獎勵大學教學卓越計畫成效評估—師生觀點之分析

The Evaluation of the University Teaching Excellence Project –An Analysis in the Perspectives between Teachers and Students

葉兆祺(Chao-Chi Yeh)

指導教授 ： 張鈿富

國立暨南國際大學/教育學院/教育政策與行政學系/博士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6837/NCNU.2009.00245

摘要

本研究旨在建構並驗證《獎勵大學教學卓越計畫》之教學品質評估模式，並分析教學品質的現況，進而比較不同背景變項之師生對教學品質評估結果的差異，最後提出有效提升我國大學教學卓越之具體建議。
本研究以文獻分析（literature analysis）、結構方程模式（structural equation modeling）、驗證性因素分析（confirmatory factor analysis）與多群組分析（multiple-group analysis）做為主要之研究方法，以2007年度通過《獎勵大學教學卓越計畫》28所大學之專任教師與學生為研究對象，以教育部實施之教學滿意度問卷調查結果進行統計分析。問卷回收率100%，其中教師有效樣本4,619人、學生有10,214人，各占發出問卷之88.23%、92.18%。本研究得到《獎勵大學教學卓越計畫》之結果如下：
一、教學品質屬中上程度，但師生觀點差異大，教師認為「有形資源」表現最佳、「師資保證」亟須改進，學生認為「師資保證」最好、「學生輔導」最不足。
二、本研究所建構之教學品質測量模式、結構模式，各項適配度指標良好，均獲得支持，且測量模式之因素結構具有組間不變性。
三、教師對教學品質評估因不同背景變項而有差異，服務於私立學校、中型學校、獲補助經費5,000至8,000萬元學校等之教師，有顯著較高的教學品質評估結果。
四、學生對教學品質評估因不同背景變項而有差異，研究生、就讀於私立學校、中大型學校、北區或中區學校、獲補助經費5,000至8,000萬元學校等之學生，有顯著較高的教學品質評估結果。
五、教師對教學品質評估結果高於學生，尤其小型與中型學校、東區與南區學校、補助經費在5,000萬元以下學校，教師與學生評估之教學品質差異特別顯著。
六、教學品質評估有群組區別，中大型之私立學校的教師為評估最高之群組，獲補助經費5,000萬元以下之公立學校的學生為評估教學品質得分最低群組。
此外，依據上述之結論，本研究提出下列建議：一、除重視有形資源外，應強化師資、課程與學生輔導等面向；二、建立教學卓越分享平台，減少學校之教學品質落差；三、獎勵經費分配適當調整，重視東部、南部學校聲音；四、加強學校、教師與學生三方之溝通，縮小教育品質缺口；五、採用本研究建構之教學品質評估模式，定期評估方案執行成效；六、後續研究可將樣本擴大並採多元統計方法。

關鍵字

多群組分析 ； 教學品質 ； 結構方程模式 ； 獎勵大學教學卓越計畫 ； 驗證性因素分析

並列摘要

The purpose of the study was to construct and examine the teaching quality model of the University Teaching Excellence Project in Taiwan, and to analyze the teaching quality of the selected universities. Then compare the differences perspectives of teachers and students of different background. Finally, recommendations were proposed in order to improve the teaching quality.
The methods applied in this study were literature analysis, structural equation modeling, confirmatory factor analysis and multiple-group analysis. Samples in this study were teachers and students of 28 universities, which got funds from the University Teaching Excellence Project. The data was based on the survey of teaching satisfaction collected by the Ministry of Education. The available samples included 4619 teachers and 10214 students. The main results of this study about the University Teaching Excellence Project were shown as follows:
Firstly, the teaching quality was at high-intermediate level. There was a dramatic difference between teachers’ viewpoint and students’ viewpoint on teaching quality. Teachers thought “visible resources” performs the best and “teachers guaranteed” performs the worst while the student thought “teachers guaranteed” functions the best and “students counseling” functions the less.
Secondly, the goodness-of-fit indexes of the measurement models and the structural models of teaching quality were fit well and supported. In addition, the factors of the measurement models were group-invariant.
Thirdly, teachers of different background evaluated the teaching quality diversely. A significant higher teaching quality was achieved in private universities and medium size universities with the subsidy funds of 50,000,000 to 80,000,000 N.T. dollars.
Fourthly, students of different background evaluated the teaching quality diversely. A significant higher teaching quality was achieved in private schools, large-scale schools and the north or central area schools which attain the subsidy funds of 50,000,000 to 80,000,000 N.T. dollars.
Fifthly, teachers evaluated a higher teaching quality than students. A dramatic difference was resulted from teachers and students of medium schools and the east and south area schools with the subsidy funds below 50,000,000.
Finally, there was group discrimination in teaching quality. Teachers of large-scale private school scored the highest marks on the teaching quality in the evaluation while students of public schools with the subsidy below 50,000,000 scored the lowest marks.
Based on the results, the recommendations were drawn as follows: (1) in addition to the visible resources, the quality of teachers, the curriculum and the student counsel should be emphasized. (2) Enhance the interchange of experience between universities in order to reduce the difference of evaluation on teaching quality. (3) Re-allocate the attribution of funds. Viewpoints of teachers and students from the east and south area schools should be taken into consideration. (4) Strengthen the communication between schools, teachers and students to reduce the gap of teaching quality. (5) Implement the project evaluation to evaluate performance. (6) Finally, large sample size and the multi-dimensional statistical method are recommended in the further research.

並列關鍵字

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) ； multiple-group analysis ； structural equation modeling (SEM) ； teaching quality ； the University Teaching Excellence Project

參考文獻

江義平（2000）。教學服務品質衡量模式建構及分析之研究。亞太管理評論，5（1），95-115。

洪彰鴻（2004）。以PZB服務品質構面編製體育教學品質量表。勤益學報，22（1），71-82。

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29.

壹、中文部分

1111人力銀行（2004）。大學高錄取率 畢業 低就業率？2009年1月12日，擷取自http://www.1111.com.tw/zone/pr/headline.asp?autono=529