DSpace
 

Academic Knowledge Archives of Gunma Institutes >
育英大学・育英短期大学(Ikuei University Ikuei Junior College) >
02 育英短期大学研究紀要 >
第20号(2003.2) >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10087/10905

Title: 平成13年度「学生による授業評価」の中間報告
Other Titles: An Interim Report of "the Student Class Evaluation" of 2001.
Authors: 教務委員会
Academic Affairs Committee
Issue Date: 1-Feb-2003
Publisher: 育英短期大学
Citation: 育英短期大学研究紀要 20, 79-84, 2003
Abstract: 平成13年度の「学生による授業評価」の中間報告である。本学では平成10年度以降毎年「学生による授業評価」を実施してきている。全体的な授業評価を分析検討し,自己点検自己評価の指針とするために本報告を行った。実施対象となった延べ科目数は,前期が103科目,後期が99科目で,分析対象となった延べ科目数は,前期が100科目,後期が97科目であった。質問項目は,前期が9項目,後期が10項目であった。「授業の良かった点・悪かった点」の2項目は記述式で,他の7項目あるいは8項目は4つの選択肢から回答を選ぶ選択式であった。分析の対象となったのは,選択式回答の質問項目である。全体的に見ると,前期はおおむね良好な評価がなされているが,後期は質問項目(2)「先生の熱意」と質問項目(3)「教材の適切使用」のふたつが前期に比べて著しく評価が下がっているところが今回の特徴であった。その他は概ね良好な評価を得ていると思われれる。今後の最終的なまとめのためにさらなるデータの分析が必要なことと,質問項目(2)(3)の評価が低下したことについてさらに検討していく必要がある。 This is an interim report on the results of "the student class evaluation" of 2001. Our college has been implementing an evaluation, twice a year, since 1998. The purpose of this report is to analyze the overall class evaluations and to look at future guidelines for self-inspection and self-evaluation. There were 103 classes evaluated in the first term and 99 in the second term. Of these classes, 100 from the first term and 97 from the second term were analyzed. There were 9 questions on the first term evaluation and 10 on the second one. Two questions referred to "good points about the class" and "bad points about the class" and students were asked to answer in written form. The remaining 7 or 8 questions were questions where students chose a number from 1 to 4. This interim report looks at the numbers that the students chose on the evaluation. On the whole, the results for the evaluation for the first term were mostly good but with question number 2 regarding teacher's enthusiasm and question number 3 regarding making the best use of teaching materials, there was a drop in the numbers on the evaluation in the second term. This was a noticeable conclusion from this investigation. The other questions returned similar results for both the first and second term. In conclusion, more analysis of the data and more consideration about low evaluation about question 2 and 3 are needed for the final report.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10087/10905
ISSN: 0914-3351
Appears in Collections:第20号(2003.2)

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
KJ00000184481.pdf384.29 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2010  Duraspace - Feedback