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

Verifying Scales Used by College Students Who Take General Education Courses to Evaluate Instructor's Teaching, and Testing Influence Factors Factors

10.7037/JNTUE.201106.0139

黃義良(I-Liang Hawng)；鄭博真(Bor-Jen Jeng)

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

臺中教育大學學報：教育類

25卷1期（2011 / 06 / 01）

139 - 161

繁體中文

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.

1. 張德勝(2005)。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，50，203-225。
   連結：
2. 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，1，143-162。
   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. 黃瓊蓉(2004)。使用階層線性模式分析學生評鑑教學績效之資料。測驗學刊，2，163-184。
   連結：
5. 葉連祺、董娟娟、楊世英、陳仁海、蕭芳華(2005)。大學學生評鑑教師教學量表之編製。測驗學刊，52(1)，59-82。
   連結：
6. 潘靖瑛(2004)。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，51，79-102。
   連結：
7. 教育部(2009)。98 年版教育統計。臺北市：作者
8. 李茂能( 2001 )。矩陣運算軟體 sem_stats.xls[ 統計軟體]。嘉義縣：國立嘉義大學。
9. Ali, d. L., & Yvonne, S. (1998 ). Issues Regarding the Reliability, Validity and Utility of Student Ratings of Instruction: A Survey of Research Findings. Retrieved August 19, 2008 , from http://www.ucalgary.ca/VPA/usri/appendix .html
10. Doyle, T. (2002 ). Evaluating teacher effectiveness-research summary. Retrieved July 30, 2008 ,from http://www.ferris.edu/fctl/Teaching_and_Learning_Tips/ Research% 0on% 0Student s'% 0Evalution% 0of% 0Faculty% 0Teaching/EvalTeachEffec.htm
11. Abrami, P. C.,Perry, R. P.,Leventhal, L.(1982).The relationship between student personality characteristics, teacher ratings, and student achievement.Journal of Educational Psychology,74,111-125.
12. Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16,74-92.
13. Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1989).On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs.Journal of Marketing Research,26(3),271-284.
14. Braskamp, L. A.,Ory, J. C.(1994).Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
15. Centra, J. A.(1993).Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
16. Centra, J. A.(1981).Determing faculty effectiveness.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
17. Chang, T.(2000).Student rating: What are teachers college students telling us about them?.The meeting of the American Education Research Association,New Orleans, LA:
18. Cudeck, R.,Browne, M. W.(1983).Cross validation of covariance structures.Multivariate Behavioral Research,18,147-167.
19. Feldman, K. A.(1978).Course characteristics and college students' rating of their teachers: What we know and what we don't.Research in Higher Education,9,199-242.
20. Feldman, K. A.(1993).College students' views of male and female college teachers: part2-evidence from students' evaluations their classroom teachers.Research in Higher Education,34(2),151-211.
21. Feldman, K. A.(1992).College students' views of male and female college teachers: part-evidence from the social laboratory and experiments.Research in Higher Education,33(3),317-375.
22. 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.
23. Gauby, K. M.(1998).Arizona State University.
24. Greenwald, A. G.,Gilmore, G. M.(1980).Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings.American Psychologist,52,1209-1217.
25. 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.
26. Hoyle, R. H.(Ed.)(1995).Structural equation modeling.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
27. Marsh, H. W.(1993).Multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness.Journal of Higher Education,64(1),1-18.
28. Marsh, H. W.(1984).Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility.Journal of Educational Psychology,76(5),707-754.
29. 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.
30. Marsh, H. W.,Roche, L. A.(1997).Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective.American Psychologist,52(11),1187-1197.
31. Neumann, R.(2000).Communicating student evaluation of teaching results: Rating interpretation guides (rigs).Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,25(2),121-134.
32. 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.
33. Smart, J. C.(Ed.)(1992).Higher education: Handbook on theory and research.New York:Agathon Press.
34. Theall, M.(Ed.),Franklin, J.(Ed.)(1990).Student ratings of instruction: Issues for improving practice.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
35. Thorndike, R. L.(Ed.)(1971).Educational measurement.Washington, DC:American Council on Education.
36. 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(2)，295-322。
37. 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。
38. 孫志麟(2004)。探討某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，17(1)，329-354。
39. 徐秀菊主編(2003)。藝術領域的行動與省思。花蓮市:國立花蓮師範學院。
40. 張郁雯(2003)。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。
41. 張德勝(2002)。學生評鑑教師教學：理論、實務與態度。臺北市:揚智。
42. 張德勝(1999)。教學科目與教師性別對學生評鑑教師教學結果之影響。花蓮師院學報，9，347-364。
43. 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－以趨勢研究分析。八十七學年度師範教育學術研討會論文集，臺北市:
44. 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論文集，花蓮市:
45. 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論文集，花蓮市:
46. 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。
47. 莊惠文(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所。
48. 陳美慧(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義市，國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。
49. 陳珮軒(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，長庚大學管理學研究所。
50. 陳琦媛(2007)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，政治大學教育學系。
51. 黃政傑(2002)。教學原理。臺北市:師大書苑。
52. 黃政傑(1999)。大學通識教育的理念與實踐。臺北市:中華民國通識教育學會。
53. 黃毅志、巫有鎰(2003)。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，14，347-370。
54. 鄭博真、黃義良(2009)。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。

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。