臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究目的在於探討評鑑對高中探究式化學實驗模組實施的影響，並從上述實徵研究的結果提出對參與式評鑑理論的補充與修正。本研究參考參與式評鑑理論、評鑑產生影響理論、成人轉化學習理論及學習型組織理論，建構了「組織學習之實務型參與式評鑑」(PEOL評鑑)理論架構，將評鑑過程視為由教師及評鑑團隊知識共構的歷程，教師在施行探究教學及評鑑過程中受到評鑑環境影響，探究教學知識產生變化，此變化影響後續的探究教學實務，另一方面，由於知識共構，教師的變化及回饋也對評鑑團隊的探究評鑑實務知識產生影響，進而修正評鑑實務。本研究以台灣北部一所公立高中的十八位高二學生及四位化學教師為研究對象，採取質、量兼併的研究方法，探討實施錯合物探索式實驗模組及評鑑的歷程中，學生探究學習表現、個案化學教師的探究教學實務及探究教學知識變化情形、變化與評鑑環境影響因素的關係、評鑑對教師及評鑑團隊的影響、以及本研究情境使評鑑產生影響的原因。研究結果發現，實施PEOL評鑑對教師及評鑑團隊都產生了影響。對教師的影響有三方面：工具性、概念性及符號性影響。工具性影響包括教師使用評鑑的回饋以修定評量工具、及促進教師反思以進行修正。概念性影響包括以評鑑回饋釐清探究教學與學習的概念、實施評鑑過程促進學習型組織的形成及運作；符號性影響包括學生整理實驗成果參加科展得名以及教師發表論文，皆對外展現實施成效。另一方面，對評鑑團隊的影響也有三方面：工具性影響包括增進利害關係人對評鑑的瞭解、協助發展探究學習評量工具、及協助教師專業成長；概念性影響，包括評鑑團隊因實施評鑑而更加釐清評鑑理論的定義內涵；符號性影響，包括評鑑團隊的論文發表，也對外展現了實施成果。分析本研究情境使用PEOL有效原因，包含四點：建立穩固的評鑑基礎、實施評鑑滿足需求、立即回饋機制促使即時調整方案進行方向及評鑑產生影響、參與者的特質有助於推動。本研究評鑑團隊及教師面對的議題則有：組織文化不同，建立共識需要時間；及評鑑時間長、溝通頻率高，雙方負擔都相當大。本研究所發展PEOL不同於以往評鑑，具有五項特色：將「評鑑產生使用」擴大為「評鑑產生影響」；運用知識使用理念建立PEOL評鑑架構； PEOL評鑑的進行過程並非線性，而是有回饋機制；知識共構在過程中持續發生，而非在某特定時段；知識共構是發生在利害關係人及評鑑團隊間，因此雙方都受到評鑑影響。

The influence of evaluation on organizational learning in enacting chemistry laboratory inquiry in a senior high school in Taiwan is investigated. The investigation focuses on the understanding of the mechanism underlying the links between activities and consequences in practical participatory evaluation in a school setting. Referring to social constructivism and knowledge utilization theories, this study proposes that the evaluation is a knowledge co-construction process of both evaluators and stakeholders (teachers) through reflections, dialogues, and evaluation activities. During the course of the study, we collected data by means of interviews, questionnaires, classroom observations, and video recording to investigate how students performed inquiry skills in the chemistry laboratory as consequences of how teachers structured the inquiry activities in the context of evaluation environments. The results indicate that both teachers and evaluators have considerable instrumental, conceptual and symbolic influence on the evaluation findings. For teachers, instrumental influence occurred as they adjusted course plans from community assistance, reflective interviews and using the data from evaluators. On the other hand, the influence of the evaluation on the evaluators was shown on the adjustment of technical evaluative skills, rethinking of the knowledge of evaluation theories and practices, and improvement in communication frequency and quality with teachers. From the empirical results, it is suggested that the mechanism of PEOL evaluation should be considered as a process of knowledge co-construction in the whole evaluation process, not only in the particular steps of data analysis but also interpretation by evaluators and stakeholders. It is not a linear progressing process of evaluation. The feedbacks and chain reactions among knowledge co-construction are transformed into actionable knowledge, eventually leading to actions. It effectively facilitated the evaluation influence of evaluation findings.

