期刊專區/ Periodical Section

我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標之研究：概念構圖法的調整應用

Construction of Indicators of Teaching Evaluation by University Students in Taiwan: The Adaptive Applications of Concept Mappin

所屬期刊：	第14卷第1期 「教師培育與專業發展」 主編：臺北市立大學幼兒教育學系副教授 林佩蓉
系統編號：	vol052_01
主題：	師資培育
出版年份：	2018
作者：	羅恩冕; 郭昭佑
作者(英文)：	En-Mien Luo; Chao-Yu Guo
論文名稱：	我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標之研究：概念構圖法的調整應用
論文名稱(英文)：	Construction of Indicators of Teaching Evaluation by University Students in Taiwan: The Adaptive Applications of Concept Mappin
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：	中文
論文頁數：	34
中文關鍵字：	學生評鑑教師教學; 高等教育評鑑; 概念構圖
英文關鍵字：	student evaluation of teaching; higher education evaluation; concept mapping
服務單位：
稿件字數：	19689
作者專長：	高等教育; 教育評鑑; 繼續教育
投稿日期：	2018/1/11
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	學生評鑑教師教學（student evaluation of teaching, SET）今日被國內外大學廣泛使用於形成性評鑑及總結性評鑑，對於教師評鑑及大學績效管理都扮演著重要的角色，儘管在學生評鑑教師教學的實施及結果運用上仍在發展中，然而考量以學生為中心的教學評鑑，來自學生的意見具有一定價值。因此本研究目的在於建立符合大學教師教學評鑑關係人利益的評鑑指標，並透過概念構圖的方式將指標具體化以便指標提升教學效能之應用。本研究蒐集並分析來自國外教學優良的大學及機構使用的學生評鑑教師教學18份量表，使用概念構圖方法整合利害關係人的意見，建構適用於本國的學生評鑑教師教學指標。研究結果顯示，所建立的43項我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標，可區分為三主要構面「課程規劃」、「教學與互動」及「評量與回饋」，其中可再細分為8個次構面「課程適切性」、「課程內容」、「課程進程規劃」、「教材教法」、「學習活動引導」、「師生互動」、「學習回饋」及「作業與評量」。此指標及構面提供了學生評鑑教師教學的準則、教師提升教學效能的依循以及高等教育教學中決策與執行的依據。
摘要(英文)：	Student evaluations of teaching (SET) are widely used in formative evaluations and summative evaluations in universities in Taiwan and around the world. It plays an important role in teacher evaluation and performance management of university. Although the implementation and application of SET are still under development, opinions from students are valuable as teaching evaluation is student-centered. This study aims to construct indicators that meet the benefit of stockholders of teaching evaluation through concept mapping method in order to improve teaching effectiveness. 18 SET questionnaires from overseas universities with excellent teaching were analyzed and further combined with the opinions of stockholders to construct applicable indicators of SET. The results show that constructed 43 SET indicators of Taiwanese universities can be distributed in 3 dimensions, including “planning and implement of curriculum”, “teaching and interaction” and “assessment and feedback”. These 3 dimensions can be divided into 8 sub-dimensions, which include “appropriate curriculum”, “contain of curriculum”, “planning of curriculum process”, “teaching materials and methods”, “introduction and learning activities”, “interaction between students and teacher”, “feedback from learning” and “assignment and assessment”. These indicators and dimensions provide a protocol of SET, reference for promoting teaching efficiency and evidence for policy making and execution of higher education teaching.
參考文獻：	余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習—概念構圖之研究。臺北市：商鼎。 吳政達、郭昭佑（1997）。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應用。 教育與心理研究，20（2），217-242。 吳清山（2007）。我國大學評鑑：挑戰、因應策略與發展方向。課程與教學季刊， 10（4），15-30。 周祝瑛（2003）。淺談大學教學評鑑—以政大為例。研習資訊，20（3），49-57。 洪煌堯、吳惠萍、邱婕欣、張芷瑄、林奎宇、洪國財（2015）。高等教育成果導 向教育之發展與反思。通識教育學刊，15，51-76。 馬信行（1999）。教育科學研究法。臺北市：五南。 張健邦（1993）。應用多變量分析。臺北市：文富。 張媛甯、郭重明（2011）。大學教師教學專業發展之初探。學校行政，71，194- 213。 張德勝（2002）。學生評鑑教師教學：理論、實務與態度。臺北市：揚智文化。 張德勝（2005）。臺灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」制度之研究。教育科 學研究期刊，50（2），203-225。 教育部（2009）。教育部獎勵大學教學卓越計畫。取自http://www.csal.fcu.edu.tw/ Edu/program_start.asp。 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：作者。 郭昭佑（2001）。教育評鑑指標建構方法探究。國教學報，13，251-278。 曾明基、邱皓政（2015）。研究生評鑑教師教學的結果真的可以與大學生一起比 較嗎？多群祖混合MIMIC-DIF 分析。測驗學刊，62（1），1-23。 黃政傑（2013）。大學招收國際生的政策展望。教育評論月刊，2（1），1-3。 葉連祺、董娟娟、楊世英、陳仁海、簫芳華（2005）。大學學生評鑑教師教學量 表之編製。測驗學刊，52（1），59-81。 潘慧玲（2004，5 月）。邁向下一代的教育評鑑: 回顧與前瞻。載於國立臺灣師範 大學舉辦之「教育評鑑回顧與展望」學術研討會論文集（頁11-23），臺北市。 鄭博真（2012）。我國大學教師專業發展之現況、困境與展望。教育研究與發展 期刊，8（1），61-92。 Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for application. New York, NY: Academic Press. Arthur, L. (2009). From performativity to professionalism: Lecturers’ responses to student feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 441-454. Blair, E., & Valdez Noel, K. (2014). Improving higher education practice through student evaluation systems: Is the student voice being heard? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 879-894. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill. Carnell, E. (2007). Conceptions of effective teaching in higher education: Extending the boundaries. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 25-40. Centra, J. A. (1993). Refl ective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chan, C. K., Luk, L. Y., & Zeng, M. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of student evaluations of teaching. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(4), 275-289. Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 80, 5-23. Davison, M. L. (1983). Multidimensional scaling. New York, NY: Wiley. Ek, A. C., Ideland, M., Jonsson, S., & Malmberg, C. (2013). The tension between marketisation and academisation in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1305-1318. Floden, J. (2017). The impact of student feedback on teaching in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1054-1068. Gans, J. (2000). Facilitating synthesis and advancing methodological development in strategic planning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, New York. George, D. (2007). Market overreach: The student as customer. The Journal of Socio- Economics, 36(6), 965-977. Golding, C., & Adam, L. (2016). Evaluate to improve: Useful approaches to student evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 1-14. Gross, M. A., & Hogler, R. (2005). What the shadow knows: Exploring the hidden dimensions of the consumer metaphor in management education. Journal of Management Education, 29(1), 3-16. Harvey, L. (2011). The nexus of feedback and improvement. In C. S. Nair & P. Mertova (Eds.), Student feedback: The cornerstone to an effective quality assurance system in higher education (pp. 11-26). Oxford, England: Woodhead. Johnstone, J. N. (1981). Indicators of education systems. London, England: Kogan Page. Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation (Vol. 50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Laing, L., & Laing, G. (2011, October). The student as customer model and its impact on the academic leadership role in higher education. In J. Yorke, (Chair), Meeting the Challenges: Proceedings of the ATN Assessment Conference 2011. Symposium conducted at Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia. Lee, H. H., Kim, G. M. L., & Chan, L. L. (2015). Good teaching: What matters to university students. Asia Pacifi c Journal of Education, 35(1), 98-110. Levine, A. E. (2000). The future of colleges: 9 inevitable changes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(9), B10. Lindeman, C. A. (2000). The future of nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 39, 5-12. McGuire, S. Y., & Williams, D. A. (2002). The millennial learner: Challenges and opportunities. To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, 20(1), 185-195. Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in higher Education, 14(3), 277-287. Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Rytkonen, H. (2011). Students’ conceptions of good teaching in three different disciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 549-563. Peterson, K. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Pounder, J. S. (2007). Is student evaluation of teaching worthwhile? An analytical framework for answering the question. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(2), 178- 191. Ramsden, P., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2007). University teachers’ experiences of academic leadership and their approaches to teaching. Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 140-155. Rosas, S. R., & Kane, M. (2012). Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis. Evaluation and program planning, 35(2), 236-245. Sarle, W. S. (1983). SAS technical report A-108- The cubic clustering criterion. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Scanlan, J.M. & Care, W.D. (2004). Grade infl ation: Should we be concerned? Journal of Nursing Education, 43(10), 475-478. Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642. Stein, S. J., Spiller, D., Terry, S., Harris, T., Deaker, L., & Kennedy, J. (2012). Unlocking the impact of tertiary teachers’ perceptions of student evaluations of teaching. Research Report. Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Stith, I., & Roth, W. M. (2010). Teaching as mediation: The cogenerative dialogue and ethical understandings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 363-370. Trochim, W. M. & Linton, R. (1986). Conceptualization for evaluation and planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9(4), 289-308. Trochim, W. M. (1993). The reliability of concept mapping. Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association. Dallas, Texas. Wibbecke, G., Kahmann, J., Pignotti, T., Altenberger, L., & Kadmon, M. (2015). Improving teaching on the basis of student evaluation: integrative teaching consultation. GMS Zeitschrift Fur Medizinische Ausbildung, 32(1), 1-4. Witkin, B. R. (1984). Social indicators: Using demographic and other statistical data. In B. R. Witkin (Ed.), Assessing needs in education and social programs (pp. 100-128). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wong, W. Y., & Moni, K. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of and responses to student evaluation of teaching: Purposes and uses in clinical education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(4), 397-411. Zell, D. (2001). The market driven business school: Has the pendulum swung too far? Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(4), 324-393.