臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：臺灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」制度之研究
書刊名：師大學報. 教育類
作者：張德勝 引用關係
作者(外文)：Chang, Te-sheng
出版日期：2005
卷期：50:2
頁次：頁203-225
主題關鍵詞：學生評鑑教師教學；教師評鑑；高等教育；大學校院；Student ratings of instruction；Evaluation system；Higher education
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(29) 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:28
  • 共同引用共同引用:60
  • 點閱點閱:37
辭本研究旨在探討台灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」之制度並比較公私立學校之間對此制度的異同。研究對象包含36 所公立學校及40 所私立學校。研究方法以文件分析及問卷調查為主。分析的內容主要包含各校實施「學生評鑑教師教學」的背景、實施程序、評鑑工具、資料處理及結果應用。本研究重要的發現如下： 一、有八成多的學校已經全面實施「學生評鑑教師教學」制度。 二、只有四成五的學校有「學生評鑑教師教學」的辦法。 三、近七成的學校由教務處課務組為來負責教學評鑑的行政工作。 四、超過六成學校仍由教務處負責評鑑工具的編製。 五、不到一成的學校有學生代表參與評鑑工具的編製。 六、有八成的學校全校使用同一種評鑑工具。 七、不到五成的學校建立的評鑑工具的信、效度。 八、評鑑資料分析以提供教師該科目的平均數最多。 九、評鑑結果只提供教師教學與人事決策參考，極少提供學生選課參考。 十、只有三成的學校會提供教學諮詢服務給評鑑結果較為不佳的教師。 十一、公私立大學院校在「學生評鑑教師教學」的背景、實施程序、評鑑工具、資料處理及結果應用都沒有顯著差異。 最後，本文根據研究發現，提出結論與相關之建議。
The purpose of this study was to investigate the systems used by students at colleges and universities in Taiwan to rate their professors. The sample consisted of 36 public colleges/universities and 40 private colleges/universities. Two research methods were involved. Method one was an analysis of college/university documents related to student ratings. These documents were concerned with the regulations and instruments for, and the reports on, student ratings from each college/university. Method two was a survey of the officials who took charge of the student ratings system at each college/university. Both methods were implemented between March and April, 2001. Some important findings are as follows: 1. More than 80% of the schools in the sample had implemented student ratings systems. 2. Approximately 46.1% of these schools have built student ratings regulations. 3. 68.4% of the schools have an academic affairs division in charge of the administration of student ratings. 4. Approximately 60.1% of the schools have an academic affairs division in charge of the development of student ratings instruments. 5. More than 90% of the schools do not have student representatives who participate in the development of student ratings instruments. 6. 80.3% of the schools use a school-wide instrument. 7. Less than 50% of the schools have a reliability test and construct the validity of student ratings instruments. 8. The mean for each academic subject is the most-used statistic for the results output. 9. Only three schools have published the results of their student ratings. 10.Approximately 30% of the schools offer an instructional consultation service for faculty. 11.There is no significant difference between public colleges/universities and private colleges/ universities regarding the student ratings system. Based on the results of this study, some conclusions are drawn and suggestions are made for future study.
期刊論文
1.d'Apollonia, S.、Abrami, P. C.(1997)。Navigating Student Ratings of Instruction。American Psychologist，52(11)，1198-1208。  new window
2.Marsh, H. W.(1987)。Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for further research。International Journal of Educational Research，11(3)，253-388。  new window
3.Marsh, H. W.、Roche, L. A.(1997)。Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The central issues of validity, bias, and utility。American Psychologist，52(11)，1187-1197。  new window
4.Brinko, Kathleen T.(1990)。Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education。Journal of Higher Education，61，65-83。  new window
5.McKeachie, W. J.(1997)。Student ratings: The validity of use。American Psychologist，52(11)，1218-1225。  new window
6.Marsh, H. W.、Roche, L.(1993)。The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness。American Educational Research Journal，30(1)，217-251。  new window
7.Wilson, Robert C.(1986)。Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants。Journal of Higher Education，57(2)，196-211。  new window
8.Feldman, K. A.(1977)。Consistency and Variability among College Students in Rating Their Teachers among Courses: A Review and Analysis。Research in Higher Education，6(3)，223-274。  new window
9.Ceci, Stephen J.、Williams, Wendy M.(1997)。"How' M I doing?": Problems with Student Ratings of Instructors and Courses。Change，29(5)，12-23。  new window
10.陳舜芬(1984)。學生的意見能反映教師教學的績效嗎？－簡介美國大學的學生評鑑教學制度。測驗與輔導，67，1209-1211。  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.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
2.張德勝(2000)。「學生評鑑教師教學」制度之比較：以師範學院為例。新竹市。182-207。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.黃瓊蓉(2003)。Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness: A Hierarchical Linear Model。The Meeting of American Educational Research Association。Chicago, IL。  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.葉重新(1987)。臺灣地區九所大學教師對「學生評鑑教師教學」期望之研究(博士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.毛郁雯(2000)。大學實施「學生評鑑教師教學」之研究--以國立台北師範學院為例(碩士論文)。國立台北師範學院。  延伸查詢new window
3.Coryell, Carol W.(2001)。An Assessment of Student Rating Systems in Bible Colleges，0。  new window
4.Carson, Rebecca Davis(1999)。Utilizing Cognitive Dissonance Theory to Improve Student Ratings of College Faculty，Texas, TX。  new window
圖書
1.傅佩榮(1989)。誰在乎教育。臺北：業強。  延伸查詢new window
2.Millman, J.(1981)。Handbook of Teacher Evaluation。Beverly Hills, CA：Sage Publications。  new window
3.教育部(2003)。中華民國教育統計。臺北：教育部。  延伸查詢new window
4.Arreola, R. A.(1995)。Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System。Bolton, MA：Anker Publishing Company, Inc.。  new window
5.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
6.Centra, John A.(1993)。Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching faculty and determining faculty effectiveness。San Francisco：Jossey-Bass Publishers。  new window
7.Peterson, Kenneth D.(1995)。Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices。Corwin Press, Inc.。  new window
8.教育部高等教育司(1997)。八十六學年度大學綜合評鑑試辦計畫評鑑手冊。八十六學年度大學綜合評鑑試辦計畫評鑑手冊。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
9.Ory, J.(1990)。Student Ratings of Instruction: Ethics and Practice。Student Ratings of Instruction: Issues for Improving Practice。San Francisco, CA。  new window
10.徐超聖(1997)。學生評鑑教師系統的比較研究：以SIR、IDEA、ICES為例。大學的課程與教學。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
11.淡江大學教育研究中心(1985)。學生評鑑教師教學之研究－淡江大學教師意見之分析。學生評鑑教師教學之研究－淡江大學教師意見之分析。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
12.Abrami, Philip C.、Murphy, Vincent(1980)。A Catalogue of Systems for Student Ratings of Instruction。A Catalogue of Systems for Student Ratings of Instruction。Montreal, Canada。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1140（臺灣：1126，外國：14） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1725833 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67532768
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上