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

潘靖瑛(Ching-Ying Pan)

《測驗學刊》 51卷1期 (2004/06) Pp. 79-102

https://doi.org/10.7108/PT.200406.0079

摘要

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。

關鍵字

學生評鑑教學 ； 教師評鑑

並列摘要

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.

並列關鍵字

Student Ratings ； Instruction Evaluation

參考文獻

Arreola, R. A.(1995).Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system.

Cashin, W.(1990).Student ratings of teaching: Recommendations for use.

Centra, J. A.(1977).How universities evaluate faculty performance: A survey of department heads.

Feng, C.(1990).Quantitative evaluation of university teaching quality: An application of fuzzy set and approximate reasoning.Fuzzy Sets and Systems.37(1)

Follman, J.(1995).Elementary public school pupil rating of teacher effectiveness.Child Study Journal.25(1)