Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/32968
|
| Title: | 我國大學教師優質教學模式之探索研究 |
| Authors: | 謝思琪 |
| Contributors: | 陳木金
謝思琪 |
| Keywords: | 大學教師
優質教學內涵
優質教學模式
university teachers
effective teaching contents
effective teaching models |
| Date: | 2003 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-17 14:59:00 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究主要為探討不同背景變項之台灣地區北、中、南之公私立大學學生對大學教師優質教學內涵及大學教師優質教學模式之看法，除作現況分析及差異比較外，並依據大學學生所填答之課程學群的分類，找出適合該課程學群之優質教學模式。
研究中除蒐集、整理、閱讀相關文獻外，並依據文獻資料編製「大學教師優質教學內涵現況之調查問卷」及「大學教師優質教學模式現況之調查問卷」，對台灣地區北、中、南各公私立大學實施調查研究，總共回收824份有效樣本，而後根據資料分別進行描述分析、t考驗、變異數分析、積差相關分析、多元逐步迴歸分析等統計分析後有以下幾項發現：
一、大學教師優質教學內涵中，以「大學教師教學之師生互動」得分最高，以「大學教師教學之準備活動」得分最低。
二、大學教師優質教學模式中，以「講述教學模式」得分最高，以「協同教學模式」得分最低。
三、 大學學生不同背景變項在大學教師優質教學內涵上之差異
1. 女學生在大學教師優質教學內涵上之得分，顯著高於男學生之得分。
2. 第一類科系學群（文法傳播）學生及第五類科系學群（教育）學生在大學教師優質教學內涵之得分，顯著高於第三類科系學群（理工）學生及第四類科系學群（農醫）學生的得分。
3. 大學二年級學生及大學四年級學生在大學教師優質教學內涵之得分，顯著高於大學一年級學生的得分。
4. 修習第一類課程學群（文法傳播）學生及第五類課程學群（教育）學生在大學教師優質教學內涵上之得分，顯著高於修習第三類課程學群（理工）學生及第四類課程學群（農醫）學生的得分。
5. 課程性質在大學教師優質教學內涵上之得分，沒有顯著差異。
6. 其他課程（如通識）及外系課程在大學教師優質教學內涵上之得分，顯著高於本系課程及共同科目的得分。
7. 選修課程在大學教師優質教學內涵上的得分，顯著高於必修課程的得分。
8. 晚上時段課程在大學教師優質教學內涵上的得分，顯著高於下午、上午時段課程的得分。
四、 大學學生不同背景變項在大學教師優質教學模式上之差異
1. 女學生在「討論教學模式」、「講述教學模式」、「個案教學模式」、「角色扮演模式」、「探究教學模式」此五種教學模式之得分，皆顯著高於男學生的得分。
2. 第五類科系學群（教育）及第一類科系學群（文法傳播）在「討論教學模式」、「講述教學模式」、「個案教學模式」、「踏查教學模式」、「角色扮演模式」、「合作學習模式」、「探究教學模式」的得分，均顯著高於第三類科系學群（理工）及第四類科系學群（農醫）的得分。
3. 二年級及四年級大學學生在「討論教學模式」、「講述教學模式」、「個案教學模式」、「探究教學模式」四種模式中之得分，顯著高於一年級學生之得分。
4. 第五類課程學群（教育）及第一類課程學群（文法傳播）在「討論教學模式」、「講述教學模式」、「個案教學模式」、「踏查教學模式」、「角色扮演模式」、「合作學習模式」、「探究教學模式」的得分，均顯著高於第三類課程學群（理工）及第四類課程學群（農醫）的得分。
5. 偏實務課程在「討論教學模式」、「個案教學模式」、「踏查教學模式」、「角色扮演模式」、「協同教學模式」、「合作學習模式」、「探究教學模式」中的得分，皆顯著高於偏理論課程的得分。
6. 其他課程（如通識）在「討論教學模式」中得分較高;外系課程在「講述教學模式」中得分較高;本系課程在「踏查教學模式」、「協同教學模式」中得分較高。
7. 選修課程在「講述教學模式」、「合作學習模式」、「探究教學模式」中的得分，顯著高於必修課程及旁聽課程。
8. 晚上時段課程在「討論教學模式」、「講述教學模式」、「個案教學模式」、「協同教學模式」之得分，皆顯著高於下午時段課程及上午時段課程。
五、整體大學教師教學內涵與大學教師優質教學模式有低度至中度正相關。
六、「講述教學模式」為五大類課程學群所共有最能預測大學教師優質教學內涵之教學模式。
最後，本研究依據上述研究結果，形成結論並提出建議，以供教育行政機關、學校單位、大學教師、大學學生及未來相關研究之參考。
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the viewpoints of various university students background for the effective teaching contents and effective teaching models of university teachers in Taiwan. In addition to understanding the current situation and difference, the study also based on the classification of curriculum to find out the suitable effective teaching models.
