跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.87) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/09 10:29
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:劉富美
研究生(外文):Fu-may Liou
論文名稱:教學表現與教師魅力關係之研究:以臺中技術學院為例
論文名稱(外文):The Relationship between Teaching Performance and Charismatic Leadership:A Empirical Study of National Taichung Institute of Technology
指導教授:黃銘章黃銘章引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:靜宜大學
系所名稱:管理碩士在職專班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:中文
論文頁數:158
中文關鍵詞:學生評鑑教師教學教師教學評鑑教師魅力教學表現
外文關鍵詞:teaching performancestudent ratings of teachersteaching charisma
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:456
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
國內外針對教師教學表現評鑑之作法有:「系所主任評鑑」、「委員會評鑑」、「教師自我評鑑」、「同儕評鑑」、「學生評鑑」、「校友評鑑」、「學生成就表現」、「教室教學錄影」、「教學觀察評鑑」、「檔案夾評鑑」…等,其中以「學生評鑑教師教學」是大專校院普遍採行的教學評鑑方式之一。
目前已有許多研究指出:「學生評鑑教師教學」之措施其立意雖佳,但若教學評鑑工具不具有高信度及高效度,將不容易獲得具參考價值的評鑑結果;同時亦建議若以學生評鑑結果作為晉級、聘期及獎懲之人事裁量時,評量表的內容必須更為嚴謹,除具信度與效度外,並應隨時檢討修改,才能正確地表達教師的教學效能,和契合教育環境的變遷。另Nicholls於2003年建議各校應該有一套適用該校環境文化之評鑑模式,甚至在開始施行後,評量機構應該繼續研究該形式(表格)和評量過程之信度及效度是否仍然適用。
本論文提出之評鑑量表,量尺格式採Likert-type之五點量表 (1:非常不同意,2:不同意,3:普通,4:同意,5:非常同意)。該量表係參考Shevlin, Banyard, Davies,Griffiths &; Mark等人於2000年所歸納出之教學表現評鑑範圍,此外亦參酌國內所發展的學生評鑑教師教學量表(黃瓊蓉,1998、林珊如,1999、張德勝,2003、潘靖瑛,2004、陳美慧,2004、葉連祺等人,2005),同時參採Kudisch等人、Archer及 Lunenburg所提出之魅力領導因素,認為魅力較具滿意度的影響,並等同於提供ㄧ個有效的教學表現。本研究初步提出一個以「教學表現」即具「教師魅力」之概念為核心,其中有6個構面評鑑因素,用以測量20個評鑑項目( 樣本數N=1108) 之完整SEM(Structural Equation Modeling)模型,其中有16個外衍觀測變項,4個內衍觀測變項、4個外衍潛在變項(教學態度、教學方法、作業與評量、專業知能)、2個內衍潛在變項(教學表現、教師魅力)等。
本論文綜參國內外相關文獻,並分析比較國內外目前研究學生評鑑教師教
學的因素結構分析,對教師之教學表現共設計了四個競爭模式:1.單一因素模式、2.多因素直交模式、3.多因素斜交模式、4.二階因素模式。研究對象為臺中技術學院大學部之學生,透過SPSS及SEM驗證性因素分析後,顯示二階因素模式為最佳之適配模式;最後並探討教師教學表現與教師魅力之關係,提出教師之「教學表現」與「教師魅力」有正向關係,經驗證分析後。發現其相關係數達0.87,已達統計上之顯著水準,據此,我們建議學生評鑑教師教學,應加入教師魅力因素,如此一來,較能反映教師實際教學之效能。
Teachers’ teaching performance evaluation instruments that have been used domestically and abroad include superior-subordinate Evaluation, committee evaluation, peer evaluation, student evaluation, alumni evaluation, student performance evaluation, classroom-based teaching videotaping, teaching observation evaluation, portfolios evaluation, etc. Among them, the instrument of student ratings of teachers is commonly applied in colleges and universities.

However, in spite of good intentions of student ratings of teachers, the instrument does not possess any values for reference if credibility and validity fail to achieve. Meanwhile, once the instrument serves as a tool for teachers’ promotion, employment, rewarding or punishment, its contents need to be rigid with high credibility and validity, reflecting teaching efficiency and meeting changes in teaching environment. Nicholls (2003) suggested each institute should apply an evaluation model adapted to its own cultures and that assessment should further be made to examine credibility and validity concerning the model and evaluation process.

This paper proposed a Likert-type five-point evaluation instrument (with one point of strongly disagree, two points disagree, three points no opinion, four points agree, and five points strongly agree). This instrument consisted of items of teaching performance evaluation, which were categorized by Shevlin, Banyard, Davies,Griffiths and Marke in 2000. Besides, a number of instruments of student ratings of teachers developed domestically were also adopted (Huang, 1998; Lin, 1999; Chang, 2003; Pan, 2004; Chen, 2004, etc). In addition, charismatic leadership factors suggested by Kudish, Archer and Lunenburg were also applied. This paper initially put forward a core concept: teaching performance bringing teaching charisma. With six subscales of evaluation, twenty evaluation items of structural equation modeling were measured (the number of the samples was 1108). Among the items, there are 16 exogenous variables, 4 endogenous variables, 4 exogenous latent variables (teaching attitudes, teaching methods, homework and assessment, professional knowledge and skills) and 2 endogenous latent variables (teaching performance and teaching charisma).

This paper reviewed literature abroad and island-wide, analyzed and compared factors involved in student ratings of teachers and then the following four competition models were designed: first-order factor model, orthogonal model, oblique model, and second-order factor model. The subjects were 4-year students of National Taichung Institute of Technology. By SPSS and SEM analysis, the second-order factor model was proved as the best matching model. Finally, this paper discussed the relations between teaching performance and teaching charisma and found out they are significantly positively related with coefficient of correlation reaching 0.87. Therefore, it is recommended that teaching charisma should be put into consideration in student ratings of teachers so that actual teaching efficacy can be reflected.
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 2
第二節 研究目的 5
第三節 研究範圍 6
第四節 重要名詞解釋 7
第二章 文獻探討 8
第一節 教學評鑑之意涵與基本概念 8
第二節 學生評鑑教師教學的意涵與緣起 15
第三節 教學表現之定義與內涵 28
第四節 教師魅力之理論與研究 42
第五節 教學表現與教師魅力之關係 55
第三章 研究方法 60
第一節 研究步驟 60
第二節 研究假設 62
第三節 變項衡量與操作型定義 64
第四節 抽樣計畫 66
第五節 量表的編製 67
第六節 研究設計 72
第七節 資料分析方法 78
第八節 信、效度之分析方法 80
第四章 結果與討論 87
第一節 共變數矩陣 87
第二節 信效度分析 89
第三節 教學表現競爭模式分析 95
第四節 教師魅力配適度分析 107
第五節 假設模式配適度分析 111
第六節 假設模式修正 117
第七節 假設模式複核效化 122
第五章 結論與建議 124
第一節 研究結果 124
第二節 管理意涵 128
第三節 建議與限制 130
參考書目 132
中文部份 132
外文部份 135
附錄 138
附錄一、學生評鑑教師教學問卷調查表各構面、題項內容及參考資料來源 138
附錄二、教師教學意見調查問卷(前測) 141
附錄三、學生評鑑教師教學預試量表衡量效度分析 144
附錄四、假設模型競爭之評鑑結果比較表 145
附錄五、教師教學意見調查問卷(正式版) 146
附錄六、學生評鑑教師教學量表之信效度分析(21題整體量表) 148
附錄七、國立臺中技術學院教師教學意見調查實施辦法 149
附錄八、臺中技術學院日間部94學年度第1學期課程教學意見調查表 150
附錄九、美國實施學生評鑑教師教學的歷史演進 151
附錄十、學生評鑑教師教學的相關干擾因素 154
中文部份
1.毛郁雯,2000,大學實施「學生評鑑教師教學」之研究﹣以國立臺北大學校院為例。國立臺北師院學院國民教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
2.呂淑惠,2005,國民小學英語教師專業成長與教學效能之研究—以屏東縣為例。屏東師範學院教育行政研究所未出版碩士論文。
3.周祝瑛,2003,淺談「大學教學評鑑」。研習資訊,20(3),49-57。
4.林姍如,1999,「大學生評鑑教學量表:編製及效度考驗」。教育與心理研究,第22期,295-322。
5.林道欽,2002,領導型態與員工效能之研究:以台灣南區郵政管理局為例。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所未出版之碩士論文。
6.洪光遠譯,1992,Gary A .Yukl,1989原著,組織領導(Leadership in Organijations)。臺北:桂冠。
7.夏榕文1996,高科技產業魅力領導之研究。中原大學企業管理學系未出版之碩士論文。
8.邱皓政,2003,結構方程模式。臺北市,雙葉書廊。
9.徐善德,1997,高職教師工作價值觀、組織承諾與教學效能關係之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所未出版之博士論文。
10.孫逸秀,2000,國中生物教師課室教學表現評量基準表效化之研究。彰化師範大學科學教育研究所未出版之碩士論文。
11.張德銳2000,教學評鑑。黃政傑主編,教學原理。臺北:師大書苑。
12.張德勝,1998,「學生評鑑教師教學﹣花蓮師範學院為例」。八十六學年度師範教育學術論文集:花蓮師範學院,1-22。
13.張德勝,1999a,「教師、科目之特性對學生評鑑教師教學之影響-以花蓮師範學院為例」。八十七學年度花蓮師範學院學術研討會論文集:花蓮師範學院學術服務組,77-118。
14.張德勝,1999b,「教師性別、職位、等級、學生年級對學生評鑑教學結果的影響」。 八十七學年度師範教育學術研討會論文集:臺北市立師範學院,732-772。
15.張德勝,2000a,「學生評鑑教師教學」制度之比較-以師範學院為例」。八十九學年度教育學術研討會論文集:新竹師範學院出版與學術服務組,182-207。
16.張德勝,2000b,「影響學生評鑑教學因素之探討-以花蓮師範學院為例」。八十八學年度教育學術研討會論文集:臺中技術學院學術服務組,33-66。
17.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。
18.張德勝,2005,台灣地區大學校院「學生評鑑教師教學」制度之研究。師大學報50(2),203-225。
19.曹嘉秀、魏孟雪,2003,「影響學生評鑑教學之背景因素探討--以共同英文課為例」。輔英科技大學補助專題研究計畫成果報告,計畫編號:FIT-90-028。
20.陳美慧,2004,學生評鑑教師教學量表之建構-以嘉義大學為例。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
21.郭淑琳,2000。臺灣地區高職(中)工業類科學校教師第二專長進修、教學效能與學校效能關係之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育系未出版碩士論文。
22.馮一雯,2002,國民小學教師教學信念與教學效能之研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
23.游淑惠,2003,國小校長魅力領導與教師組織承諾及工作滿意度之研究。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
24.黃芳銘,2002,結構方程模式理論與應用。臺北市,五南圖書。
25.黃孟樑,2001,我國科技大學學生評鑑教師教學現況之研究。國立臺北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
26.黃貴祥,2001,技術學院教師工作環境知覺、工作價值觀與其工作滿足和教學表現之關係。國立政治大學教育學系未出版博士論文。
27.黃儒傑,2002,國小初任教師教學信念、教學成敗歸因及其有效教學表現之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系未出版博士論文。
28.黃瓊蓉,1998,驗證性因素分析於瞭解生涯承諾構念效度性的應用。教育與心理研究21(2),199-220
29.彭森明、施俊名,2005,大學教師評鑑機制之研究。國立清華大學教育部委託專案研究計畫成果報告,專案編號:94A1004EI。
30.曾憲揚,2001,大學實施「學生評鑑教師教學」問卷內容探討與實證研究-以國立成功大學為例。國立成功大學企業管理學系未出版碩士論文。
31.楊盛輝,2004,科技大學教師對「學生評鑑教師教學」意見調查研究。屏東科技大學技術及職業教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
32.葉連祺、董娟娟、楊世英、陳仁海與蕭芳華, 2005,「大學學生評鑑教師教學量表之編製」。測驗學刊,52(1),52-82
33.詹志禹,2005,「大學教學品質評鑑」。景心,15,49-63。
34.簡茂發(1996),評量。載於黃政傑主編,教學評量。臺北:師大書苑。
35.廖佩珊,2001,「輔仁大學管理學院學生現況與滿意度調查研究」,輔仁管理評論,8(2),1-24。
36.廖欣楣 ,1999,花蓮師範學院教師與學生對「學生評鑑教師教學」態度之研究。花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所未出版碩士論文。
37.潘靖瑛,2004,「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」。中國測驗學會學刊,51(1),79-102
38.教育部2005-2008四年施政主軸http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/ SECRETARY/EDU8354001/931022main.doc?UNITID=9&CATEGORYID=609&FILEID=121526&open
39.教育部技職教育發展之路 http://www.tve.edu.tw/new/history.htm
40.教育部統計處http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/Web/STATISTICS/index.php

外文部份
1.Archer, Austin C., 1994,The Measurement of Charismatic Teaching in the College Classroom, “ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri can Educational Research Associat ion,” pp.1-49.
2.Center for Teaching and Learning, 1997,Using Student Evaluations to Improve Teaching, Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching, 9(1), pp.1-12.
3.Chang, T., 2001, “Student Perceptions of Student Ratings of Instruction: Does School Policy Really Matter? “ Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA..
4.Chang, T., 2002, “Faculty Attitudes toward Student Ratings: Do the Resultant Rating Scores Really matter? “Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
5.Costello, B. Anna & Jason W. Osborne, 2005, “Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis,” Practical Assess, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), pp.1-9.
6.David & Pearson, 2005, “Recency Effect in College Student Course Evaluations, Practical Assess,” Research & Evaluation, 10(6), pp.1-10.
7.Eduardo, R. Alicias Jr., 2005, “Toward an Objective Evaluation of Teacher Performance:The Use of Variance Partitioning Analysis, VPA1 ”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(30), pp.1-15.
