影響學生評量教師教學之因素

Factors Affecting Students' Evaluation on Teaching

呂昇翰(Sheng-Han Lu)

指導教授 ： 簡志峰

中原大學/人文與教育學院/教育研究所/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201800004

摘要

大學是個多元的學術機構，同時把培育國家高等人才作為使命，要如何了解學校師資專業程度是否符合學生需求和期待，有賴於學校給學生填寫的教師教學評量問卷。
本研究將探討「教師背景（教師性別、教師職級、教師院別）」與「學生評量教師教學分數」間之關係，加上訪談學生，藉以了解他們對此看法，再將數據資料與訪談內容結合，可使我們更了解學生評量教師教學。
研究結果顯示：
一、單因子變異數分析：
1.「教師院別」在教師教學評量中有顯著差異。
2.「商學院」教師的教學評量分數顯著的高於「理學院」、「工學院」、「設計學院」與「電機資訊學院」教師的教學評量分數。
3.「人文與教育學院」教師的教學評量分數也顯著高於「工學院」教師的教學評量分數。
4.根據文獻與訪談資料顯示，可能原因為：因理、工學院或自然科學相關系所的專業性強、課程內容較困難、教師學業要求高，容易導致學生受挫。
二、在雙因子變異數分析：
1.「教師院別與教師職級」在教師教學評量中有顯著差異。
2.就「教師院別」方面而言：
「工學院」中，「助理教授」的教學評量分數顯著高於「教授」與「副教授」；根據訪談資料，學生認為可能原因為：(1)助理教授進學校時間不長、(2)助理教授資歷較短、(3)部分助理教授年齡、生活想法與學生較為接近。
「商學院」的「教授」教學評量分數顯著高於「副教授」與「助理教授」；根據訪談資料，同學認為可能原因為：(1)教授在業界較有實務經驗、資源較多，(2)教授擁有的資源有助於學生學習，或未來就業。
3.就「教師職級」方面而言：
在各學院「教授」中，「商學院」教授的教學評量分數顯著高於「理學院」、「工學院」、「電機資訊學院」教授的教學評量分數；另外，在各學院「副教授」中，「商學院」副教授的教學評量分數也顯著高於「工學院」的副教授；根據文獻與訪談資料，可能原因為：因理、工學院或自然科學相關系所的專業性強、教師學業要求高、課程內容較困難，容易導致學生受挫。而在本研究，商學院的教授與副教授教更為明顯。
最後，未來研究者如果可以取得更多教師與學生相關資料，可利用這些資料去分析、探討更多相關性，但也需要擬定相關規範來保障授課教師及學生隱私，以維護研究倫理課題。

關鍵字

教師教學評量 ； 學生評量教師教學

並列摘要

University is a diverse academic institution, cultivating the national high talent as a mission. The teaching evaluation is to understand teacher professional level, and student needs and expectations. "Students’ evaluating teacher teaching" has become one of the important and commonly used methods in higher education.
The purpose of this study aims to explore the relationship between the teacher’s background variables and teaching evaluation. The teacher’s background variables included gender, academic rank, and teaching field. As to interviewed students, we had a chance to understand their opinions. By combines analysis of the data and interview information we can understand students’ evaluation on teaching.
Based on the statistical methods and qualitative analysis, we yielded several main themes:
A. The data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA:
1.There are significant differences on the background variables of the teacher’s teaching field.
2."College of Business" scored significantly higher than "College of Science", "College of Engineering", "College of Design", and "College of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science".
3."College of Humanities and Education" scored significantly higher than "College of Engineering".
4.According to the interviews, analyses and relevant documents, these situations might occur because the fields (College of Science, College of Engineering, College of natural science, etc.) requested more professional, the courses are not easy, the instructors had high standards, students are frustrated with the course, etc.
B. The data was analyzed by two-way ANOVA:
1.There are the significant differences on the background variables of teaching field and academic rank.
2.Faculty member’s teaching field:
The assistant professors scored significantly higher than the professors and associate professors at College of Engineering.
According to the interviews, analyses and relevant documents, the possible causes include: (1) Assistant professors are junior to other tenured professors. (2) They are too new in the school. (3) Some assistant professors were of a similar age with students.
The professors scored significantly higher than the associate professors and assistant professors in the College of Business.
According to the interviews, analysis and relevant documents, the possible causes include: (1) Professors have more experience and resources than associate professors and assistant professors in the industry. (2) They can help students learn more and employ by their resources in the future.
3.Faculty members’ academic rank:
Regarding to the teachers’ academic rank of professor, "College of Business" scored significantly higher than "College of Science", "College of Engineering", and "College of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science".
Regarding to the teachers’ academic rank of associate professor, "College of Business" scored significantly higher than "College of Engineering".
According to the interviews, analyses and relevant documents, these situations may occur because the fields (College of Science, College of Engineering, College of natural science, etc.) requested more professional, the courses are not easy, the instructor had higher standards, students are frustrated with the course, etc. In this study, College of Business professors and associate professors were more obvious.
According to the information and analyses, we can understand more about the relationship between the teacher’s background variables and students’ evaluating score. The researcher must develop norms to protect teachers’ and students’ privacy, and balance to keep research ethics.

並列關鍵字

Teaching Evaluation

參考文獻

李孟秀（2009）。我國大學教師與學生對實施「學生評量教師教學」意見之研究－以北部一所私立大學為例。淡江大學高等教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。

江毓志（2014）。大學教師評鑑之研究：以S科技大學為例。淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士在職專班碩士論文，未出版，台北。

鄭增財、湯誌龍（2011）。中華科技大學98學年度學生對教師教學之評量結果分析。中華科技大學學報，48，247-274。

施宏彥（2009）。大學學生評鑑教師教學量表編製之研究－以南部某科技大學為例。嘉南學報，35，790-804。

何希慧（2007）。做好教學評鑑配套措施。評鑑雙月刊，9，24-27。