Exploring the Teacher's Factors Influencing the Results of Students' Evaluation of University Teaching

影響學生教學評鑑結果之教師因素

賴宜弘(Yi-Horng Lai)；黃芬芬(Fen-Fen Huang)；楊雪華(Hsieh-Hua Yang)

教學評鑑 ； 學生回饋教學 ； 教學績效 ； teaching evaluation ； student feedback to teaching ； teaching performance

育達科大學報

34期（2013 / 04 / 01）

215 - 227

英文

本研究主要探討哪些因素會影響學生教學評鑑結果。本研究所要探討的因素包含學術價值、教師之教學熱誠、教學明晰度、團體互動、師生關係、課程廣度、成績評量方法、作業、班級人數、教師年齡、教師性別與教師職別。本研究主要以階層線性模式，分析172班5178名學生評量教師教學績效的資料，以瞭解個人因素與班級因素的相對重要性。由研究結果可以發現，學術價值、教師之教學熱誠、教學明晰度、師生關係、課程廣度與作業對學生教學評鑑結果皆有顯著正向影響。女性教師與高階教師可以在學生教學評鑑獲取較高的分數。教師的年紀與級職對於教學明晰度與學生教學評鑑結果的交互作用有正向影響；班級人數對團體互動與學生教學評鑑結果的交互作用有負向影響。授課老師應於課堂上讓學生充份瞭解該科目的學術價值、展現教學熱誠、組織調理的講授內容、友善的師生關係、適度的課程廣度與良好規劃的家庭作業皆可提升生教學評鑑結果。資深教師與高階老師對於教學明晰度與學生教學評鑑結果的交互作用表現較佳；較多班級人數對團體互動與學生教學評鑑結果的交互作用有負向影響。

The purposes of this study was to investigate the relationship of academic value, enthusiasm for teaching, clarity, interaction, relationship, curriculum breadth, methods of assessment, assignments, class size, the age of teacher, the gender of teacher, the rank of teacher, and students' evaluation of teaching quality. Student rating for teaching was analyzed in relation to individual-class and class-level factors in a sample of 5178 students in 172 classes in order to survey the relative importance of the factors of class-level and student-level in the students' evaluation of teaching quality. With hierarchical linear modeling, it could be find that individual measures accounted for most of the variance. With the individual-level, more academic value, enthusiasm for teaching, clarity, the relationship of teacher and student, course breadth, and good in grading method, would upgrade the score of students' evaluation of teaching quality. With the class-level, the score of students' evaluation of teaching quality of female teacher was higher than male teacher, and higher rank of teachers' score of students' evaluation of teaching quality was higher than lower rank of teachers. Besides, the old teacher or higher rank of teacher was helpful in lecture clearly for getting high score of students' evaluation of teaching quality. Larger class was not helpful in relationship of teachers and students for higher students' evaluation of teaching quality. Teachers should make students understanding the academic value of the course with a clear way and enthusiasm for teaching. Experienced teachers or high rank teacher could get higher score of students' evaluation of teaching quality than other teachers. Too many students in one class were not helpful in the interaction for students' evaluation of teaching quality.

1. Bryk, A. S.,Raudenbus, S. W.(1992).Hierarchical linear models.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
2. Coffey, M.,Gibbs, G.(2000).The evaluation of the student evaluation of educational quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in UK higher education.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,26(1),89-93.
3. Coffey, M.,Gibbs, G.(2001).Reliable student feedback: a replication of the factor structure of The SEEQ.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,26,89-93.
4. Cohen, J.(1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ:Eribaum.
5. d’Apollonia, S.,Abrami, P. C.(1997).Navigating student ratings of instruction.American Psychologist,52,1198-1208.
6. Fernández, J.,Mateo, M. A.,Munizñ, J.(1998).Is there a relationship between class size and student ratings of teaching quality?.Educational and Psychological Measurement,58,596-604.
7. Hofman, D. A.(1997).An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models.Journal of Management,23(6),723-744.
8. Huang, C.J. (2003). Can students evaluate the teaching quality of teacher? Survey Research Data Archive. Retrieved July 18, 2012 from https://srda.sinica.edu.tw/search/advsciitem/858.
9. Ibrahim, M.(2012).A Psychometric Evaluation of Two Teaching Effectiveness Scales.Journal of Sustainable Development,5(7),91-103.
10. Lidice, A.,Saglam, G.(2013).Using Students’ Evaluations to Measure Educational Quality.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,70,1009-1015.
11. Marsh, H.W.(1982).SEEQ: a reliable and useful instrument for collecting student evaluations of university teaching.British Journal of Educational Psychology,52,77-95.
12. Marsh, H.W.,Roche, L.A.(1997).Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility.American Psychologist,11,1187-1197.
13. Marsh, H.W.,Roche, L.A.(1992).The use of student evaluations of university teaching in different settings: the applicability paradigm.Australian Journal of Education,36,278-300.
14. Marsha, H.W.,Muthén, B.,Asparouhovc, T.,Lüdtked, O.,Robitzsche, A.,Morinf, A.J.S.,Trautweind, U.(2009).Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, Integrating CFA and EFA: Application to Students' Evaluations of University Teaching.Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,16(3),439-476.
15. McKeachie, W. J.(1990).Research on college teaching: The historical background.Journal of Educational Psychology,82,189-200.
16. Morley, D.D.(2011).Claims about the reliability of student evaluations of instruction: The ecological fallacy rides again.Studies in Educational Evaluation,38(1),15-20.
17. Nunnally, J.C.(1978).Psychometric Theory.New York:McGraw Hill.
18. Roberts, C.,Lawson, M.,Newble, D.,Self, A.,Chan, P.(2005).The introduction of large class problem-based learning into an undergraduate medical curriculum: an evaluation.Medical Teacher,27(6),527-533.
19. Schellhase, K.C.(2010).The Relationship Between Student Evaluation of Instruction Scores and Faculty Formal Educational Coursework.Athletic Training Education Journal,5(4),156-164.

1. (2021)。大學教師教學評鑑的實施、結果分析與檢討：以某科技大學為例。高等教育，16(2)，39-77。