科技大學教師評鑑影響性評估量表發展之研究

A Study on the Development of Faculty Evaluation Influence Assessment Scale for Universities of Science and Technology

張媛甯
Yuan-Ning Chang

Doi：10.3966/181665042013090903001


所屬期刊： 第9卷第3期 「教育政策與制度」
主編：輔仁大學教育領導與發展研究所兼任教授
吳明清
系統編號： vol034_01
主題： 教育政策與制度
出版年份： 2013
作者： 張媛甯
作者(英文)： Yuan-Ning Chang
論文名稱： 科技大學教師評鑑影響性評估量表發展之研究
論文名稱(英文)： A Study on the Development of Faculty Evaluation Influence Assessment Scale for Universities of Science and Technology
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：
論文頁數： 30
中文關鍵字： 教師評鑑;評鑑影響性;驗證性因素分析
英文關鍵字： confirmatory factor analysis;evaluation influence;faculty evaluation
服務單位： 南臺科技大學教育領導與評鑑研究所副教授
稿件字數： 19715
作者專長： 教育行政、各國教育評鑑研究、教師評鑑
投稿日期： 2013/5/10
論文下載： pdf檔案icon
摘要(中文)： 本研究旨在發展科技大學教師評鑑影響性之評估量表，透過文獻探討分析國內外有關教師評鑑與評鑑影響性的理論與實務，以建立構念和發展題項，經過專家學者修正與項目分析來進行題項的篩選與確認，建立初步的量表結構與測量題項。本研究立意抽樣七所科技大學之教師為施測對象，有效問卷共247份，首先運用探索性因素分析以純化測量工具，再透過驗證性因素分析進行競爭模式的比較以選擇最簡效模式，繼而進行該模式的信效度檢定。研究結果發現，本量表
證實具有二階層模式的因素結構，其整體模式適配度評估皆符合建議水準，評鑑投入、評鑑活動與評鑑影響性三個分量表分別包含三個潛在變項，總計35個測量題項。最後，根據研究結果對科技大學及後續研究提出建議。
摘要(英文)： The purpose of this study was to develop faculty evaluation influence assessment scale for universities of science and technology. The construct and measuring items were developed according to the literature review of faculty evaluation and evaluation influence. After experts’ modifications and item analysis, the factor structure and items of the preliminary scale were confirmed. After collecting 247 samples from seven universities of science and technology,
exploratory factor analysis was first conducted to purify the dimensions and measuring items of faculty evaluation influence. Secondly, confirmatory factor analysis was employed to choose the
best model by comparisons of model fits, and further its reliability and validity was tested. Results showed that the two-hierarchical factor structure of the scale was verified, and its goodness-offitness
conformed to standard. The 35 items were divided into three subscales which included evaluation input, evaluation activity and evaluation influence, and each subscale had 3 latent variables. Lastly, suggestions were offered for universities of science and technology and future research.
參考文獻： 王振世、陳芃婷（2005）。大學教師績效評量模型之建立：以新竹某國立大學為例。科技管理學刊，10（3），121-152。
成群豪（2007）。我國新設大學校院教師評鑑機制功能之研究。載於臺灣教育政策與評鑑學會等舉辦之「教師評鑑：挑戰、因應與展望」研討會論文集（頁222-238），臺北市。
江惠真（2009）。教師專業發展評鑑促進學校革新之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
吳佩真、張民杰（2007）。國內大學教師教學評鑑現況分析。評鑑雙月刊，9，9-15。
邱皓政（2010）。量化研究與統計分析。臺北市：五南。
施俊名、吳裕益（2008）。「大學生身心健康量表」構念效度驗證之研究。教育研究與發展期刊，4（4），201-229。
孫志麟（2007）。績效控制或專業發展？大學教師評鑑的兩難。教育實踐與研究，20（2），95-128。
高熏芳、張寒菱（2010，12月）。從教師發展到學校發展：利用教師專業發展評鑑促進學校改進的個案研究。「新世紀學校革新之挑戰與展望國際研討會」發表之論文，臺北市臺灣師範大學。
張媛甯（2010）。大學教師對教師評鑑態度之研究－以S科技大學為例。南臺學報，35（2），93-116。
張德銳（2000）。師資培育與教師評鑑。臺北市：師大書苑。
教育部高教司（2006）。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫九十五年度計畫作業手冊。臺北市：教育部高教司。
陳佩如（2007）。我國大學教師對大學教師評鑑態度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
彭森明 (2006)。大學教師評鑑機制之研究（教育部委託專案研究計畫成果報告，專案編號：94A1004EI）。國立清華大學高等教育研究中心，新竹市。
曾淑惠（2010，12月）。使用評鑑促進高職學校革新。「新世紀學校革新之挑戰與展望國際研討會」發表之論文，臺北市臺灣師範大學。
游森期、余民寧（2006）。網路問卷與傳統問卷之比較：多樣本均等性方法學之應用。測驗學刊，53（1），103-128。
黃玉幸（2009）。以產學合作為績效的大學教師評鑑制度之評析。「2009年大專校院評鑑制度學術研討會」發表之論文，臺南市南臺科技大學。
黃芳銘（2007）。結構方程模式：理論與應用。臺北市：五南。
黃?雲（2008）。大學教師評鑑現況分析研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中山大學，高雄市。
黃嘉雄（2010）。課程評鑑。臺北市：心理。
潘世尊（2009）。大學教師教學評鑑－一所私立科技大學的實踐之反思與探究。弘光學報，57，24-45。
潘慧玲（2006）。以評鑑促進學校之革新。載於吳武典、高強華（主編），優質、創新與前瞻（頁 337-351）。臺北市：學富。
潘慧玲（2010，12月）。驅動學校革新的評鑑機制。「新世紀學校革新之挑戰與展望國際研討會」發表之論文，臺北市臺灣師範大學。
潘慧玲、陳文彥（2010）。教師專業發展評鑑促進組織學習之個案研究。教育研究集刊，56（3），29-65。
鄭淑惠（2007）。探究評鑑如何影響教師的專業成長－以個案研究為例。載於中華民國師範教育學會（主編），教師評鑑與專業成長（頁93-125）。臺北市：心理。
鄭淑惠（2009）。教育評鑑的效用性：促進組織學習的觀點。新竹教育大學教育學報，26（2），57-88。
蘇錦麗、黃曙東（2009）。美國大學教師評鑑制度之探討。教育政策論壇，12（2），1-44。
Alkin, M. C. (2005). Utilization of evaluation. In S. Mathison(Ed). Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp.434-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alkin, M. C., & Taut, S. M. (2003). Unbundling evaluation use. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 1-12.
Amo, C., & Cousins, J. B. (2007). Going through the process: An examination of the operationalization of process use in empirical research on evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 5-26.
Arreola, R. A. (2006). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation for structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bird, T. (1990). The schoolteacher’s portfolio: An essay on possibilities. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary teachers (pp. 241-256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brett, B., Hill-Mead, L., & Wu, S. (2000). Perspectives on evaluation use and demand by users: The case of City Year. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 71-83.
Bullock, A. A., & Hawk, P. (2005). Developing a teaching portfolio: A guide for pre-service and practicing teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Byrne, B. B. (2010). Structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Christie, C. A. (2007). Reported influence of evaluation data on decision maker’s actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 8-25.
Cousins, J. B. (2003). Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In T. Kellaghan, D. L. Stufflebeam, & L. A. Wingate (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation: Practice (pp. 245-266). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Greenberg, D., Mandell, M., & Onstott, M. (2000). The dissemination and utilization of welfare-to-work experiments in state policymaking. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 19, 367-382.
Hachtmann, F., & Signal, S. (2005). The peer review of teaching portfolio as scholarship assessment in higher education. International Journal of Learning, 12(5), 31-40.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Henry, G. T. (2000). Why not use? New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 85-98.
Henry, G. T., & Gordon, C. S. (2001). Tracking issue attention: Specifying the dynamics of the public agenda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 157-177.
Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 293- 314.
Huberty, C. (2000). An approach to annual assessment and evaluation of university faculty. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(3), 241-251.
Iwanicki, E. F. (1990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In J. Milllman & L. Darling-Hammond（Eds.）, The new handbook of teacher Evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp.158-171). Newbury Park, CA：Sage.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation【JCSEE】(1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation【JCSEE】(2009). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). Lisrel 8: User’s reference guide (2nd ed.). Chicago, IN: Scientific Software International.
King, J. A. (2002). Building the evaluation capacity of a school district. New Directions for Evaluation, 66, 27-34.
Kirkhart, K. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 5-23.
Kirkhart, K. E. (2011). Culture and influence in multisite evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 129, 73-85.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolio for learning, assessment and professional development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 267-286.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Lawrenz, F., King, J. A., & Ooms, A. (2011). The role of involvement and use in multisite evaluations. New Directions for Evaluation, 129, 49-57.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures(MACS) analysis of cross-cultural data: Practice and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53-76.
Mark, M. M. (2011). Toward better research on－and thinking about－evaluation influence, especially in multisite evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 129, 107-119.
Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 35-57.
Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562-582.
Monroe, A. (1998). Public opinion and public policy: 1980-1993. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 6-27.
Morabito, S. M. (2002). Evaluation roles and strategies for expanding evaluation process influence. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(2), 321-330.
Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(4), 622-647.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2007).Process use as a usefulism. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 99-112.
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q., Grimes, P. S., Guthrie, K. M., Brennan, N. J., French, B. D., & Blyth, D. A. (1977). In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 141-163). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Peterson, K. D., & Peterson, C. A. (2006). Effective teacher evaluation: A guide for principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Preskill, H., Zuckerman, B., & Matthews, B. (2003). An exploratory study of process use: Findings and implications for future research. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(4), 423-442.
Rebolloso, E., Fernandez-Ramirez, B., Canton P., & Pozo, C. (2005). The influence of evaluation on changing management systems in educational institutions. Evaluation, 11(4), 463-479.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Shulha, L. M. (2000). Evaluation inquiry in university–school professional learning partnerships. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 39-53.
Shulha, L. M., & Cousins, J. B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18(3), 195-208.
Stockdill, S. H., Baizerman, M., & Compton, D. W. (2002). Toward a definition of the ECB process: A conversation with the ECB literature. New Directions for Evaluation, 93, 7-26.
Stronge, J. H. (1995). Balancing individual and institutional goals in educational personnel evaluation: A conceptual framework. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 131-151.
Stronge, J. H., & Tucker P. D. (2003). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.
Torres, R. T., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 387-395.
Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking evaluation and student learning. Alexandria, VI: ASCD.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.
Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluating educational and social action programs: A treeful of owls. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Evaluating action programs: Readings in social action and education (pp. 3-27). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Weiss, C. H. (1981). Measuring the use of evaluation. In J. A. Ciarlo (Ed.), Utilizing evaluation: Concepts and measurement techniques (pp.17-33). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E., & Birkeland, S. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: Evidence from a study of the drug abuse resistance education program. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 12-30.