According to the literature review, the study forms a self-made questionnaire in the topic of “ The questionnaire for current effective teaching contents of university teachers ” and “ The questionnaire for current effective teaching models of university teachers ”.The questionnaire are sent to all the samples ( including the public and private universities in Taiwan ) and 824 surveys that returned from the samples are identified to be valid. The conclusion is through statistic analysis of research sources, including description analysis, t-test, one-way ANOVA, correlation analysis, and stepwise multiple regression analysis. The main finding of the study are as follows :
1. The point of “ the interaction between teacher and students in class ” is highest, whereas the point of “ the preparation of the teaching in class ” is lowest in “ The questionnaire for current effective teaching contents of university teachers ”.
2. The point of “ The lecture teaching model ” is highest, whereas the point of “ The collaboration teaching model ” is lowest in “ The questionnaire for current effective teaching models of university teachers ”.
3. The difference of university students’ various background in “ The questionnaire for current effective teaching contents of university teachers ” are as follows :
(1) The point of female university students is significantly higher than that of male university students.
(2) The points of the university students studying in the first classification of department ( Liberal Arts, Law and Communication ) and the fifth classification of department ( Education) are significantly higher than those of the university students studying in the third classification of department ( Science and Engineering ) and the fourth classification of department ( Agriculture and Medicine).
(3) The points of the second grade students and the fourth grade students are significantly higher than those of the first grade students.
(4) The points of the university students studying in the first classification of curriculum ( Liberal Arts, Law and Communication ) and the fifth classification of curriculum ( Education) are significantly higher than those of the university students studying in the third classification of curriculum ( Science and Engineering ) and the fourth classification of curriculum ( Agriculture and Medicine).
(5) The difference shown in the character of the curriculum is not significant.
(6) The points of the other curriculum (liberal education) and the minor curriculum of one’s department are significantly higher than those of the major curriculum of one’s department and the common curriculum.
(7) The point of the elective curriculum is significantly higher than that of the required curriculum.
(8) The point of the curriculum after 6:00 p.m.is significantly higher than that of the curriculum in the morning and afternoon.
4. The difference of university students’ various background in “ The questionnaire for current effective teaching models of university teachers ” are as follows :
(1) The point of female university students in “ The discussion teaching model ”、 “ The lecture teaching model ”、“ The case-study teaching model ”、“ The role-playing teaching model ”、 “ The inquiry teaching model ” is significantly higher than that of male university students.
(2) The points of the university students studying in the fifth classification of department (Education) and the first classification of department ( Liberal Arts, Law and Communication) in “ The discussion teaching model ”、“ The lecture teaching model ”、“ The case-study teaching model ”、“ The field-study teaching model ”、“ The role-playing teaching model ”、“ The cooperative learning model ”、“The inquiry teaching model ” are significantly higher than those of the university students studying in the third classification of department ( Science and Engineering ) and the fourth classification of department ( Agriculture and Medicine).
