本研究旨在以後設評鑑之觀點，檢視臺北市準公共幼兒園訪視輔導之實施情形，並探討不同背景變項之準公共幼兒園教職員，對訪視輔導重要性認同及實際表現評估的差異情形，以期研究結果能作為未來訪視輔導精進之參考，俾益教育主管機關及臺北市準公共幼兒園訪視輔導之實施。
本研究以臺北市準公共幼兒園教職員為研究對象，採問卷調查法進行資料蒐集，研究工具係以JCSEE方案評鑑標準之5大類30項標準為基準，參酌臺北市準公共訪視輔導之實務內涵初擬問卷題項，並經12位專家進行問卷適合度評估後修正而成。問卷回收後，採重要—表現分析（IPA）及t檢定為資料分析所得之結果，歸納出以下結論：
一、臺北市準公共幼兒園訪視輔導之整體重要性認同及表現情形均呈現高度評價。
二、「實用性」是幼兒園教職員評價中，期望與實際表現落差最大之類別。
三、「可行性」被幼兒園教職員認為是訪視輔導中最重要且表現情形最好的類別。
四、「評鑑問責性」及「適切性」分別是訪視輔導重要性及表現情形中評價最低之類別。
五、訪視輔導委員可信度在重要性程度及表現情形均得最高評價。
六、「即時且適當的溝通和報告」是訪視輔導重要性及表現情形評價最低之標準。
七、「明確的價值觀」是訪視輔導中最需優先處理之標準。
八、在訪視輔導「實用性」、「可行性」之重要性認同及「適切性」之表現情形上，兼任行政職的幼兒園教職員顯著高於未兼任行政者。
九、在幼兒園規模方面，規模 51–99 人者對訪視輔導「實用性」之重視程度顯著高於 100 人以上者；此外，其對訪視輔導「評鑑問責性」之評價，亦顯著高於 50 人以下者。
十、不同學歷之教職員，在各類別之重要性認同與表現情形上，皆未達顯著差異。

This study aimed to examine the implementation of supervision counseling for Taipei City quasi-public kindergartens from a meta-evaluation perspective and to explore differences in kindergarten staff members’ perceptions of the importance and actual performance of supervision counseling across different background variables. The findings are intended to serve as references for improving future supervision counseling practices and to benefit educational authorities as well as the implementation of supervision counseling in Taipei City quasi-public kindergartens.
The participants of this study were staff members of Taipei City quasi-public kindergartens. A questionnaire survey was employed for data collection. The research instrument was developed based on the five dimensions and thirty standards of the JCSEE Program Evaluation Standards, with reference to the practical content of supervision counseling for Taipei City quasi-public kindergartens. The questionnaire items were revised following an appropriateness review by twelve experts. After questionnaire collection, Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) and t tests were conducted for data analysis. The main findings are summarized as follows:
1.Both the perceived importance and actual performance of supervision counseling in Taipei City quasi-public kindergartens were rated highly overall.
2.Utility was identified by Kindergarten staff as the dimension with the largest gap between perceived importance and actual performance.
3.Feasibility was regarded by Kindergarten staff as the most important dimension and the one with the best performance.
4.Evaluation Accountability and Propriety were perceived by kindergarten staff as the lowest dimensions in terms of perceived importance and actual performance, respectively.
5.The credibility of the supervision counselors was rated the highest in terms of both importance and performance.
6.Timely and Appropriate Communicating and Reporting was the standard receiving the lowest ratings in both perceived importance and performance.
7.Explicit Values was identified as the standard requiring the highest priority for improvement.
8.In supervision counseling , kindergarten staff with administrative roles rated the importance of Utility and Feasibility, and the performance of Propriety, significantly higher than those without such roles.
9.Regarding kindergarten scale, kindergartens with 51–99 children prioritized Utility of supervision counseling significantly more than those with over 100 children; additionally, they rated Evaluation Accountability of supervision counseling significantly higher than kindergartens with fewer than 50 children.
10.No significant differences were found among kindergarten staff with different educational backgrounds regarding their perceived importance and performance ratings across all categories.

