English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 92429/122733 (75%)
Visitors : 26329296      Online Users : 544
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/63751


    Title: 我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標建構之研究
    Indicators construction of teaching evaluation by university students in Taiwan
    Authors: 羅恩冕
    Luo, En Mien
    Contributors: 郭昭佑
    羅恩冕
    Luo, En Mien
    Keywords: 學生評鑑教師教學
    高等教育評鑑
    概念構圖
    student evaluation of teaching
    higher education evaluation
    concept mapping
    Date: 2013
    Issue Date: 2014-02-10 15:05:35 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本研究目的在建構我國大學學生評鑑教師教學之評鑑指標,除了提供學生對教學的回饋、提升教師教學效能,亦提供有結構性的評鑑參照。研究方法上,先以文獻分析歸納出學生評鑑教師教學之45項評鑑指標,並以專家問卷進行指標的刪修與確立,建立43項我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標,接著以概念構圖法及集群分析整合大學教學評鑑專家、大學教師及大學學生對指標的重要性評估與分群以建立構面。最後求取各構面及指標權重,完成我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標體系。根據研究之結果與分析,歸納主要結論如下:
    (一)本研究建構之我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標,含三大構面及八個次構面與43項指標。
    (二)三大構面權重最高者為「教學與互動」(佔43.96%),包含「2-1教材教法」、「2-2學習活動引導」及「2-3師生互動」等次構面。次高構面為「課程規劃與實施」(佔34.39%),包含「1-1課程適切」、「1-2課程內容」及「1-3課程規劃與進程」等次構面。第三高構面為「評量與回饋」(佔21.66%),包含「3-1學習回饋」及「3-2作業與評量」等次構面。
    (三)在「課程規劃與實施」構面中權重最重的指標依次為:「1-1-2課程具有學習價值」(佔2.55%)、「1-3-1引發學習動機之規劃」(佔2.51%)及「1-3-2課程具組織與架構」(佔2.42%)。
    (四)在「教學與互動」構面中權重最重的指標依次為:「2-2-1能激發學生學習熱忱」(佔2.53%)、「2-1-1能激發思考」(佔2.46%)及「2-2-8鼓勵學生自我想法表達、分享」(佔2.42%)。
    (五) 在「評量與回饋」構面中權重最重的指標依次為:「3-1-5教師能顧慮學生的回饋」(佔2.53%)、「3-1-1教師是公平的」(佔2.50%)及「3-2-2評量具學習價值」(佔2.50%)。
    本研究針對我國高等教育主管機關、我國大學行政主管、我國大學教師以及未來研究方向提出具體建議。
    The purpose of this study is to construct the indicators of teaching evaluation by university student in Taiwan, which provide the feedback of teaching from student, promotion of teaching efficiency, and also provide a structural model of evaluation. As for research methods, by means of literature review, 45 indicators of teaching evaluation by university student had been organized based on an expert survey. Concept mapping questionnaire used to analyze experts' opinion on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection. At last stage, find the weight of each indicator within each dimension and construct the system of indicators of teaching evaluation by university student in Taiwan. The conclusions are follows:
    1.This study constructs 43 indicators of teaching evaluation by university student in Taiwan of within 8 sub-dimensions and 3 main dimensions.
    2.The most important one in the three dimensions is teaching and interaction (43.96%), which includes 2-1 teaching materials and methods, 2-2 introduction of learning activity and 2-3 interaction between teacher and students. The second is planning and implement of curriculum (34.39%), which include 1-1appropriate curriculum, 1-2 content of curriculum and 1-3 program and process of curriculum. The third is assessment and feedback (21.66%), which include 3-1 feedback form learning and 3-2 assessment.
    3.Three of the most important indicators in the dimension planning and implement of curriculum is 1-1-2 curriculum has learning value (2.55%), program to motivate student learning (2.51%) and 1-3-2 curriculum has well organization and construction (2.42%).
    4.Three of the most important indicators in the dimension teaching and interaction is 2-2-1 have enthusiasm to motivate student learning (2.53%), 2-2-1 stimulate student thinking, and 2-2-8 encourage students' expression (2.42%).
    5.Three of the most important indicators in the dimension assessment and feedback is 3-1-5 teacher can concern the feedback from student (2.53%), 3-1-1 teacher is fair (2.50%) and 3-2-2 assessments are worth to learn (2.50%).
    According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed suggestions for higher education administrators, for university administrators in Taiwan, for university instructors and for further study.
    Reference: 1. 王令宜(2004)。大學教師教學專業發展理論與實務。教育研究月刊,126,60-72。
    2. 何福田(1983)。大學生評鑑教師教學能夠促進師生感情之溝通。載於何福田(主編),大學教育論文集(頁263-266)。臺北:淡江大學。
    3. 余民寧(1997)。有意義的學習─概念構圖之研究。臺北:商鼎。
    4. 吳政達(1999)。國民小學教師評鑑指標體系建構之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學教育學研究所,臺北市。
    5. 吳政達(2008)。教育政策分析-概念、方法與運用。臺北:高等教育文化事業有限公司。
    6. 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。
    7. 吳清山(1999)。家長教育選擇權之研究。臺北:臺北市立師範學院。
    8. 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。
    9. 吳清山(2011)。我國高等教育革新的重要課題與未來發展之分析。長庚人文社會學報,4(2),241-280。
    10. 李春安(1994)。高級工、商業職業學校行政主管全面品質管理態度與學校組織與學校關係之研究(未出版之碩士論文),彰化縣:國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所。
    11. 沈姍姍(1998)。自家長教育選擇權看教育機會均等。教育資料與研究,21,8-10。
    12. 林玉體(1999)。西洋教育史。臺北市:師大書苑。
    13. 洪雅琪(2008)。我國大學教師評鑑指標建構之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學教育行政與政策研究所,臺北市。
    14. 唐學明(1996)。多管道教學評鑑方法之研究─以政治作戰學校為例。復興崗學報,57,167-187。
    15. 秦夢群(2006)。教育行政:實務部份。臺北市:五南。
    16. 馬信行(1999)。教育科學研究法。台北:五南。
    17. 張健邦(1993)。應用多變量分析。台北:文富。
    18. 張清濱(2002)。學校教育改革:課程與教學。臺北市:五南。
    19. 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。
    20. 張德勝(2002)。學生評鑑教師教學:理論、實務與態度。臺北市:楊智文化。
    21. 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。
    22. 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。
    23. 淡江大學教育研究中心(1985)。淡江大學教學評鑑教師意見調查研究。臺北縣:淡江大學。
    24. 郭昭佑(2000)。學校本位評鑑。臺北市:五南。
    25. 陳碧祥(2001)。我國大學教師升等制度與教師專業成長及學校發展定位關係之探究。國立台北師範學院學報,14,163-208。
    26. 湯志民(1990)。視導與評鑑。載於蔡保田(主編),學校行政(頁126-151)。高雄:復文。
    27. 黃政傑(1999)。落實教學評鑑的實施。教師天地,99,39-45。
    28. 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。
    29. 黃耀輝(2002)。教學健檢─教師教學評鑑研究。臺北:問津堂。
    30. 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(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學教育學研究所,臺北。
    31. 葉連祺、董娟娟、楊世英、陳仁海、蕭芳華(2005)。大學學生評鑑教學量表之編製。測驗學刊,52(1),59-82。
    32. 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。
    甲、 Parpala , S. Lindblom‐Ylänne & H. Rytkönen (2011). Students’ conceptions of good teaching in three different disciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 549-563.
    2. Abrami, P., d’Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (2007). The Dimensionality of Student Ratings of Instruction: What We Know and What We Do Not*. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-Based Perspective, 385-456.
    3. Aleamoni, L. M., & Hexner, P. Z. (1980). A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation. Instructional Science, 9(1), 67-84.
    4. Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for application. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    5. Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (3th ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.
    6. Atkins, S., Brinko, K. T., Butts, J., Claxton, C. S., & Hubbard, G. T. (2001). Faculty quality of life. To improve the academy, 19, 323-346.
