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

Developing Questionnaires for Student Ratings of General Education Course Instruction-with Tzu Chi University as an Example

10.7108/PT.200406.0079

潘靖瑛(Ching-Ying Pan)

學生評鑑教學 ； 教師評鑑 ； Student Ratings ； Instruction Evaluation

測驗學刊

51卷1期（2004 / 06 / 01）

79 - 102

繁體中文

本研究的目的是依據慈濟大學通知課程的科目性質差異，分別發展出適用於一般課程、藝術課程、體育課程的三份學生評鑑教師教學問卷，並檢視其信、效度。研究者依據教學評鑑的相差理論，及分析62份其他大學校院教學評鑑問卷的結果來發展問卷。三份問卷皆含15題封閉式選擇題及4題開放式問答題。15題選擇題經因素分析後，可分別歸屬於「教學設計與準備」、「教學方法」、「教學態度」、「學習評量」、「課程總評」五個層面。以通識課程原本使用含29題選擇題的學生評鑑教學問卷作為效標，進行同時效度檢驗，三份問卷與舊問卷的相差分別為0.86、0.76、0.58，皆達p＜.01的顯著水準，且因素分析結果發現三份問卷的總解釋變異量分別為83%、82%、85%。由同時效度檢驗結果及高解釋變異量，可知此三份問卷頗具建構效度。三份問卷的Cronbach a信度值皆在0.9以上，五個層面的a信度值皆在0.8以上；重測信度分別為0.677、0.803、0.921，此結果顯示三份問卷皆具有良好的信度。

The purpose of this study was to develop three different student rating questionnaires for evaluating the instructions of courses offered by the General Education Center of Tzu Chi University (i.e., general courses, art courses and physical education courses), and to examine their reliability and validity. Based on relative instruction evaluation theories, and the results of analyzing 62 other universities’ student rating questionnaires, this researcher developed these questionnaires, each of which consists of 15 close-ended items and four open-ended questions. The 15 close-ended items can be divided into five dimensions: instruction design and preparation; teaching method; teaching attitude; achievement evaluation; and overall instruction evaluation. The old student rating instruction questionnaire, with 29 close-ended items, was used as a criterion to examine the concurrent validity of the three new ones; the correlations were 0.86, 0.76, and 0.58, respectively, which were all significantly correlated at p＜0.0l. The results of factor analysis indicated the whole explained variances for the three questionnaires were 83%, 82%, and 85%, respectively. The internal consistency α coefficients for the three questionnaires were all above 0.90 and for the five dimensions, also above 0.80 for the three questionnaires. The test-retest reliabilities were 0.677, 0.803, and 0.921, respectively. Based on the above results, the three questionnaires have good validity and reliability.

1. 張定貴、張德勝(2002)。國小教師教學評量表信效度分析-比較學生評鑑與教師自評。花蓮師院學報，14
   連結：
2. Arreola, R. A.(1995).Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system.
3. Cashin, W.(1990).Student ratings of teaching: Recommendations for use.
4. Centra, J. A.(1977).How universities evaluate faculty performance: A survey of department heads.
5. Feng, C.(1990).Quantitative evaluation of university teaching quality: An application of fuzzy set and approximate reasoning.Fuzzy Sets and Systems,37(1)
6. Follman, J.(1995).Elementary public school pupil rating of teacher effectiveness.Child Study Journal,25(1)
7. Goebel, B. L.,Cashen, V. M.(1979).Age, sex and attractiveness as a factor in student rating of teachers.Journal of Educational Psychology,71(4)
8. Mark, M. M.,Shetland, R. L.(1985).Stakeholder-based evaluation and value judgements.Evaluation Review,9
9. McKeachie, W J.(1979).Student ratings of faculty.Academe,65
10. Mesak, H.,Jauch, L. R.(1991).Faculty performance evaluation: Modeling to improve personnel decisions.Decision Sciences,22
11. Murry, H. G.,Rushton, P.,Paunonen, S.(1990).Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses.Journal of Educational Psychology,82(2)
12. Peterson, K. D.(1995).Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices.
13. Shieh, V.(1990).Using Delphi technique to determine the most important characteristics of effective teaching at junior high school level in Taiwan.
14. Shinkfield, A. J.,Stufflebeam, D.(1995).Teacher evaluation: Guild to effective practice.
15. Tollefson, N.,Chen, S.,Kleinsasser, J.(1989).The relationship of students' attitude about effective teaching to students' ratings of effective teaching.Educational and Psychological Measurement
16. 邱皓政(2000)。社會與行為科學的量化研究與統計分析:SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。
17. 唐學明(1996)。多管道教學評鑑方法之研究一一以政治作戰學校為例。復興崗學報，57
18. 徐美惠、高薰芳(1996)。重視教師評鑑落實「教評會」功能。台灣教育，544
19. 張德勝(1999)。八十七學年度學花蓮師範學院學術研討會論文集。
20. 張德勝(1999)。八十七學年度師範教育學術研討會論文集。
21. 張德勝(2000)。師範學院學生對「學生評鑑教師教學」態度之研究。
22. 張德銳(1992)。教育專業。
23. 淡江大學教育科學研究室(1983)。教學與行政革新叢書。
24. 黃坤錦(1995)。教育評鑑。

1. 蔡群瑞、廖世傑、陳偉德、王文科(2008)。大學教師與大學生對學生評鑑教師教學之認知研究。通識教育學報，14，1-31。
2. 林劭仁(2012)。大學通識教學評鑑的後設評鑑研究。課程與教學，15(3)，53-74。
3. 羅寶鳳、曾明基、張德勝、邱于真(2011)。學生評鑑教師教學量表跨層級構念的分析。教育科學研究期刊，56(3)，31-60。
4. 潘世尊(2010)。學生評量教師教學問卷之修訂─一所私立科技大學的自我探究。教育理論與實踐學刊，21，111-142。
5. 蕭芳華、董娟娟、葉連祺、楊世英、陳仁海(2005)。大學學生評鑑教師教學量表之編製。測驗學刊，52(1)，59-81。
6. 鄭博真、黃義良(2011)。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。臺中教育大學學報：教育類，25(1)，139-161。
7. (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。