:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:通識教育課程學生評鑑教師教學問卷之發展--以慈濟大學為例
書刊名:測驗學刊
作者:潘靖瑛 引用關係
作者(外文):Pan, Ching-ying
出版日期:2004
卷期:51:1
頁次:頁79-102
主題關鍵詞:學生評鑑教學教師評鑑Student ratingsInstruction evaluation
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(10) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:9
  • 共同引用共同引用:115
  • 點閱點閱:45
本研究的目的是依據慈濟大學通識課程的科目性質差異,分別發展出適用於一般課程、藝術課程、體育課程的三份學生評鑑教師教學問卷,並檢視其信、效度。研究者依據教學評鑑的相關理論,及分析62份其他大學校院教學評鑑問卷的結果來發展問卷。三份問卷皆含15題封閉式選擇題及4題開放式問答題。15題選擇題經因素分析後,可分別歸屬於「教學設計與準備」、「教學方法」、「教學態度」、「學習評量」、「課程總評」五個層面。以通識課程原本使用合29題選擇題的學生評鑑教學問卷作為效標,進行同時效度檢驗,三份問卷與舊問卷的相關分別為0.86、0.76、0.58,皆達p<.01的顯著水準,且因素分析結果發現三份問卷的總解釋變異量分別為83%、82%、85%。由同時效度檢驗結果及高解釋變異量,可知此三份問卷頗具建構效度。三份問卷的Cronbachα信度值皆在0.9以上,五個層面的α信度值皆在0.8以上;重測信度分別為0.677、0.803、0.921,此結果顯示三份問卷皆具有良好的信度。
The purpose of this study was to develop three different student rating question­naires for evaluating the instructions of courses offered by the General Education Cen­ter of Tzu Chi University (i.e., general courses, art courses and physical education courses) ,and to examine their reliability and validity. Based on relative instruction evaluation theories, and the results of analyzing 62 other universities' student rating questionnaires, this researcher developed these questionnaires, each of which consists of 15 close-ended items and four open-ended questions. The 15 close-ended items can be divided into five dimensions: instruction –design and preparation; teaching method; teaching attitude; achievement evaluation; and overall instruction evaluation. The old student rating instruction questionnaire, with 29 close-ended items, was used as a criterion to examine the concurrent validity of the three new ones; the correlations were 0.86,0.76, and 0.58, respectively, which were all significantly correlated at p<0.01. The results of factor analysis indicated the whole explained variances for the three questi­onnaires were 83%, 82%, and 85%, respectively. The internal consistency αcoefficients for the three questionnaires were all above 0.90 and for the five dimensions, also above 0.80 for the three questionnaires. The test-retest reliabilities were 0.677, 0.803, and 0.921, respectively. Based on the above results, the three questionnaires have good validity and reliability.
期刊論文
1.張定貴、張德勝(20020400)。國小教師教學評量表信效度分析--比較學生評鑑與教師自評。花蓮師院學報,14,25-42。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.唐學明(19960600)。多管道教學評鑑方法之研究--以政治作戰學校為例。復興崗學報,57,167-188。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Feng, C.(1990)。Quantitative evaluation of university teaching quality: An application of fuzzy set and approximate reasoning。Fuzzy Sets and Systems,37(1),1-11。  new window
4.Murray, H. G.、Rushton, J. P.、Paunonen, S. V.(1990)。Teacher Personality Traits and Student Instructional Ratings in Six Types of University Courses。Journal of Educational Psychology,82(2),250-261。  new window
5.Follman, J.(1995)。Elementary public school pupil rating of teacher effectiveness。Child Study Journal,25(1),57-58。  new window
6.McKeachie, W. J.(1979)。Student ratings of faculty: A reprise。Academe,65,384-397。  new window
7.徐美惠、高熏芳(19960400)。重視教師評鑑落實「教評會」功能。臺灣教育,544,11-19。  延伸查詢new window
8.Goebel, B. L.、Cashen, V. M.(1979)。Age, Sex and Attractiveness as Factors in Student Ratings of Teachers: A Developmental Study。Journal of Educational Psychology,71(4),646-653。  new window
9.Mark, M. M.、Shotland, R. L.(1985)。Stakeholder-Based Evaluation and Value Judgements。Evaluation Review,9(5),605-626。  new window
10.Mesak, H.、Jauch, L. R.(1991)。Faculty Performance Evaluation: Modeling to Improve Personnel Decisions。Decision Sciences,22(5),1142-1157。  new window
11.Tollefson, N.、陳如山、Kleinsasser, A.(1989)。The Relationship of Students' Attitudes about Effective Teaching to Students' Ratings of Effective Teaching。Educational and Psychological Measurement,49(3),529-536。  new window
會議論文
1.張德勝(1999)。教師性別、職位、等級、學生年級對學生評鑑教學結果的影響。八十七學年度師範教育學術研討會。台北:台北市立師範學院。732-772。  延伸查詢new window
2.張德勝(1999)。教師、科目之特性對學生評鑑教師教學之影響--以花蓮師範學院為例。八十七學年度花蓮師範學院學術研討會。花蓮:國立花蓮師範學院。77-118。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.Centra, J. A.(1977)。How universities evaluate faculty performance: A survey of department heads。Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service。  new window
學位論文
1.謝臥龍(1990)。Using the Delphi technique to determine the most important characteristics of effective teaching in Taiwan,Ohio。  new window
圖書
1.邱皓政(2002)。量化研究統計分析:SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。臺北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
2.Arreola, R. A.(1995)。Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System。Bolton, MA:Anker Publishing Company, Inc.。  new window
3.張德勝(2000)。師範學院師生對「學生評鑑教師教學」態度之研究。台北:五南。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.Shinkfield, A. J.、Stufflebeam, D. L.(1995)。Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective Practice。Kluwer Academic Publishers。  new window
5.Peterson, Kenneth D.(1995)。Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices。Corwin Press, Inc.。  new window
6.(1983)。淡江大學教學評鑑之研究:學生評鑑教師教學。淡江大學教學評鑑之研究:學生評鑑教師教學。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.Cashin, W. E.(1990)。Student Ratings of Teaching: Recommendations for Use,Manhattan:Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development。,http://ideaedu.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Idea_Paper_22.pdf,(ED 339731)。  new window
2.Schlenker, D. E.,Mckinnon, N. C.(1994)。Assessing Faculty Performance Using the Student Evaluation of Instruction,New Brunswick, Canada。  new window
圖書論文
1.黃坤錦(1995)。從教師專業論教師評鑑。教育評鑑。臺北市:師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
2.張德銳(1992)。國民小學教師評鑑之研究。教育專業。臺北:師大師苑。new window  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE