設計並建立一個針對教師的教學能力成熟度評鑑模式與系統

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：10

、訪客IP：18.119.160.154

姓名

李偉綸(Wei-lun Li) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系

論文名稱

設計並建立一個針對教師的教學能力成熟度評鑑模式與系統
(Designing and Developing a Teaching Capability Maturity Evaluation Model and System for Teachers)

相關論文

★ 專案管理的溝通關鍵路徑探討─以某企業軟體專案為例	★ 運用並探討會議流如何促進敏捷發展過程中團隊溝通與文件化：以T銀行系統開發為例
★ 專案化資訊服務中人力連續派遣決策模式之研究─以高鐵行控資訊設備維護為例	★ 以組織正義觀點介入案件指派決策之研究
★ 應用協調理論建立系統軟體測試中問題改善之協作流程	★ 應用案例式推理於問題管理系統之研究 -以筆記型電腦產品為例
★ 運用限制理論於多專案開發模式的人力資源配置之探討	★ 應用會議流方法於軟體專案開發之個案研究：以翰昇科技公司為例
★ 多重專案、多期再規劃的軟體開發接案決策模式：以南亞科技資訊部門為例	★ 會議導向敏捷軟體開發及系統設計：以大學畢業專題為例
★ 一種基於物件、屬性導向之變更影響分析方法於差異化產品設計	★ 會議流方法對大學畢業專題的團隊合作品質影響之實驗研究
★ 實施敏捷式發展法於大學部畢業專題之行動研究 – 以中央大學資管系為例	★ 建立一個用來評核自然語言需求品質的線上資訊系統
★ 結合本體論與模糊分析網路程序法於軟體測試之風險與風險關聯辨識	★ 在軟體反向工程中針對UML結構模型圖之線上品質評核系統

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

隨著高等教育的普及化，現今的高等教育不再是競爭優勢，而是競爭必需。如此一來，焦點將會著重於高等教育的教學品質，各大專院校的辦學績效重點也會將教學品質納入強調項目。主要影響教學品質的因素除了教學單位以外，實際進行教學的教師似乎扮演更重要的角色。適切的教學評量能夠了解教師目前的教學情況，但現有教學評量多數著眼於教學之成果(期末教學評量)，或某一特定時點。教師的教學其實也能夠視為一流程，從授課前的規劃到實際授課，以及最後的教學成果檢討，都是整個教學過程中不可或缺的部分。對於注重品質的流程管理、控制、改善方法而言，在軟體工程領域中有一套能力成熟度整合模式CMMI。因此可視為一個流程的教學過程同樣能夠依此概念進行規劃、管理及改善。教學能力成熟度模式T-CMM(Teaching CMM)於2011被提出，此模式是一個將CMMI之成熟度、能力度以及永續化概念應用於高等教育中的教學品質管理流程，透過此模式教師能夠對於自身的教學流程進行管理及控制。軟體開發品質應用CMMI管控後，由SEI定義之最高級評鑑方法SCAMPI進行制度化的評鑑，評估該組織是否滿足需求目標的所有特定方法。因此，本研究將嘗試應用SCAMPI之評鑑概念，針對教師之教學能力進行評鑑方法的設計。並探討不同領域間應用上的可行性，以及設計一個透過web-based的方式來進行線上評鑑，用以減輕評鑑過程之負擔之評鑑模式。

摘要(英)

Nowadays, teaching quality in higher education and universities have added the quality of teaching into their school performance. Major factors that affect the teaching quality in addition to teaching units, teachers seem to play a more important role. Appropriate teaching evaluations can understand the teacher’’s current teaching ability, but most of the existing teaching evaluations focus on the outcome of the teaching (the evaluation at the end of the semester), or a particular point in time. Teaching can also be regarded as a process. From the pre-planning before actual teaching to the final review of the whole semester’s teaching are parts of the entire teaching process. There is a methodology which focus on the quality of process management and process improvement in software engineering, and it’s termed Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). If teaching can be regarded as a process, it can use CMMI’s concept to manage and improve its process. Teaching Capability Maturity Model(T-CMM) have been proposed in 2011. This model is an application of TQM and the software CMM/CMMI, and it’s for individual teachers. Through T-CMM, teachers can manage and control their own teaching process. In software engineering, after using CMMI to manage and control the quality of software development, it can be evaluated by SCAMPI(Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement), which is defined by Software Engineering Institute(SEI). SCAMPI can assess whether the organization to meet the needs of the CMMI’s ability and maturity level or not. Therefore, this study will attempt to use the SCAMPI’s concepts to design the teaching evaluation methods, which termed T-SCAMPI. This study will discuss the feasibility of applications in different fields, and design an online evaluation through the web-based environment for reducing the load of evaluation process.

關鍵字(中)

★ 流程專注
★ T-SCAMPI
★ 模糊理論
★ 教學能力成熟度整合模式
★ 教學評鑑
★ 高等教育

關鍵字(英)

★ T-SCAMPI
★ Fuzzy theory
★ T-CMM
★ Teaching evaluation
★ Process focus
★ Higher Education

論文目次

摘要:......................................i
Abstract:..................................ii
誌謝:......................................iii
目錄:......................................iv
圖目錄:....................................vii
表目錄:....................................viii
第一章、緒論.............................1
1-1 研究背景...............................1
1-2 研究動機與問題.........................2
1-3 研究目的...............................4
1-4 研究限制...............................4
1-5 論文架構...............................5
第二章、文獻探討..........................6
2-1 高等教育之教學品質.....................7
2-2 教學能力成熟度模式(T-CMM)..............8
2-3 現有之教學評鑑實施方式.................10
2-3-1 教師評鑑的意義與目的.................10
2-3-2 教師評鑑實施方法.....................11
2-4 SCAMPI 評鑑方法........................15
2-4-1 SCAMPI之目的.........................15
2-4-2 SCAMPI之流程.........................16
2-4-3 SCAMPI之評分準則.....................17
2-5 模糊理論（Fuzzy Theory）...............18
2-5-1 模糊理論的意涵.......................18
2-5-2 模糊集合.............................19
2-5-3 模糊數及語意變數.....................19
2-5-4 解模糊化.............................21
第三章、研究設計與方法....................22
3-1 將SCAMPI概念套用至高等教育中教師評鑑的適用性分析...22
3-2 T-SCAMPI方法架構.......................24
3-3 研究設計...............................25
3-3-1 受評教師選擇評鑑範圍及準備需求文件...25
3-3-2 評鑑人員檢視文件.....................25
3-3-3 評鑑人員進行訪談.....................26
3-3-4 評鑑人員評分.........................27
3-3-5 外部專家同仁審查.....................27
3-3-6 取得能力成熟度達成程度...............28
3-4 模糊推論...............................29
3-4-1 模糊推論之角色.......................29
3-4-2 三角歸屬函數.........................29
3-4-3 模糊規則.............................31
3-4-4 模糊推論過程.........................32
第四章、系統分析與設計....................35
4-1 系統環境介紹...........................35
4-2 以UML圖進行系統分析設計................37
4-2-1 使用案例分析.........................39
4-2-2 類別圖...............................44
4-2-3 活動圖...............................45
4-2-4 循序圖...............................47
第五章、系統展示..........................49
5-1 個案情境基本條件設定...................49
5-2 評鑑準備個案情境.......................50
5-3 進行評鑑個案情境.......................53
第六章、結果與討論........................58
6-1 適用性問題解決論述.....................58
6-2 信度分析...............................59
6-3 效度分析...............................60
6-3-1 內部效度.............................60
6-3-2 外部效度.............................60
6-3-3 建構效度.............................61
6-3-4 結論效度.............................61
6-4 研究限制...............................62
第七章、結論與未來展望....................63
參考文獻...................................64
附錄.......................................70

