本研究旨在建構適用大學通識課程的學生評鑑教師教學量表，考驗工具在不同課程領域的適用性，並檢視教師和學生特性可能造成的影響。本量表初稿取自某科技大學使用的學生評鑑教學工具。研究樣本為2097位選修通識課程的科技大學學生。實證資料透過探索性和驗證性因素分析等統計考驗，發展出「大學通識課程學生評鑑教師教學量表」，包含教材教法、師生互動、學習評量及學生學習等四個構面，共16個題目，其信度和效度皆良好，並可適用於四種不同領域的通識課程。迴歸分析結果顯示：學生修課意願愈高、預期成績愈高、課程興趣愈高以及教師給分愈寬鬆者，對教師教學評分愈高。而除了教師服務單位具有實質影響外，生命科學課程的教學評鑑得分最低，服務21年以上的教師評鑑得分最高，女性教師高於男性教師，兼任教師得分高於專任教師，講師與助理教授高於副教授，而教師學歷則無顯著預測力。

The purpose of this study is to develop scales used by college students who take general education courses to evaluate instructor’s teaching, test the applicability of tools at different course fields, and examine the possible influences caused by instructors’ and students’ characteristics. The original scales were derived from tools used by students at a university of technology to evaluate instructor’s teaching. The samples were 2097 college students who took general education courses. After being statistically tested by exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis, empirical data were used to develop scales for college students who take general education courses to evaluate instructors’ teaching, which includes four dimensions, teaching materials and methods, interaction between teachers and students, learning assessment, and
student learning, and a total of 16 items. Both of the validity and reliability are good, and are applicable to courses of four different fields. The regression analysis shows that the higher intention students have to take courses, the higher grades students expect to receive, the stronger interest students show in courses and the more lenient instructors are, the higher teaching rating the instructors receive. Except that the department instructors belong to has substantial impacts,
instructor’s teaching rating of life science courses is the lowest; instructors with 21 years or more of teaching experiences are rated highest; female faculty receives higher rating than male faculty; adjunct instructors have higher rating than full-time faculty; Instructor and Assistant Professor are rated higher than Associate Professor; and there is no significant prediction ability in instructor’s academic degrees.