政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/99723
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113822/144841 (79%)
Visitors : 51772581      Online Users : 556
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: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/99723


    Title: 通識課程是營養學分嗎?以教學與選課決策模型分析為例
    Other Titles: Does a General Education Course Equal to an Easy Course? An Analysis by a Decision Model Combining Students’ Course Selection Behavior and Teachers’ Competitive Strategy
    Authors: 張榮富
    Keywords: 通識教育;選修課;配合法則;放寬教學;營養學分
    general education courses;elective courses;the matching law;reduce the standard of course;easy course
    Date: 2010-12
    Issue Date: 2016-08-08 11:10:58 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文以「理性選擇」、「配合法則」與「道德情緒」建立一個老師在教學及學生在選課時的成本效益分析模型,用以分析兩個與放寬教學標準相關的問題:一、多數教師在面臨評鑑分數低落或倒課風險升高的「教學不順」困境時,是否會以放寬教學標準的方式來紓解其教學生涯中的壓力?二、因為教師在開通識課時面臨較高的「倒課風險」與較低的「道德風險」,通識課程是否會因此比系內專業選修課程更為簡單容易?本文以某國立大學的學生與老師為樣本,問卷調查結果顯示:一、受訪教師多傾向於認為他的同事們會因評鑑結果差或選課人數少而調高給分、降低不及格率並減少作業;二、教師與學生們普遍認為通識課的不及格比例及成績嚴格程度皆會低於專業選修課。本文的預測得到初步證實,通識課程比系內專業選修課程更寬鬆容易,是(該校)師生眼中的「營養學分」。
    Does a general education course equal to an “easy” course? A general model of choosing and teaching elective courses, which combine Herrnstein’s matching law and Frank’s moral emotion theory, is build in order to answer this question. Based on the model, this paper focuses on analyzing the market competition and the teaching environment differences between departmental elective courses and general education courses. Because teachers confront higher competition and unfavoble environment to the general education course, the study predicts that the general education courses are easier than the departmental elective courses. A questionnaire was used to test the students and teachers in one national university in Taiwan. Firstly, statistics show that most teachers tend to believe that their colleagues will reduce the standard of course when the risk of courses being cancelled (due to insufficient enrollment) is high or when the scores of students’ evaluation teaching is low. Secondly, the results also support the prediction that teachers and students both feel that the general education courses are easier than in the departmental elective courses. More similar studies are suggested to do in the future to prove if the above statistic results are a general phenomena in Taiwan.
    Relation: 教育與心理研究, 33(4),81-107
    Journal of Education & Psychology
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[Journal of Education & Psychology] Journal Articles

    Files in This Item:

    There are no files associated with this item.



    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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback