跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.237.38.244) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/26 10:49
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:朱怡潔
研究生(外文):CHU, YIJ CHIEH
論文名稱:過濾影響教學評鑑干擾因素之模式探討
論文名稱(外文):A Model with Filter of Interfering Factors for Teaching Evaluation
指導教授:施葦施葦引用關係
指導教授(外文):SHIH, WEI
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:統計學系
學門:數學及統計學門
學類:統計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:56
中文關鍵詞:迴歸分析殘差因素分析雷達圖教學評鑑
外文關鍵詞:Regression AnalysisResidualFactor analysisRadar-graphTeaching Evaluation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:164
  • 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:0
過去的文獻中指出一些與教學品質無關之因素,卻對教學評鑑分數有顯著的影響,以致造成教學評鑑分數之不公。

本研究的目標為建立模型以提供教師教學評鑑的公正分數。在此將學院別、學制別、班級人數、課程必/選修別與學生預期成績等五個干擾因素,利用迴歸分析方法建立模式,觀察這些干擾因素對教師教學評鑑分數的影響。而模式的殘差部分為過濾了與教學品質無關的干擾因素之數值,所以本研究利用殘差分數為評鑑教師教學成效的新指標。

以新指標討論教師性別、授課數等因素是否對教學成效會造成差異。另外,進行因素分析,討論因素分析的結構和原始問卷設計的六個構面的差異。並將六個因素的得點製成雷達圖,藉由教師在這六個因素的得點,衡量無法實際測量的教學特色,協助教師了解自己教學上的特長,以及相對較不足的部分。
Many studies have pointed out that teaching evaluation by students is a affected by some factors which are unconcerned with teaching quality and makes the evaluation unfair and not applicable.

The purpose of this study is to construct a regression model that can provide a fair score on teaching evaluation. Five interfering variables are included in the final regression equation: “college”, “graduate/undergraduate program”, “required/optional course”, “class size” and “expected grade”. Because regression model can identify effect of interfering factors on teaching evaluation, so residuals become as our new scores for teaching evaluation of instructors.

The new score is used to compare the teaching performance among teachers. Further more, factor analysis is applied and factor scores are used to sketch radar-graphs. The radar-graph describes characteristics for each of the instructors, and assists the instructor to realize his/her attributes in teaching.
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究架構 2
第二章 文獻探討 3
第一節 教學評鑑的意義與應用 3
第二節 控制影響教學評鑑的變數 4
第三章 資料來源及研究方法 6
第一節 資料來源、研究對象以及變數定義 6
第二節 研究方法 9
第三節 研究流程 13
第四章 資料整理與模型建立 15
第一節 資料檢查與初步分析 15
第二節 資料的採用與模型的建立 23
第五章 修正後評鑑分數與教學成效之分析 36
第一節 以修正後評鑑分數探討教學成效 36
第二節 以因素分析討論教師教學特質 42
第六章 結論與建議 48
第一節 研究結果與結論 48
第二節 未來展望 49
附錄 51
參考文獻 54
(1)林智隆、王志敏(2006),通識教育專任教師教學品質評鑑之研究,通識學刊,225-262。

(2)袁世珮譯(2005)。真誠領導發展與實踐。B.J.Avolio and F.Luthans原著。台北:麥格羅.希爾。

(3)陳嘉彌等譯(2002),專業發展評鑑。Thomas R. Guskey著。台北市:五南。

(4)張德勝(1999) An Application of Regression Model with Student Ratings in Determining Course Effectiveness.教育學刊,民90年,17期,321-339。

(5)葉重新(1987),台灣地區九所大學教師對「學生評鑑教師教學」期望之研究。

(6)簡茂發、李虎雄、彭森明(1998),教師基本素質評量制度之建立與評量工具之設計,教育資訊與研究,30-38。

(7)謝小苓(1995),重新思考教師角色,通識教育,2卷4期,89-104.

(8)Acker, S. (1994) Creating careers: Women teacher at work. In S. Acker, Gendered Education: Sociological reflections on women, teaching and feminism. 105-121.

(9)Abrami, P.C., d'pollonia, S. and Cohen, P.A.(1990), “Validity of student ratings instruction : What we know and what we do not, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,219-231.

(10)Bailey, Gupta and Schrader (2000) Do students’ judgment models of instructor effectiveness differ by course level, course content, or individual instructor? Journal of Accounting Education, 18,15-34.

(11)Cashin, W. E. (1995), Student ratings of teaching: the research revisited. IDEA Paper No. 32, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development in Higher Education, Kansas State University.

(12)DeCanio, S. J. (1986) Student evaluations of teaching─a multinomial logit approach. J. Econ. Education 17(3), 165-176.

(13)Feldman, K. A. (1976a), Grades and college students’ evaluation of their courses and teachers. Research In Higher Education 4,69-111.

(14)Feldman, K. A. (1976b), The superior college teacher from the students’ view. Research In Higher Education 5,243-288.

(15)Feldman, K. A. (1978), Course characteristics and college students’ ratings of their thachers: what we know and what we don’t. Research In Higher Education 9,199-242.

(16)Feldman, K. A. (1984), Class size and college students’ evaluation of teachers and courses: a closer look. Research In Higher Education 21(1), 45-116.

(17)Marsh, H.W. (1984), Students’ evaluation of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. J. Educational Psychology 76(5), 707-754.

(18)Marsh, H. W. and Hocevar, D. (1991), The multidimensionality of students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: the generality of factor structures across academic discipline, instructor level, and course level. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 9-18.

(19)McKeachie (1979), Students’ rating of faculty: a reprise. Acdeme October, 384-397.

(20)Miller, R.I. (1974), Developing Programs for Faculty Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publisher.

(21)Mirus, R. (1973), Some implications of student evaluation of teachers. J. Econ. Education, 5, 35-37.

(22)Neumann, L. and Neumann, Y. (1985), Determinants of students' instructional evaluation: a comparison of four levels of academic areas. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 152-158.

(23)Widmeyer, W.N. and Loy, J.W. (1988), When your hot, your hot!Warm and cold effects in first impressions of persons and teaching effectiveness., Journal of educational Psychology, 80, 118-121.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top