台灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」制度之研究

College and University Student Ratings Systems in Taiwan

10.29882/JTNUE.200510.0011

張德勝(Te-Sheng Chang)

學生評鑑教師教學 ； 教師評鑑 ； 高等教育 ； 大學校院 ； Student Ratings of Instruction ； Evaluation System ； Higher Education

師大學報：教育類

50卷2期（2005 / 10 / 01）

205 - 227

繁體中文

本研究旨在探討台灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」之制度並比較公私立學校之間對此制度的異同。研究對象包含36所公立學校及40所私立學校。研究方法以文件分析及問卷調查為主。分析的內容主要包含各校實施「學生評鑑教師教學」的背景、實施程序、評鑑工具、資料處理及結果應用。本研究重要的發現如下：一、有八成多的學校已經全面實施「學生評鑑教師教學」制度。二、只有四成五的學校有「學生評鑑教師教學」的辦法。三、近七成的學校由教務處課務組為來負責教學評鑑的行政工作。四、超過六成學校仍由教務處負責評鑑工具的編製。五、不到一成的學校有學生代表參與評鑑工具的編製。六、有八成的學校全校使用同一種評鑑工具。七、不到五成的學校建立的評鑑工具的信、效度。八、評鑑資料分析以提供教師該科目的平均數最多。九、評鑑結果只提供教師教學與人事決策參考，極少提供學生選課參考。十、只有三成的學校會提供教學諮詢服務給評鑑結果較為不佳的教師。十一、公私立大學院校在「學生評鑑教師教學」的背景、實施程序、評鑑工具、資料處理及結果應用都沒有顯著差異。最後，本文根據研究發現，提出結論與相關之建議。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the systems used by students at colleges and universities in Taiwan to rate their professors. The sample consisted of 36 public colleges/universities and 40 private colleges/universities. Two research methods were involved. Method one was an analysis of college/university documents related to student ratings. These documents were concerned with the regulations and instruments for, and the reports on, student ratings from each college/university. Method two was a survey of the officials who took charge of the student ratings system at each college/university. Both methods were implemented between March and April, 2001. Some important findings are as follows:1. More than 80% of the schools in the sample had implemented student ratings systems.2. Approximately 46.1% of these schools have built student ratings regulations.3. 68.4% of the schools have an academic affairs division in charge of the administration of student ratings.4. Approximately 60.1% of the schools have an academic affairs division in charge of the development of student ratings instruments.5. More than 90% of the schools do not have student representatives who participate in the development of student ratings instruments.6. 80.3% of the schools use a school-wide instrument.7. Less than 50% of the schools have a reliability test and construct the validity of student ratings instruments.8. The mean for each academic subject is the most-used statistic for the results output.9. Only three schools have published the results of their student ratings.10. Approximately 30% of the schools offer an instructional consultation service for faculty.11. There is no significant difference between public colleges/universities and private colleges/ universities regarding the student ratings system.Based on the results of this study, some conclusions are drawn and suggestions are made for future study.

1. Abrami, P. C.、Murphy, V.(1980)。A catalogue of systems for student ratings of instruction(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 202 879)。Montreal,Quebec, Canada:Center for Teaching and Learning Services, McGill University。
2. Arreola, R. A.(1995)。Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system。Bolton, MA:Anker Publishing Company。
3. Brinko, K. T.(1990)。Instructional consultation with feedback in higher education。Journal of Higher Education，61，65-83。
4. Carson, R. C.(1999).Texas,Texas Tech University.
5. Centra, J. A.(1977).How universities evaluate faculty performance: A survey of department heads (GREB Research Report No. 75-5br).Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
6. Centra, J. A.(1993).Reflective faculty evaluation.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
7. Coryell, C.(2001).University of Arkansas.
8. d''Apollonia, S.,Abrami, P. C.(1997).Navigating student ratings of instruction.American Psychologist,52(11),1198-1208.
9. Feldman, K. A.(1977).Consistency and variability among college students in ratings their teachers and courses.Research in Higher Education,6,223-274.
10. Huang, C.(2003).Paper presented at the meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
11. Marsh, H. W.(1987).Student's evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues and directions for future research.Elmford, NY:Pergamon.
12. Marsh, H. W.,Roche, L. A.(1993).The use of students'evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness.American Educational Research Journal,30,217-251.
13. Marsh, H. W.,Roche, L. A.(1997).Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective.American Psychologist,52(11),1187-1197.
14. McKeachie, W. J.(1997).Student ratings.American Psychologist,52(11),1218-1225.
15. Millman, J.(1981).Handbook of teacher evaluation.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publication.
16. Ory, J.(1990).In M. Theall and J. Franklin (Eds.), Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
17. Peterson, K. D.(1995).Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
18. Williams, W. M.,Ceci, S. J.(1997).How m I doing?.Change,29(5),12-23.
19. Wilson, R. C.(1986).Improving faculty teaching.Journal of Higher Education,57,196-211.
20. 毛郁雯(2000)。台北市，國立台北師院學院國民教育研究所。
21. 徐超聖(1997)。載於黃政傑(主編)，大學的課程與教學。台北:漢文。
22. 張德勝(2000)。載於國立新竹師範學院（主編），八十九學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會論文集。新竹:國立新竹師範學院。
23. 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。
24. 張德勝(1999)。載於國立花蓮師範學院學術服務組(主編)，八十七學年度花蓮師範學院學術研討會論文集。花蓮:國立花蓮師範校院。
25. 教育部(2003)。中華民國教育統計。台北:教育部。
26. 教育部(1997)。八十六學年度大學綜合評鑑試辦計畫評鑑手冊。台北:教育部。
27. 淡江大學教育研究中心(1985)。學生評鑑教師教學之研究－淡江大學教師意見之分析
28. 陳舜芬(1984)。測驗與輔導。
29. 傅佩榮(1989)。誰在乎教育。台北:業強出版社。
30. 葉重新(1987)。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。台北市:國立政治大學教育研究所。

1. 戴岑帆(2017)。教學成效評鑑影響因素之研究：以某大學通識課程為例。淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士在職專班學位論文。2017。1-87。