    7. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill.
    8. Blunt, A. (1991). The effects of anonymity and manipulated grades on student ratings of instructors, Community College Review, 18, 48-54.
    9. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
    10. Brancato, V. C. (2003). Professional development in higher education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, (98), 59-66.
    11. Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
    12. Braskamp, L. A., Brandenburg, D. C., Ory, J. C., Kohen, E., & Mayberry, P. W. (1984). Evaluating teaching effectiveness: A practical guide. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage.
    13. Carnell, E. (2001). The value of meta-learning dialogue. Professional Development Today, 4, 43-54.
    14. Carnell, E. (2007). Conceptions of effective teaching in higher education: extending the boundaries. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 25-40.
    15. Cashin, W. E. (1990). Students do rate different academic fields differently. New directions for teaching and learning, 1990(43), 113-121.
    16. Cashin, W. E., & Downey, R. G. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative evaluation. Journal of educational Psychology, 84(4), 563.
    17. Catano, V. M., & Harvey, S. (2011). Student perception of teaching effectiveness: development and validation of the Evaluation of Teaching Competencies Scale (ETCS). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 701-717. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.484879
    18. Centra, J. A. (1983). Research productivity and teaching effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 18, 379-389.
    19. Centra, J.A. (1993). Reflective Faculty Evaluation: Enhancing Teaching and Determining Faculty Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    20. Cohen, P. A. (1980). Using student ratings feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings. Research in Higher Education, 13, 321-341.
    21. Concept Systems Software (Version 4.0) [Computer software]. Ithaca, NY. Concept Systems, Inc
    22. D. George(2007). Market overreach: The student as customer. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 965–977.
    23. Dalhousie University, Centre for Learning and Teaching. (June, 2011). Student Rating of Instruction. Retrieved From http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/university_secretariat/Senate%20Docs/Student%20Ratings%20of%20Instruction.pdf
    24. doi:10.1002/ace.100
    25. Douglass, J. A. (2005). The Carnegie Commission and Council on Higher Education: A Retrospective. Retrieve from: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/
    26. Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary findings. Enhancing Teaching and Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Occasional Report, 1.
    27. Feldman, K. A. (1978). Course characteristics and college students' ratings of their teachers: What we know and what we don't. Research in Higher Education, 9, 199-242.
    28. Feldman, K. A. (1979). The significance of circumstances for college students' ratings of their teachers and courses. Research in Higher Education, 10, 149-172.
    29. Feldman, K. A. (1984). Class size and college students' evaluations of teachers and courses: A closer look. Research in Higher Education, 21, 45-116.
    30. Feldman, K. A. (1986). The perceived instructional effectiveness of college teachers as related to their personality and attitudinal characteristics: A review and synthesis, Research in Higher Education, 24, 139-213.
    31. Feldman, K. A. (1989). Instructional effectiveness of college teachers as judged by teachers themselves, current and former students, colleagues, administrators, and external (neutral) observers. Research in Higher Education, 30, 137-189.
    32. Feldman, K. A. (1993). College students' views of male and female college teachers: Part II—Evidence from students' evaluations of their classroom teachers. Research in Higher Education, 34, 151-211.
    33. Firth, G. R., & Pajak, E. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of research on school supervision. Macmillan Library Reference USA.
    34. Follman, J. (1996). Elementary public school pupil rating of teacher effectiveness. Child Study Journal, 25(1), 57-78。
    35. Frankhouser, W. M. (1984). The effects of different oral directions as to disposition of results on student ratings of college instruction. Research in Higher Education, 20, 367-374.
    36. Franklin, J., Theall, M. & Ludlow, L. (1991). Grade inflation and student ratings: A closer look. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
    37. Frazer, M. (1992). Quality assurance in higher education. Quality assurance in higher education. 9-25. London: the Falmer Press.
    38. Frey, P. W. (1976). Validity of student instructional ratings: Does timing matter? Journal of Higher Education, 47, 327-336.
    39. Frost, S. H., & Teodorescu, D. (2001). Teaching excellence: How faculty guided change at a research university. The Review of Higher Education, 24(4), 397-415.
