國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	曾琦芬 Christine Chifen Tseng
論文名稱：	台灣高級中學英語文資優班課程規劃原則建立與其轉化成課程評鑑規準之研究 Establishment of Principles for English Talented Curriculum Development and Their Transformation into Criteria for English Talented Program Evaluation in Senior High School in Taiwan
指導教授：	葉錫南 Yeh, Hsi-Nan
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2008
畢業學年度：	96
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	339
中文關鍵詞：	英語文資優、資優教育、課程規劃、課程評鑑、CIPP評鑑模式
英文關鍵詞：	English talented, gifted education, curriculum development, program evaluation, CIPP model
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：287 下載：102
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

摘要
高中英語文資優課程規劃需要具備英語教學、課程規劃、資優教育、以及課程評鑑的專業知識及訓練。若能提供學校以及教師一套可以為遵循的課程發展原則，將有助於英語文資優課程之規劃。本研究旨在發展一套可行的高中英語文資優課程規劃原則，以及英語文資優課程評鑑規準，以提供高中及學校教師賴以憑藉的課程規劃原則與課程評鑑規準。本研究分為兩大部份，即文獻探討及德懷術(the Delphi technique)調查。文獻探討部分探討英語教學、課程規劃、資優教育及課程規劃等領域之研究，並依此歸納整理出一套英語文資優課程規劃原則，此套原則經由德懷術調查專家意見後，予以確立。計有20位專家參與本研究之德懷術調查，其中10位專家為大學相關領域教授（包括英語教學、教育學以及資優教育），10位為中學英文教師以及具資優教育專長的老師。專家們對各項原則的重要性判斷，將決定該原則在規劃英語文資優課程過程中的重要程度。確定後的英語文資優課程規劃原則，經由轉換機制中的「轉換規則」（the Transformational Rule）與四個「過濾處理」(the Filters)的運作後，轉換成為CIPP評鑑模式下的英語文資優課程評鑑規準。
研究結果顯示，119則資優課程規劃原則，依其重要性，可分為三組，分別為首要原則（principles of primary importance）、次要原則（principles of secondary importance）及其他原則（principles of tertiary importance）。此套原則後經轉換為資優課程評鑑規準，外加21則新增之評鑑規準，計有140則評鑑規準。資優課程評鑑規準亦依據專家給予的重要性分為三組，即首要規準（criteria of primary importance）、次要規準（criteria of secondary importance）及其他規準（criteria of tertiary importance）。建議首要原則及首要規準，應納入英語文資優課程規劃及課程評鑑之重要依據；次要原則與規準，以及其他原則與規準，是否納入規劃及評鑑依據，則視各校個別情況而定。若欲納入，規劃前，課程規劃者與第一線教師之間，必須有充分、足夠的溝通與協商，以確保原則及規準確實執行，並避免可能因立場不同而產生的誤會與磨擦。
本研究結果同時也歸納出下列結論。第一，教師對於課程評鑑必要性之體認必須加強。課程評鑑的目的，乃在厘清課程之優缺點，進而協助評鑑者作出正確決定，對於課程有所改進或調整。第二，英語文資優課程發展有賴英語教學、課程發展、資優教育及課程評鑑專家的共同合作。第三、資優生語文課程中的各個構成要素，並未全部受到教師重視，文學作品欣賞、閱讀治療、文法等課程要素尤然。第四、並非所有的英語文資優課程規劃原則及課程評鑑規準均相同重要，對於首要原則及規準，建議應納入課程規劃及評鑑，以為參酌。第五、在實務與理論考量之間取得平衡，乃當務之要。第六、德懷術若適當應用，可以同時藉以進行量化與質性分析。第七、進行德懷術資料分析時，重要性分組應優於重要性的排序，前者可避免傳遞錯誤的訊息，將差異未達顯著水準的原則或規準，視為重要性有所不同。
有鑒於本研究之發現與結論，研究者提出下列教學建議：（一）高中英語文資優課程的規劃可以因校置宜，進行學校本位課程規劃。（二）培訓教師，使其具備發展區分性資優課程、以及進行資優課程評鑑的知能，乃必要之務。（三）CIPP評鑑模式非常適合作為學校資優課程評鑑之模式，兼具形成式評鑑（formative evaluation）以及總結式評鑑（summative evaluation）之優點。（四）有了一套適合且可行的資優課程評鑑規準，學校教師及行政人員能成為適當評鑑人員，進行英語文資優課程之自評工作。

ABSTRACT
The development of an English talented curriculum for senior high school students is a formidable task, which involves professional expertise in TESOL, curriculum development, gifted education and program evaluation. A set of principles for English talented curriculum development would be of great help for the schools and the teachers in developing such a curriculum. This study thus aimed to establish a set of principles for English talented curriculum development and a set of criteria for English talented program evaluation in senior high school in the context of Taiwan so that the schools and the teachers would have some principles and standards to rely on when developing such a curriculum for English talented students.
The whole study encompassed two parts—the literature review and the surveys. The part of literature review covered discussion of research in TESOL, curriculum development, gifted education and program evaluation, which yielded a set of tentative principles for later surveys to consolidate. The surveys included two stages. One was to establish principles for English gifted/talented curriculum development, and the other was to establish criteria for English talented program evaluation. The Delphi technique was applied to conduct the surveys. Twenty experts, ten college professors and ten high school teachers, participated in the surveys, whose opinions served to decide the importance of each principle and criterion.
Based on the final results of the surveys, the set of 119 principles for English talented curriculum development were categorized into three groups—
principles of primary importance, of secondary importance, and of tertiary importance. This set of curriculum development principles were later transformed into a set of criteria for English talented program evaluation through the application of the Transformational Rule and the Filters. Together with 21 criteria developed based on the methods and objectives of the CIPP model and the program evaluation standards, a set of 140 criteria for English talented program evaluation was formed, which after two rounds of the Delphi surveys, were also categorized into three groups—criteria of primary importance, of secondary importance and of tertiary importance. Principles and criteria of primary importance are required to be incorporated into the development of the curriculum and the evaluation of the program; principles and criteria of secondary and tertiary importance are not necessarily to be incorporated. Incorporation of them takes more communication and negotiation between curriculum developers and teachers who conduct real teaching in class.
The results also yield the following insights. First, that the component of evaluation is an indispensable part of curriculum development is not widely perceived by teachers. Second, the components of a language program for gifted students deserve more attention from teachers, especially the application of literature study, bibliotherapy, and the study of grammar. Third, not all principles are taken equally important, and neither are the criteria. It is essential that principles and criteria of primary importance be incorporated into the curriculum; yet the inclusion of principles of secondary and tertiary importance would depend on the specific situation the school is in. Fourth, it is of vital importance to strike a balance between practical and theoretical concerns. One best way to handle discrepancy between practical and theoretical concerns is that teachers’ concerns for practicality should be respected and that theoretical concerns should be conveyed to teachers who are involved in the curriculum. Fifth, the Delphi technique can fulfill both quantitative and qualitative functions. Not only are the quantitative data are informative, but the qualitative feature of opinions in the minority can be revealing. Sixth, when analyzing data from the Delphi surveys, to group principles based on their importance values is more meaningful than to make out an order of importance values. Grouping avoids conveying a false message that certain principles are more important than others, but in fact the difference between them is insignificant.
Findings of this study bear important pedagogical implications. First, English talented curriculum development can be a school-based arrangement. It does not take a standardized form for all the schools to conform to. Second, it is necessary to prepare teachers with knowledge and abilities to develop school-based talented curricula, and more training in curriculum development, gifted education, and program evaluation. Third, the CIPP model is an appropriate model for evaluating English talented programs in high school. In a sense, the CIPP evaluation model fulfills functions of formative and summative evaluations. Fourth, school teachers and administrators can make eligible evaluators with a ready-made set of criteria for evaluation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT…………………………………………..……………………i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………viii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………….…….xiii
LIST OF FIGURES...……………………………………………………………..…xvi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………….………………………...1
Preamble……………………………………………………………….…………1
A Description of the Current English Talented Programs……………...………...2
English Talented Programs in Senior High Schools………………...……………4
Purposes and Significance of the Study………………………………..…….......6
Research Questions………………………………………………………………7
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………8
Organization of the Study……………………………………………..……..…...9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………...11
Curriculum Development…………………………………………………….…11
Aspects of Curriculum Development………………………………….…..11
        Syllabus, Programs, and Curriculums………………………………..11
    Evolution of Curriculum Development………………………………15
    Revision of Brown’s Curriculum Development Model……………...18
Components of Curriculum………………………………………………..21
Differentiated Curriculum for the Gifted……………………………………….26
    Definition of Giftedness…………………………………………………...26
        The Potential Camp…………………………………………………..27
        The Production Camp………………………………………………..28
        A Final Definition…………………………………………………….31
Traits of Language Gifted Students………………………………………..32
    Identification of the Gifted………………………………………………...35
Principles of Developing Curriculum for the Gifted………………………38
Modifications of Curriculum for the Gifted……………………………….40
        Maker’s (1982) Modifications of Gifted Curriculum………………..41
        VanTassel-Baska’s (1994b) Gifted Curriculum Models……………...47
Program Development for Language Gifted/Talented Students…………..50
Program Evaluation……………………………………………………………..55
Definition of Evaluation…………………………………………………...55
    What is Evaluation? ………………………………………………….56
    Evaluation vs. Research……………………………………………...58
Distinctions of Evaluation…………………………………………………58
    Purposes and Uses……………………………………………………59
    Product-Process and Summative-Formative Dichotomies…………...60
    Stakeholders and Audiences………………………………………….62
Approaches to Evaluation…………………………………………….…...64
    Worthen et al.’s (1997) Classification………………………………..64
    Brown’s (1995) Classification………………………………………..69
Suggested Model for English Talented Program Evaluation……………...72
Program Evaluation Standards…………………………………………….78
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………...…81
The Design of the Study………………………………………………………...81
The Research Framework of the Study…………………………………………81
Stages of the Study………………………………………………………...83
Principles for English Talented Curriculum Development……………...85
Construction of Content Validity…………………………………………..87
Transformation of the Curriculum Development Criteria into Criteria for
Program Evaluation under the CIPP Model……………………………….88
The Delphi Survey…………………………………………………………94
Participants……………………………………………………………...……....97
Instruments……………………………………………………………...……....97
Questionnaire for Construction of Content Validity……………………….98
Questionnaires for the Delphi Surveys on Establishing Principles for
English Talented Curriculum Development……………..…….…………98
    Questionnaires for the Delphi Surveys on Establishing Criteria for
    English Talented Program Evaluation……………………………………101
Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………...….103
Data Analysis Procedures……………………………………………………...106
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND FINDINGS…………………………………………111
    Modification Based on Content Validity Construction………………………..111
        Modifications of Principles II1.5, III2.4 and V1.2……………………….112
Divergent Opinions on Other Principles…………………………………114
Establishment of Principles for English Talented Curriculum
Development…………………………………………………………………...115
Results of the Delphi Survey—the First Round………………………….115
    The “Needs Analysis” Component………………………………….115
    The “Goals and Objectives” Component……………………………117
    The “Materials and Resources” Component………………………..117
     The “Courses and Teaching” Component…………………………..120
    The “Test and Assessment” Component…………………………….122
    The “Evaluation” Component………………………………………122
Results of the Delphi Survey—the Second Round………………………124
Results of the Delphi Survey—the Third Round………………………...127
Findings…………………………………………………………………..131
    Importance of Principles…………………………………………..132
    Divergence of Opinions between Two Panels………………………137
Transformation of Curriculum Development Principles into Program
Evaluation Criteria under the CIPP Model…………………………………….138
Establishment of Criteria for English Talented Program Evaluation………….139
Results of the Delphi Survey—the First Round………………………….139
    The Evaluation of Context………………………………………….140
    The Evaluation of Input……………………………………………..140
    The Evaluation of Process…………………………………………..142
    The Evaluation of Product…………………………………………..143
Results of the Delphi Survey—the Second Round………………………145
Findings…………………………………………………………………..148
    Importance of Criteria………………………………………………148
    Divergence of Opinions between Two Panels……………………....152
Comparison between Importance of Curriculum Development Principles
and Importance of Program Evaluation Criteria…………………………153
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………..157
    On Establishing Principles for English Talented Curriculum
Development…………………………………………………………..............157
    Importance of Principles and Opinions in the Minority………………….157
        Principles in the “Needs Analysis” Component…………………….158
        Principles in the “Goals and Objectives” Component………………163
        Principles in the “Materials and Resources” Component…………...165
        Principles in the “Courses and Teaching” Component……………...168
        Principles in the “Test and Assessment” Component……………….174
        Principles in the “Program Evaluation” Component………………..177
    Analysis of Divergent Opinions of Two Panels………………………….177
On Establishing Criteria for English Talented Program Evaluation………..181
    Comparison between Principle Importance and Criterion Importance…..182
        Three Possibilities of Transformation………………………………182
        Transformation of Principles of Secondary Importance…………….185
        Transformation of Principles of Tertiary Importance………………189
    Criteria of Secondary and Tertiary Importance not Transformed from
    Principles…………………………………………………………………192
    Analysis of Divergent Opinions of Two Panels………………………….195
The Finalized Principles and Criteria………………………………………….198
    Principles for English Talented Curriculum Development…………..….198
    Criteria for English Talented Program Evaluation………….…………..202
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION………….…………………………………………...205
    Summary of the Study………………………………………………………....205
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………206
    Answers to the Research Questions……………………………………...206
    More Insights form the Study…………………………………………….211
Pedagogical Implications……………………………………………………...217
    Suggestions for Future Research………………………………………………219
FREFERENCES    …………………………………………………………....……….221
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………245
Appendix A. Modification Summary of Curriculum Models…………………245
Appendix B. Expert Panel for Construction of Content Validity……………...246
Appendix C. Experts Panel for the Delphi Surveys…………………………...247
Appendix D. Questionnaire for Construction of Content Validity…………….248
Appendix E. Questionnaire for the Delphi Survey on Establishing Principles for
English Talented Curriculum Development, 1st
Round…………………………………………………………...255
Appendix F.     Questionnaire for the Delphi Survey on Establishing Principles for English Talented Curriculum Development, 2nd
Round…………………………………………………………..263
Appendix G. Questionnaire for the Delphi Survey on Establishing Principles for English Talented Curriculum Development, 3rd
    Round…………………………………………………………...274
Appendix H. Transformation of Curriculum Development Principles into
Program Evaluation Criteria under the CIPP Model……………280
Appendix I. Sources of Criteria for English Gifted Program Evaluation……..285
Appendix J. Questionnaire for the Delphi Survey on Establishing Criteria for
      English Talented Program Evaluation, 1st Round……..………...290
Appendix K. Questionnaire for the Delphi Survey on Establishing Criteria for
          English Talented Program Evaluation, 2nd Round………..……300
Appendix L. Summary of Experts’ Responses to Curriculum Development
    Principle—the 1st Round………………………………………..312
Appendix M. Summary of Experts’ Responses to Curriculum Development
    Principles—the 2nd Round………………………………………313
Appendix N. Summary of Experts’ Responses to Curriculum Development
     Principles—the 3rd Round………………………………………315
Appendix O. Summary of the 42 Principles with New Responses in the
    3rd Round………………………………………………………..317
Appendix P. Summary of Results from the Three Rounds of Delphi (on
          Curriculum Development Principles……………………………..318
Appendix Q. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA on Curriculum
           Development Principles………………………………………...321
Appendix R. Summary of Results from the Two Rounds of Delphi (on Program
            Evaluation Criteria……………………………………………...323
Appendix S. Experts’ Opinions and Explanations for Responses in the
Minority…………………………………………………………325
Appendix T. Finalized Principles for English Talented Curriculum
           Development—the Chinese Version…………………………….333
Appendix U. Finalized Criteria for English Talented Program Evaluation
           under the CIPP Model—the Chinese Version………………….336


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Definition of giftedness……………………………………………………31
Table 2.2 Language giftedness traits…………………………………………………35
Table 2.3 Comparison between Brown’s and Worthen et al.’s Classifications of
Approaches………………………………………………………………...72
Table 2.4 The CIPP Evaluation Model……………………………………………….77
Table 2.5 The CIPP model used for decision making and accountability……………78
Table 2.6 Program evaluation standards (by the Joint Committee, 1994)…………...79
Table 3.1 Sources of principles for English talented curriculum development………87
Table 3.2 Modification of the tentative principles for English talented
        curriculum development…………………………………………………...98
Table 3.3 Components and domains in English talented curriculum
        development……………………………………………………………….99
Table 3.4 Summary of numbers of criteria transformed under CIPP model…………98
Table 3.5 Evaluation criteria for English talented programs under
the CIPP model…………………………………………………………...104
Table 4.1 Modification from content validity construction…………………………111
Table 4.2 Questionnaire administration timetable (for curriculum development
        Principles)………………………………………………………………...115
Table 4.3 Results of the 1st round Delphi survey on the “Needs Analysis”
    component………………………………………………………………..116
Table 4.4 Results of the 1st round Delphi survey on the “Goals and Objectives”
component………………………………………………………………...118
Table 4.5 Results of the 1st round Delphi survey on the “Materials and Resources”
component………………………………………………………………...119
Table 4.6 Results of the 1st round Delphi survey on the “Courses and Teaching”
component………………………………………………………………...120
Table 4.7 Results of the 1st round Delphi survey on the “Test and Assessment”
component………………………………………………………………...123
Table 4.8 Results of the 1st round Delphi survey on the “Evaluation” component…124
Table 4.9 Summary of principles for further examination from the 1st round Delphi
       survey……………………………………………………………………..125
Table 4.10 Summary of modified and newly added principles in the 2nd round……126
Table 4.11 Summary of principles given new considerations in the 2nd round……..127
Table 4.12 Summary of principles that elicited more extreme responses in the 2nd
    round, but not in the 3rd round………………………………………….....129
Table 4.13 Summary of principles that elicited more extreme responses in the 2nd
    round and the 3rd round……………………...……………………………129
Table 4.14 Summary of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test between the 2nd and the 3rd
    rounds……………………………………………………………………..131
Table 4.15 Principles of primary importance……………………………………….133
Table 4.16 Principles of secondary importance……………………………………..135
Table 4.17 Principles of tertiary importance………………………………………..136
Table 4.18 Summary of divergent opinions from two groups of experts…………...137
Table 4.19 Categories domains and layers of criteria for English talented
     program evaluation……………………………………………………...139
Table 4.20 Questionnaire administration timetable (for program evaluation
     criteria)…………………………………………………………………..140
Table 4.21 Results of the 1st round of Delphi survey on “Context Evaluation”…….141
Table 4.22 Results of the 1st round of Delphi survey on “Input Evaluation”……….142
Table 4.23 Results of the 1st round of Delphi survey on “Process Evaluation”…….143
Table 4.24 Results of the 1st round of Delphi survey on “Product Evaluation”…….144
Table 4.25 Summary of criteria for further examination from the 1st round Delphi
     Survey……………………………………………………………………144
Table 4.26 Summary of criteria given new considerations in the 2nd round………..145
Table 4.27 Summary of criteria that elicited more extreme responses in the 1st
         round……………………………………………………………………146
Table 4.28 Summary of criteria that elicited more extreme responses in both
     rounds…………..………………………………………………………146
Table 4.29 Summary of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test between Round 1 and
     Round 2………………………………………………………………….147
Table 4.30 Summary of importance of criteria for “Context Evaluation”………….149
Table 4.31 Summary of importance of criteria for “Input Evaluation”……………..150
Table 4.32 Summary of importance of criteria for “Process Evaluation”…………..151
Table 4.33 Summary of importance of criteria for “Product Evaluation”…………..152
Table 4.34 Summary of criteria with divergent opinions from the two panels……..153
Table 4.35 Comparison between principles and criteria of secondary and tertiary
     importance……………………………………………………………….156
Table 5.1 Categories of principles on “Needs Analysis”……………………………159
Table 5.2 Categories of principles on “Goals and Objectives”……………………..163
Table 5.3 Categories of principles on “Materials and Resources”………………….166
Table 5.4 Categories of principles on “Courses and Teaching”…………………….169
Table 5.5 Categories of principles on “Test and Assessment”……………………...174
Table 5.6 Categories of principles on “Evaluation”………………………………...177
Table 5.7 Comparison between principles and criteria of secondary and tertiary
importance……………………………………………………………….184
Table 5.8 Transformation of principles of secondary importance…………………..185
Table 5.9 Comparison between principles IV3.6 and criterion Inp1.2.6……………187
Table 5.10 Comparison between principles IV3.6 and criterion Inp1.2.6 (with
    three experts’ responses removed)……………………………………..188
Table 5.11 Transformation of principles of tertiary importance…………………….189
Table 5.12 Summary of criteria of secondary and tertiary importance not transformed
      from principles for English talented curriculum development……….....192
Table 5.13 Principles evoking divergent opinions between two panels and their
    corresponding criteria…………………………………………………...197
Table 5.14 Finalized principles for English talented curriculum
         Development……………………………………………………………199
Table 5.15 Finalized criteria for English talented program evaluation…………..…202


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Model of curriculum development based on Tyler (1949)……………….15
Figure 2.2 Model of curriculum development based on Inglis (1975)……………….16
Figure 2.3 Cyclical approach to curriculum development based on Nicholls and
          Nicholls (1972)…………………………………………………………...16
Figure 2.4 Systematic approach to designing and maintaining language curriculum
    (adapted from Brown, 1995)……………………………………………..18
Figure 2.5 Revised model for curriculum development based on Brown (1995) and
     Pratt (1994)……………………………………………………………….19
Figure 3.1 The research framework………………………………………………….82
Figure 3.2 The research procedures of the study……………………………………..84
Figure 3.3 The Principle Transformation Model……………………………………90
Figure 3.4 Transformation of curriculum development principles into program
         evaluation criteria………………………………………………………..93
Figure 3.5 The Delphi technique procedures……………………………………….105
Figure 4.1 Principles of secondary and tertiary importance transformed into criteria
    primary importance……………………………………………………..154
Figure 4.2 Summary of changes of importance of principles and criteria………….155
                                

REFERENCES
Alderson, J. Charles & Beretta, Alan. (Eds.). (1992). Evaluating second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. Charles. (1992). Guidelines for the evaluation of language education. In Alderson & Beretta (Eds.), Evaluation second language education (pp. 274-304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aldrich, Phyllis W. (1996). Evaluating language arts materials. In VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 218-239). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Alkin, M. C. (1990). Curriculum evaluation models. In Walberg & Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 166-168). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Alkin, M. C., & F. S. Ellett Jr. (1990). Development of evaluation models. In Walberg & Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 15-21). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Arnold, A. (Ed.). (1981). Secondary programs for the gifted. Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.
Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E. (1997). Talent searches: a model for the discovery and development of academic talent. In N. Colangelo, & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 170-79). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bachman, L. F. (1989). The development and use of criterion-referenced tests of language ability in language program evaluation. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 242-58). Cambridge: CUP.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: OUP.
Bailey, Jane M. (1996). Literacy development in verbally talented children. In Joyce D. VanTassel-Baska, T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 97-114). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum. (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Barton, B. (1976). Toward the development of a self-directed learner: a pilot study. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Baskin, B., & K. Harris. (1980). Books for the gifted child. London: Bowker.
Beck, C. (1974). Educational philosophy and theory: an introduction. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1997). Intellectually talented children: how can we best meet their needs? In N. Colangelo, and G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 155-69). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Benbow, C. P., & Minor, L. L. (2004). Cognitive profiles of verbally and mathematically precocious students: implications for identification of the gifted. In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 87-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Beretta, Alan. (1990). The program evaluator: the ESL researcher without portfolio. Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-15.
Beretta, Alan. (1986a). Toward a methodology of ESL program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 144-55.
Beretta, Alan. (1986b). A case for field-experimentation in program evaluation. Language Learning, 36 (3), 295-309.
Beretta, Alan. (1986c). Program-fair language teaching program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3), 431-44.
Beretta, Alan. (1992a). Evaluation of language education: an overview. In J. C. Alderson & A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 5-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beretta, Alan. (1992b). What can be learned from the Bangalore Evaluation. In J. C. Alderson & A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 250-273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Betts, G., & Knapp, J. (1981). Autonomous learning and the gifted: A secondary model. In A. Arnold. (Ed.), Secondary programs for the gifted (pp. 29-36). Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.
Betts, George. (1985). The autonomous learner model for the gifted and talented. Greeley, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications and Specialists.
Bigge, M. L. (1982). Educational philosophies for teachers. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Birch, J. W. (2004). Is any identification procedure necessary? In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 1-10). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Black, Harry. (1988). Evaluation from both sides of the same fence: a case study of the evaluation of the technical and vocational education initiative. In The Scottish Council for Research in Education (Ed.), The Evaluation of educational programs: methods, uses, and benefits (pp. 11-23). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1974). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: McKay.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talents in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods: a vocabulary of research concepts. London: Sage.
Borland, J. H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
Borland, J. H. (Ed.). (2003a). Rethinking gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Borland, J. H. (2003b). The death of giftedness: gifted education without gifted education. In Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105-124). New York: Teachers College Press.
Borland, J. H. (2003c). Evaluating gifted programs. In N. Colangelo and G. Davis. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd Ed.) (pp. 293-307). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Borich, G. D. (1990). Decision-oriented evaluation. In Walberg & Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 31-35). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bourque, L. B., & Fielder, E. P. (2003). How to conduct self-administered and mail surveys. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Braggett, E. J., & Moltzen, R. I. (2000). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Australia and New Zealand. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 779-798). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Brannen, J. (1992). Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Aldershot: Avebury.
Breen, M. (1984). Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), General English syllabus design (pp. 47-60). Oxford: Pergamon.
Brown, J. Dean. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning: a teacher’s guide to statistics and research Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. Dean. (1989). Language program evaluation: A synthesis of existing possibilities. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 222-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. Dean. (1995). The elements of language curriculum. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, J. Dean. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: CUP.
Brown, S., and McIntyre, D. (1992). Making sense of teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Browning, Clifton. (1988). Delphi technique: a method for distinguishing between a realistic and an unrealistic portrayal of death and dying in adolescent literature. Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.
Brumfit, C. J. (Ed.). (1984). General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Buchanan, N. K., & Feldhusen, J. F. (Eds.). (1991). Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Burns, Anne. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butterworth T. and Bishop, V. (1995). Identifying the characteristics of optimum practice: finding from a survey of practice experts in nursing, midwifery, and health visiting. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22, 24-32.
Callahan, C. M. (2000). Evaluation as a critical component of program development and implementation. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 537-547). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Callahan, C. M. (Ed.). (2004). Program evaluation in gifted education. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press.
Callahan, C. M. (2004). Myth: There must be “winners” and “losers” in identification and programming! In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 11-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Candlin, C. (1984). Syllabus design as a critical process. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), General English syllabus design (pp. 29-46). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Chan, D. W. (2004). Multiple intelligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Perspectives from students, parents, teachers and peers. Roeper Review, 27(1), 18-24.
Chang, S. H. (張紹勳). (2005). 研究方法。台北：滄海書局。
Carter, K. R. (1991). Evaluation of gifted programs. In N. K. Buchanan, & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education (pp. 245-274). New York: Teachers College Press.
Chaney, A. L. (1996). Oral communication. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 115-132). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chelimsky, E., & Shadish, W. R. (Eds.). (1997). Evaluation for the 21st century: a handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, D. M. (陳定銘). (2005). 建構德菲法。國立政治大學第三部門研究中心2005年質性方法研究營。
Chen, Y. F. (陳郁夫). (1988). 文學資優的識別與指導。資優學生創造力與特殊才能。台北：心理。
Choppin, B. H. (1990). Evaluation, assessment, and measurement. In Walberg & Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 7-8). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Clark, B. (1988). Growing up gifted. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Clark, J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Ambroson, D. L. (Eds.). (1992). Talent development. Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Coleman, L. J. (2004). “Being a teacher”: emotions and optimal expericenc while teaching gifted children. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Public policy in gifted education (pp. 131-146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. A. (1985). Educating able learners: programs and promising practices. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Cramond, Bonnie. (1994). Speaking and listening: key components of a complete language arts program for the gifted. Roeper Review, 16 (1), 44-48.
Crystal, D. (1991). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann.
Dalkey, N. C. and Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9 (3), 458-467.
Dalkey, N. C. (1969). The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. California: The Rand Corporation.
Davis, G. A. (2003). Identifying creative students, teaching for creative growth. In Colangelo and Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 311-324). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Davis, G. A. and Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dean, Geoff. (2002). English and Literacy. In Eyre and Lowe (Eds.), Curriculum provision for the gifted and talented in the secondary school (pp. 27-41). London: David Fulton Publication.
De Hahn, E. L. H. (2000). Cross-cultural Studies in gifted education. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 549-561). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Denzin, N. K, and Lincoln,Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K, and Lincoln,Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, John. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Dewey, John. (1943). The school and society. (rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Duffield, C. (1988). The Delphi technique. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 6 (2), 41-45.
Duffield, C. (1993) The Delphi technique: A comparison of results obtained using two expert panels. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 30 (3), 227-237.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). Taking a second look: educational connoisseurship revisited. In McLaughlin & Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: at quarter century. Ninetieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elley, W. B. (1989). Tailoring the evaluation to fix the context. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 270-285). Cambridge: CUP.
Ericksen, Seymour. (1984). The essence of good teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Estes, G. D., & Demaline, R. E. (1982). Outcomes of the MCT clarification process. In House, Mthison, Pearson and Preskill (Eds.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Vol. 7. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Eyre, D. and Lowe, H. (Eds.). (2002). Curriculum provision for the gifted and talented in the secondary school. London: David Fulton Publication.
Eyre, D. (2002). Introduction: effective schooling for the gifted and talented. In Eyre and Lowe (Eds.), Curriculum provision for the gifted and talented in the secondary school (pp. 1-26). London: David Fulton Publication.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Treffinger, D. J. (1980). Creative thinking and problem solving in gifted education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall and Hunt.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Strategies for teaching the gifted. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (pp. 366-378). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating Teachers for Work with Talented Youth. In J. J. Gallagher, & S. A. Gallagher (Eds.), Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.) (pp. 547-552). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Jarwan, F. A. (2000). Identification of gifted and talented youth for educational programs. In Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 271-282). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Feldhusen, J. F., Asher, J. W., & Hoover, S. M. (2004). Problems in the identification of giftedness, talent, or ability. In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 79-86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Feldman, D. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9-33). New York: Teachers College Press.
Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., Bai, W., and O’Neill, B. (2005). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students’ learning using the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary Language Arts and Science Curriculum. Roeper Review, 27 (2), 78-83.
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 1-15.
Fox, L. H., & Durden, W. G. (1982). Educating verbally gifted youth. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Foley, J., and Thompson, L. (2003). Language learning: a lifelong process. London: Arnold.
Fowles, Jib. (1978). Handbook of futures research. Westport, Con.: Greenwood Press.
Gallagher, James J. (1975). Teaching the gifted child. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allen and Bacon.
Gallagher, James J. (1997). Issues in the Education of Gifted Students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 10-23). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gallagher, James J. (ed.). (2004). Public policy in gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (Eds.). (1994). Teaching the gifted child. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gagné, Françoys. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp. 60-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gagné, Françoys. (2004). Giftedness and talent: reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. In Sternberg (Ed.), Definitions and conceptions of giftedness (pp. 79-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gagné, Françoys. (2005). From gifts to talents: the DMGT as a developmental model. In Sternberg and Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.) (pp. 98-119). Cambridge: CUP.
Gardner, Howard. (1983). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, Howard. (1993). Multiple intelligences: the theory in practice. (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, Howard. (1999). Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M. L., & Wake, W. K. (1996). Intelligence: multiple perspectives. Orlando, FL.: Harcourt Brace.
Garfinkel, A., Allen, L. Q., & Neuharth-Prtichett, S. (1993). Foreign language for the gifted: extending affective dimensions. Roeper Review, 15 (4), 235-238.
Genesee, F., & Upshur, J. A. (2002). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Genshaft, J. L., Birley, M. & Hollinger, C. L. (Eds.). (1995). Serving gifted and talented students: a resource for school personnel. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Glass, G. V. (Ed.). (1976). Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Vol. 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Glenn, J. C. and Gordon, T. J. (Eds.). (1994). Future research methodology. Washington D. C.: Millennium Project Publications.
Goodwin, B. B. (1987). A Delphi study to identify and prioritize a comprehensive listing of academic competencies and skills needed by practicing physicians who are appointed to faculty positions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama.
Gordon, T. J. (1994). The Delphi Method. In Glenn and Gordon (Eds.), Future research methodology (pp.1-30). Washington D. C.: Millennium Project Publications.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
Graves, Kathleen. (Ed.). (2003). Teachers as course developers. Cambridge: CUP.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Company.
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Varieties of creative giftedness, their measurement and development. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 107-121.
Hagen, E. (1980). Identification of the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hall, D., & Embler, D. (1976). A Writer’s Reader. Boston: Little Brown.
Halsted, J. (1988). Guiding gifted readers from preschool through high school. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
Hammond, R. L. (1973). Evaluation at the local level. In Worthen and Sanders (Eds.), Educational evaluation: theory and practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hartman, A. (1981). Reaching consensus using the Delphi technique. Educational Leadership, 38, 495-497.
Heller, K. A., Mönks, F. J., Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Helmke, A., Schneider, W., and Weinert, F. E. (1986). Quality of Instruction and Classroom Learning Outcomes: the German Contribution to the I.E.A. Classroom Environment Study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(1), 1-18.
Hernández de Hahn, E. L. (2000). Cross-cultural studies in gifted education. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent. (2nd ed.) (pp. 499-521). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Hiscox, M. D., & Owens, R. (1975). Attempts at implementing an educational adversary model. Paper presented at the third annual Pacific Northwest Educational Research and Evaluation Conference, Seattle.
Ho, C. L. (侯秋玲). (1998). 語文資優生的學習特質與課程設計原則之探討。資優教育季刊，67, 24-27.
Hoeben, W. J. G. (1988). Evaluation of educational programmes: state of the art in the Netherlands. In The Scottish Council for Research in Education (Ed.), The evaluation of educational programs: methods, uses, and benefits (pp. 129-133). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Hoge, R. D. (1988). Issues in the definition and measurement of the giftedness construct. Educational Research, 14 (1), 12-17.
Hoge, R. D. (1989). An examination of the giftedness construct. Canadian Journal of Education, 14 (1), 6-17.
Horowiz, F. D. (2004). A developmental view of giftedness. In Sternberg (Ed.), Definitions and conceptions of giftedness (pp. 145-153). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
House, E. R. (1983). Assumption underlying evaluation models. In Madaus, Scriven & Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
House, E. R. (2005). Qualitative evaluation and changing social policy. In Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1069-1081). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, E. R., Mthison, S. J., Pearson, A., & Preskill, H. (Eds.). (1982). Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Vol. 7. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hussenet, A. (1988). How are evaluations used today? In The Scottish Council for Research in Education (Ed.), The evaluation of educational programs: methods, uses, and benefits (pp. 85-102). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: teaching and decision making. Ontario: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.