參考文獻

[1] 王全興，2009，CIPP評鑑模式的概念與發展，慈濟大學教育研究學刊，5，1-27。
[2] 吳宗立，2002，教師評鑑的理念，屏東縣教育季刊，11，7-10。
[3] 吳政達，2001a，教師評鑑方法之探討（上）。教育研究月刊，83，107-112。
[4] 吳政達，2001b，教師評鑑方法之探討（下）。教育研究月刊，84，85-89。
[5] 行政院教育改革審議委員會，1996，教育改革總諮議報告書。
中華民國教育部部史 http://history.moe.gov.tw/important_list.asp
[6] 陳仲儼、郭俊毅，2011，『教學能力成熟度模式的設計與建立』，課程與教學季刊，14(1)，141-174頁。
[7] 張德銳，2003，我國中小學教師評鑑的規劃與推動策略。教育資料與研究，53，1-11。
[8] 黃勇富，2001，Kano 理論應用於教育服務品質需求之實証研究，品質月刊，37，56-65。
[9] 曾淑惠，2006，評鑑專業化的概念與發展對我國教育評鑑專業化的啟示，教育研究與發展期刊，2(3)，171-192。
[10] 歐陽教、張德銳，1993，教師評鑑模式之研究，教育研究資訊，1(2)，91-100。
[11] 劉煒仁，2001，品質機能展開應用於教學品質之研究-以國防管理學院為例，國防管理學院資源管理研究所碩士論文。
[12] 戴曉霞，2000，高等教育的大眾化與市場化，台北市：揚智。
[13] 顏國樑，2003，從教師專業發展導向論實施教師評鑑的策略，教育資料集刊，28，259-286。
[14] Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, (1986) Report of the Appraisal/Training Working Group, Software Engineering institute.
[15] Al-Tarawneh, Mejhem and Abdullah, Mohd Syazwan and Mat Ali, Abdul Bashah (2011). A proposed methodology for establishing software process development improvement for small software development firms. Procedia Computer Science, pp. 893-897.
[16] Barber, L. W. (1990) Self-assessment. In Millman, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers, 216-228. California: Sage Publications. Inc.
[17] Barth, R. S.(1990) Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and, principals can make the difference. San Francisco, LA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
[18] Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Wearmouth, J., Peter, M., Clapham, S., (2012) Professional development, changes in teacher practice and improvements in Indigenous students’’ educational performance: A case study from New Zealand, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol.28(5), pp.694-705.
[19] Brooks, K., (1994). Total quality Teaching: Microanalysis of Effective Teaching Practice. Texas: Dallas.
[20] Buch, M. and Dunaway, D., (2005) CMMI Assessments, Motivating Positive Change, Addison-Wesley.
[21] Chen, C. Y. and Yu, P. L., (2006) Establishing a ne-business CMM with the concepts of capability, maturity, and institutionalization, International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 4(3), 205-213.
[22] Chen, C.Y. and Chen, P.C. and Chen, P.Y.(2007) A CMMI-based, institutionalized method for continually managing information system quality improvement, Journal of quality, 14(3), 267-283.
[23] Chen, C.Y. and Chen, P.C.(2009) A holistic approach to managing software change impact, The Journal of Systems and Software, 82, pp. 2051-2067.
[24] Chen, C.Y. and Chen, P.C. and Chen, P.Y.(2012) Teaching quality in higher education: an introductory review on a process-oriented teaching-quality model, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence (in press).
[25] Cheng, C.-H., Chang, J.-R., Kuo, C.-Y.(2011) A CMMI appraisal support system based on a fuzzy quantitative benchmarks model, Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (4), pp. 4550-4558.
[26] Clarke, M., Lodge, A., Shevlin, M. (2012) Evaluating initial teacher education programmes: Perspectives from the Republic of Ireland, TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION, Vol.28(2), pp.141-153.
[27] Cox, E.D. (1995) Fuzzy Logic for Business and Industry, Charles River, Rockland, MA.
[28] Dubois, D. & H. Prade (1978) Operations on Fuzzy Number, International journal of system science, Vol.9 No.3, pp. 357-360.
[29] Holmes, T. (1992) Teacher appraisal : Guidelines for appraisers and appraisees. London Borough of Hillingdon.
[30] Horine, J.E., Hailey, W.A., & Rubach, L. (1993) Transforming schools: Total quality management in higher education. Quality Progress, 26(10), 31-38.
[31] Iwanicki, E. F.(1990) Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In Millman, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. 158-174. California: Sage Publications.
[32] Kitchenham B., Lesley P., Shari L. P.,(1995) Case Studies for Method and Tool Evaluation, IEEE Software, v.12 n.4, p.52-62.
[33] Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. A. (2000) Exploring the scholarship of teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 476-495.
[34] Kreber, C. (2001) The scholarship of teaching and its implementation in faculty development and graduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86(Summer), 79-88.
[35] Kreber, C. (2002) Controversy and consensus on the scholarship of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 151-167.
[36] Lawn, M., (1991). Social construction of quality in teaching. Evaluation and Research in Education, l5(1), 67-77.
[37] Louden, W. (2000) Standards for standards: the development of Australian professional standards for teaching. Australian .Journal of Education, 44(2), 118-134.
[38] Marshall, S.J. (1998) Professional development and quality in higher education institutions of the 21st century. Australian Journal of Education, 42(3), 321-336.
[39] Osseo-Asare, A.E., & Longbottom, D. (2005) The need for education and training in the EFQM Model for quality management in UK higher education institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(1), 26-36.
[40] Owlia, M.S., & Aspinwall, E.M. (1996) Quality in higher education – a survey. Total Quality Management, 7(2), 161-171.
[41] Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (2006) Exploring the dimensions of the scholarship of teaching and learning: Analytics for an emerging literature. New Directions for Institutional Research, 129 (spring), 21-36.
[42] Probst, G., S., Raub, & Romhardt, K. (2002) Managing knowledge: building blocks for success. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[43] Reznik, L. (1997) Fuzzy Controllers, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
[44] Sage.Stake, R. E. (1989) The evaluation of teaching. In H. Simons & J. Elliott（Eds.）,Rethinking appraisal and assessment. Bristol : PA, Open University Press, pp.13-19.
[45] Scriven, M.(1967) The methodology of evaluation. In Stake .
[46] SEI, (2006) Capability Maturity Model Integration-DEV Module V.1.2, Carnegie Mellon University Press: Pittsburgh.
[47] SEI, (2010) Capability Maturity Model Integration-DEV Module V.1.3, Carnegie Mellon University Press: Pittsburgh.
[48] Sheehan, Eugene P., DuPrey, T., (1999) Student evaluations of university teaching. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26, pp. 188-193.
[49] Shulman, Lee S. (1987) Konwledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp.1-23.
[50] Singh, G., (2002). Educational consumers or educational partners: a critical theory analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5), 681-700.
[51] Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J., (2005). Implementation of a holistic model for quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 69-81.
[52] Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., Murphy, R.(2007) An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI, The Journal of Systems and Software, 80 (6), pp. 883-895.
[53] Takagi, T. and Sugeno,M. (1985) Fuzzy identification of systems and its application to modeling and control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 15, 116–132.
[54] Tsoukalas, L.H. and Uhrig, R.E. (1997) Fuzzy and Neural Approaches in Engineering, Wiley, New York, NY.
[55] Tzeng, G. H. and Teng, J. Y. (1993) Transportation Investment Project Selection with Fuzzy Multiobjectives, Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol.17, pp.91-112.
[56] Vasquez, E., Slocum, T.A. (2012) Evaluation of Synchronous Online Tutoring for Students at Risk of Reading Failure, EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN , Vol. 78, pp. 221-235.
[57] Wilkie, F., McFall D., and McCaffery F., (2005) An evaluation of CMMI process areas for small-to medium-sized software development organisations," Software Process: Improvement and Practice, vol. 10, pp. 189-201.
[58] Wilson, R., (1998). Report blasts research universities for poor teaching of undergraduates. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(33), 12-13.
[59] Wragg, E. C. (1988) Teacher appraisal: A practical guide. London: Macmillan Education LTD.
[60] Zadeh, L. A.(1965) Fuzzy sets, Information and Control , Vol. 8, pp. 338-353.
[61] Zadeh, L. A.(1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning I, II, III , Information Science, Vol. 9 , pp. 43-80.
[62] Zadeh, L.A. and Kacprayk, J. (1992) Fuzzy Logic for the Management of Uncertainty, Wiley, New York, NY.Cox, 1995.
[63] Zubrow, D., (2003) Current Trends in the Adoption of the CMMI Product Suite, In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, pp. 126-129.

指導教授

陳仲儼(Chung-Yang Chen)

審核日期

2012-7-23

推文