8.Galluzzo, R. Gary, 2005, “Performance Assessment and Renewing Teacher Education: The Possibilities of the NBPTS Standards,” The Clearing House, 78(4), pp.142-145.
9.Guskey,T.R.,& Passaro ,P.D.(1994).Teacher efficacy:A study of contruct dimensions. Teaching&Teacher Education,12(4), 401-414
10.Howell, J.M., Frost, P.J. (1989), "A laboratory study of charismatic leadership", Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, Vol. 43 No.2, pp.243-269.
11.Ian, S. Robertson, 2004, “Student Perceptions of Student Perception of Module Questionnaires: Questionnaire Completion as Problem Solving,” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), pp.663-679.
12.Jay A. Conger, Rabindra N. Kanungo ,Toward a Behavior Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings. Academy of Management Review, 1987. 12(4), 637-647
13.Jay A. Conger, Rabindra N. Kanungo , (1988). The empowerment process: Intergating theory and practice.Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
14.Jay A. Conger, Rabindra N. Kanungo , (1998).Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
15.Karin J. Spencer & Liora Pedhazur Schmelkin, 2002, “Student Perspectives on Teaching and its Evaluation,” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), pp.397-409.
16.Kirkpatrick, S.A., Locke, E.A. (1996), "Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes", Journal of Applied Pyschology, Vol. 81 pp.36–51.
17.Klentschy, P. Michael, 2005, “Designing Professional Development Opportunities for Teachers that Foster Collaboration, Capacity Building and Reflective Practice,” Science Educator, 14(1), pp.1-8.
18.Lunenburg, Fred C.,2003,Emerging Perspectives: The Usefulness of the Construct of Transformational Leadership in Educational Organizations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration,20p.
19.Lowman, J. & V. A Mathie, 1993, “What Should Graduate Teaching Assistants Know about Teaching?” Teaching of Psychology, 20(2), pp.84-88.
20.Mathematics and Science Education Center, 1999, “Teacher Evaluation:Using Mathematics and Science Teaching Standards to Assess Teachers,” Practical Inquiry, Fall, pp.1-12
21.Obiekwe, C. Jerry, 1999, “The Multidimensional Character of Teaching Effectiveness: A Comparative Analysis of Student Evaluation Responses of Full and Part-Time Faculty,” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, October 13-16, 1999), pp.1-20.
22.Oliver, L. Richard & Elise Pookie Sautter, 2005, “Using Course Management Systems to Enhance the Value of Student Evaluations of Teaching,” Journal of Education for Business, 80(4), pp.231-234.
23.Patrick, Jeff & Smart M Roslyn, 1998, “An Empirical Evaluation of Teacher Effectiveness:The Emergence of Three Critical Factors,” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), pp.165–178.
24.Pounder, S. James, 2003, “Employing Transformational Leadership to Enhance the Quality of Management Development Instruction,” Journal of Management Development, 22(1), pp.6-13.
25.Senate meeting,2002,Student Rating of Courses and Instruction Administrative Policies and Procedures,http://www.mun.ca/ceq/procedures.pdf
26.Shadish, William, 1998, “Some Evaluation Questions,” American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1),pp.1-19.
27.Shevlin, Mark, Philip Banyard, Davies Mark, & Mark Griffiths, 2000, “The Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education: Love Me, Love My Lectures?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), pp. 397-405.
28.Sproule, Robert, 2000, “Student Evaluation of Teaching: A Methodological Critique of Conventional Practices,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (50), pp.1-27
29.Terry A. Wolfer & Miriam McNown Johnson, 2003, “Re-Evaluating Student Evaluation of Teaching: The Teaching Evaluation Form,” Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), pp.111-121.
30.Yulk, G. (1999). An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership Theories. Leadership Quarterly, Vol.10, N0.2, 285-305.
31.Yunker, G.W.,1990, Effective Organizational Leadership, Issues in the Management of Human Behavior : Analyses, Explorations, and Insights. Chapter 1, 1-42. (1990)
32.http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/24/34/89.pdf, Witcher, E. Ann, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Kathleen M. T. Collins, Janet D. Filer, Cheryl D. Wiedmaier & Chris Moore, 2003, “Students'' Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective College Teachers”.
33.http://www.southalabama.edu/usa/arts&sci/SETFinalreport, Nicholls, Keith, 2003, “Final Report of the Student Evaluation of Teaching Committee”.
34.http://www.usask.ca/university_council/idcc/reports/02-24-04.shtml, Instructional Development Committee of Council, 2004, “Framework for Student Evaluation of Teaching at the University of Saskatchewan,” Council Committee Agenda Minutes Reports Membership Reference.
電子全文 電子全文(本篇電子全文限研究生所屬學校校內系統及IP範圍內開放)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top