪酬組合策略與績效衡量的相關性…………………………17
表2-5 教師薪酬理論相關研究意見…………………………………20
表2-6 績效本位薪酬制度的相關理論與應用方式…………………23
表2-7 技能或能力本位敘薪之內涵與評量方式……………………27
表2-8 技能或能力本位敘薪方案現況………………………………30
表2-9 團體績效獎金類別……………………………………………31
表2-10 美國實施學校本位績效獎金方式與實施狀況分析…………35
表2-11 個人績效獎金與團體績效獎金優缺點………………………37
表2-12 可選式績效薪酬方案特性與薪酬策略分析…………………39
表2-13 美英兩國實施績效本位薪酬計畫概要………………………40
表2-14 實施績效薪酬制度的配套措施與關鍵因素探討……………43
表2-15 績效本位薪酬制度需考慮面向與重要成功因素…………… 44
表2-16 OECD國家、澳洲及我國教師薪級差額比較表…………… 48
表3-1 可選式績效本位薪酬制度德懷術調查問卷初稿…………… 57
表3-2 專家審查與專家訪問後所採取的意見 ………………………59
表3-3 Delphi調查問卷實施情形……………………………………63
表3-4 選項與平均數的意義 …………………………………… 64
表4-1 Delphi第一次問卷調查結果 ……………………………… 67
表4-2 Delphi第一次問卷與第二次問卷調查結果比較……………73
表4-3 第三次問卷調查結果與柯-史單一樣本考驗……………… 78
表4-4 克-瓦二氏單因子等級變異數分析………………………… 82
表4-5 隨機指數表…………………………………………………… 88
表4-6 AHP調查問卷結果的權重與一致性考驗…………………… 90

圖目次
圖2-1 薪酬理論的分類 ………………………………………… 11
圖2-2 職級間薪額重疊情形……………………………………… 16
圖2-3 與組織環境適配之績效薪酬設計架構………………… 19
圖2-4 學校本位績效獎金激勵模式……………………………… 34
圖3-1 研究架構概念 …………………………………………… 54
圖4-1 技能或能力本位敘薪之能力架構………………………… 89
參考文獻
一、中文部份
Kieiman, L. S. (1997/1998). Human Resource Management – A tool for competitive advantage.劉秀娟與湯志安(譯)。人力資源管理—取得競爭優勢之利器。台北:揚智文化。
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G.(2001/2003)。Educational administration : theory, research, and practice. 林明地、王如哲、王瑞壎、江芳盛、何宣甫、李安明等人(譯)。教育行政學理論研究與實際。台北:麥格羅希爾。
Robbins S.P.(2006)Organizational Behavior(11th ed.).李菁芬、李雅婷與趙慕芬(譯)。組織行為學。台北:華泰。
王雅玄(2002)。德懷術在課程評鑑上之應用。取自http://www.socialwork.com.hk/artical/educate/ gz11.htm.
朱楠賢(2001)。行政機關推動績效獎金制度應有的觀念及作法。人事月刊,33(5),24。
吳和堂(2003)。論析教師績效評鑑政策之實施。教育研究月刊,109,57-68。
吳明隆(2007)。SPSS 操作與應用變異數分析實務。台北:五南。
吳清山、張煌熙、張芬芬、陳麗華、王保進、陳幼慧、楊益風等人(2001)。台北市中小學教師分級制度評估研究。台北市政府教育局委託之研究成果報告,未出版。
吳清山(2004)。提升教師素質之探究。教育研究月刊,127,5-17。
林文燦(2006)。以策略性待遇意函思考我國現行幾個重大人事管理議題。人事月刊,43(6),16-34。
林美玲(2001)。教育改革、教師倦怠與報酬。高雄:復文。
林芳如(2004)。我國中小學教師薪給制度設計之研究-策略性觀點。國立台北師範學院學報,17(1),437-458。
林淑端(2004)。我國國立大學教師待遇制度改進之研究。國立政治大學行政管理碩士論文,未出版,台北。
洪世玲(2003)。桃園縣國民小教育人員對教師待遇草案意見之研究。國立新竹師範學院進修部學校行政碩士班碩士論文,未出版,新竹。
洪榮良(2004)。英格蘭與台灣教師待遇調整機制之比較研究。國立暨南國際大學比較教育學系碩士論文,未出版,南投。
許士軍(2003)。管理辭典。台北:華泰。
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,127,5-17。
陳順宇與鄭碧娥(1998)。統計學。台北:華泰。
陳麗珠(2000)。 美國教師薪給制度改革趨勢之研究。高雄師大學報,11,158-179。
陳麗珠(1992)。私立高級中等學校教師薪給問題。高雄師大學報,3,93-119。
黃英忠(2003)。人力資源管理,台北:三民。
黃德祥、薛秀宜(2004)。教師評鑑的模式與發展趨勢。教育研究月刊,127,18-32。
張火燦(1990)。人力資源發展方案評鑑的觀念及模式。人力資源學報,1,17-26。
張火燦(1998)。策略性人力資源管理,台北:揚智。
張熒書(2002)。我國公立國民中小學校績效獎金之研究-以宜蘭縣為例。台北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
張鈿富、王世英與葉兆祺(2007)。美、日、德、法、英國家教育政策分析。教育資料集刊,36, 121-152。
潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究理論與應用,台北:心理。
廖麗玲(2003)。我國國立大學規劃實施教師績效獎金之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,台北。
劉明華(2004)。教育人員績效獎金之可行性研究-以台中縣國民中學為例。逢甲大學公共政策研究所碩士論文,未出版,台中。
蕭文裕(2004)。行政機關內幕僚單位績效獎金與工作績效之探討-以交通部某機關為例。世新大學行政管理學系碩士論文,未出版,台北。
