兼顧「學生學習成效」導向的大學教學評鑑量表發展與課程實施效率之評估

Developing a Student-Learning-Outcome-Based Instructional Evaluation Scale for Higher Education and Examining the Efficiency of Course Implementation via the Scale

10.6384/CIQ.201510_18(4).0005

林俊瑩(Chunn-Ying Lin)；劉佩雲(Pei-Yun Liu)；高台茜(Tai-Chien Kao)

教學評鑑量表 ； 資料包絡分析法 ； 課程實施效率 ； 學生學習成效 ； 驗證性因素分析 ； instructional evaluation scale ； data envelopment analysis (DEA) ； efficiency of course implementation ； students' learning outcome ； confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

課程與教學

18卷4期（2015 / 10 / 01）

107 - 135

繁體中文

教學評鑑的實施在引導教師精進教學，進而提昇學生學習成效，而教學評鑑工具則是達成教學成效目標的利器。在當前重視學習者中心與學習成效的高教評鑑趨勢下，觀諸目前各校所發展的教學評鑑量表仍主要以教師教學投入為導向，對學生學習成效的關注較顯不足。本研究首先發展「教師教學投入」與「學生學習成效」整合取向的教學評鑑量表，並進行實徵資料蒐集，經分析發現整合取向評鑑量表具備良好的測量品質。其次，實際應用此新取向評鑑量表，可發現學生都相當肯定教師的教學表現，但學生的自我學習成效則未臻理想。進一步應用資料包絡分析法，根據教師教學投入及學生學習成效表現，進行課程與教學的實施績效評估。結果發現已有七成課程達到規模效率，不過，仍約有八成多的課程未達到整體效率，近八成未達技術效率，顯示學校課程的設計、實施或評量仍有改善空間。

The implementation of instructional evaluation is to guide teachers to improve/advance their teaching and thus enhance students' learning. Instructional evaluation is considered a powerful tool for achieving instructional objectives. In Taiwan, learner-centered instruction and students' learning outcome are the current focuses of higher education evaluation. However, almost all current instructional evaluation tools used in most universities have placed their focus mainly on teachers' instructional input, and not so much on students' learning outcome. This study developed a new instructional evaluation scale, which took into account both ＂teachers' instructional input＂ and ＂students' learning outcome＂. The psychometric properties of the scale were also examined by collecting and analyzing the empirical data. The findings revealed that students tended to rate their teachers' performance much higher than their self-reported learning outcome. Moreover, by adopting the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method, this study further examined the efficiency of course implementation based on two aspects: ＂teachers' instructional input＂ and ＂students' learning outcome＂. The results showed that more than 70% of the courses achieved scale efficiency. However, more than 80% of the courses were found to be overall inefficient, and nearly 80% of the courses were technically inefficient. The findings suggested that there is still room for improvement in the current curriculum design, implementation and evaluation.

1. 吳政達(2004)。資料包絡分析在高級中學教育監控指標系統之應用。教育研究集刊，50(2)，119-145。
   連結：
2. 陳冠錦、吳文郁(2004)。大專體育教師評鑑：學生評鑑教師的問題與因應。大專體育，71，89-93。
   連結：
3. 湯誌龍(2006)。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。
   連結：
4. 黃芳銘、楊金寶、許福生(2005)。在學青少年生活痛苦指標發展之研究。師大學報：教育類，50(2)，97-119。
   連結：
5. 劉蔚之、彭森明(2008)。歐盟「關鍵能力」教育方案及其社會文化意涵分析。課程與教學，11(2)，51-78。
   連結：
6. 潘世尊(2009)。大學教師教學評鑑─以一所私立科技大學的實踐之反思與探究。弘光學報，57，24-45。
   連結：
7. Gallavara, G., Hreinsson, E., Kajaste, M., Lindesjöö, E., Sølvhjelm, C., Sørskår, A. K., & Zadeh, M. S. (2008). Learning outcomes: Common framework-different approaches to evaluation learning outcomes in the Nordic countries. Retrieved from http://www.nokut.no/Documents/NOQA/Reports/NOQA%20report%2007-2008.pdf
8. European Commission. (2014). The European qualifications framework for lifelong learning. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/news/EQF_EN.pdf
9. American Association for Higher Education. (2014). Principle of good practice for assessing student learning. Retrieved from http://assessment.uconn.edu/docs/resources/ AAHE_Principles_of_Good_Practice.pdf
10. 財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會（2012）。103 年度大學校院通識教育暨第二周期系所評鑑實施計畫。取自http://www.heeact.edu.tw/public/Attachment/381515585736.pdf
11. Gonzalez, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2003). Universities' contribution to the Bologna Process – An introduction. Retrieved from http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/tuning-methodology.html
12. Abu, A.,Barbara, F.(2009).Student evaluation of instruction: What can be learned from students' written comments?.Studies in Educational Evaluation,35(1),37-44.
13. Algozzine, B. J.,Beattie, M.,Bray, C.,Flowers, J.,Gretes, L.,Howley, G.,Mohanty, G.,Spooner, F.(2004).Student evaluation of college teaching: A practice in search of principles.College Teaching,52(4),134-141.
14. Anderson, L. W.(Ed.),Krathwohl, D. R.(Ed.),Airasian, P. W.(Ed.),Cruikshank, K. A.(Ed.),Mayer, R. E.(Ed.),Pintrich, P. R.(Ed.)(2001).A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of education objectives.New York, NY:Addison Wesley Longman.
15. Beran, T.,Violato, C.,Kline, D.(2007).What's the "use" of student ratings of instruction for administrators? One university's experience.Canadian Journal of Higher Education,37(1),27-43.
16. Bigges, J.(1987).Student approaches to learning and studying.Melbourne:Australian Council for Educational Research.
17. Blumberg, P.,Pontiggia, L.(2011).Benchmarking the degree of implementation of learner-centered approaches.Innovation High Education,36,189-202.
18. Boomsma, A.,Hoogland, J. J.(2001).The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited.Structural equation models: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog,Chicago, IL:
19. Brennan, J.,Johnston, B.,Little, B.,Shah, T.,Woodley, A.(2001).The employment of UK graduates: Comparisons with Europe and Japan.Bristol:Higher Education Funding Council for England.
20. Centra, J. A.,Gaubatz, N. B.(2000).Is there gender bias in student evaluation of teaching?.The Journal of Higher Education,71(1),17-33.
21. CHEA(2003).Student of mutual responsibilities for student learning outcomes: Accreditation, institutions, and programs.Washington, D.C.:CHEA.
22. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training=CEDEFOP(2009).The shift to learning outcomes: Conceptual, political and practical developments in Europe.Luxembourg:Office for official publications of the European Communities.
23. Gagné, R. M.(1985).Conditions of learning.Boston, NY:Holt Rienhart & Winston.
24. Hofer, B. K.(2004).Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in classroom contexts: Student interpretations during the first year of college.Contemporary Educational Psychology,29,129-163.
25. Hoyle, R. H.(Ed.)(1995).Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
26. Kalayci, N.,Cimen, O.(2012).Analysis of questionnaire applied in the evaluation process of academicians in higher education institutes.Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,12(2),838-843.
27. Kember, D.,Leung, D. Y. P.(2011).Disciplinary differences in student ratings of teaching quality.Research in Higher Education,52(3),278-299.
28. Marsh, H. W.(1987).Student' evaluation of university.International Journal of Educational Research,11,253-388.
29. Marsh, H. W.,Roche, L. A.(1993).The use of students' evaluation and an individually structured to enhance university reaching effectiveness.American Educational Research Journal,30(1),217-251.
30. Marsh, H. W.,Roche, L. A.(1997).Making student' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility.American Psychologist,52(11),1187-1197.
31. Peacock, A.,Rawson, B.(2001).Helping teachers to develop competence criteria for evaluating their professional development.International Journal of Educational Development,21,79-92.
32. Richlin, L.(2001).Scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching.New Direction for Teaching and Learning,86,57-68.
33. Sharma, M. D.,Stewart, C.,Wilson, R.,Gökalp, M. S.(2013).Student approaches to learning in physics- validity and exploration using adapted SPQ.International Journal of Environmental & Science Education,8(2),241-253.
34. Spady, W. G.(1994).Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answer.Arlington, Virginia:American Association of School Administration.
35. Webber, K. L.,Tschepikow, K.(2011).Learner-centered assessment: A comparison of faculty practices in US colleges and universities 1993 to 2004.Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, 51st,Toronto, Ontario:
36. Weimer, M.(2002).Learner-centered teaching.Sam Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
37. Wittrock, M. C.(Ed.)(1986).Handbook of research on teaching.New York, NY:Macmillan.
38. Woodhouse, D.、侯永琪(2010)。學習成效評估之國際發展。評鑑雙月刊，27，6-27。
39. Zhzo, J.,Gallant, D. J.(2012).Student evaluation of instruction in higher education: Exploring issues of validity and reliability.Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,37(2),227-235.
40. 王秀槐、王玉麟(2009)。歐盟動態循環課規劃模式（tuning process）簡介。評鑑雙月刊，20，40-45。
41. 王保進(2009)。掌握系所評鑑的重點、系所評鑑之精神與認可要素。評鑑雙月刊，21
42. 吳政達(2001)。教師評鑑方法之探討（上）。教育研究月刊，83，107-112。
43. 吳靜吉、丁興祥、朱進財、王敬仁、張守泰(1988)。教導心理學研究。臺北:遠流。
44. 李坤崇(2011)。大學課程發展與學習成效評量。臺北:高等教育。
45. 李東杰、蘇偉鴻、薛金愛、梅菁芳(2012)。二階段資料包絡分析法應用於臺灣南部技職校院辦學績效評估。東海教育評論，8，1-28。
46. 林天佑(2006)。教師教學成效評鑑。評鑑雙月刊，4，45-54。
47. 施俊名、吳裕益(2008)。大學生身心健康量表構念效度驗證之研究。教育研究與發展，4(4)，201-229。
48. 孫志麟(2004)。教育政策與評鑑研究─追求卓越。臺北:學富。
49. 張保隆(2009)。系所評鑑全壘打，逢甲教學品保機制竟其功。評鑑雙月刊，21，14-17。
50. 張德勝(2000)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告,行政院國家科學委員會。
51. 張德勝(2005)。臺灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」與「教學諮詢方案」。教育研究月刊，127，63-73。
52. 張德勝(2002)。學生評鑑教師教學理論、實務與態度。臺北:揚智。
53. 莊惠文(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所。
54. 許誌庭(2009)。影響學生填答教學意見調查問卷的因素及其實施建議。教育研究與發展，5(4)，245-268。
55. 陳俊臣(2011)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北，銘傳大學教育研究所。
56. 陳舜芬、羊憶蓉、葉重新(1986)。如果大學生參與教學評鑑。中國論壇，268，19-29。
57. 彭森明(2010)。大學生學習成果評量─理論、實務與應用。臺北:財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會。
58. 黃芳銘(2003)。結構方程模式：理論與應用。臺北:五南。
59. 黃毅志、巫有鎰(2003)。影響學生填答教學意見調查表的因素及其實施建議─以臺東師院為例。臺東師院學報，4，347-370。
60. 楊瑩(2011)。以學生學習成效為評量重點的歐盟高等教育品質保證政策。評鑑雙月刊，30，27-34。
61. 歐滄和(2002)。教育測驗與評量。臺北:心理。
62. 蘇錦麗(2009)。美國WASC 採行「學生學習成果本位評估模式」。評鑑雙月刊，22，37-41。

1. 廖舜右(2018)。多元數位工具的教學應用：通識課程之案例分析。教育科學期刊，17(2)，55-88。
2. 蕭世美、詹雅惠、張靜怡、施月玲、林小玲、明金蓮、佘美桂(2019)。建構醫學中心護理臨床教師教學評量表之研究。榮總護理，36(2)，112-123。
3. (2017)。大學教學卓越計畫下大學教師教學效能之關聯性研究。高等教育，12(1)，1-31。
4. (2021)。大學教師教學評鑑的實施、結果分析與檢討：以某科技大學為例。高等教育，16(2)，39-77。
5. (2021)。單一課程融入跨領域主題式STEAM課程統整設計對大學生學科探究實作表現之研究。教育學刊，57，75-125。
6. (2021)。國小教師績效責任領導影響學生學業樂觀之關係－以教師專業學習社群為中介變項。教育學報，49(1)，73-95。