第壹章 緒論……………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究背景及重要性……………………………………………. 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題………………………………………….. 3
第三節 名詞解釋……………………………………………………….. 4
第四節 研究範圍與限制……………………………………………….. 7

第貳章 文獻探討………………………………………………… 9
第一節 注重使用的評鑑取向………………………………………….. 9
第二節 評鑑過程中產生使用的評鑑………………………………….. 16
第三節 評鑑產生的影響的評鑑理論………………………………….. 26
第四節 參與式評鑑…………………………………………………….. 31
第五節 探究式教學與科學學習……………………………………….. 42
第六節 學科教學知識………………………………………………….. 59
第七節 轉化學習理論………………………………………………….. 71
第八節 文獻探討對本研究的啟示…………………………………….. 74

第参章 研究方法………………………………………………… 83
第一節 本研究的評鑑理念及實施方法………………………………… 83
第二節 研究架構……………………………………………………….… 93
第三節 研究流程…………………………………………………….…… 95
第四節 研究情境及研究對象……………………………………….…… 97
第五節 資料處理與分析……………………………………………….… 108

第肆章 結果與討論……………………………………………… 119
第一節 學生的探究學習表現…………………………………………… 119
第二節 教師的探究教學實務分析…………………………………….. 138
第三節 教師探究教學實務知識的變化………………………………… 169
第四節 教師教學實務知識的轉變與週遭影響………………………… 188
第五節 PEOL評鑑的影響分析…………………………………………. 217
第六節 本研究情境適合使用PEOL評鑑的分析…………………….. 233
第七節 本研究PEOL評鑑的特色………………………………………. 239

第伍章 結論與建議……………………………………………… 243
第一節 結論……………………………………………………………… 243
第二節 建議……………………………………………………………… 247

參考資料…………………………………………………………… 249

附錄………………………………………………………………… 259
附錄一、教師對探究教學知識之半結構訪談工具……………………… 259
附錄二、教師課後反思之半結構訪談工具...………….…………… 260
附錄三、評鑑對教師的影響之教師自評問卷…………………..…… 261
附錄四、評鑑團隊對評鑑影響之反思記錄表…………………..…… 262
附錄五、教室觀察記錄表………………………………………………… 263
附錄六、評鑑產生使用的實徵性研究之特性分析……………………… 264
附錄七、教師探究教學知識分析圖示……………………………… 269

邱美虹(2008)。建國中學高瞻計畫課程評鑑之研究(1/3)。國科會計畫。
邱美虹(2009)。建國中學高瞻計畫課程評鑑之研究(2/3)。國科會計畫。
邱美虹及江玉婷 (1997)。初任與資深國中地球科學教師學科教學知識之比較。科學教育學刊，5(4)，419-459。
邱美虹、陳慧蓉、周金城、蔡春風及辛怡瑩(2008)。大學透過參與式評鑑協助高中開發課程之研究--以建模與認知師徒制為發展主軸之高瞻計畫。論文發表於中華民國第二十四屆科學教育學術研討會，12月18－20日，國立彰化師範大學，彰化市，台灣。
段曉林(1996)。學科教學知識對未來科教師資培育上的啟示。第一屆數理教學及師資培育學術研討會論文彙編。
洪振方(2003)。探究式教學的歷史回顧與創造性探究模式之初探。高雄師大學報，15，641-662。
郭為藩(2003）。成人學習：心理學的探討。台北市：心理出版社。
葉連祺(2002)。九年一貫課程與基本能力轉化。教育研究月刊, 96, 60-61。
潘慧玲(2006)。以評鑑促進學校之革新，載於吳武典、高強華(主編)，優質、創新與前瞻 (頁337-351)。台北市：學富文化。
魯俊賢及吳毓瑩(2007)。過程技能之二階段實作評量：規劃、實踐與效益探究。科學教育學刊(Chinese Journal of Science Education), 15(2), 215-239。
簡頌沛 (2006)。從情境認知師徒制的觀點，探討科學實習教師的信念、知識與實務之轉變。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
簡頌沛及吳心楷 (2008)。高中實習教師的實務參與及身分轉變：情境認知觀點的探討。科學教育學刊，16(2)，215-237。

