An investigation of evaluation of health and physical education teacher at junior high school

• Main Authors: Guang-Cing Jheng, 鄭光慶
• Other Authors: Hung-Shih Chou
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/11375441628055633533

博士 === 國立體育大學 === 體育研究所 === 100 === This study aimed to investigate the content and indicators of Taiwan’s Junior High School teacher’s evaluation in the field of Health and Physical Education (PE). It was hoped that this information could provide references for schools and edu-cational administration organizations in policy-making and im-plementation. The research methods utilized in the study was a set of questionnaires based on self-designed teachers’ evalua-tion content and teachers’ evaluation scale. The participants of this study comprised of 972 participants, including principals, director of student affairs, section chiefs of hygiene and PE, or teachers of Health and PE. The collected data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Scheff’ Posterior Comparisons. The results indicated that: 1. According to e-research ,there are nine dimensions and thirty four indicators in teachers’ evaluation content. The teachers’ evaluation frames are constructed by levels, dimen-sions and indicators, and containing four levels, fourteen di-mensions and sixty-nine indicators. 2. Among the nine categories in teachers’ evaluation con-tent, seven were indicated higher predictability. They were listed as followings: A. the main evaluation purpose. B. items of evaluation planning stages. C. items of routine preparing stages. D. the formal evaluation. E. the result and report of evaluation. F. evaluation procedures. G. record items of evalu-ation results. 3. Among the fourteen indicators in teachers’ evaluation content, four were considered highly important. It includes “can be competent in health and physical education”, ”can use effective teaching tecniques to reach the teaching goal”, ”can build a safe and beneficial surroundings for learning” and “obey educational profession ethics”. The first two categories are under the “vocation spirits and attitude” level, and the third category is under the “curriculum design and teaching” level. The last category is under “classroom management and consultation” level. 4. Six variation factors, including gender, school scale, position, seniority, educational background and age, were used to test school personnel for their importance in teachers’ eval-uation content. According to the study results, with the exception of gender variation，other five variation show significantly difference. 5. Six variation factors, including gender, school scale, position, seniority, educational background and age, were used to test school personnels for their importance in teachers’ evaluation indicators. According to the study results, only the position and seniority variaiton are significantly different inc