體育教學評鑑量表之建構：以龍華科技大學為例

Construction of Scale for the Evaluation of Physical Education of College Students at Lunghwa University of Science and Technology

10.6569/NTUJPE.201012_(19).0005

洪升呈(Sheng-Cheng Hung)

聚合效度 ； 區別效度 ； convergent validity ； discriminant validity

臺大體育學報

19輯（2010 / 12 / 01）

65 - 80

繁體中文

本研究旨在編製適合國內大學生評鑑體育教師教學之量表，研究主要探討量表之效度、信度與測量模式之適配度。針對龍華科技大學選修體育課之學生進行抽樣調查，共計發放問卷1100份，回收1027份，有效問卷951份，透過項目分析及探索性因素分析進行量表之鑑別力及因素結構考驗，而後以驗證性因素分析考驗量表假設性測量模式之整體適配度，量表信度則分析內部一致性與平均變異抽取量；分析研究結果發現，修正後量表保留20個測量題項，計有專業能力、態度熱忱、教學評量等三個因素構面，全量表具有良好的建構信度與效度，整體模式適配度良好(x^2 = 691.11，RMSEA= 0.06，GFI=0.93，CFI=0.97，PNFI=0.84)，是一個符合實證的測量工具，後續研究人員可運用本研究所建構之量表進行相關研究。

The purpose of this study was to edit a scale for the evaluation of physical education of college students. This study aimed to explore the validity, reliability and the goodness-of-fit of the measurement model. Sample investigation among students who select physical course in Lunghwa University of Science and Technology. There were total of 1,100 copies distributed island-wide, among them 1027 were returned and 951 were effective. Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis were employed to examine the CR value and structure of the factors. Afterwards, confirmatory factor analysis was used to testify the goodness-of-fit of the hypothesis measurement model. The purpose of the reliability was to analyze the internal consistency and average variance extracted. The following result was obtained: after the modification of the scale, 3 dimensions which were professionalism, enthusiasm, lecture evaluation which contained 20 items were maintained. The reliability and the validity of the modified scale was fair; the overall goodness-of fit was decent (x^2=699.11, RMSEA=0.06, GFI=0.93, CFI=0.97, PNFI=0.84). As a result, this measurement tool is empirical and could be used for future related research.

1. 陳榮山(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，臺北市立體育學院。
   連結：
2. Anderson, J. C.,Gerbing, D. W.(1988).Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin,103,411-423.
3. Bagozzi, R. P.,Yi, Y.(1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,16,76-94.
4. Bollen, K. A.,Long, J. S.(1993).Testing structural equation models.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
5. Joreskog, K. G.,Sorbom, D.(1989).LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications.Chicago, IL:SPSS Inc..
6. Kaplan, D.(2000).Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
7. Kline, R. B.(1998).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.NewYork, NY:Guilford.
8. Mager, R. F.(1968).Developing attitude toward learning.Palo Alto, CA:Fearon.
9. Miller, M. T.(1971).Instructor's attitude toward, and the use of student rating of teachers.Journal of Educational Psychology,62,235-239.
10. Perrott, E.(1982).Effective teaching: A practical guide to improving your teaching.New York, NY:Longman.
11. Sorebo, O.,Christensen, G. E.,Eikebrokk, T. R.(2004).The impact of purposeful end-user computing activities on job performance: An empirical investigation.Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology,36(2),111-124.
12. 中國教育學會編(1995)。教育評鑑。臺北市:師大書苑。
13. 吳明隆(2007)。結構方程模式：AMOS的操作與應用。臺北市:五南。
14. 邱皓政(2003)。結構方程模式 LISREL 的理論、技術與應用。臺北市:雙葉。
15. 莊豐銘(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺東市，國立臺東大學。
16. 陳正如(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，臺北市立體育學院。
17. 陳美惠、鄭定洲、田憲樺(2006)。教師教學評鑑對衡量教學效能之研究─以國防管理學院為例。中華技術學院學報，34，243-265。
18. 彭森明(2006)。,新竹市:國立清華大學高等教育研究中心。
19. 黃芳銘(2002)。結構方程模式理論與應用。臺北市:五南。
20. 楊國賜(1988)。增進教師專業精神提昇教育品質。教育資訊，44，4-6。

1. 劉榮聰、劉菊枝、彭譯箴、陳挺豪(2012)。大專校院體育課程教學效能分析。藝術學報，91，224-235。
2. 潘義祥、劉雅文、周宏室(2015)。大專校院體育教學品質量表編製與驗證。大專體育學刊，17(1)，18-29。