Hoyt, L. (1992). Many ways of knowing: Using drama, oral interactions, and visual arts to enhance reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 45(5), 580-584.
Inglis, F. (1975). Ideology and the curriculum: The value assumptions of system builders. In M. Golby, J. Greenwald, & R. West (Eds.), Curriculum design. London: Croom Helm.
Jackson, P. W. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: MacMillan.
Jackson, N. E. (2004). Precocious reading ability: what does it mean? In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Public policy in gifted education (pp. 95-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jansen, Mogens. (1988). Evaluating: limiting the damage done. In The Scottish Council for Research in Education (Ed.), The evaluation of educational programs: methods, uses, and benefits (pp. 24-45). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Javits, J. K. (1988). Gifted and Talented Students Education Act. Title IV, Part B of P. L., 100-297.
Jiang, M. Y. (江明曄). (2007).中等以下學校校長創造性領導、學校創造性組織氣氛與教師創意教學關係之研究。國立中教育大學教育系博士論文，未出版，台中市。
Johnsen, S. K. (2003). Issues in the assessment of talent development. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 201-214). New York: Teachers College Press.
Johnson, R. K. (Ed.). (1989). The second language curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. T. (1996). Assessment in the language arts classroom. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, D. T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent, (pp. 240-258). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaplan, S. N. (1974). Providing programs for the gifted and talented: a handbook. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura Country Superintendent of Schools.
Kaplan, S. N. (2004). Myth: there is a single curriculum for the gifted! In J. D. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Curriculum for gifted and talented students (pp. 41-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups. In Denzin and Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 887-907). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kao, B. C. (高博銓). (2001). 學校本位資優課程的發展。資優教育季刊，78, 8-14.
Killian, J. K. (1993). A Delphi study: perceptions of effective methods of teaching critical thinking skills in secondary gifted and talented Programs. Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University.
Kirkwood, R. (1982). Accreditation. In H. E. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research, Vol. 1. (5th ed.). (pp. 9-12). New York: Free Press.
Kitano, M. K. (2003). What’s missing in gifted education reform. In J. H. Borland. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 159-170). New York: Teachers College Press.
Klinghammer, S. (1997). The strategic planner. In M. A. Christison & F. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators (pp. 61-67). Burlingame, CA: ALTA Books.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Applications of Psycholinguistic Research to the Classroom. In M. H. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: a book of readings, (pp. 33-44). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lacey, C. and Lawton, D. (1981). Issues in evaluation and accountability. London: Methuen.
Lazararon, A. (1995). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Progress Report. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (3), 455-470.
LeCompte, M. D., Millroy, W. L., & Preissle, J. (Eds.). (1992). The handbook of qualitative research in education. San Diego: Academic Press.
Levine, M. (1982). Adversary hearings. In N. L. Smith (Ed.), Communication strategies in evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lewis, G. (1995). Bringing up your gifted child. Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers.
Lewy, A. (1990). Formative and summative evaluation. In Walberg and Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 26-28). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Likert R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 5-55.
Lin, C. H. (林清山). (1992)，心理與教育統計學。台北：東華書局。
Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (2005). The eighth and ninth moments—qualitative research in/and the fractured future. In Denzin and Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1115-1127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Linstone, H. A. (1978). The Delphi technique. In Fowles (Ed.), Handbook of futures research (pp. 273-300). Westport, Con.: Greenwood Press.
Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar. Cambridge: CUP.
Long, M. H. (1984). Process and product in ESL program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (3), 409-425.
Long, M. H., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (1987). Methodology in TESOL: a book of readings. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Long, R. S. (1988). The uses of evaluation. In The Scottish Council for Research in Education (Ed.), The evaluation of educational programs: methods, uses, and benefits (pp. 103-113). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Lowe, H. (2002). Modern Foreign Languages. In Eyre and Lowe (Eds.), Curriculum provision for the gifted and talented in the secondary school (pp. 140-163). London: David Fulton Publishers.
Lynch, B. K. (1987). Toward a context-adaptive model for the evaluation of language teaching programs. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, LA.
Lynch, B. K. (1990). A context-adaptive model for program evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (1), 23-42.
Lynch, B. K. (1992). Evaluating a program inside and out. In J. C. Alderson & A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 61-99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.). (1983). Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Madaus, G. F., & Kellaghan, T. (1992). Curriculum evaluation and assessment. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 119-154). New York: Macmillan.
Mager, R. F. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA: Fearon-Pitman.
Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Maker, C. J. (2004). Developing scope and sequence in curriculum. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Curriculum for gifted and talented students (pp. 25-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Maker, C. J. (Ed.). (1986). Critical issues in gifted education: defensible programs for the gifted. Vol. I. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Maker, C. J. (Ed.). (1993). Critical issues in gifted education: defensible programs for the gifted in regular classrooms. Vol. III. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (Eds.). (1989). Critical issues in gifted education: defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Vol. II. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1995). Teaching models in education of the gifted. (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Marsh, C. J. (2004). Key concepts for understanding curriculum. (3rd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
McKillip, J. (1987). Needs analysis: tools for the human services and education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McLaughlin, M. W. & Phillips, D. C. (Eds.). (1991). Evaluation and education: at quarter century. Ninetieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McNeil, J. D. (2003). Curriculum: the teacher’s initiative. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Merrett, F. & Wheldall, K. (1990). Positive teaching in the primary school. London: Chapman.
Metfessel, N. S. & Michael, W. B. (1967). A paradigm involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs. Educational and psychological measurement, 27, 931-943.
Middlewood, D. & Burton, N. (2001). (Eds.). Managing the curriculum. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitzel, H. E. (Ed.). (1982). Encyclopedia of educational research. Vol. 1. (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Morelock, M. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order to chaos. Roeper Review, 19, 4-12.
Morrisett, I. & Stevens, W. W. (1967). Steps in curriculum analysis outline. Boulder: University of Colorado, Social Science Education Consortium.
Ni, C. K. (倪靜貴). (2007). Study on the Construction of Innovational Leadership Indicators (高級中學校長創新領導表現指標建構之研究). Doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Nicholls, A. & Nicholls, H. (1972). Developing curriculum: a practical guide. London: Allen and Unwin.
Nielsen, M. E. and Buchanan, N. K. (1991). Evaluating gifted programs with locally constructed instruments. In N. K. Buchanan & J. F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Conducting research and evaluation in gifted education (pp. 275-310). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nunan, D. (1988a). The learner-centered curriculum. Cambridge: CUP.
Nunan, D. (1988b.) Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1992.) Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Olszewski-Kubilius, Paula. (2003). Special summer and Saturday programs for gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp. 219-228). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Whalen, S. P. (2000). The educational and development of verbally talented students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 397-411). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1989). Development of academic talent: The role of summer programs. In VanTassel-Baska & Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: the home, the self, and the school (pp. 214-230). New York: Teachers College Press.
Olson, J. C. (1992). A Delphi study of teachers’ confidence in their students’ preparation for the future and the barriers to preparation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Owens, T. R. (1973). Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding. In E. R. House (Ed.), School evaluation: the politics and process. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Pan, S. M. (潘淑滿). (2003)，質性研究：理論與應用。台北：心理出版社。
Parker, J. (1989). Instructional strategies for teaching the gifted. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Parnes, S. J. (1966). Programming creative behavior. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo.
Parlett, M. and Hamilton, D. (1967). Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovatory programs. In G. V. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Passow, A. H. (1996). Talent identification and development in the language arts. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 23-33). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Passow, A. H. (1997). International perspective on gifted education. In J. J. Gallagher and S. A. Gallagher (Eds.), Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.) (pp. 528-535). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Passow, A. H. (2004). Curriculum for the gifted and talented at the secondary level. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Curriculum for gifted and talented students (pp. 103-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1982). Practical evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation practice, 15, 311-320.
Phelps, E., & Damon, W. (1989). Problem solving with equals: peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 639-646.
Phillipson, S. N. & McCann, M. (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: sociocultural perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Pophan, W. J. (Ed.). (1974). Evaluation in education: current applications. Berkley, CA: McCutchan.
Pophan, W. J. (1988). Educational evaluation. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2007). Program evaluation: methods and case studies. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Pitman, M. A., & Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Qualitative approaches to evaluation: models and methods. In LeCompte et al. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 729-770). San Diego: Academic Press.
Piirto, J. (1992). Does writing prodigy exist? In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline & D. L. Amboroson (Eds.), Talent development, (pp. 387-388). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.
Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: their development and education. New York: Macmillan College Publishing.
Pratt, David. (1994). Curriculum planning: a handbook for professionals. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, Inc.
Preedy, Margaret. (2001). Curriculum evaluation: measuring what we value. In D. Middlewood and N. Burton (Eds.), Managing the curriculum (pp. 89-103). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Provus, M. M. (1971). Discrepancy evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Quine, S., & Cameron, I. (1995). The use of focus groups with disabled elderly. Qualitative Health Research, 5(4), 454-462.
Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1997). Giftedness from a multiple intelligence perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 54-66). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Reineke, R. A. (1991). Stakeholder involvement in evaluation: Suggestions for practice. Evaluation Practice, 12, 39-44.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: a guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Wethersfield, Conn.: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60 (5), 180-184.
Renzulli, J. S. (2003). Conception of Giftedness and Its Relationship to the Development of Social Capital. In Colangelo & Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education. (3rd ed.) (pp.75-87). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (2004a). Identification of students for gifted and talented programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (2004b). Are teachers of the gifted specialists? A landmark decision on employment practices in special education for the gifted. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Public policy in gifted education (pp. 121-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (2004c). Myth: the gifted constitute 3-5% pf the population. In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 63-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (2004d). The Multiple Menu Model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Curriculum for gifted and talented students (pp. 115-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. N. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: new directions for developing high-end learning. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 136-54). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. N. (2000). The schoolwide enrichment model. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 367-382). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Renzulli, J. S. & Delcourt, M. A. B. (2004). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. In J. Renzulli. (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 71-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Reis, S. M. (2003). Reconsidering regular curriculum for high-achieving students, gifted underachievers, and the relationship between gifted and regular education. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 286-200). New York: Teachers College Press.
Reynolds, A. J. & Walberg, H. J. (1990). Program theory in evaluation. In Walberg and Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 21-26). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Richards, J. C. (1985a) The context of language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1985b). The role of grammar in the language curriculum. In J. C. Richards, The context of language teaching (pp. 144-157). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richert, E. S. (2003). Excellence with justice in identification and programming. In N. Colangelo and G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp. 146-158). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Richert, E. S., Alvino, J., & McDonnel, R. (1982). National report on identification: assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth (for the U.S. Department of Education). Sewell, NJ: Educational Information and Resource Center.
Roberts-Davis, M. & Read, S. (2001). Clinical Role Clarification: Using the Delphi Method to Establish Similarities and Differences between Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10, 33-43.
Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically talented student: executive summary. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Robinson, N. M. (1992). Radial acceleration in the People’s Republic of China: early entrance to university. Roeper Review, 14 (4), 189-192.
Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., Padgett, D. K. and Logan, TK. (2006). Program evaluation: an introduction. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Sanders, J. R. (1990a). Curriculum evaluation. In Walberg and Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 163-166). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Sanders, J. R. (1990b). Curriculum evaluation research. In Walberg and Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 168-170). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M. & Schofer, J. (1975). Experiment in Delphi Methodology. In Linstone and Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi method: techniques and applications (pp. 262-287). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Scheerens, J. (1990). Beyond decision-oriented evaluation. In Walberg and Haertel. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 35-40). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Schiever, S. W. & Maker, C. J. (1997). Enrichment and acceleration: an overview and new directions. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 113-25). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Schubert, W. H. (1990). Curriculum validation. In Walberg and Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 162-163). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Schubert, W. H. & Schubert, A. L. (1990). Alternative paradigms in curriculum inquiry. In Walberg and Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 157-162). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, and M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1. (pp. 39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Scriven, M. (1972). Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Comment, 3, 1-7.
Scriven, M. (1974). Standards for the evaluation of educational programs and products. In G. D. Borich (Ed.), Evaluating educational programs and products. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Scriven, M. (1984). Evaluation ideologies. In R. F. Connor, D. G. Altman, & C. Jackson. (Eds.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual, Vol. 9. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Shadish, W. R. (1994). Need-based evaluation theory: What do you need to know to do good evaluation? Evaluation Practice, 15,347-458.
Sharan, S. & Sharan, Y. (1976). Small-group teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Sharan, Y. & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigations. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sharan, S. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning: theory and research. New York: Praeger.
Shi, J. & Zha, Z. (2000). Psychological research on and education of gifted and talented children in China. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 757-764). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Shieh, W. L. V. (1990). Using the Delphi technique to determine the most important characteristics of effective teaching in Taiwan. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI.
Shore, B. M. & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1996). Effective curricular and program practices in gifted education and the interface with general education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20 (2), 138-154.
Simons, H. (1981). Process evaluation in schools. In Lacey, C. and Lawton, D. (Eds.), Issues in evaluation and accountability. London: Methuen.
Simons, H. (1988). Evaluation and the reform of schools. In The Scottish Council for Research in Education (Ed.), The evaluation of educational programs: methods, uses, and benefits (pp. 46-64). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Smith, N. L. (Ed.). (1982). Communication strategies in evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Sorenson, M. (1993). Teach each other: Connecting talking and writing. English Journal, 42-46.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523-540.
Stake, R. E. (1969). Evaluation design, instrumentation, data collection, and analysis of data. In J. L. Davis (Ed.), Educational evaluation. Columbus, OH: State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Stake, R. E. (1975). Evaluating the arts in education: a responsive approach. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin and Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stanely, J. C. (1976). Concern for intellectually talented youths: How it originated and fluctuated. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 5, 38-42.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Intelligence applied. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Sternberg, R. J. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 88-94.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). A triarchic view of giftedness: theory and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 43-53). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Nonentrenchment in the assessment of intellectual giftedness. In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. 43-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2004). Definitions and conceptions of giftedness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Review, 29(3), 160-165.
Sternberg, R. J. & J. E. Davidson. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & Zhang, L. (2004). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. In Sternberg (Ed.), Definitions and conceptions of giftedness (pp. 13-27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
Strip, C. A. & Hirsch, G. (2000). Helping gifted children soar: a practical guide for parents and teachers. Scottsdale, AZ.: Gifted Psychology Press.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1968). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision making. Columbus: Ohio State University Evaluation Center.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1974). Alternative approaches to educational evaluation. In W. J. Popham (Ed.), Evaluation in education: current applications. Berkley, CA: McCutchan.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1990). Professional standards for educational evaluation. In Walberg and Haertel (eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 94-106). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models. New directions for evaluation, no. 89. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond,R. L., Merriman H. O. & Provus, M. M. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making in education. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Stufflebeam, D. L. & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Stufflebeam, D. L., McCormick, C. H. Brinkerhoff, R. O., & Nelson, C. O. (1985). Conducting educational needs assessment. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Suarez, T. M. (1990). Needs assessment studies. In Walberg and Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 29-31). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Taba, H. (1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children. USOE Cooperative Research Project No. 2402. San Francisco: San Francisco State College.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp. 27-42). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and Nurture of Giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp. 45-59). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Taylor, B. A. (1996). The study of literature: insights into human understanding. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent, (pp. 75-96). Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Terman, L. M. (Ed.). (1926). Genetic studies of genius, volume I: mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for Satori and creativity. Buffalo, N. Y.: Creative Education Foundation.
Torrance, E. P. (2004). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. In J. Renzulli (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs, (pp. 17-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
The Scottish Council for Research in Education. (1990). The evaluation of educational programs: methods, uses, and benefits. Report of the educational research workshop held in North Berwick (Scotland), pp. 22-25. Nov, 1988. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Thomas, C. (1990). A Delphi study: developing a model for improving the process of evaluating the school principal. Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University.
Thompson, M. C. (1995). Classics in the classroom. (2nd ed.). Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks.
Thompson, M. C. (1996a). Mentors on paper. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 56-74). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Thompson, M. C. (1996b). Formal language study for gifted students. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 149-173). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Thompson, M. C. & Thompson, M. B. (1996). Reflections on foreign language study for highly able learners. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, Johnson, and L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 174-188). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tomlinson, C. A. & Callahan, C. M. (2004). Contributions of gifted education to general education in a time of change. In J. J. Gallagher (Ed.), Public policy in gifted education (pp. 107-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Treffinger, D. J. (1975). Teaching for self-directed learning: a priority for the gifted and talented. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 46-59.
Tsai, C. C. (蔡崇建).(1989).您的孩子資優嗎？台北：時報。
Tsao, H. R (曹學仁). (2007). The development of competitiveness indicators for public vocational high schools in Taiwan (我國高及職業學校學校競爭力指標建構之研究). Doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, R. W., Gagne, R. M. & Scriven, M. (Eds.). (1967). Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.
Tyler, R. W. (1991). General statement on program evaluation. In McLaughlin and Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: at quarter century. Ninetieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Uhl, N. P. (1990). Evaluation model and approaches—Delphi technique. In H. J. Walbert & G. D. Haertal (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 81-82). Oxford: Pergamon.
U.S. Office of Education. (1976). Program for the gifted and talented. The Federal Register, 41, 18665-18666.
U.S. Office of Education. (1993). National excellence: a case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (Eds.). 1989. Patterns of influence on gifted learners: the home, the self, and the school. New York: Teachers College Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (Ed.). (1994a). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (1994b). Curriculum for the gifted: An overview of theory, research and practice. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted (pp. 1-16). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (1994c). Language arts curriculum for the gifted. In J. D.
VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted (pp. 129-165). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (1994d). Toward synthesis: a vision of comprehensive
articulated curriculum for gifted learners. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Comprehensive curriculum for gifted (pp. 393-398). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (1996a). The process of talent development. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 3-22). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (1996b.) Creating a new language arts curriculum for high-ability learners. In J. D. VanTassel-Baska, T. Johnson, & L. N. Boyce (Eds.), Developing verbal talent (pp. 193-217). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (1997). What matters in curriculum for gifted learners: reflections on theory, research and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 126-135). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (2000). Theory and research on curriculum development for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.) (pp. 271-282). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (2003). Curriculum policy development for gifted programs: converting issues in the field to coherent practice. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 173-185). New York: Teachers College Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (Ed.). (2004). Curriculum for gifted and talented students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (Ed.). (2007). Serving gifted learners beyond the traditional classroom. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. (Ed.). (2008). Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D., Johnson, T. & Boyce, L. N. (Eds.). (1996a). Developing verbal talent. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D., Johnson, T. & Boyce, L. N. (1996b). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learner. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (4), 461-480.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted-student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46 (1), 30-44.
VanTassel-Baska, J. D. and Feng, A. X. (Eds.). (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted programs improvement. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press Inc.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S. & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Von Karolyi, C., Ramos-Ford, V. & Gardner H. (2003). Multiple intelligence: A perspective on giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.) (pp. 100-112). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Walbert, H. J. & Haertal, G. D. (Eds.). (1990). The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Wallace, M. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: a reflective approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, B. & Eriksson, G. (2006). Diversity in gifted education: international perspectives on global issues. New York: Routledge.
Ward, V. S. (1961). Educating the gifted: an axiomatic approach. Columbus, Ohio: The Charles E. Merrill Publishing.
Webb, J., Meckstroth, E. & Tolan, S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
Weir, Cyril & Roberts, Jon. (1994). Evaluation in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell.
Weyermüller, Friedrich. (1988). Evaluation of educational programmes in Austria. In The Scottish Council for Research in Education (Ed.), The evaluation of educational programs: methods, uses, and benefits (pp. 114-128). Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.
Whitecotton, R. A. (1992). A modified Delphi technique identification of prioritized social norms recommended for inclusion in secondary school curricula. Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, Illinois.
Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P. & Newcomer, K. E. (1994). Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Educational and pedagogic factors in syllabus design. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), General English syllabus design. Oxford: Pergamon.
Williams, M. and Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolf, R. L. (1979). The use of judicial evaluation methods in the formulation of educational policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 19-28.
Wolf, R. M. (1990). The nature of educational evaluation. In Walberg and Haertel (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation (pp. 8-15). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Worthen, B. R. & Rogers, W. T. (1980). Pitfalls and potential of adversary evaluation. Educational Leadership, 37, 536-543.
Worthen, B. R. & Sanders, J. R. (1973). Educational evaluation: theory and practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R. & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines. (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Wu, S. C. (吳水泉). (2001).企業發展策略之共識度研究—以福特六和汽車為例，中原大學碩士論文，未出版，中壢。
Wu, W. T. (2000). Talent identification and development in Taiwan. Roeper Review, 22 (2), 131-134.
Yalden, Janice. (1996). Principles of course design for language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yewchuk, C. R. (1992). Gifted education in China. Roeper Review, 14 (4), 185-188.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文