Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/115833
|
| Title: | 文字探勘在學生評鑑教師教學之應用研究
A Study of Students’ Evaluation on Teacher’s Teaching with Text Mining |
| Authors: | 彭英錡
Peng, Ying Chi |
| Contributors: | 余民寧
彭英錡
Peng, Ying Chi |
| Keywords: | 文字探勘
有效教學
學生評鑑教師教學
Text mining
Effect teaching
Student ratings of instruction |
| Date: | 2018 |
| Issue Date: | 2018-02-05 16:20:23 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究旨在瞭解探討北部某C大學實施學生評鑑教師教學之現況，並探討大學生回答開放性問題對該課程的優點與建議，進行文字探勘分析。
本研究利用問卷調查，在期末課程結束前，利用上網方式，對該課程進行填答。問卷所得資料進行敘述統計、因素分析、信度分析、獨立樣本t檢定、單因子變異數分析、皮爾森相關、多元迴歸與R軟體進行詞彙權重、文字雲、主題模型和群集分析。本研究結論如下：
一、學生評鑑教師教學現況以教學態度感受程度最高。
二、問卷各題項以「教師教學態度認真負責，且授足所需授課之時數」平均分數最高。
三、回饋性建議肯定「教學目標明確」最高，最需改善「彈性調整教學內容」。
四、學生評鑑教師教學因學生年級和課程類別不同而有顯著差異。
五、學生評鑑教師教學成效與學習成績呈低相關，以「教學評量」有預測力。
六、重要詞彙與文字雲發現「教學」、「內容」、「喜歡」及「同學」共同詞彙。
七、各學院主題模型命名，主要有觀察，考試與教學內容。
八、各學院集群分析結果，學生重視教學內容、學習過程與收穫及考試。
根據上述結果提出建議，以供教育行政主管機關、教師及未來研究者之參考。
The purpose of this study was to explore the current situation of t in the C university of North, and finding the strength and suggestion of the class to opening question used text mining.
Before the class will be over , a questionnaire survey, using the internet, was used to gather personal information and the measurement applied in this research. The questionnaire is analyized by descriptive statistics analysis, independent t test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation analysis, multiple regression, vocabulary weight, word cloud, topic model, and cluster analysis in R software. Conclusions obtained in this study are as in the followings:
1. The situation of student ratings of instruction scored over average on the effectiveness of teaching, with “teaching atttitude” the highest.
2.. The highest average scores of the items in the questionnaire were "serious and responsible teachers` teaching attitude and the number of hours required for teaching grants."
3. The feedback of suggestions is “The current of teaching objectives” and need to improve the “filxible adjustment of teaching content”.
4. The student ratings of instruction were vary significant in terms of student grade and course type.
5. Student ratings of instruction effectiveness and academic performance is low correlation, with "Teaching evaluation" predictive.
6. The findings on the important phrases and word clouds were “Teaching”, “Content”, “Likes”, and “Classmates”.
7. The naming of the theme model in each college is “Observation”, “Examination”, and “Teaching content”.
8. The results of cluster analysis each college were focused on “Teaching content”, “Learning process and gain”, and “Examination”.
Based on the findings above, suggestions and recommendation were provided as a reference for educational administrators, and teachers, and as a guide for future research. |
| Reference: | 中文部分
毛郁雯(2000)。大學實施學生評鑑教師教學之研究-以國立台北師範學院為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學國民教育研究所，臺北市。
王素芸(2017)。大學教師教學意見調查低分負評題項之分析。雙溪教育論壇，6，67-83。
王寶墉(2008)。「學生評鑑教師教學」類型之研究：Q-技術之應用--以文藻外語學院為例。通識教育中心期刊論文。高雄市：文藻外語學院通識教育中心。
江愛華(2003)。有效能大學教學指標之建構。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC90-2413-H-019-003）。臺北市：國立台灣海洋大學教育學程中心。
呂文惠(2011)。教學評量結果能否反應教學品質?.臺灣教育評論月刊，1(2)， 46-47。
吳政達(2001)。教師評鑑方法之探討(上)。教育研究月刊，83，107-112。
林合懋、陳昭雄、郭姍姍（2006）。學院、教師評分寬鬆度及當掉學生人數比率對大學生評量教師教學成績的影響:以中部某私立科技大學為例。臺北市立教育大學學報，37(1)，149-172。
林劭仁(2012)。大學通識教學評鑑的後設評鑑研究。課程與教學，15(3)，53-73。
林珊如(1999)。大學生評鑑教學量表：編制及效度考驗。教育與心理研究，22，295-322。
林紀慧、曾憲政(2007)。大學教師有效教學特質之研究。課程與教學，10(4)，31-47。
張春興(2000)。心理學。臺北：東華書局。
張郁雯(2003)。大學生教學評鑑量表之發展研究。教育與心理研究，26(2)，227-239。
張媛甯、吳紋菁(2012)。大學實施學生評鑑教師教學之研究—以南部一所科技大學為例。學校行政，77，158-181。
張德勝(1999)。教學科目與教師性別對學生評鑑教師教學結果之影響。國立花蓮師範學院學報，9，345-366。
張德勝(2002)。學生評鑑教師教學：理論、實務與態度。臺北市：揚智。
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︰教育類，50(2)，203-225。
張德銳(2015)。學習領導在教學輔導教師制度中的發展與實踐。市北教育學刊，52，1-20。
曹嘉秀、魏孟雪(2003)。影響學生評鑑教學之背景因素探討。測驗學刊，50(1)，143-158。
郭昭佑、張雅婷(2014)高等教育評鑑中來自學生的聲音—剖析學生評鑑教師教學的實施及其影響因素。教育行政研究，5(1)，37-61。
陳木金(1997)。國民小學教師教學效能評鑑指標建構之研究。藝術學報，61，221-251。
陳世榮(2015)。社會科學研究中的文字探勘應用:以文意為基礎的文件分類及其問題。人文及社會科學集刊，27(4)，683-718。
陳言熙(2007)。運用文字探勘技術協助建構公司治理本體知識(未出版碩士論文)。國立政治大學會計學系，臺北市。
陳琦媛(2007)。大學教學評鑑的新途徑-同儕評鑑。評鑑雙月刊，9，21-23。
陳譽晏(2015)。運用 R Shiny 建立文字探勘平台之語意分析及輿情分析。數據分析，10(6)，51-78.
曾元顯、林瑜一(2011)。內容探勘技術在教育評鑑研究發展趨勢分析之應用。教育科學研究期刊，56(1)，129-166。
曾明基、邱于真、張德勝、羅寶鳳(2012)。學生評鑑教師教學題目安排順序不同對學生評鑑教師的影響:MI與MMI分析取向。測驗學刊，59(1)，131-156。
曾明基、邱皓政、張德勝、羅寶鳳(2013)。以學生評鑑教師教學量表決定教師開課或去留可行嗎？混合IRT分析取向。教育科學研究，58(1)，91-116。
湯誌龍(2006)。屏東科技大學學生評鑑教師教學之工具修訂。臺東大學教育學報，17(1)，1-33。
黃子嫣(2012)。我國大學校院教學評鑑制度之研究(未出版碩士論文)。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所，新北市。
黃孟樑(2002)。我國科技大學教師對學生評鑑教師教學措施理念的研究。臺北科技大學學報，35(2)，267-304。
黃政傑、張嘉育(2010)。讓學生成功學習:適性課程與教學之理念與策略。課程與教學，13(3)，1-22。
黃毅志、巫有鎰(2003)。影響教學評鑑得分因素之探討-以臺東師院為例。臺東師院學報，14，347 - 370。
黃瓊蓉(2004)。使用階層線性模式分析學生評量教學績效之資料。測驗學刊，51(2)，163-184。
葉珮芳(2013)。學生評鑑教師教學之研究-以某大學為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立東華大學教育行政與管理學系，花蓮縣。
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。
劉吉軒(2016)。大數據分析與人文社會科學跨領域研究應用。傳播文化，15，4-46。
劉淑如、蔡淑玲、劉秀珍、鄭靜瑜(2014)。TBL教學策略之成效探討:以護理導論課程為例。長庚科技學刊，21，63-73。
潘世尊(2010)。學生評鑑成績未達標準教師之教學專業發展方案-一所私立科技大學的實踐之反思與改善。勤益人文社會學刊，2，183-219。
潘靖瑛(2012)。探析影響大學生評鑑教師教學結果之因素-以慈濟大學為例。慈濟大學教育研究學刊，8，175-214。
鄭芬蘭、陳鳳如、張景媛(2014)。建構大學教師因應社會發展趨勢的有效能教學模式：探究教學歷程的雙中介效果。測驗學刊，61(1)，105-133。
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。
鄭博真、黃義良(2009)。大學教師教學評鑑量表發展之研究。教育與心理研究，32(2)，57-80。
謝元晟、程美華、張光昭(2016)。運用 R 建立文字探勘平台應用於電視收視率預測。數據分析，11(3)，109-134。
西文部分
Borich, G. D. (1988). Effective teaching methods. India: Pearson Education.
Cardoso, S., Santiago, R., & Sarrico, C. S. (2012). The impact of quality assessment in universities: Portuguese students` perceptions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(2), 125-138.
Centra, J. A. (1981). Determing faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
Centra, J. A., & Creech, F. R. (1976). The relationship between student, teacher, and course characteristics and student ratings of teacher effectiveness. Project report, 761.
Chang, T. (2001). Student ratings: What teachers college students telling us about them? Journal of Jinan University, 5(2), 169-192.
Chang, T. C., & Wang, H. (2016). A multicriteria group decision-making model for teacher evaluation in higher education based on cloud model and decision tree. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(5), 1243-1262.
Edmond, R. R. (1979). Effective school for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-27.
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(3), 199-242.
Feldman, K. A. (1993). College students’ views of male and female college teachers: part2 -evidence from students’ evaluations their classroom teachers. Research in Higher Education, 34(2), 151-211.
Feldman, R., & Sanger, J. (2007). Introduction to text mining. The text mining handbook: Advanced approaches to analyzing unstructured data, 1-10.
Ginott, H. (1971). Teacher and child. N. Y.: Macmillan.
Grammatikopoulos, V., Linardakis, M., Gregoriadis, A., & Oikonomidis, V. (2015). Assessing the Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality (SEEQ) questionnaire in Greek higher education. Higher Education, 70(3), 395-408.
Hassan, S., & Wium, W. (2014). Quality lies in the eyes of the beholder: A mismatch between student evaluation and peer observation of teaching. Africa Education Review, 11(4), 491-511.
Hearst, M. (2003). What is text mining? Retrieved January 30, 2017, from http://people.ischool. berkeley.edu/~hearst/text-mining.html
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptual isat ion of the research into university academics` conception of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.
Kember, D., & Wong, A. (2000). Implications for evaluation from a study of students` perceptions of good and poor teaching. Higher Education, 40(1), 69-97.
Lei, L. (2013). Study on English course education evaluation based on fuzzy theory. Journal of Teoretical and Applied Information Technology, 48(2), 1275-1281.
Mark, M. M., & Shotland, R. L. (1985). Stakeholder-based evaluation and value judgments. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 605-626.
Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 108-119.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253–388.
Marsh, H. W.,& Roche, L. A. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 217-251.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197.
Miner, G., Elder IV, J., & Hill, T. (2012). Practical text mining and statistical analysis for non-structured text data applications. Waltham, MA: Elsevier/Academic .
Neal, J. E. (1988). Faculty evaluation: Its purposes and effectiveness. ERIC Digest. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from http://ericae.net/db/edo/ED308800.htm
Peterson, K. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(3), 347-370.
Scherr, F.C., & Scherr, S.S. (1990). Bias in student evaluations of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Education for Business, 65, 356-358.
Schlenker, D.E., & Mckinnon, N.C. (1994). Assessing faculty performance using the student evaluation of instruction. Atlantic Baptist College, New Brunswich, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371 667).
Sencan, H., & Karabulut, A. T. (2015). Monitoring of educational performance indicators in higher education: A omparison of perceptions. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 359-376.
Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C. C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(4), 381-389.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2008). Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 295-317.
Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ pproaches to teaching. Higher Education, 32, 77-87.
Vincent, F. F., & Kennon, M. S. (2008). Teacher support, student motivation, student need satisfaction, and college teacher course evaluations: Testing a sequential path model. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 711-724.
Yining, C., & Leon, B. H. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(1), 71-88.
Yueh, H. P., Chen, T. L., Chiu, L. A., Lee, S. L., & Wang, A. B. (2012). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness of a nationwide innovative education program on image display technology. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(3), 365-369.
Zhou, H. (2016). Empirical study on university curriculum satisfaction of university graduates. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 132. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
104152014 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104152014 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 201401.pdf | 2715Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 29 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