錢富美(2001)。國小教師參與學校本位課程發展之專業知能研究。社會科教育研究,6,145-168。
簡禎富(2005)。決策分析與管理:全面決策品質提升之架構與方法。台北:雙葉。
二、英文部分
Adnett, N. (2003). Reforming teachers’ pay: incentive payments, collegiate ethos and UK policy. Cambridge Journal of Economics ,27,145-157.
Allegreto, S.A., Corcoran, S.C. & Mishel, L. (2004). How does teacher pay compare? Methodological challenges and answers. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.epinet.org/newsroom/releases/2004/ 08/040826TeacherPay1.pdf
Atkinson, A., Burgess, S., Croxson, B., Gregg, P., Propper, C., Slater, H., et al. (2004). Evaluating the impact of performance-related pay for teachers in England. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.bris.ac.uk /Depts/CMPO/working papers/ wp113.pdf
Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., & Charles C. A. (2007) Multisource feedback : lessons learned and implications for practice. Human Resource Management.
Azordegan, J., Byrnett, P., Campbell, K., Greenman, J., & Coulter, T. (2005). Diversifying teacher compensation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED489329)
Ballou, D. (2001). Pay for performance in public and private schools. Economics of Education Review,20,51-61.
Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2001).Let the market decide. Education Next,1, 1-7.
Barber, A. E., & Simmering, M. J. (2002). Understanding pay plan acceptance: The role of distributive justice theory, Human Resource Management Review,12, 25-42.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1992). The incentive effects of tournament compensation system, Administrative Science Quartely,37,336-350.
Belcher, J. G. (1996). How to design and implement a results-oriented variable pay system. New York: AMACOM.
Berg, P. (1986). Symbolic management of human resources. Human Resource Managemen,25(4),557-578
Bloom, M. C., & Milkovich,G.T. (1996). Issues in managerial compensation research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,3,23-47.
Camuffo, A. (2002).The changing nature of internal labor markets. Journal of Management and Governance,6, 281-294.
Cooper, S., & Cohn, E. (1997). Estimation of a frontier production function for the South Carolina educational process. Economics of Education Review,16(3), 313-327.
Corcoran, T., & Goertz, M. (1995). Instructional capacity and high performance schools. Educational Researcher,24(9),27-31
Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership,58(5), 12-15.
DelValle, C. (1992). Merit pay for teachers may not have much merit. Business Week, March 9, 38.
DeNisi., & Griffin. (2001). Human Resource Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
DfES (2008). Pay and performance. Retrieved July 10, 2008,from http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/
payandperformance.
Dulebohn, J. H., & Werling, S. E. (2007). Compensation research past, present, and future, Human Resource Management Review,12,191-07
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Smith, R. S. (2003). Modern labor economics: Theory and public policy(8th ed.).Pearson Education.
Frey, B. S. (2007). Awards as compensation. European Management Review,4, 6-14.
Franklin, J. (1988). For technical professionals: Pay for skills and pay for performance. Personnel,65(5), 20-28.
Gaines G. F. (2005). Focus on teacher pay and incentives: 2005 legislative actions and update on salary average. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from http://www.sreb.org/scripts/Focus/Reports/05S06-Focus_Teacher_Pay_2005.pdf
Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. L.(2003). Compensation: Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. (1992). Employee compensation: Research and practive. In Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M.(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Compensation, organizational strategy and firm performance. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Gratz, D. B. (2005). Lessons from Denver: The pay for performance pilot. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ711 912)
Gunderson, M. (2001). Economics of personnel and human resource management. Human Resource Management Review,11, 431-452.
Hanshaw, L. G. (2004). Value-related issues in a departmental merit pay plan. The Proffessional Educator,2, 57-68
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (Eds.). (2002).Handbook of the Economics of Education, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). How to improve the supply of high-quality techers. In D. Ravitch (Eds.),Brookings papers on education policy:2004(pp. 7-25). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
Heneman, H. G., Milanowski, A.T. (2004). Alignment of human resource practives and teacher performance competency. Peabody Journal of Education,79(4), 108-125
Heneman, H. G., Milanowski, A. T., Kimball, M., & Odden, A.(2006). Standards-based teacher evaluation as a foundation for knowledge-and skill-based pay. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED493 116)
Heneman, H. G., Milanowski, A. T., & Kimball, S. (2007). Teacher performance pay: synthesis of plans, research, and guidelines for practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED498 341)
Hitt, M. A., Bierrman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2001). Direct and moderating effect of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal,44(1), 13-28.
Ingvarson, L., Kleinhenz, E., & Wilkinson. (2007). Research on performance pay for teachers. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/ school_education/publications_resources/profiles/research_on_performance_pay_for_teachers.htm
Jeniins, G. D., Ledford, G. E., Gupta, N., & Doty, D. H. (1992).Skill-based pay: Practices, pitfalls and presceiptions. Phoenix,AZ:American Compensation Association.
Johnson L. (2006). Pay for performance: Developing the basis for advancing performance incentives to public school teachers in Jamaica. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED496 102)
Kelley, C., & Odden, A. (1996). Reinventing teacher compensation systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387 910)
Kelley, C., Heneman, H., & Milanowski, A. (2000). School-Based performance award programs, teacher motivation, and school performance:Findings from a study of three programs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477 654)
Kelley, C., Odden, A., Milanowski A., & Heneman, H. (2000). The Motivational Effects of School-Based performance awards. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440 473)
Kingdon, G. G., & Teal F. (2006). Does performance related pay for teachers improve student performance? Some evidence from India. Economics of Education Review.26,473-486.
Lavy, V. (2002). Evaluating the effect of teachers’ group performance incentives on pupil achievement. Journal of Political Economy,110(6),1286-1315.
Lavy, V. (2003). Paying for performance: The effect of individusl financil incentives on teachers’ productivity and students’ scholastic outcomes. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from http://micro5.mscc.huji.ac.il/~economics/facultye/lavy/Teachers%20incentives%20and%20productivity.pdf
Lazear, E. P., & Oyer, P. (2004). The structure of wages and internal mobility. The American Economic Review,94 (2),212-216.
Lawler, E. E., Ⅲ (1994). From job-based to competency-based organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,15(1),3-15.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delpibook/ch2b.html/
Lipsky, D. B., & Bacharach, S. B. (1983). The single salary schedule vs. merit pay:An examination of the debate. Collective Bargaining Quarterly,11(4), 1-11
McCloy, R. A., Campbell, J. P. and Cudeck, R., 1994. A Confirmatory Test of a Model of Performance Determinants, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4),493-505.
Miceli, M. P., & Heneman, R. L. (2000). Contextual determinants of variable pay plan design: A proposed research framework. Human Resource Management Review,10(3),289-305.
