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：高職(中)工業類科學校教師自評與學生評鑑之教學效能比較
書刊名：課程與教學
作者：鄭友超／曾信榮
作者(外文)：Jeng, Yin-cheong／Tseng, Hsing-jung
出版日期：2010
卷期：13:3
頁次：頁163-191
主題關鍵詞：教師自評；學生評鑑；教學效能；高職中工業類科學校；Teacher self-evaluation；Student rating；Teaching effectiveness；Vocational senior high school of industrial program
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(8) 博士論文(2) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:8
  • 共同引用共同引用:596
  • 點閱點閱:162
本研究旨在探討高職（中）工業類科學校教師自評與學生評鑑之教學效能的差異性比較，研究對象選取了41所學校的820位教師，及35所學校的700位學生進行問卷調查，有效回收問卷分別為548份及658份，研究使用平均數、標準差、t考驗、單因子變異數分析、單因子多變量變異數分析等統計方法進行正式問卷之分析。研究編製「高職（中）工業類科學校教師教學效能問卷」之信、效度良好，教師與學生填答之問卷皆包含六個因素（教學自我效能信念、系統呈現教材內容、有效教學技術、師生互動關係、良好班級氣氛、多元教學評量）及29個題項。敎師填答問卷之內部一致性係數介於.744至.825間，整體問卷之內部一致性係數為.941；學生填答問卷之內部一致性係數介於.763至.874間，整體問卷之內部一致性係數為.947。探索式因素分析中，教師填答之教學效能問卷，因素累積解釋變異量為62.92%；學生填答之教學效能問卷，因素累積解釋變異量為64.55。另研究發現高職（中）工業類科學校教師教學效能的現況良好，不同背景變項的教師與學生，在知覺教學效能上有顯著差異。此外，在整體教學效能及其六個因素上，學生評鑑之結果皆顯著高於教師自評。根據研究發現，本研究提出建議供未來研究之參考。
The purpose of this study was to compare the results of teachers' self-evaluations of their teaching effectiveness with those of their students' ratings in industrial programs of a vocational senior high school in Taiwan. A self-developed questionnaire was administered to 820 teachers and 700 students in January, 2009, with returned responses from 548 teachers and 658 students. Specifically, the teaching effectiveness questionnaire with a total of 29 items has two editions: teacher edition and student edition. Both versions consist of six subscales, with each measuring one of the six factors including teaching self-efficacy, systematic presentation of instructional materials, effective instructional techniques, good teacher-student relationship, good classroom climate, and multiple teaching evaluations. For the teacher edition, the internal consistency a coefficients for the six subscales ranged from .744 to .825, with the overall a coefficient being .941. As for the student version, the internal consistency a coefficients ranged from .763 to .874, with 0.947 for the overall a coefficient. The data were analyzed with t-test, one-way ANOVA and one-way MANOVA. The exploratory factor analysis showed that cumulative variance was 62.92% for the teacher edition and 64.55 for the student edition. In addition, the overall performance of teachers' teaching effectiveness generally was satisfactory. There were significant differences in evaluation of teaching effectiveness among the teachers and their students with different background variables. Finally, for both the whole scale and the six subscales, the students' ratings on their teachers' teaching effectiveness, on average, were significantly higher than their teachers' self-evaluations of their own teaching. Based on the findings of the present study, some conclusions and recommendations were provided for administrative agencies, school authorities, school teachers, school students, and future studies.
期刊論文
1.Reynolds, D.、Muijs, D.、Treharne, D.(2003)。Teacher evaluation and teacher effectiveness in the United Kingdom。Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education，17(1)，83-100。  new window
2.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
3.De Jong, R.、WesterhofK. J.、Kruiter J. H.(2004)。Empirical evidence of a comprehensive model of school effectiveness: A multilevel study in mathematics in the 1st year of junior general education in the Netherlands。School Effectiveness and School Improvement，15(1)，3-31。  new window
4.Kyriakides, L.(2005)。Extending the comprehensive model of educational effectiveness by an empirical investigation。School Effectiveness and School Improvement，16(2)，103-152。  new window
5.Manthey, G.(2006)。Collective efficacy: Explaining school achievement。Leadership，35(3)，23。  new window
6.Teddlie, C.、Strinfield, S.、Burdett, J.(2003)。International Comparisons of the Relationships Among Educational Effectiveness, Evaluation and Improvement Variables: An Overview。Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education，17(1-3)，5-20。  new window
7.Marsh, H. W.(1984)。Students' Evaluations of University Teaching: Dimensionality, Reliability, Validity, Potential Biases, and Utility。Journal of Educational Psychology，76(5)，707-754。  new window
8.林進材(20021200)。教學效能的研究發展及其在教學與研究上的意義。教育研究，104，32-43。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Ding, Cody、Sherman, Helene(2006)。Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: examining the relationship。Educational Research Quarterly，29(4)，39-51。  new window
10.Ellett, C. D.、Teddlie, C.(2003)。Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA。Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education，17(1)，101-128。  new window
11.陳木金(19971200)。國民小學教師教學效能評鑑量表編製之研究。藝術學報，61，221-253。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.馮莉雅(20020800)。國中教師教學效能之研究--教師知覺與學生知覺之比較。國民教育研究學報，9，113-145。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.Angelle, P. S.(2002)。Mentoring the beginning teacher: Providing assistance in differentially effective middle schools。The High School Journal，86(1)，15-27。  new window
14.Barnett, C. W., Matthews, H. W.,、Jackson, R. A.(2003)。A comparison between students and faculty self-ratings of instructional effectiveness。American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education，67(4)，884-889。  new window
15.Emery C., Kramer, T.,、Tian, R.(2003)。Return to academic standards: Challenge the student evaluations of teaching effectiveness。Quality Assurance in Education，11(1)，37-46。  new window
16.Gordon, H. R. D.(2003)。Selected factors of teaching effectiveness: Perceptions of apprenticeship trainers。Journal of Technology Studies，29，56-59。  new window
17.Gump, S. E.(2007)。Student evaluations of teaching effectiveness and the leniency hypothesis: A literature review。Educational Research Quarterly，30(3)，55-68。  new window
18.Luyten, H., Visscher, A.,、Witziers, B.(2005)。School effectiveness research: From a review of the criticism to recommendations for further development。School Effectiveness and School Improvement，16(3)，249-279。  new window
19.Marsh, H. W.(1982)。Effects of expressiveness, content coverage, and incentive on multidimensional student rating scale: New interpretation of the Dr. Fox Effect。Journal of Educational Psychology，74，126-134。  new window
20.Morgan, D. A., Sneed, J.,、Swinney, L.(2003)。Are student evaluations a valid measure of teaching effectiveness: Perceptions of accounting faculty members and administrators。Management Research News，26(7)，17-32。  new window
21.Obenchain, K. M., Abernathy, T. V.,、Wiest, L. R.(2001)。The reliability of students’ ratings of faculty teaching effectiveness。College Teaching，49(3)，100-104。  new window
22.Parayitam, S., Desai, K.,、Phelps, L. D.(2007)。The effect of teacher communication and course content on student satisfaction and effectiveness。Academy of Educational Leadership Journal，11(3)，91-105。  new window
研究報告
1.Hawthorne, E. M.,、Smith, A. B.(1993)。Improving teaching and learning in community colleges: Guidelines for academic leaders。  new window
2.Wragg, C. M.(1995)。Classroom management: The perspectives of teachers, pupils,and researcher。  new window
3.Wu, Robert T. Y.(2005)。Relationship between teachers’ teaching effectiveness and school effectiveness in comprehensive high schools in Taiwan, Republic of China。  new window
學位論文
1.徐善德(1997)。高職教師工作價值觀、組織承諾與教學效能關係之研究(博士論文)。國立政治大學，臺北市。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.楊豪森(2008)。綜合高中校長課程領導、教師專業承諾與教師教學效能關係之研究(博士論文)。國立彰化師範大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.黃詩涵(2007)。我國高職工業類科教師素質與教學效能關係之研究，彰化。  延伸查詢new window
4.Goodwin, D. P.(1995)。A study of teacher/student perceptions of instructional transactions in classrooms of Kansas school。  new window
5.Hyde, B. T.(1983)。Student feedback to high school teachers as a means to improveteacher performance。  new window
圖書
1.Borich, G. D.(2007)。Effective Teaching Methods: Research-Based Practice。Upper Saddle River, N.J.：Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall。  new window
2.周談輝(1985)。職業教育師資培育。臺北市：三民書局。  延伸查詢new window
3.Kyriacou, C.(1986)。Effective Teaching in Schools。Oxford：Basil Blackwell Ltd.。  new window
4.Seyfarth, J. T.(1991)。Personal management for effective schools。Boston, MA：Allyn and Bacon。  new window
5.李隆盛(1996)。科技與職業教育的課題。臺北市：師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
6.吳清山(19980000)。學校效能研究。臺北：五南。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.Hoy, Wayne K.、Miskel, Cecil G.(2001)。Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice。McGraw-Hill。  new window
8.田振榮(2000)。職業類科教學目標。職業類科教材教法。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
9.江文雄主編(2000)。職業類科教材教法。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
10.康自立(1982)。工業職業教育能力本位課程發展理論與實際。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
11.黃政傑主編(2007)。教學原理。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
12.Elliott, S., Kratochwill, T., Cook, J.,、Travers, J.(2000)。Effective teaching:Effective teaching:Effective teaching, effective learning。New York。  new window
13.Levine, D. U.,、Lezotte, L. W.(1990)。Unusually effective school: A review andanalysis of research and practice。Madison, WI。  new window
14.Lunenburg, F.,、Ornstein, A.(2004)。Educational administration: Concepts & Practices。Australia。  new window
15.Reynolds, D.,、Teddlie, C.(2000)。An introduction to school effectiveness research:The international handbook of school effectiveness research。New York。  new window
圖書論文
1.Stufflebeam, D. L.(1983)。The CIPP model for program evaluation。Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation。Boston, MA：Kluwer Academic Publishers。  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：526（臺灣：525，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1541412 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67338199
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