學生評鑑教學的施行在國內外日趨普遍，唯其所引起之信、效度爭議亦不少，教學意見調查的結果是否真能反映教師的教學效能？又學生評鑑教師時，受到多少非教學因素的干擾？鑒於先前研究對此仍無定論，本研究乃以技職生為問卷調查對象，探討影響學生評鑑教學的背景變項。研究結果顯示，本文所探討的六個背景變項─教師性別、教師個性特質、教師要求寬嚴、學生年級、學生學習動機、及學生學習成就等，皆會顯著影響學生對教師教學之滿意度，其中又以教師的個性特質為左右教師整體評鑑值高低最重要的因素。就教師性別而言，女老師所獲得的評鑑值明顯高於男老師;就教師之個性特質而言，具正面特質 (溫暖、耐心、明理、有趣、彈性) 之教師，比具負面特質之教師來得受歡迎，就教師打分寬嚴而言，嚴格的教師所得到的評值，顯著低於寬鬆的教師。就學生的年級而言，低年級學生比高年級更滿意教師的教學表現；就學生的學習動機而言，動機愈高的學生給教師的評值愈高；就學生的學習成就而言，其與教師評鑑值呈曲線相關，換言之，程度比較好或比較差的學生給教師的評值高於程度中等者所給予的評值。本文結論支持一般看法，即學生評鑑教學確實受到非教學因素的影響，因此以學生評值作為衡量教師的教學效能時，須保守謹慎，並考慮諸多的教學情況。

The use of student ratings as measures of teaching effectiveness has been wides­pread but controversial. This study tackled the issue on whether or not student ratings are influenced by variables which are not directly relevant to the instruction itself, including teacher gender, teacher personality traits, teacher grading leniency, student grade year, learning motivation and student proficiency level. A total of 932 students enrolled at a private university of science and technology in southern Taiwan served as the subjects of the study, and the effects of the six forementioned variables on student evaluations of teacher performance were examined. The results from statistical analysis identified all of the said variables to be significant influencing variables, with the instructor's personality traits as the most significant predictor of overall instructional ratings. In other words, classes that are taught by teachers who are nice, female, or lenient in grading students, tended to give higher ratings of teachers than those taught by teachers, who are "mean", male, or who are strict in grading students. In addition, students at the lower grade years, with higher learning motivation and proficiency level, are more likely to give higher ratings of teachers than those with the opposite characteristics. This study provided another evidence to the common belief that student ratings are, to certain extent, affected by non-pedagogical factors, thus leading to the conclusion that since teachers are more often than not being rated on gualities other than professional teaching competency, comparisons among teachers in the interpretation of the evaluation results must be done with caution and must consider the instructional settings.