Alkin, M. C, Daillak, R., & White, P. (1979). Using evaluations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Alkin, M. C. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In Alkin, M. C.(ed.), Evaluation roots－Tracing theorists’ views and influences. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Alkin, M., & Taut, S. (2003). Unbundling evaluation use. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 1-12.
Alvik, T. (1995). School-based evaluation: A close-up. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 311-343.
Amo, C. and Cousin, B. (2007). Going through the process: an examination of the operationalization of process use in empirical research on evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 5-26.
Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 98-105.
Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. (1991). Participatory action research and action science: A commentary. In W. F. Whyte (ed.), Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage.
Ayers, T. D. (1987). Stakeholders as partners in evaluation: A stakeholder-collaborative approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, 263-271.
Beijaard, D. and Verloop, N. (1996). Assessing teachers' practical knowledge. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22(3), 275-286.
Brett, B., Hill-Mead, L., and Wu, S. (2000). Perspectives on evaluation use and demand by users: The case of city year. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 71-83.
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Brookfield, S. D. (2000a). Adult cognition as a dimension of lifelong learning. In J. Field & M. Leicester (Eds.), Lifelong learning: Education across the lifespan (pp. 89-101). Philadelphia: Falmer.
Brookfield, S. D. (2000b). Transformative learning as ideology critique. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 125-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bruner, J. (1971). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bryk, A. S. (ed.) (1983). Stakeholder-based evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 17, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bybee, R. W. and DeBoer, G. (1993). Goals for the science curriculum. In Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Campbell, D. (2000). The socially constructed organization. London: H. Karnac Books.
Carr, W., and Kemmis, S. (1992). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
Carter, K., & Doyle, W. (1989). Classroom as a resource for the graduate preparation of teachers. In A. Woolfolk (Eds.), Research perspectives on the graduate preparation of teachers (PP. 51-68). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chen, H.-J.; Chiu, M.-H.; Chou, C.-C. (2009). Changes in chemistry teachers’ perceptions on the nature of models in the development of a new model-based course. Paper presented at the 7th biannual meeting of European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), August 31-September 4, Istanbul, Turkey. (Oral presentation)
Chen, H. T. (1989). The theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, spec iss 12(4), 297-398.
Chen, H. T. and Rossi, P. H. (1987). The theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10(1), 95-103.
Chinn, C. A. and Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of Data: A Theory of How People Evaluate Data. Cognition and Instruction, 19(3), 323–393.
Chinn, C. A. and Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
Chiu, M.-H.; Chou, C.-C.; Chen, H.-J.; Tsai, T. –S. (2009). Bridging the gap between research and practice: A university-high school collaborative study on students’ learning using cognitive apprenticeship and modeling approach in Taiwan. Proceedings at the annual meeting of National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), April 17-21, Garden Grove, CA, USA.
Christie, C. A. and Alkin, M. C. (2008). Evaluation theory tree re-examined. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 131–135.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., and King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: an integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–272.
Cochran,K.F. ,DeRuiter,J.A.,& King R.A.(1993).Pedagogical content knowing: an integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education,44(4),263-272.
Coghlan, A. T., Preskill, H. and Tzavaras, T. C. (2003). An overview of appreciative inquiry in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 100, 1-22.
Cousins, J. & Earl, L. (Eds.) (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning. London: Falmer.
Cousins, J. B. (1995). Assessing program needs using participatory evaluation: A comparison of high and marginal success cases. In J. B. Cousins and L. Earl (eds.), Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational Learning. London: Falmer.
Cousins, J. B. (2001). Participatory evaluation up close. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from www.sqep.ca/archives/presentations/Cousinsb_colsqep01.pdf
Cousins, J. B. (2003). Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In T. Kelligan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 245–266). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cousins, J. B. , and Earl, L. M. (eds.). (1995). Participatory Evaluation in Education: Studies in Evaluation Use and Organizational Learning. London: Falmer.
Cousins, J. B. and Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for evaluation, 80, 5-23.
Cousins, J. B., & Leithwood, K. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56, 331–364.
Cousins, J. B., and Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14 (4), 397-418.
Cousins, J. B., and Leithwood, K. A. (1993). Enhancing knowledge utilization as a strategy for school improvement. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 14(3), 305–333.
Cousins, J. B., Donohue, J. J., and Bloom, G. A. (1993). Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators' self-reported opinions, practices and consequences. Evaluation Practice, 17(3), 207–226.
Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 37, 916-937.
De Jong, O., Van Driel, J. H. & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947 – 964.
DeTure, L.R., Fraser, B.J., & Doran, R.L. (1995). Assessment and investigation of science laboratory skills among year 5 students. Research in Science Education , 24, 253-266.
Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness, Review of Research in Education, 5, 16-198.
Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. InW.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 3 - 24). New York: Macmillan.
Duggan, S., Johnson, P., & Gott, R. (1996). A critical point in investigative work: Defining variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 33, 461-474.
Eick, C., & Dias, M. (2005). Builiding the Authority of Experience in Communities of Practice: The Development of Preservice Teachers’ Practical Knowledge Through Coteaching in Inquiry Classrooms. Science Education, 89, 470-491.
Fals-Borda, O. (1980). Science and the common people. Paper presented at the International Forum on Participatory Research, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47-65.
Fetterman, D. (2003). Fetterman-house: A process use distinction and a theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 47-52.
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation: Presidential address. Evaluation Practice, 15(1)，1-15.
Fetterman, D. M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: An introduction to theory and practice. In D. M. Fetterman, S. J. kaftarian, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment education: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks,
Fetterman, D.M.,& Wandersman, A.（Eds.）(2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York: Guildford Press.
Forss, K., Cracknell, B., and Samset, K. (1994). Can evaluation help an organization to learn? Evaluation Review, 18(5), 574–591.
Forss, K., Rebien, C. C., and Carlsson, J. (2002) Process use of evaluations: Types of use that precede lessons learned and feedback. Evaluation, 8(1), 29–45.
Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless and the experts: knowledge struggles in an information age. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, and T. Jackson (eds.), Voices of change: participatory research in the United States and Canada. Toronto: OISE Press.
Geddis, A. N., Onslow, B., Beynon, C.,& Oesch, J.(1993), Transforming content knowledge: learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77(6), 575-591.
Germann, P.J., Aram, R., & Burke, G. (1996). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 33, 79-99.
Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Greene, J. C. (1988). Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 12, 91-116.
Grossman, P. L﹒,Wilson, S. M. & Shulman, L. S.(1989).Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp.23-36).New-York: Pergamon Press.
Grossman, P. L. (1988). A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Grossman,P. L.,(1989). A study in contrast: sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5),24-31.
Grossman,P. L.,(1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Harnar, M. A. and Preskill, H. (2007). Evaluators descriptions of process use: An exploratory study. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 27-44.
Henry, G. T. & Mark, M. M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (3), 293–314.
Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher Learning for Educational Change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Hofstein, A.; Navon, Oshrit; Kipnis, Mira & Mamlok-Naaman, Rachel. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 42, 791-806.
Johnston, K. (1991). High school science teachers’ conceptualizations of teaching and learning: Theory and practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 14, 65-78.
Justi, R. and van Driel (2005). The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modeling: promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 549-573.
Kamm, B. L. (2004). Building organizational learning and evaluation capacity: A study of process use. Unpublished dissertation, University of New Mexico. Advisor: Hallie Preskill.
Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
King, J. A. (1995). Involving practitioners in evaluation studies: How viable is collaborative evaluation in schools? In Cousin, J. B. and Earl, L. M. (eds.), Participatory evaluation in education---Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
King, J. A. (2007). Developing evaluation capacity through process use. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 45-59.
King, J. A. and Pechman, E. M. (1984). Pinning a wave to the shore: conceptualizing evaluation use in school systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(3), 241–251.
King, J. A.; Cousins, B. and Whitmore, E. (2007). Making sense of participatory evaluation: Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 83-105.
Kirkhart, K. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 5-23.
Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Lau, G., and LeMahieu, P. (1997). Changing roles: Evaluator and teacher collaborating in school change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(1), 7–15.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Pres.
Levin, B. (1993). Collaborative research in and with organizations. Qualitative Studies in Education, 6, 331–340.
Leviton, L. C. and Hughes, E. (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5(4), 525-548.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H.(1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teacher. In Gess-Newsome, J. , & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Boston: Kluwer.
Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 35-57.
Mark, M. M., and Shotland, R. L. (1985). Stakeholder-based evaluation and value judgments: The role of perceived power and legitimacy in the selection of stakeholder groups. Evaluation Review, 9, 605-626.
Marks, R. (1990).Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining Inquiry: Exploring the Many Types of Inquiry in the Science Classroom. Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
McDiarmid, C.W.,Ball,D.L.,& Anderson,C.W,(1989).Why staying one chapter ahead doesn't really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds(Ed.),Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp.185-192). Oxfard:Pergamon.
McDonald, F. and Elias, P. (1976). The effects of teacher performance on pupil learning: Beginning teacher evaluation study: Phase II, Final report, Vol.I. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
McEwan,.H.,& BuIl, B.(l991). The pedagogical nature of subject matter knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 316-334.
McTaggart, R. (1991) When democratic evaluation doesn’t seem democratic. Evaluation Practice, 12 (l), 9-21.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44, 222-232.
Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. Welton (Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld (pp. 39-70). Albany: State University of New York.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discource. Journal of Transformative Education, 1 (1), 58-63.
Morabito, S. M. (2002). Evaluator roles and strategies for expanding evaluation process influence. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(3), 321–330.
Munby, H., Cunningham, M., & Lock, C. (2000). School science culture: A case study of barriers to developing professional knowledge. Science Education, 84, 193-211.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328.
Nevo, D. (1993). The evaluation minded school: An application of perceptions from program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 14 (l), 39-47.
Nevo, D. (1994). Combining internal and external evaluation: A case for school-based evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 87-98.
Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Princeton-Hall.
Pajares, M. F. (1992).Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15 (3), 311-319.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1998). Discovering process use. Evaluation, 4, 225-233.
Popham, W. (1973). Evaluation instruction. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Preskill H. and Torres, R. T. (2000). The learning dimension of evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 25 - 37.
Preskill, H. and Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations.
Preskill, H. and Torres, R. T. (2000). The learning dimension of evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 25-37.
Preskill, H., Zuckerman, B. and Matthews, B. (2003). An exploratory study of process use: Findings and implications for future research. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(4), 423-442.
Preskill,H.,& Caracelli,V.J. (1997). Current and developing conceptions of use: Evaluation Use Topical Interest Group survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18, 209–225.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Reason, P., and Heron, J. (1986). Research with people: The paradigm of co-operative experiential inquiry. Person Catered Review, 1, 456-475.
Russ-Eft D., Atwood, R., & Egherman, T. (2002). Use and non-use of evaluation results: Case study of environmental influences in the private sector. American Journal of Evaluation, 23 (1), 19–31.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline - The art & practice of the learning organization. Sydney, Australia: Random House.
Shadish, W.; Cook. T., & Leviton, L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shulha, L. M. (2000). Evaluative inquiry in university-school professional learning partnerships. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 39-53.
Shulha, L. M. and Cousins, J. B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. American Journal of Evaluation, 18(1), 195-208.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher,15(1),4-14.
Shulman, L. S.(1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(l), 1-22.
Smits, P. A. and Champagne, F. (2008). An assessment of the theoretical underpinnings of practical participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 427-442.
Stubblefield, H. W., & Keane, P. (1994). Adult education in the American experience: From the colonial period to the present. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. IN G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human service evaluation (pp.117-141). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Stufflebeam, D. L. and Welch, W. L. (1986). Review of research on program evaluation in United States school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 150-170.
Sutherland, S. (2004). Creating a culture of data use for continuous improvement: A case study of an Edison project school. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(3), 277-293.
Tamir,P.(1988).Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 99-110.
Tandon, R. (1981). Participatory research in the empowerment of people. Convergence, 14(3), 20-29.
Taut, S. M. (2005). Evaluation use for learning in an international development cooperation organization: An empirical study of process use and capacity building in self-evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 2005, 66(07), 2553A. (UMI no.3181761)
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(3), 154-174.[Abstract]
Taylor, E. W. (2000). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 285-328). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Torres, R. T. and Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22 (3), 387–395.
Turnbull, B. (1998). A confirmatory factor analytic model of evaluation use. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 13(2), 75–87.
Turnbull, B. (1999) The Mediating Effect of Participation Efficacy on Evaluation Use. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 131–140.
Tyler, R. W. (1942). General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 35, 492-501.
van Driel, J.H., Douwe Beijaard, & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional Development and Reform in Science Education: The Role of Teachers’ Practical Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 673-695.
Vanek, G. T. (2004). The influence of program evaluation on school board decision making. Unpublished dissertation, Washington State University.
Weaver, L., & Cousins, J. B. (2004). Unpacking the participatory process. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 1, 19-40.
Wegner, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Pres.
Weiss, C. H. (1981). Measuring the use of evaluation. In J. A. Ciarlo (Ed.), Utilizing evaluation: Concepts and measurement techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Weiss, C. H. (1990). Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care? In M. Alkin (Ed.), Debates on evaluation (pp. 171–184). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weiss, C. H. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 35-45.
Wholey, J. (1981). Using evaluation to improve program performance. In R. A. Levin, M. A. Solomon, G. M. Hellstern, & H. Wollman (Eds.), Evaluation research and practice; Comparative and instructional perspectives (pp.92-106). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S. & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways’ of knowing: Representation of knowledge in teaching, In J. Calderhead (Eds.), Exploring teachers thinking. London: Cassell.