(3) The points of the second grade students and the fourth grade students in “ The discussion teaching model ”、“ The lecture teaching model ”、“ The case-study teaching model ”、“ The inquiry teaching model ” are significantly higher than those of the first grade students.
(4) The points of the university students studying in the fifth classification of curriculum (Education) and the first classification of curriculum (Liberal Arts, Law and Communication) in “ The discussion teaching model ”、“ The lecture teaching model ”、 “ The case-study teaching model ”、“ The field-study teaching model ”、“ The role-playing teaching model ”、“ The cooperative learning model ”、“ The inquiry teaching model ” are significantly higher than those of the university students studying in the third classification of curriculum ( Science and Engineering ) and the fourth classification of curriculum ( Agriculture and Medicine).
(5) The point of the practical curriculum in “ The discussion teaching model ”、“ The case-study teaching model ”、“ The field-study teaching model ”、“ The role-playing teaching model ”、“ The collaborative teaching model ”、“ The cooperative learning model ”、“ The inquiry teaching model ” is significantly higher than that of the theoretical curriculum.
(6) The point of the other curriculum ( liberal education ) in “ The discussion teaching model ” is higher than others ; the point of the minor curriculum of one’s department in “ The lecture teaching model ” is higher than others , and the point of the major curriculum of one’s department in “ The field-study teaching model ” and “ The collaborative teaching model ” is higher than others.
(7) The point of the elective curriculum in “ The lecture teaching model ”、“ The cooperative learning model ”、“ The inquiry teaching model ” is significantly higher than that of the required curriculum and the non-credit earning curriculum.
(8) The point of the curriculum after 6:00 p.m. in “ The discussion teaching model ”、 “ The lecture teaching model ”、“ The case-study teaching model ”、“The collaborative teaching model ” is significantly higher than that of the curriculum in the morning and afternoon.
5. The positive correlation between “ The questionnaire for current effective teaching contents of university teachers ” and “ The questionnaire for current effective teaching models of university teachers ” is from low to middle.
6. “ The lecture teaching model ” is the most common and the prediction of the five classification of curriculum is highest .
Eventually, the study draw a conclusion from the overcome of the study and
provide further suggestion for the reference of educational administration department, university administrational units, university teachers, university students and further study. |
| Reference: | 壹、中文部分
大學法修正草案總說明。
王保進譯（2002）。大學自我評鑑。台北：正中。
田培林（1976）。教育與文化。台北：五南。
吳麗君等譯（2003）。協同教學。嘉義：濤石文化。
呂祖琛（1986）。我國臺灣地區大學學術報酬結構之研究：大學教師的工作誘因取向學術報酬認知與期望關係之分析。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文。
李咏吟、單文經（1995）。教學原理 。台北：遠流。
杜娟娟（2002）。教學與研究—大學教師的工作投入時間，屏東師院學報，第十七期，135-173。
林進財（2000）。有效教學：理論與策略。台北市：五南。
林進財（2000）。教學理論與方法。台北市：五南。
金耀基（1986）。大學之理念。台北：時報文化。
高熏方（2002）。師資培育：職前教師教學系統發展。台北：高等教育。
國立台灣師範大學（2003）。教育發展的新方向：為教改開處方。台北：心理。
張世忠（1999）。教材教法之實踐：要領、方法、研究。台北：五南。
張世忠（2000）。教學原理：統整與應用。台北：五南。
張世忠（2001）。 協同教學模式之初探。教育研究資訊，9（4），66-82。
張民杰（2001）。案例教學法-理論與實務。台北：五南。
張德勝（2002）。學生評鑑教師教學：理論、實務與態度。台北：揚智。
黃俊傑（1997）。大學理念與校長遴選。中華民國通識教育學會。
黃政傑（1994）。大學教育的革新。台北市 : 師大書苑。
黃政傑（1997）。教學原理。台北：師大書苑。
黃政傑、林佩璇（1996）。合作學習。台北：五南
黃政傑主編（1996）。多元化的教學方法。台北：師大書苑。
黃雅萍（1998）。大學教師教學專業發展之內涵與實施建議，教學科技與媒體，第四十期，43-53。
楊振富譯（2000）。學術這一行。台北：天下文化。
楊國樞，瞿海源，林文瑛編（2001）。新世紀大學教育。台北：前衛。
葉玉珠等著（2003）。教育心理學。台北：心理。
廖麗貞、洪振方（2000）。科學史、哲融入大學生命科學通識教育教學模式之初探，高雄師大學報，第十一期，241-265。
趙中建等編譯（1991）。教學模式。台北：五南。
劉富連（1999）。豐富又有趣的校外教學。師友，76-78。
劉錫麒等譯（1999）。教學原理。台北：學富文化。
蔡文榮（2004）。活化教學的錦囊妙計。台北：學富文化。
賴慧玲譯（2002）。教學模式。台北：五南。
蘇錦麗（1997）。高等教育評鑑—理論與實際。台北：五南。
貳、西文部分
Bagayoko, D.,Kelley, E. L.,＆ Hasan, S.（2001）.Problem-Solving Paradigm. College Teaching，48（1）, 24-27.
Bakken, L., Frances, L., ＆ Thompson, J.（1997）. Collaborative Teaching-Many Joys, Some Surprises, and a Few Worms. College Teaching, 46（4）,154-157.
Borg, J. R., ＆ Borg, M. O.（2002）. Teaching Critical Thinking in Interdisciplinary Economics Course. College Teaching, 49(1), 20-25.
Brookfield, S. D., ＆ Preskill, S.（1999）.Discussion as a Way of Teaching-Tools and Techniques for University Teachers. The Society for Research into Higher Education ＆ Open University Press.
Cohn, C. L.（1997）.Cooperative Learning in a Macroeconomics Course-A Team Simulation. College Teaching, 47（2）, 51-54.
Cross, K. P.（2001）.Leading-edge efforts to improve teachimg and learning-the Hesburgh Awards. Change, July/August,31-37.
Dahlgren, M. A., ＆ Oberg, G.（2001）.Questioning to learn and learning to question: Structure and function of problem-based learning scenarios in environmental science education. Higher Education,( 41),263-282.
Dunkin, M.J., ＆ Precians, R.P.（1992）.Award-winning university teachers’concepts of teaching. Higher Education, 24, 483-502.
Edens, K. M.（2001）.Prepare Problem Solvers for the 21st Century through problem-based learning . College Teaching ,48（2）, 55-60.
Hativa, N.(2000).Teaching for Effective Learning in Higher Education .Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Hobson, S. M., ＆ Talbot, D. M.（2002）.Understanding Student Evaluations-What all faculty should know. College Teaching,49（1）, 26-31.
Keats, D. W.（1994）.Task-based small group learning in large classes: Design and implementation in a second year university botany course. Higher Education, 27 ,59-73.
Montgomery, K.（2002）.Authentic Tasks and Rubrics: Going Beyond Traditional Assessments in College Teaching. College Teaching, 50（1）, 34-39.
Pascarella, E. T.（2001）.Cognitive Growth In College-Surprising and Reassuring Findings From The National Study of Student Learning. Change, November/ December ,21-27.
Quarstein, V. A., ＆ Peterson, P. A.(2001).Assessment of Cooperative Learnung:A Goal-Criterion Approach. Innovative Higher Education, 26.(1),59-77.
Quinlan, K.M.（1997）.Promoting Faculty Learning about Collaborative Teaching. College Teaching,46（2）,43-47.
Schuh, K.L., ＆ Busey, T. A.（2002）.Implementation of a Problem-Based Approach in an Undergraduate Cognitive Neuroscience Course. College Teaching,49（4）, 153-159. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
教育研究所
91152030
92 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0091152030 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育學系] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
