The Use of Evaluation Indicators to Examine College English Teacher Teaching Behaviors: A Case Study of One Technological University in Central Taiwan

運用評量指標來檢視大學英語教師之教學行為：以臺灣中部某科技大學為例

10.6902/JNTUST.201812_5(1).0006

徐琍沂(Lisa Hsu)；徐遠雄(Yuan-Hsiung Hsu)

English teacher ； evaluation indicators ； immediacy behaviors ； misbehaviors ； 英語教師 ； 評量指標 ； 即時性行為 ； 不當行為

中科大學報

5卷1期（2018 / 12 / 01）

113 - 129

英文

This study aimed to understand how college students perceived their English teachers' teaching behaviors via using evaluation indicators that were developed for the purpose to assess teachers in a fair and meaningful way. Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process to construct an operational assessment mode and quantify the college English teachers' teaching behaviors in the classroom utilized in this study. Three aspects were evaluated: Teacher misbehaviors, teacher verbal behaviors, and teacher non-verbal behaviors. Two-hundred and forty-four college students from a central Taiwan university participated in this study voluntarily and anonymously. The finding revealed that most English teachers at this university performed better on non-verbal behaviors while teaching, especially, giving varied tones with facial expressions, followed by verbal behaviors. Teaching approaches gained a higher score from students' perspective whereas teacher-student interaction was the least satisfactory. The last aspect of teacher misbehavior was teacher misbehaviors, which included mocking students, lack of expertise, and lack of professional growth. The result showed English teachers need urgent improvement on professional growth. Since the population was only selected from one single university; some limitations need to be addressed. The result could only be generalized to this particular university. Even though some drawbacks could not be overlooked in this study, the result was very similar to the experts' opinions when constructing college teachers' behavior evaluation indicators. A further discussion, future suggestions and limitations of this study are addressed at the end of this article.

本研究旨在使用為評量教師所開發的評估指標，公正並有意義的指標模式，從大學生角度如何評量看待他們的英語教師的教學行為。本研究使用模糊德爾菲法和模糊分析層次過程，完成評估指標的建構後，驗證結果客觀地來評量教師的教學行為。評估分三個方面，分別是：教師不當行為、教師口語行為、和教師非口語行為。受測者是來自臺灣中部某科技大學的224名大學生自願且匿名參加了這項研究。研究結果顯示，此科技大學的大多數英語教師在教學過程中表現得比較好的是非口語行為，尤其是在臉部方面提供不同的表情及語調，然後是口語行為，此面向從學生的角度來看教學方式得分較高，而師生互動則最不令人滿意。最後一個面向是教師的不當行為，其中包括嘲笑學生、缺乏專業知識和缺乏專業成長。結果顯示，英語教師需要迫切在專業成長上改進努力。由於受測者只選自一所大學，因此本研究的限制不可忽略。研究結果只能概括到這個特定的大學。儘管本研究存在一些不足之處，但在評估大學教師行為指標時，本研究的結果與專家建構指標意見非常相似。文末將進一步的討論並針對本研究的限制和未來研究建議提出建言。

1. Hsu, L.(2017).Explorations in Flipped Classroom and College Student’s English Learning Anxiety.Journal of National Taichung University of Science and Technology,4(1),127-144.
   連結：
2. Hsu, L.(2011).Similarities and Differences between Traditional and Nontraditional Students in Regard to Demand for Teacher Immediacy.Languages, Literary Studies and International Studies: An International Journal,8,129-150.
   連結：
3. Allen, M.,Witt, P. L.,Wheeless, L. R.(2006).The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model.Communication Education,55,21-31.
4. Ashbrook, T. (2013). Flipped Schools: Homework at School, Lectures At Home. Retrieved from http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/11/05/flipped-schools-clintondale
5. Ballester, E. P.(2015).Verbal and nonverbal teacher immediacy and foreign language anxiety in an EFL university course.Porta Linguarum,23,9-24.
6. Banfield, S. R.,Richmond, V.P.,McCroskey, J. C.(2006).The effect of teacher misbehaviors on teacher credibility and affect for the teacher.Communication Education,55,63-72.
7. Cheng, X.(2000).Asian students' reticence revisited.System,28(3),435-446.
8. Christophel, D. M.(1990).The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning.Communication Education,39,323-340.
9. Dolin, D. J.(1995).Morgantown,West Virginia University.
10. Frydenberg, M.(2012).Flipping Excel.2012 Proceedings of the Information Systems Educators Conference,29(1914),2167-1435.
11. Fwu, B. J.,Wang, H. H.(2002).The social status of teachers in Taiwan.ComparativeEducation,38,211-224.
12. Gkonou, C.(2013).A diary study on the causes of English language classroomanxiety.International Journal of English Studies,13(1),51-68.
13. Henning, Z. T.(2012).From barnyards to learning communities: Student perceptions of teachers’ immediacy behaviors.Qualitative Research Reports in Communication,13(1),37-43.
14. Hofstede, G.(1986).Cultural differences in teaching and learning.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,10,301-320.
15. Hsu, L.(2014).An exploration of the effects of college English teacher misbehaviors on students’ willingness to communicate in English classes.American Journal of Educational Research,2(11),1050-1059.
16. Hsu, L.(2013).The relationship between Taiwanese English teacher misbehaviors and college student motivation in English classes.Journal of Applied English
17. Hsu, L.(2012).Causes of student unwillingness to talk in English classes.Journal of the National Taichung Institute of Technology,16,101-114.
18. Hsu, L.(2013).Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Taiwanese Teacher Misbehavior in the Classroom.Taipei, Taiwan:Bookman Books, Ltd..
19. Hsu, L.,Roso, C.(2007).The relationship between teachers’ verbal and nonverbalimmediacy behaviors and students’ willingness to speak in English in central Taiwanese college classrooms.The proceeding of 2007 TESOL Conference
20. Huang, S.J.(2010).Taichung, Taiwan,Asia University.
21. Ishikawa, A.,Amagasa T.,Tamizawa, G.,Totsuta, R.,Mieno, H.(1993).The max-min delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration.Fuzzy Sets and Systems,55,241-253.
22. Jaasma, M. A.,Koper, R. J.(1999).The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication to teacher immediacy and trust and to student motivation.Communication Education,48(1),41-48.
23. Kelly, S.,Rice, C.,Wyatt, B.,Ducking, J.,Denton, Z.(2015).Teacher Immediacy and Decreased Student Quantitative Reasoning Anxiety: The Mediating Effect of Perception.Communication Education,64(2),171-186.
24. Larsen-Freeman, D.,Anderson, M.(2011).Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching.New York:Oxford University Press.
25. Li, L.T.(2003).Carl Rogers and me: Revisiting Teaching.Thinking Classroom,4,34-42.
26. Mehrabian, A.(1971).Nonverbal communication.Nebraska symposium on motivation
27. Merrill, M. D.(2013).First principles of instruction: Identifying and designing effective, efficient, and engaging instruction.San Francisco, CA:Pfeiffer.
28. Mottet, T. P.,Parker-Raley, J.,Cunningham, C.,Beebe, S. A.,Raffeld, P. C.(2006).Testing the neutralizing effect of teacher immediacy on student course workload expectancy violations and tolerance for teacher unavailability.Communication Education,55,147-166.
29. Murray, H. G.(1991).Effective teaching behaviors in the college classroom.Higher education: Handbook of theory and research,7,135-172.
30. Myers, S. A.,Martin, M. M.,Mottet, T. P.(2002).Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors: Considering instructor socio-communicative style, student socio-communicative orientation, and student gender.Communication Education,51,121-133.
31. Pye, M. W.,Pye, L. W.(2009).Asian power and politics: The cultural dimensions of authority.Harvard University Press.
32. Saaty, T. L.(1980).The analytic hierarchy process.New York:McGraw Hill.
33. Samovar, L.A. (Ed.),Porter,R. E. (Ed.)(2000).Intercultural communication: A reader.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
34. Zadeh, L. A.(1965).Fuzzy Sets.Information and Control,8,338-353.