Milanowski, A.T., (2002). The varieties of knowledge and skill-based pay design: A comparison of seven new pay systems for K-12 teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477 655)
Milkovich, G. T.. & Newman, J. M. (2005). Compensation (8th ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mohrman, A. M., Mohrman, S. A., & Odden, A. R. (1996). Aligning teacher compensation with systemic school reform: Skill-based pay and group-based performance rewards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(1), 51-71.
Newman, F. M., King, M. B., & Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review,67(1), 41-74
Odden, A. R. & Kelley, C. (1997) Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter compensation strategies to improve schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404 312)
Peterson, K. D. (2000).Teacher evaluation. New York: Corwin.
Plucker, J. A., Zapf, J. S., & McNabb, S. A. (2005). Rewarding teachers for students’ performance:improving teaching through alternative teacher compensation programs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED488 913)
Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay:a review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,26(4),909-949.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis,F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contract. Academy of Management Journal,47(3),350-367.
Rapp, G. (2000). Agency and choice in education: does school choice enhance the work effort of teachers? Education Economics,8(1), 37-63.
Rotherham, A. J., & Mead, S. (2003). Teacher quality: Beyond no child left behind. National Association of Secondary School Association,87(635), 65-75.
Schacter, J., & Thum, Y. M. (2004), Paying for high- and low- quality teaching. Economics of Education Review, 23, 411-430.
Schuster, J. K., & Zingheim, P. K. (1992). The new pay: Linking employee and organizational performance. New York: Lexington.
Solmon, L. C. & Podgursky, M. (2000). The Pros and Cons of performance-based compensation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445393)
Stronge, J. H. (1995). Balancing individual and institutional goals in educational personal evaluation: A conceptual framework. Studies in Educational Evalustion,21,131-151.
Sturman, M. C., Trevor, C. O., Boudreau, J. W. & Gerhart, B. (2003). Is it worth it to win the talent war? Evaluating the utility of performance-based pay. Personnel Psychology,56,997-1035.
Temin, P. (2002). Teacher quality and the future of America. Eastern Economic Journal,28(3),285-298.
Werner, S. & Ward, S. G. (2004). Recent compensation research: An eclectic review. Human Resource Management Review,14,201-227.
Wilson, H., & Van Keuren, J. (2001). Current use of state and local salary schedules to achieve statewide educational goals. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479 803)
Wilson, T. B. (1995). Innovative rewards for the changing workplace. New York: Mcgraw-Hill
Wyman, W., & Allen, M. (2001). Pay-for-performance: Key questions and lessons from five current models. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472 829)
Young, I. P. (2003). The trouble with pay for performance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ677 069)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 吳清山(2004)。提升教師素質之探究。教育研究月刊,127,5-17。
2. 吳和堂(2003)。論析教師績效評鑑政策之實施。教育研究月刊,109,57-68。
3. 朱楠賢(2001)。行政機關推動績效獎金制度應有的觀念及作法。人事月刊,33(5),24。
4. 顏綠清(1980)。大學生國文態度之研究。教育學院學報,5,3-125。
5. 楊國樞(1986)。家庭因素與子女行為:台灣研究的評析。中華心理學刊,28(1),7-28。
6. 陳鳳如(2007)。92和94學年度大三學生對教師教學品質與其學習成效之比較。逢甲人文社會學報,15,189-219。
7. 張火燦(1990)。人力資源發展方案評鑑的觀念及模式。人力資源學報,1,17-26。
8. 吳秀碧(1981)。父母管教態度與犯罪少年自我觀念之關係。輔導學報,17,135-158。
9. 王淑敏(1989)。低成就學童的輔導策略。輔導月刊,25(4),14-18。
10. 林文燦(2006)。以策略性待遇意函思考我國現行幾個重大人事管理議題。人事月刊,43(6),16-34。
11. 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,127,5-17。
12. 陳麗珠(2000)。 美國教師薪給制度改革趨勢之研究。高雄師大學報,11,158-179。
13. 陳麗珠(1992)。私立高級中等學校教師薪給問題。高雄師大學報,3,93-119。
14. 黃德祥、薛秀宜(2004)。教師評鑑的模式與發展趨勢。教育研究月刊,127,18-32。
15. 張火燦(1990)。人力資源發展方案評鑑的觀念及模式。人力資源學報,1,17-26。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