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：學生評量教師教學問卷之修訂--一所私立科技大學的自我探究
書刊名：教育理論與實踐學刊
作者：潘世尊 引用關係
出版日期：2010
卷期：21
頁次：頁111-143
主題關鍵詞：教學評鑑；教學評鑑問卷；教學評鑑量表；Teaching evaluation；Teaching evaluation questionnaire；Teaching evaluation scale
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(3) 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:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:224
  • 點閱點閱:141
學生對授課教師教學表現之評量結果，除可協助教師瞭解本身教學可能的問題所在，還可做為校方決定教師之升等、續聘、獎勵或是否須接受教學專業輔導方案之參考依據。然而，評量工具之內涵若不適切，不但無法確實發揮預期功效，還可能引發教師的強烈反彈與質疑。有鑑於此，研究者試著針對本身所任職學校之學生評量教師教學問卷加以探究。過程中，研究者除邀請本校教師與學生參與研討和座談，還對他們施予問卷調查以深化探究的結果。最終，研究者指出學生評量教師教學問卷可依序包含「修課背景資料」、「教學評鑑量表」及「自由陳述與建議勾選表」等三大部份，且針對這三個部份之內涵具體提出建議。此外，研究者還闡明他所修訂之教學評鑑量表應可適用不同性質之課程，以及具良好之信度與效度。由於本文針對學生評量教師教學問卷相關問題進行較為統整之探究，探究的歷程與結果應可供其他大學校院參考。
Students’ evaluation results of teachers’ teaching performance not only can help teachers to become aware of their own teaching problems, but are also a reference for the school to decide promotions, employment renewals, rewards, and those teachers who have to participate in the teaching professional consultation programs. However, if the content of the tool for evaluation is not appropriate, the results of students’ evaluation can not achieve its purpose and may trigger a strong negative reaction and doubt from the teacher. In view of this, this research attempted to explore proper contents that students’ teaching evaluation questionnaire should have at a private university of technology where he taught. The researcher not only invited teachers and students to take part in discussions and seminars, but also administered a questionnaire survey to deepen the results of his study. Ultimately, the researcher pointed out that the student’s teaching evaluation questionnaire can contain the following three large parts: “information regarding studying and participation,”“scale for teaching evaluation,” and “area of open ended response and suggestion.” Some concrete suggestions regarding the contents of these three parts should have are also proposed by the researcher. In addition, the researcher elucidated that the scale for teaching evaluation revised by him should be applicable to different types of courses and exhibits appropriate reliability and validity. Since this research conducted a more integrated exploration on the related issues of students’ teaching evaluation questionnaire, the exploration process and results can provide references for other universities and colleges.
期刊論文
1.張慶仁(20061200)。人文社會科學量表的建構觀點及策略。人文與社會學報，1(9)，137-162。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Ory, J. C.、Ryan, K.(2001)。How do student ratings measure up to a new validity framework?。New Directions for Instructional Research，109，27-44。  new window
3.湯誌龍(20060600)。屏東科技大學學生評鑑教師教學之工具修訂。臺東大學教育學報，17(1)，1-33。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.Harrison, P. D.、Ryan, J. M.、Moore, P. S.(1996)。College students´ self-insight and common implicit theories in ratings of teaching effectiveness。Journal of Educational Psychology，88(4)，775-582。  new window
5.何希慧(20070900)。做好教學評鑑配套措施。評鑑雙月刊，9，24-27。  延伸查詢new window
6.史美瑤(20070900)。如何利用期中教學評量改善教學成效？。評鑑雙月刊，9，16-20。  延伸查詢new window
7.McKeachie, W. J.(1990)。Research on college teaching: The historical background。Journal of Educational Psychology，82(2)，189-200。  new window
8.Wachtel, H. K.(1998)。Student evaluation of college effectiveness: A brief review。Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education，23(2)，191-211。  new window
9.Griffin, B. W.(2004)。Grading leniency, grade discrepancy, and student ratings of instruction。Contemporary Educational Psychology，29，410-425。  new window
10.葉連祺、董娟娟、楊世英、陳仁海、蕭芳華(20050600)。大學學生評鑑教師教學量表之編製。測驗學刊，52(1)，59-81。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.簡紅珠(20041100)。從教學的道德性與藝術性論教學評鑑的盲點與限制。教育研究，127，55-62。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.陳琦媛(20061200)。大學教學評鑑之初探--以七所美國大學為例。國立編譯館館刊，34(4)，27-44。  延伸查詢new window
13.曹嘉秀、魏孟雪(20030600)。影響學生評鑑教學之背景因素探討。測驗學刊，50(1)，143-161。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.潘靖瑛(20040600)。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。測驗學刊，51(1)，79-102。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.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
16.張德勝(20051000)。臺灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」制度之研究。師大學報. 教育類，50(2)，203-225。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.楊佳儒、王克武、賴姍姍(20080600)。SBL現場觀眾涉入程度、球隊認同對滿意度與忠誠度影響之研究。嶺東體育暨休閒學刊，6，85-97。new window  延伸查詢new window
18.魏美惠、鄭仲育(20061200)。大學生心目中的好老師：研究、教學或服務能力之調查研究。花蓮教育大學學報，23，103-129。new window  延伸查詢new window
19.葉紹國、溫博仕(20010500)。淡江大學核心課程學生選課行為與教學評鑑、學期成績等相關因素研究。淡江人文社會學刊，7，307-344。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.Centra, J. A.(1994)。The use of teaching portfolio and student evaluations for summative evaluation。The Journal of Higher Education，65(5)，555-562。  new window
21.Feldman, K. A.(1978)。Course characteristics and college students' ratings of their teachers: What we know and what we don't。Research in Higher Education，9(3)，199-242。  new window
22.Kennedy, W. R.(1975)。Grades expected and grades received --Their relationship to students' evaluations of faculty performance。Journal of Educational Psychology，67，109-115。  new window
23.吳清山、黃旭鈞(20050400)。教師專業倫理準則的內涵與實踐。教育研究月刊，132，44-58。new window  延伸查詢new window
24.歐陽教、張德銳(19930300)。教師評鑑模式之研究。教育研究資訊，1(2)，90-100。new window  延伸查詢new window
25.陳琦媛(20070900)。大學教學評鑑的新途徑--同儕評鑑。評鑑雙月刊，9，21-23。  延伸查詢new window
26.黃毅志、巫有鎰(20030600)。影響教學評鑑得分因素之探討--以臺東師院為例。臺東師院學報，14(上)，347-370。new window  延伸查詢new window
27.張德勝(20040400)。The Results of Student Ratings: Paper vs. Online。師大學報. 教育類，49(1)，171-185。new window  new window
28.Shulman, Lee S.(1986)。Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching。Educational Researcher，15(2)，4-14。  new window
29.張郁雯(20030600)。大學生教學評鑑量表之發展研究。教育與心理研究，26(2)，227-239。new window  延伸查詢new window
30.林珊如(19991200)。大學生評鑑教學量表：編製及效度考驗。教育與心理研究，22(下)，295-321。new window  延伸查詢new window
31.梁福鎮(20051200)。教師專業倫理內涵與養成途徑之探究。教育科學期刊，5(2)，61-77。new window  延伸查詢new window
32.周祝瑛(2003)。研習資訊20（3），49-57。  延伸查詢new window
33.徐新逸、黃巧玲(2009)。影響「學生評量教師教學」外在干擾因素之探討--以北部一所技術學院為例。醒吾學報，40，159-188。new window  延伸查詢new window
34.楊錦章(2006)。中華大學教學評鑑之調查分析。中華行政學報，3，131-140。new window  延伸查詢new window
35.蘇懿、鍾國揆(2005)。建立評量教師整體教學評鑑的分析模型。管理科學與統計決策，2（1），14-26。  延伸查詢new window
36.Feldman, K. A.(1996)。Identifying exemplary teaching: Using data from course and teacher evaluations。New Directions for Teaching and Learning，65，41-50。  new window
37.Frey, P. W.、Leonard, D. W.、Beatty, W. W.(1975)。Student ratings of instructions: Validation research。Journal of American Educational Research，12，327-344。  new window
38.Lowan, J.(1995)。Professors as performers and motivators。College Teaching，42，137-141。  new window
39.Marsh, H. W.(1982)。SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for college students’ evaluations of university teaching。British Journal of Educational Psychology，52(1)，77-95。  new window
40.McKeachie, W. J.(1997)。Students ratings: The validity of use。American Psychologist，52(11)，1218-1257。  new window
會議論文
1.Warrington, W. G.(1973)。Student evaluation of instruction at Michigan State University。Philadelphia。164-182。  new window
研究報告
1.Louisa, C.(1984)。Student evaluation of teacher performance。  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
圖書
1.Baker, L. L.(1993)。Factor analysis of the IDEA student rating instrument for introductory college science and mathematics courses。LA：Mid-South Educational Research Association。  new window
2.Hildebrand, M.、Wilson, R. C.、Dienest, E. R.(1971)。Evaluating university teaching。Berkeley, CA：Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California。  new window
3.Hair, J. F.、Anderson, R. E.、Tatham, R. L.、Black, W. C.(1995)。Multivariate data analysis with readings。Upper Saddler River, NJ：Prentice-Hall。  new window
4.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
5.葉重新(2004)。教育研究法。臺北市：心理。  延伸查詢new window
6.吳明隆(2007)。結構方程模式：AMOS的操作與應用。臺北：五南。  延伸查詢new window
7.Peterson, Kenneth D.(1995)。Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices。Corwin Press, Inc.。  new window
8.彭森明(2007)。大學教師教學評鑑：目的及設計與執行方針。教育方法學研習手冊（Ⅲ）。台中縣。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Hirst, P. H.(1983)。Educational theory。Educational theory and its foundation disciplines。Routledge & Kegan Paul。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
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：642（臺灣：630，外國：12） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1972506 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67789648
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