學生認知歷程對學生評鑑教師教學的影響：階層線性模式分析

HLM Analysis of the Effects of Cognitive Process on Student Ratings of Instruction

10.6384/CIQ.201107.0158

曾明基(Ming-Chi Tseng)；邱于真(Yu-Zhen Qiu)；張德勝(Te-Sheng Chang)；羅寶鳳(Pao-Feng Lo)

認知歷程 ； 學生評鑑教師教學 ； 階層線性模式分析 ； Cognitive Process ； Student Ratings of Instruction ； Hierarchical Linear odeling Analysis

課程與教學

14卷3期（2011 / 07 / 01）

157 - 179

繁體中文

本研究主要從學生認知歷程的觀點出發，探討學生背景變項、學生層次及班級層次的認知歷程對學生評鑑教師教學的影響。研究對象為東部某大學大學部180班學生，班級人數介於11和92人之間，總樣本數為6292人。研究結果顯示，在學生層次上學生的性別、年級、科目性質、認知歷程及學習興趣對於學生評鑑教師教學有顯著的影響，而班級層次的認知歷程對於學生評鑑教師教學影響顯著，但無調節效果。針對上述結果，本研究對學生評鑑教師教學提出相關的建議。

The hierarchical linear modeling analysis was used to examine the effects of students' and classes' cognitive process on student ratings of instruction. Data were gathered from 6292 students enrolled in 180 undergraduate courses at a university in Taiwan. The results indicate that, within the student individual level, students' gender, year in the school, cognitive process, interest in learning, and the attribute of the subjects have a significant impact on student ratings. The cognitive process, within the class level, also has a significant impact on student ratings. However, it does not show the moderating effect. The implications of these findings for student ratings policies as they affect university faculty and students are discussed.

1. Chang, T.,Ross, W.(2006).The influence of instructor, student, and course characteristics in student ratings: What do faculty and students believe?.Journal of National Hualien University of Education,23,1-28.
   連結：
2. 張德勝(2003)。「學生評鑑教師教學」之結果：教師態度有關嗎？。教育心理學報，35(2)，183-200。
   連結：
3. 張德勝(2005)。台灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」制度之研究。師大學報：教育類，50(2)，203-225。
   連結：
4. 張德勝(2002)。學生對「學生評鑑教師教學」的觀點：學校政策是否會影響呢？。花蓮師院學報，14，43-65。
   連結：
5. 曹嘉秀、魏孟雪(2003)。影響學生評鑑教學之背景因素探討。測驗學刊，50(1)，143-161。
   連結：
6. 曾明基、張德勝(2010)。超額教師在學校新環境適應困擾的影響因素：階層線性模式分析。台北市立教育大學學報，41(2)，1-28。
   連結：
7. 黃瓊蓉(2004)。使用階層線性模式分析學生評量教學績效之資料。測驗學刊，51(2)，163-184。
   連結：
8. Anderson, W.(Ed.),Krathwohl, D. R.(Ed.)(2001).A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's educational objectives.New York, NY:Longman.
9. Bachen, C. M.,McLaughlin, M. M.,Garcia, S. S.(1999).Assessing the role of gender in college students' evaluations of faculty.Communication Education,48(3),193-210.
10. Beran, T.,Violato, C.(2005).Ratings of university teacher instruction: How much do student and course characteristics really matter?.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,30(6),593-601.
11. Bloom, B. S.,Engelahar, M. D.,Frust, E. J.,Hill, W. H.,Krathwohl, D. R.(1956).Taxonomy of educational objective, handbook1: Cognitive domain.New York:David McKay.
12. Centra, J. A.(1993).Reflective faculty evaluation.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
13. Centra, J. A.,Gaubatz, N. B.(1998).Is there gender bias in student evaluation of teaching?.Journal of Higher Education,71(1),17-33.
14. Chang, T.(2001).Student ratings: What teachers college students telling us about them?.Journal of Jinan University,5(2),169-192.
15. Cheung, M. W. L.,Au, K.(2005).Applications of multilevel structural equation modeling to cross-national research.Structural Equation Modeling,12(4),598-619.
16. Cohen, E. H.(2005).Student evaluations of course and teacher: Factor analysis and SSA approaches.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,30(2),123-136.
17. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Eribaum.
18. De Boeck, P.,Wilson, M.,Acton, G. S.(2005).A conceptual and psychometric framework for distinguishing categories and dimension.Psychological Review,112,129-158.
19. Dyer, N. G.,Hanges, P. J.,Hall, R. J.(2005).Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership.The Leadership Quarterly,16,149-167.
20. Farmer, G. L.(2000).Use of multilevel covariance structure analysis to evaluate the multilevel nature of theoretical constructs.Social Work Research,24(3),180-189.
21. Feldman, K. A.(1993).College students' views of male and female college teachers: Part II-Evidence from students' evaluations of their classroom teachers.Research in Higher Education,34,151-211.
22. Fuhrmanna, B. G.,Geyera, A.(2003).Students' evaluation of teachers and instructional quality-analysis of relevant factors based on empirical evaluation research.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,28(3),229-238.
23. Kein, K. J.(ed.),Kozlowski, S. W. J.(ed.)(2000).Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions.SanFrancisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
24. Koushki, P. A.,Kuhn, H. A. J.(1982).How reliable are student evaluations of teachers?.Engineering Education,72,362-367.
25. Marcoulides, G. A.(ed.),Schumacker, R. E.(ed.)(2001).Advanced structural equation modeling: New developments and techniques.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Marsh, H. W.(1987).Student's evaluations of university teaching: Research findings,methodological issues and directions for future research.International Journal of Educational Research,11,253-388.
27. Marsh, H. W.(1982).Validity of student's evaluation of college teachings: A multitrait-multimethod analysis.Journal of Educational Psychology,74,264-279.
28. Mathieu, J. E.,Taylor, S. R.(2007).A framework for testing meso-mediational relationships in organizational behavior.Journal of Organization Behavior,28,141-172.
29. Muthén, B. O.(1989).Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous population.Psychometrika,54,557-585.
30. Muthén, B. O.(1994).Multilevel covariance structure analysis.Sociological Methods and Research,22,376-398.
31. Muthén, L. K.,Muthén, B. O.(2006).Mplus user's guide.Los Angeles,CA:Muthen & Muthen.
32. Nancy, N.,Ruth, Z.(2008).Using Bloom's taxonomy to teach critical thinking skills to business students.College & Undergraduate Libraries,15(1),159-172.
33. Nasser, F.,Glassman, D.(1997).Student evaluation of university teaching:Structure and relationship with student characteristics.Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago, IL:
34. Nylund, K. L.,Asparouhov, T.,Muthén, B.(2006).Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A monte carlo simulation study.Structural Equation Modeling,14(4),535-569.
35. Perry, R. P.(ed.),Smart, J. C.(ed.)(2007).The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective.Springer:Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
36. Raudenbush, S. W.,Bryk, A. S.(2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
37. Scherr, F. C.,Scherr, S. S.(1990).Bias in student evaluations of teacher effectiveness.Journal of Education for Business,65,358-365.
38. Schlenker, D. E.,Mckinnon, N. C.(1994).ERIC databaseERIC database,未出版
39. Spooren, P.,Mortelmans, D.(2006).Teacher professionalism and student evaluation of teaching: Will better teachers receive higher ratings and will better students give higher ratings?.Educational Studies,32(2),201-214.
40. Vincent, F. F.,Kennon, M. S.(2008).Teacher support, student motivation, student need satisfaction, and college teacher course evaluations: Testing a sequential path model.Educational Psychology,28(6),711-724.
41. Vincent, F. F.,Kennon, M. S.(2003).Student psychological need satisfaction and college teacher-course evaluations.Educational Psychology,23(3),235-247.
42. Wendell, H.(2007).The new Bloom's taxonomy: Implications for music education.Arts Education Policy Review,108(4),7-16.
43. 林珊如(1999)。大學生評鑑教學量表：編製及效度考驗。教育與心理研究，22，295-322。
44. 張德勝(2002)。學生評鑑教師教學理論、實務與態度。台北:揚智。
45. 張德勝(2003)。不同評鑑結果之教師對「學生評鑑教師教學」態度之比較。教育與心理研究，26(3)，385-405。
46. 張德勝(2009)。第一印象與學生評鑑教師教學之相關研究。測驗學刊，56(3)，321-341。
47. 黃毅志、巫有鎰(2003)。影響教學評鑑得分因素之探討─以台東師院為例。台東師院學報，14，347-370。
48. 葉連祺、林淑萍(2003)。Bloom認知領域教育目標分類修訂版之探討。教育研究月刊，105，94-106。
49. 鄭蕙如、林世華(2004)。Bloom認知領域教育目標分類修訂版理論與實務之探討─以九年一貫課程數學領域分段能力指標為例。臺東大學教育學報，15(2)，247-274。

1. 曾明基(2020)。學生認知歷程與背景變數對於學生評鑑教師的影響：潛在類別偏差校正與混合迴歸分析。教育科學研究期刊，65(3)，251-276。
2. 曾明基、邱皓政(2015)。研究生評鑑教師教學的結果真的可以與大學生一起比較嗎？多群組混合 MIMIC-DIF 分析。測驗學刊，62(1)，1-23。
3. 羅寶鳳、曾明基、張德勝、邱皓政(2013)。以學生評鑑教師教學量表決定教師的開課或去留可行嗎？混合 IRT 分析取向。教育科學研究期刊，58(1)，91-116。
4. 羅寶鳳、曾明基、張德勝、邱于真(2011)。學生評鑑教師教學量表跨層級構念的分析。教育科學研究期刊，56(3)，31-60。
5. 羅寶鳳、曾明基、張德勝、邱于真(2012)。學生評鑑教師教學題目安排順序不同對學生評鑑教師的影響：MI與MMI分析取向。測驗學刊，59(1)，131-156。
6. (2014)。解析個人層次的教師集體效能感、組織層次的教師集體效能感與教師自我效能感的關係。教育學報，42(1)，27-52。
7. (2015)。學生家庭作業時間和家庭作業頻率與學習成就的關係：以TIMSS2007臺灣學生為例。教育與心理研究，38(4)，1-33。
8. (2016)。運用學習理論之跨層次與雙面兼具觀點分析台灣大學生最適學習路徑之研究。教育學報，44(1)，51-77。
9. (2017)。臺灣學生數學課後學習活動與數學學習成就的關係：TIMSS 2003年資料的分析。教育學刊，48，45-80。
10. (2020)。家庭作業時間對學習成就產生負向影響的原因分析：以TIMSS 2007年臺灣四年級學生為例。教育與心理研究，43(4)，33-64。
11. (2022)。研究生和大學生的學生評鑑教師教學分數真的要一起比較嗎？傾向值結構方程模型分析。教育與心理研究，45(2)，35-57。
12. (2024)。東部某大學的「學生評鑑教師教學量表」分數之排序：貝氏多層次隨機效果模型分析。測驗學刊，71(1)，95-117。