頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 建構醫學中心護理臨床教師教學評量表之研究=Constructing an Evaluation Tool of Teaching Quality for Nurse Clinical Teachers in a Medical Center |
---|---|
作 者 | 林小玲; 明金蓮; 張靜怡; 佘美桂; 蕭世美; 詹雅惠; 施月玲; | 書刊名 | 榮總護理 |
卷 期 | 36:2 2019.06[民108.06] |
頁 次 | 頁112-123 |
分類號 | 419.63 |
關鍵詞 | 護理臨床教師; 教學品質; 教學評量表; Nurse clinical teachers; Teaching quality; Teaching evaluation tool; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 教學是教學者透過教學設計,運用適當的教學方法,使學習者學習到知識、道德及行為的教學與學習雙向互動歷程。教學評鑑工具不僅可以引導教師精進教學能力,還可讓學習者省思學習效益,進而提升課程內容、教學品質及學習成效。本研究目的為發展護理臨床教師教學評量表並建構其信效度。研究為描述性調查型研究,採分層取樣,選取護理部中央課程N2、N3、N4共8堂;專科課程部分選取急症加護、血液腫瘤、心臟血管、呼吸系統、神經系統、消化系統、內科系與婦產科疾病護理等八個專科組N2、N3、N4等共31堂課程參與測試收案。本研究以無記名之網路填答方式,由參與選樣課程的全部學員與課程評值者,經說明同意參與研究後填答。研究工具為護理臨床教師教學評量之結構式問卷,為25題五分量表,採建構效度建立工具效度,以Cronbach'sα測定量表之內在一致性。統計方法採變異數分析、差異檢定、因素分析、集群分析及判別分析。本研究收案752份參與課程之護理師網路問卷,主要結果:(一)護理臨床教師教學評量表各項得分以「授課內容準備充分實用」最高,「清楚瞭解學員先備知識,包含學員新舊經驗」得分較低;(二)N4級階課程之教學評量表得分最高,分別高於N1與N2級階課程,其差異達顯著;(三)護理臨床教師教學評量表整體內在一致性Cronbach's a值為.98,五項因素累積解釋變異量為84.4%,整體建構效度良好;(四)集群分析得「博學型」及「互動型」兩類型區隔群,判別分析得分群結果之正確區別率達98.8%。本研究期望透過發展教學評量表,提升護理臨床教師之教學品質與學員的學習成效,並分析教學得失與診斷學習困難,作為日後教學改進之參考,進而達到優質照護與教學品質的目標。 |
英文摘要 | Background: Appropriate teaching designs and methods may help learners gain knowledge and comprehensively understand morality and behavior. Assessment and improvement of these specific competencies require an instrument for assessing teacher performance. Objective: To develop and validate a questionnaire that assesses nurse clinical teachers' competencies essential for facilitating reflective learning. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used, and data were collected using questionnaires. Stratified sampling was used to enroll 39 classes, comprising 752 staff nurses, from a medical center through anonymous intranet data collection. A 25-item teaching evaluation tool was used as the research instrument. ANOVA, the t test, factor analysis, cluster analysis, and discriminant analysis were used for data analysis. Results: (1) The score of" the content of the lecture is fully prepared and practical" was higher than that of" clear understanding of students' prior knowledge and experiences." (2) N4-level classes had higher composite teaching evaluation scores. (3) Five factors were extracted and named from the teaching evaluation tool, namely course content, teacher–student interaction, teaching method, overall evaluation, and student self-assessment. These factors accounted for 84.4% of the total variance. (4) Knowledgeable and interactive types were derived from the cluster analysis from the teaching evaluation tool, and the distinguished rate obtained using the discriminant analysis was 98.8%. Conclusions: The current results can provide administrators with actionable recommendations that can be used to develop a practical tool for evaluating learners' perceptions of their teachers' competencies for facilitating learning. Furthermore, it would be referred to promote the instrument and enhance the teaching quality and educational effectiveness. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。