丁美菁（2017）。臺北市幼兒園基礎評鑑之後設評鑑研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。臺北市立大學教育行政與評鑑研究所。
行政院（2024）。我國少子女化對策計畫（107年至114年）。 https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=D33B55D537402BAA&s=1F066099DDDA393B
沈龍安（2016）。從《幼兒教育及照顧法》論述幼托整合政策之實施現況。學校行政雙月刊，101，185–199。https://doi.org/10.3966/160683002016010101010
方思瑾（2022）。準公共幼兒園政策運作現況之探討〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學〕。
林欣佑、曾郁庭、孫良誠（2020）。幼兒園輔導機制的現況、困境及解決策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，9(8)，150–155。
洪福財、張雅婷（2021）。幼教生態的觸動與變革：檢視準公共教保服務政策。臺灣教育研究期刊，2（6），1–25。
洪智倫（2025）。準公幼政策六年，請聽聽基層聲音。臺灣教育評論月刊，14(2)，28-30。
洪福財（2020）。幼托分立到整合－幼兒教育及照顧法的立法背景與變革。台灣教育研究期刊，1(1)，253-283。
教育部（2022）。幼兒教育及照顧法。 https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000542
教育部（2023）。幼兒園評鑑辦法。 https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000643
教育部（2024）。教育部推動及補助地方政府與私立教保服務機構合作提供準公共教保服務作業要點。 https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL001795
教育部 (2025)。重大教育政策發展歷程學前教育。教育部部史。 https://history.moe.gov.tw/Policy/Detail/b6d65989-d3b7-4a04-b61c-53e6738bd417
教育部國民及學前教育署（2025）。教育部國民及學前教育署補助辦理教保服務機構輔導作業原則。 https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=FL038235
教育部國民及學前教育署（2024）。深化教保服務品質：從教保專業人力資源發展談起。全國中小學教育資訊網電子報。 https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/Epaper/Detail?id=74f7561b-733e-4c1d-a902-daaa51c5149e&eid=9a94d8f1-9d2a-4fbd-8d97-186838d0a69c
陳淑琦（2019）。從準公共幼兒園政策談私立幼兒園的參與和調整。台灣教育，(720)，1-7。 https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=18166482-201912-201912180005-201912180005-1-7
陳湘羚、吳青娟（2021）。臺北市109學年度準公共幼兒園教保服務品質輔導之行動研究。幼兒教育，(332)，29-45。 https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=a0000565-202111-202111250008-202111250008-29-45
張盈堃（2025）。準公共政策的反思：市場主導模型與國家控制模型的辯證。臺灣教育評論月刊，14(2)，1-4。 https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20130114001-N202502050003-00001
馮穎俞（2023）。幼兒教育準公共化實務運作之研究：以北部四所私立幼兒園為例〔碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學教育政策與行政研究所。
黃品瑜、林俊瑩（2025）。質非文是？臺灣準公共幼兒園政策的運作與反思。臺灣教育評論月刊，14(2)，12–17
臺北市政府教育局（2023）。臺北市教育政策白皮書：向世界學習，開創教育新格局 。https://www.syajh.tp.edu.tw/uploadfiles/annex/20231225160552_1.pdf
臺北市政府教育局（2025）。臺北市113學年度準公共幼兒園清冊。https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMzQyL3JlbGZpbGUvMC8xMTk1ODAvNjE2M2JlOTItZDg0My00MWY3LTg3YjYtMDhhNTE1MWQ1MzVjLnBkZg%3d%3d&n=6Ie65YyX5biCMTEz5a245bm05bqm5rqW5YWs5YWx5bm85YWS5ZyS5riF5YaKKDE3MuWckikucGRm&icon=..pdf
Kumar, R.（2014）。研究方法：步驟化學習指南（2版更新） (潘中道、胡龍騰、蘇文賢譯)。學富文化。（原著出版於2005年）
Affodegon, W. S. & Jacob, S. (2015). Conducting quality evaluations: Four generations of meta-evaluation. Spazio Filosofico. https://doi.org/10.13135/2038-6788/9507
American Evaluation Association. (2018). Guiding Principles. https://www.eval.org/About/Guiding-Principles
Ayoo, S., Leeming, M., & Huff, S. R. (2024). Meta-evaluation: Validating program evaluation standards through the United Nations Evaluation Quality Assessment (EQAs). Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 24(1), 14–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X231220979
Borisova, I., Dowd, A. J. & Pisani, L. (2017). International Development and Early Learning Assessment Technical Paper. Save the Children US. https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/international-development-and-early-learning-assessment-technical-paper/
Botsoglou, K., Beazidou, E., Kougioumtzidou, E., & Vlachou, M. (2019). Listening to children: Using the ECERS-R and Mosaic approach to improve learning environments: a case study. Early Child Development and Care, 189(4), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1337006
Brunsek, A., Perlman, M., Falenchuk, O., McMullen, E., Fletcher, B., & Shah, P. S. (2017). The relationship between the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale and its revised form and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 12(6), e0178512. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178512
Bukhalenkova, D., Almazova, O., & Aslanova, M. (2023). Similarities and differences between CLASS and ECERS-R estimates of educational environmentquality. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1253154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1253154
Cooksy, L. J., & Caracelli, V. J. (2009). Metaevaluation in practice: Selection and application of criteria. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(11), 1–15.
Department for Education. (2024). Early years foundation stage statutory framework: For group and school-based providers. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2
Hanssen, C. E., Lawrenz, F., & Dunet, D. O. (2008). Concurrent Meta-Evaluation: A Critique. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214008320462
Halpin, P. F., Wolf, S., Yoshikawa, H., Rojas, N., Kabay, S., Pisani, L., & Dowd, A. J. (2018). Measuring Early Learning and Development Across Cultures: Invariance of the IDELA Across Five Countries. Developmental Psychology, 55(1), 23–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000626
Hernández, A. E. (2023). Concluding thoughts and reflections on the special issue on program evaluation standards. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 19(43), 115–119 . https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v19i43.855
Hedler, H. C., & Gibram, N. (2009). The contribution of metaevaluation to program evaluation: Proposition of a model. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v6i12.206
Ishimine, K., Tayler, C., & Bennett, J. (2010). Quality and Early Childhood Education and Care: A Policy Initiative for the 21st Century. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(2), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-4-2-67
Ishimine, K., & Tayler, C. (2014). Assessing Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. European Journal of Education, 49(2), 272–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12043
Jersild, A. C., & Harnar, M. A. (2022). Quality as praxis: A tool for formative meta-evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 18(42), 92–103.
https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v19i43.855
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2018). Checklist of the program evaluation standards statements. https://wmich.edu/evaluation/checklists
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (n.d.). Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. JCSEE. https://evaluationstandards.org/
Kerimoğlu, E., Ülker, M. N. Ö., & Berk, Ş. (2023). How to Conduct a Metaevaluation?: A Metaevaluation Practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 38(1), 57–78.https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.7161
Kragh-Müller, G., & Ringsmose, C. (2015). Educational Quality in Preschool Centers. Childhood Education, 91(3), 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2015.1047311
McDonald, D. (2009). Elevating the field: Using NAEYC Early Childhood Program Accreditation to support and reach higher quality in early childhood programs . https://www.naeyc.org/
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2025). Early childhood program standards. NAEYC. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/early-childhood-program-standards
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2022). NAEYC early learning program accreditation standards and assessment items . https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/user-126377/2022elpstandardsandassessmentitems-compressed_2.pdf
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (n.d.). Interested in accreditation?. https://www.naeyc.org/accreditation/early-learning/interested
National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance (2018) QRIS Resource Guide. https://ecquality.acf.hhs.gov/about-qris
Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques (OCDE). (2023). Une application réfléchie des critères d'évaluation. Éditions OCDE. https://doi.org/10.1787/716baf6e-fr
Olsen, K. and S. Reilly (2011), Evaluation Methodologies A brief review of Meta-evaluation,Systematic Review and Synthesis Evaluation methodologies and their applicability to complex evaluations within the context of international development.
https://www.iodparc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/SynthesisMethodsReportFINAL.pdf .
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010),Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083905-en
Perlman M, Falenchuk O, Fletcher B, McMullen E, Beyene J, Shah PS (2016) A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of a Measure of Staff/Child Interaction Quality (the Classroom Assessment Scoring System) in Early Childhood Education and Care Settings and Child Outcomes. PLoS ONE 11(12): e0167660. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167660
Project Everyone. (2024). Goal 4: Quality education. The Global Goals.
https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/4-quality-education/
Roßbach, H.-G. (2023). Assessing the quality of kindergarten environments with the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. In J. M. Pieters, K. Breuer, & P. R. J. Simons (Eds.), Learning environments: Contributions from Dutch and German research (pp. 77–90).
Otto Friedrich Universität Bamberg. https://doi.org/10.20378/irb-59283
Ruhe, V., & Boudreau, J. D. (2012). The 2011 Program Evaluation Standards: A framework for quality in medical education programme evaluations. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(6), 1226–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01879.x
Sağlam, M., Çelik, O. T., Tunç, Y., Kahraman, Ü., Açar, D., & Candemir, B. (2023). Meta-thematic analysis of quality in early childhood education and care. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02491-3
Scriven, M. (2009). Meta-Evaluation Revisited. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(11), iii–viii. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v6i11.220
Setodji, C. M., Schaack, D., & Le, V.-N. (2018). Using the early childhood
environment rating scale-Revised in high stakes contexts: Does evidence
warrant the practice? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 158–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.001
Sever, I. (2015). Importance-performance analysis: A valid management tool? Tourism Management, 48, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.022
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). The Metaevaluation Imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(01)00127-8
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). Professional standards and principles for evaluations. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (pp. 279–302). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_18
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Ulferts, H., Wolf, K. M., & Anders, Y. (2019). Impact of Process Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care on Academic Outcomes: Longitudinal Meta‐Analysis. Child Development, 90(5), 1474–1489. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13296
United Nations Evaluation Group. (2016). Norms and Standards for Evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.unevaluation.org/uneg_publications/uneg-norms-and-standards-evaluation-un-system
Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Evaluating the quality of self-evaluations: The (mis)match between internal and external meta-evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36(1–2), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2010.10.001
Von Suchodoletz, A., Lee, D. S., Henry, J., Tamang, S., Premachandra, B., & Yoshikawa, H. (2023). Early childhood education and care quality and associations with child outcomes: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 18(5), e0285985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285985
Watts, B. R., Castillo, R. P., Akwetey, J. F., & Pham, D. T. (2023). The Program Evaluation Standards in evaluation scholarship and practice. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 19(43), 103–114. https://www.jmde.com
Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. （2010）. The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users （3rd ed.）. Corwin Press.