On the Significance of Mindless Phenomenon in Performing Course and Teaching Evaluation at a Technological University in Taiwan

學生執行課程與教學評鑑不用心現象之重要性研究，以台灣某科技大學為例

鄧樹楨(Jerome S. J. Teng)；張清淵(Ching-Yuan Chang)；曾淑穎(Shu-Yin Tseng)

高等教育 ； 課程與教學評鑑(CTE) ； 不用心現象 ； Course and Teaching Evaluation (CTE) ； mindless phenomenon ； higher education

育達科大學報

36期（2013 / 12 / 01）

47 - 62

英文

高等教育機構由學生執行的課程與教學評鑑（CTE）已被廣泛使用，此方法是目前公認教育質量保證和負責的一個重要工具。經由學生意見反饋，教學評鑑可幫助學校與教師提高教學成效，但在同時，它也遇到許多對其缺點與不準確性的批評。最常見的批評是教學評鑑造成寬鬆成績與分數膨脹，另一相關的缺點是，教學評鑑通常是鼓勵教師，把課程變的較容易及不具挑戰性，目的是使學生高興。教師只要簡單的能表現出包容性、不挑剔、易相處，通常就可以提高自己的教學評鑑分數，因為評鑑分數經常反映的是學生對於課程在情緒上的經驗。這有效的使教學評鑑成為個性與受歡迎程度的比賽，教師企圖把心懷不滿的學生轉成友好的學生。由於這些與其他因素，使得學生執行教學評鑑的行為模式成為一個有趣的調查領域。本論文經由研究台灣北部某科技大學的實際教學評鑑數據，我們發現一個以前未知但很重要的現象，這現象能減弱教學評鑑的可靠性和準確性。我們發現許多學生往往對所有的問題給予同樣的評分，就像是一種不用心的操作。本論文根據實際的教學評鑑數據，我們將報告此所謂「不用心現象」的發生情況與其重要性，此現象的揭示是使用柱狀圖來圖解說明。本論文對於「不用心現象」的可能造成原因、影響程度與可能的補救措施都有討論。

Course and Teaching Evaluations (CTE) performed by students have been widely used in higher education. The CTE method is now recognized as an important tool for accountability and quality assurance in education. The CTE can help teachers to improve their teaching effectiveness through students' feedback. In the mean time, CTEs have also encountered many criticisms of its shortcomings, downsides, and inaccuracy. The most common criticism is that high CTE ratings reflect lenient grading and grade inflation. Another related shortcoming is that CTEs tend to encourage instructors to make their course easier and less challenging in order to keep the students happy. Teachers usually can raise their CTE ratings by simply becoming accommodating, undemanding, and personable, because the ratings often reflect students' emotional experiences in the course. These effectively make the CTE a personality and popularity contest in an attempt to turn disgruntled students into friendly ones. As a consequence of these and other factors, students' rating behavior and pattern in CTE is an interesting area to investigate. Through examining actual CTE data at a technological university in northern Taiwan, we have found a previously unknown but significant phenomenon that undercuts the reliability and accuracy of CTE. Many students tend to give the same ratings to all questions as though it is a mindless operation. In this paper, we report the extent and significance of this so-called mindless phenomenon based on detailed CTE data. The findings of this mindless phenomenon are illustrated by using graphical bar charts. Its likely cause, implication, and potential remedy are discussed.

1. Aleamoni, L.M.(1999).Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,13(2),153-166.
2. Beran, T.N.,Rokosh, J.L.(2009).Instructors' perspectives on the utility of student ratings of instruction.Instructional Science,37(2),171-184.
3. Cahn, Steven M.(1986).Saints and Scamps: Ethics in Academia.Totowa, NJ:Rowman & Littlefield.
4. Chen, Y.,Gupta, A.,Howshower, I.(2004).Marketing students' perception of teaching evaluations: An application of expectancy theory.Marketing Education Review,14(2),23-36.
5. Chonko, L. B.,Tanner, J. F.,Davis, R.(2002).What are they thinking? Students' expectations and self-assessment.Journal of Education for Business,77,271-281.
6. d'Appolonia, S.,Abrami, P. C.(1997).Navigating student ratings of instruction.American Psychologist,52,1198-1208.
7. Greenwald, A. G.(1997).Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction.American Psychologist,52,1182-1186.
8. Isley, P.,Singh, H.(2005).Do higher grades lead to favorable student evaluations?.Journal of Economic Education,36(1),29-43.
9. Jones, J.,Gaffney-Rhys, R.,Jones, E.(2012).Handle with care! An exploration of the potential risks associated with the publication and summative usage of student evaluation of teaching (SET) results.Journal of Further and Higher Education,1-20.
10. Kealey, E.(2010).Assessment and evaluation in social work education: Formative and summative approaches.Journal of Teaching in Social Work,30(1),64-74.
11. Marsh, H. W.(1987).Students' evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for further research.International Journal of Educational Research,11(3),253-388.
12. Martin, C.(1997).The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: the Challenge of the Quality Movement.London:Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
13. Slade, P.,McConville, C.(2006).Student evaluation of teaching.International Journal for Educational Integrity,2(2),43-59.
14. Sproule, R.(2002).The underdetermination of instructor performance by data from the student evaluation of teaching.Economics of Education Review,21,287-294.
15. Svinicki, M.(2001).Encouraging your students to give feedback.Techniques and strategies for interpreting student evaluations,San Francisco, CA:
16. Theall, M.,Abrami, P.C.,Mets, L. M.(2001).The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them?.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
17. Wachtel, H. K.(1998).Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,23(2),191-210.
18. Wilson, Robin(1998).New Research Casts Doubt on Value of Student Evaluations of Professors.Chronicle of Higher Education,A12.
19. Yao, Y.,Weissinger, E.,Grady, M.(2003).Faculty use of student evaluation feedback.Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,8(21)