期刊文献+

美国教师培养项目评价的特点及问题 被引量:2

On the Features and Problems of American Teacher Preparation Program Evaluation
下载PDF
导出
摘要 教师培养项目(TPP)评价是当代美国提升中小学教师职前培养质量的重要举措。美国TPP项目评价具有两大显著特点,即多主体参与、崇尚科学性。该项目评价的基本格局正是多主体、多标准并行,而评价设计与评价方法的科学化则是美国TPP项目评价科学性的直接体现。当代美国TPP项目评价还面临着诸多挑战,评价系统的有效性、政治文化的干扰、评价系统自身的合法性、评价结果的社会认可等,都是制约美国TPP项目评价持续性的主要瓶颈。美国TPP项目评价的未来发展态势主要体现在三个方面,即加大评价理论攻关,引导评价系统健康竞争,官方与非官方评价系统走向融通。 Teacher Preparation Program(TPP)evaluation is the key measures for America to improve teacher education quality. TPP evaluation has two distinct features,that is,participation of multi-subjects and emphasis on scientificity. The basic characteristics of TPP evaluation are multi-subject and multi-standard in which scientization of evaluate design and evaluation methods are direct reflection of scientificity of American TPP evaluation. There are many challenges for the program to face which are effectiveness of evaluation system,disturbance of political culture,legality of evaluation system,social recognition of evaluation results,which are also main obstacles to restrict American TPP evaluation. The evaluation has three trends,which are strengthening theoretic research,leading it to participate in competition and connecting the official evaluation and non-official one.
作者 龙宝新
机构地区 陕西师范大学
出处 《现代教育管理》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第10期67-72,共6页 Modern Education Management
基金 2015年度全国教育科学规划重点项目"卓越教师职前成长微环境研究"(DAA150203)
关键词 教师培养项目评价 特点 问题 态势 Teacher Preparation Program evaluation features problems trends
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

二级参考文献45

  • 1张唯.美国教师教育的改革与发展[J].未来与发展,2005,26(3):63-65. 被引量:3
  • 2项聪.美国教师评价的发展历程与最新改革动向[J].外国教育研究,2006,33(9):63-65. 被引量:10
  • 3国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要(2010-2020年)[EB/OL].http://www.edu.cn/html/e/jiaoyuguihuagangyao.htm,2010-01-18.
  • 4顾珏.德国教师教育标准简介[J].全球教育展望,2007,36(C00):29-32. 被引量:5
  • 5Sanders, W.L, Horn, S.P. Research Findings from the Ten- nesseeValue-AddedAssessment System(TVAAS) Database: Implication for Educational Evaluation and Research [J]. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1998,12 (3) : 247-256.
  • 6Hanushek, Eric A., and?Steven G. Rivkin. 2010. General- izations about Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality. American Economic Review, 100(2): 267-71.
  • 7Rothstein,Jesse. 2010. Teacher Quality in Educational Pro- duction: Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement. Quar- terly Journal of Economics, 125( 1 ) : 175-214.
  • 8Koedel, Cory and Julian R. Betts (2011). Does Student Sorting Invalidate Value-Added Models of Teacher Effec- tiveness? An Extended Analysis of the Rothstein Critique. Education Finance and Policy, 6( 1 ) : 18-42.
  • 9Quantitative Measures: Measuring Student Learning(TEN- NESSEE TEAM) [ EB/OL ]. http://team-tn.org/assets/edu- cator-resoumes/TN_Evaluation_Measuring_StudentLearn- ing_September_2011.pdf. 2013-02-04.
  • 10Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (Team) [EB/OL].http ://team-tn.org/teacher-model. 2013-02-01.

共引文献43

同被引文献8

引证文献2

二级引证文献9

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部