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：大學通識課程學生評鑑教師教學量表驗證與影響因素考驗
書刊名：臺中教育大學學報. 教育類
作者：黃義良 引用關係／鄭博真 引用關係
作者(外文)：Hawng, I-liang／Jeng, Bor-jen
出版日期：2011
卷期：25:1
頁次：頁139-161
主題關鍵詞：大學通識課程；多元迴歸分析；學生評鑑教師教學；驗證性因素分析；General education curriculums；Multiple regression analysis；Student evaluation of faculty teaching；Confirmatory factor analysis
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(4) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:4
  • 共同引用共同引用:101
  • 點閱點閱:123
本研究旨在建構適用大學通識課程的學生評鑑教師教學量表，考驗工具在不同課程領域的適用性，並檢視教師和學生特性可能造成的影響。本量表初稿取自某科技大學使用的學生評鑑教學工具。研究樣本爲2097位選修通識課程的科技大學學生。實證資料透過探索性和驗證性因素分析等統計考驗，發展出「大學通識課程學生評鑑教師教學量表」，包含教材教法、師生互動、學習評量及學生學習等四個構面，共16個題目，其信度和效度皆良好，並可適用於四種不同領域的通識課程。迴歸分析結果顯示：學生修課意願愈高、預期成績愈高、課程興趣愈高以及教師給分愈寬鬆者，對教師教學評分愈高。而除了教師服務單位具有實質影響外，生命科學課程的教學評鑑得分最低，服務21年以上的教師評鑑得分最高，女性教師高於男性教師，兼任教師得分高於專任教師，講師與助理教授高於副教授，而教師學歷則無顯著預測力。
The purpose of this study is to develop scales used by college students who take general education courses to evaluate instructor's teaching, test the applicability of tools at different course fields, and examine the possible influences caused by instructors' and students' characteristics. The original scales were derived from tools used by students at a university of technology to evaluate instructor's teaching. The samples were 2097 college students who took general education courses. After being statistically tested by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, empirical data were used to develop scales for college students who take general education courses to evaluate instructors' teaching, which includes four dimensions, teaching materials and methods, interaction between teachers and students, learning assessment, and student learning, and a total of items. Both of the validity and reliability are good, and are applicable to courses of four different fields. The regression analysis shows that the higher intention students have to take courses, the higher grades students expect to receive, the stronger interest students show in courses and the more lenient instructors are, the higher teaching rating the instructors receive. Except that the department instructors belong to has substantial impacts, instructor's teaching rating of life science courses is the lowest; instructors with 21 years or more of teaching experiences are rated highest; female faculty receives higher rating than male faculty; adjunct instructors have higher rating than full-time faculty; Instructor and Assistant Professor are rated higher than Associate Professor; and there is no significant prediction ability in instructor's academic degrees.
期刊論文
1.張德勝(19990600)。The Effect of Subject Area and Instructor Gender on Student Ratings of Instruction。花蓮師院學報，9，345-366。new window  new window
2.Greenwald, A. G.、Gillmore, G. M.(1997)。Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings。American Psychologist，52(11)，1209-1217。  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.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
5.Marsh, H. W.、Dunkin, M. J.(1992)。Students' Evaluations of University Teaching: A Multidimensional Perspective。Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research，8，143-233。  new window
6.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
7.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
8.鄭博真、黃義良(20090600)。大學教師教學評鑑量表發展之研究。教育與心理研究，32(2)，57-80。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Marsh, H. W.、Baily, M.(1993)。Multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: A profile an analysis。Journal of Higher Education，64(1)，1-18。  new window
10.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
11.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
12.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
13.Cudeck, R.、Browne, M. W.(1983)。Cross-validation of covariance structures。Multivariate Behavioral Research，18(2)，147-167。  new window
14.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
15.Feldman, K. A.(1983)。Seniority and experience of college teachers as related to evaluations they receive from students。Research in Higher Education，18，3-124。  new window
16.孫志麟(20040300)。探討師範學院通識教育的教學品質：評鑑的觀點。國立臺北師範學院學報. 教育類，17(1)，329-353。new window  延伸查詢new window
17.Bagozzi, Richard P.、Yi, Youjae(1989)。On the Use of Structural Equation Models in Experimental Designs。Journal of Marketing Research，26(3)，271-284。  new window
18.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
19.黃瓊蓉(20041200)。Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness: A Bierarchical Linear Model。測驗學刊，51(2)，163-184。new window  new window
20.Bagozzi, Richard P.、Yi, Youjae(1988)。On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models。Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science，16(1)，74-94。  new window
21.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
22.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
23.林清達；潘文福；范熾文(2004)。花蓮師院通識課程實施成效之研究。通識教育年刊，2，99-130。  延伸查詢new window
24.Feldman, K. A.(1992)。College students’ views of male and female college teachers: part1-evidence from the social laboratory and experiments。Research in Higher Education，33(3)，317-375。  new window
25.Feldman, K. A.(1993)。College students’ views of male and female college teachers。Research in Higher Education，34(2)，151-211。  new window
26.Abrami, P. C.、Perry, R. P.、Leventhal, L.(1982)。The relationship between student personality characteristics, teacher ratings, and student achievement。Journal of Educational Psycholog，74，111-125。  new window
27.Neumann, R.(2000)。Communicating student evaluation of teaching results: Rating interpretation guides (rigs)。Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education，25(2)，121-134。  new window
28.Scheurich, V.、Graham, B.、Drolette, M.(1983)。Expected grades versus specific evaluations of the teacher as predictors of students’ overall evaluation of the teacher。Research in Higher Education，19，159-173。  new window
29.Howard, G. S.、Maxwell, S. E.(1980)。The correlation between student satisfaction and grades: A case of mistake causation?。Journal of Educational Psychology，72，810-820。  new window
30.Marsh, H. W.(1983)。Multidimensional ratings of teaching effectiveness by students from different academic settings and their relation to student/course/instructors characteristics。Journal of Educational Psychology，75(1)，150-166。  new window
會議論文
1.張德勝(1998)。學生評鑑教師教學--以花蓮師範學院為例。八十六學年度師範教育學術研討會，花蓮師範學院舉辦 。國立花蓮師範學院。1-22。  延伸查詢new window
2.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
3.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
4.Chang, T.(2000)。Student rating: What are teachers college students telling us about them?。New Orleans, LA。  new window
學位論文
1.陳美慧(2004)。學生評鑑教師教學量表之建構--以嘉義大學為例(碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.莊惠文(2000)。大學教學評鑑指標建構之研究(碩士論文)。國立台北師範學院。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳珮軒(2000)。大學學生評鑑教師教學之研究--以長庚大學管理學院為例(碩士論文)。長庚大學。  延伸查詢new window
4.陳琦媛(2007)。我國公立大學教師教學評鑑之研究(博士論文)。國立政治大學。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.Gauby, K. M.(1998)。Comparison of student ratings of teaching effectiveness and faculty educational level。Arizona State University。  new window
圖書
1.Braskamp, L. A.、Ory, J. C.(1994)。Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance。San Francisco, CA：Jossey-Bass。  new window
2.教育部(2006)。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫95年度作業手冊。臺北市：教育部。  延伸查詢new window
3.黃光雄(2002)。教學原理。臺北市：師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
4.張德勝(2002)。學生評鑑教師教學：理論、實務與態度。臺北：揚智文化。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.Centra, John A.(1993)。Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching faculty and determining faculty effectiveness。San Francisco：Jossey-Bass Publishers。  new window
6.黃俊傑(1999)。大學通識教育的理念與實踐。中華民國通識教育學會。  延伸查詢new window
7.教育部(2009)。98年版教育統計。臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
8.Centra, J. A.(1981)。Determing faculty effectiveness。San Francisco。  new window
9.徐秀菊(2003)。通識教育藝術領域課程革新之行動與省思。藝術領域的行動與省思。花蓮市。  延伸查詢new window
10.Abrami, P. C.、d’Apollonia, S.(1990)。The dimensionality of rating and their use in personnel decisions。Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice。  new window
11.Cashin, W. E.(1990)。Students do rate different academic fields differently。Students ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice: New directions for teaching and learning。San Francisco。  new window
其他
1.李茂能(2001)。矩陣運算軟體 sem_stats.xls，嘉義縣：國立嘉義大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.Ali, d. L.，Yvonne, S.(1998)。Issues Regarding the Reliability, Validity and Utility of Student Ratings of Instruction: A Survey of Research Findings，http://www.ucalgary.ca/VPA/usri/appendix4.html$d20080819。  new window
3.Doyle, T.(2002)。Evaluating teacher effectiveness-research summary，http://www.ferris.edu/fctl/Teaching_and_Learning_Tips/， 20080730。  new window
圖書論文
1.Cronbach, L. J.(1971)。Test Validation。Educational Measurement。Washington, DC：American Council on Education。  new window
2.Hoyle, R. H.、Panter, A. T.(1995)。Writing about structural equation models。Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications。Thousand Oaks, California：Sage Publications。  new window
3.Theall, M.、Franklin, J.(1991)。Student ratings in the context evaluation systems。Students ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice: New directions for teaching and learning。San Francisco：Jossey-Bass。  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：515，外國：11） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1753550 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67545693
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