    40. Gary, B., Debra, B., & Stollenwerk, A. (2000). Effective teaching methods. London: Prentice-Hall International Limited.
    41. 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.
    42. Harvard University, Registrar of FAS. (September, 2011). Sample Course Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/evals/univ_sample.html
    43. Howard K. Wachtel (1998): Student Evaluation of College Teaching Effectiveness: a brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-212.
    44. Howard, G. S., Conway, C. G. & Maxwell, S. E. (1985). Construct validity of measures of college teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 187-196.
    45. http://www.humber.ca/sites/www.humber.ca/files/student_feedback_questionnaire_policy.pdf
    46. Humber College, The Humber College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning. (January, 2013). Student Feedback Questionnaire. Retrieved From
    47. IDEA (2009). Directions to Faculty-IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction. Retrieved from http://theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/DirectionsToFaculty.pdf
    48. Imperial College London, Registry(2013). UG SOLE lecturer/module questions for 2013-4. Retrieved from http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/registry/proceduresandregulations/surveys/sole/ugsolequestions
    49. Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation (Vol. 50). Sage.
    50. Knight, P. (2002). Being a teacher in higher education. Society for Research in Higher Education and the Open University Press.
    51. Koermer, C. D. & Petelle, J. L. (1991). Expectancy violation and student rating of instruction. Communication Quarterly, 39(4), 341-350.
    52. Koushki, P. A. & Kuhn, H. A. J. (1982). How reliable are student evaluations of teachers? Engineering Education, 72, 362-367.
    53. Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
    54. Laing, L., & Laing, G. (2011). The student as customer model and its impact on the academic leadership role in higher education. In Meeting the Challenges: Proceedings of the ATN Assessment Conference 2011. Curtin University.
    55. Levine, A. E. (2000). The future of colleges: 9 inevitable changes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(9), B10.
    56. Lindeman, C. A. (2000). The future of nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 39, 5-12.
    57. Marsh, H. W. & Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 8, 143-233, NY: Agathon Press.
    58. Marsh, H. W. & Overall, J. U. (1980). Validity of students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Cognitive and affective criteria, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 468-475.
    59. Marsh, H. W. & Rochel, L. (1993). The use of students' evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 217-251.
    60. Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research [Special Issue]. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253-388.
    61. Marsh, H. W., & Ryan, M. (1981). Effects of expressiveness, content coverage and incentive on multidimensional student rating scale: New interpretations of Dr. Fox effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 126-134.
    62. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Office of the HASS Requirement.(May, 2009). MIT Online Subject Evaluation AY2010-11. Reteieved from http://tll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/examples/course-eval-hass-ay11-questions.pdf
    63. Mccallum, L. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of course evaluation data and its use in the tenure decision. Research in Higher Education, 21, 150-158.
    64. McGill University, Teaching and Learning Services. (2008). Mid-Course Evaluations. Retrieve from http://www.mcgill.ca/tls/teaching/course-evaluations
    65. McGuire, S. Y., & Williams, D. A. (2001). The millennial learner: Challenges and opportunities. To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, 20, 185-195.
    66. Mckeachie, W. J. (1979). Student ratings of faculty: A reprise. Academe, 65, 384-397.
    67. Mckeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 189-200.
    68. McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 189.
    69. Menges, R. J. (1991) The real world of teaching improvement: A faculty perspective. Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 48, 21-37.
    70. Moore, S., Walsh, G., & Rísquez, A. (2007). Teaching at College and University : Effective Strategies and Key Principles. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    71. Murray, H. (1997). Effective teaching behaviours in the college classroom. In Effective Teaching in Higher Education. New York: Agathon Press.
    72. Murray, H. G., Rushton, P. J. & Paunonen, S. V. (1990). Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 250-261.
    73. Murray, H. G., Rushton, P. J. & Paunonen, S. V. (1990). Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 250-261.
    74. National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.(1997). Higher education for a learning society (The Dearing Report). London: HMSO.
    75. Novak, J. D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.
    76. Oliva, P. F. & Pawlas, G. E (2001). Supervision for today’s school. (8th ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 469-548.
    77. Overall, J. U. & Marsh, H. W. (1979). Midterm feedback from students: Its relationship to instructional improvement and students' cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 321-325.
    78. Peterson, K. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
    79. PravE, R. S. & Baril, G. L. (1993). Instructor ratings: Controlling for bias from initial student interest. Journal of Education for Business, 68, 362-366.
    80. Princeton University, The McGraw Center for Teaching & Learning. (September, 2011). Princeton Mid-term Evaluation Questions. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/mcgraw/library/for-faculty/midcourseevals/Mid-term-Evaluation-Questions.pdf
    81. Pulich, M. A. (1984). Better use of student evaluations for teaching effectiveness. Improving College and University Teaching, 32, 91-94.
    82. Queen’s University, Office of the University Registrar. (March, 2008). Assessment and Evaluation of Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.qufa.ca/ca/tentative_ca_2008-2011/Article%2029%20%20(SIGNED)%20-%2008-03-25.pdf
    83. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129-150. Science, 9, pp. 67-84.
    84. 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.
    85. Richardson, J. T. E., Slater, J. B., & Wilson, J. (2007). The national student survey: Development, findings and implications. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 557. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/219474577?accountid=10067
    86. Ryerson University, Ryerson Faculty Association. (December, 2008). FCS Questions. Retrieved From http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/teaching/employment_resources/docs/rfa_09/APPENDIX_F_Addendum.pdf
    87. Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching and learning, Higher Education, 41, 299-325.
    88. Sarle, W.S. (1983), Cubic Clustering Criterion, SAS Technical Report A-108, Cary,NC: SAS Institute Inc.
    89. Scanlan, J.M. & Care, W.D. (2004). Grade Inflation: Should We Be Concerned? Journal of Nursing Education, 43(10), 475-478.
    90. Seldin, P. (1989) Using student feedback to improve teaching, in: A. F. LUCAS (Ed.) The Department Chairperson's Role in Enhancing College Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 37, 89-97.
    91. Seldin, P. (2006). Building a successful evaluation program. Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service(1-19). Bolton, MA: Anker.
    92. Sharma, S.(1996). Applied multivariate techniques. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    93. Spencer, K. J. (1994). Student perspective on course and teacher evaluations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.
    94. Stith, I., & Roth, W. M. (2010). Teaching as mediation: The cogenerative dialogue and ethical understandings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 363-370.
    95. Tiberius, R. G., Sackin, D. H., Slingerland, J. M., Jubas, K., Bell, M. & Matlow, A. (1989). The influence of student evaluative feedback on the improvement of clinical teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 60, 665-681.
    96. Trochim, M. K. & Linton, R. (1986). Conceptualization for evaluation and planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 189-308.
    97. Trochim, W. (1993). The reliability of concept mapping. Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association. Dallas, Texas.
    98. University of California Berkeley, Center for Teaching and Learning.(2009). Midterm Teaching Survey. Retrieved from.http://dta.berkeley.edu/docs/Sample_midterm_evals.pdf
    99. University of Minnesota, The Office of Measurement Services. (March, 2009). University of Minnesota Student Rating of Teaching. Retrieved from http://oms.umn.edu/srt/Files/SRT_040408_sample.pdf
    100. University of Pennsylvania , Center for Teaching & Learning. (2013).Likert Scale Questions for Mid-Term Evaluations. Retrieved from http://www.upenn.edu/ctl/resources/support_for_teaching/customized_mid-term_evaluation_feedback_for_instructors/open_ended_course_evaluations
    101. Weiss, I. R. & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high-quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61(5), 24-28.
    102. Wilson, R. C. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 196-211.
    103. Zell, D. (2001). The Market Driven Business School: Has the Pendulum Swung too Far? Journal of Management Inquiry, 10(4), 324-393.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    教育行政與政策研究所
    100171002
    102
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100171002
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[教育行政與政策研究所 ] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    100201.pdf3141KbAdobe PDF330View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback