教育學院
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/handle/20.500.12235/1
教育學院成立於民國44年6月5日，時值臺灣省立師範學院改制為臺灣省立師範大學，初設教育、社會教育、體育衛生教育、家政教育、工業教育五個學系，發展迄今，本院共設有7個學系（均含學士、碩士及博士班）、5個獨立研究所、1個院級在職碩士專班。
本院為國內歷史最久之教育學院，系所規模、師資，及學生品質向為國內首屈一指，培育英才無數，畢業校友或擔任政府教育行政單位首長及中堅人才、或為大學校長及教育相關領域研究人員、或為國內中等教育師資之骨幹、或投入民間文教事業相關領域，皆為提升我國教育品質竭盡心力。此外，本學院長期深耕學術，研究領域多元，發行4本 TSSCI 期刊，學術聲望備受國內外學界肯定，根據 2015 年 QS 世界大學各學科排名結果，本校在教育學科名列第22名，不僅穩居臺灣第一，更躍居亞洲師範大學龍頭。
Browse
5 results
Search Results
Item 跌倒風險篩檢簡表應用於社區中老年人之研究(2011) 張毓芬; Chang, Yu-Fen本研究目的是透過跌倒風險篩檢簡表應用於社區中老年人之研究，用於篩檢『中老人年跌倒的風險』，並探討其信度與效度，而決定最佳切點分數，並區辨具有跌倒風險的社區中老年人。 研究對象為臺灣29個社區的保命防跌班學員，總計為669位50歲以上中老年人，本研究的跌倒風險篩檢簡表共有14題，總分範圍為0-14分，若得分越高，表示跌倒的可能性越高。 研究結果發現，跌倒風險篩檢簡表之信度檢定，內部一致性良好。可以有效預測跌倒組與未跌倒組，4分為最佳切點分數，兼具敏感性及特異性。應用重複跌倒個案的篩選，4到6分敏感性與特異性均達70％以上，若用4分或5分當作切點分數，其敏感性均達9成以上，但5分特異性較高，達84.68％。若欲進一步減少人力評估或檢查，則切點分數可提高至6分，雖然敏感性70％，但特異性達88.5％。 本研究工具簡單易操作，可供衛生專業人員利用短時間篩檢出跌倒高危險族群，利於公共衛生上推廣。Item 酒精依賴嚴重度量表中文版之信效度建構研究(2010) 高玉芬; Yu-Fen,Kao酒精依賴嚴重度量表（Severity of the Dependence Scale for Alcohol，SDS-A）是一個用以評估個案酒精依賴嚴重程度的簡短五題量表，本研究目的為建構中文版酒精依賴嚴重度量表之信與效度。 本研究自99年2月至6月間進行，樣本是以北部某醫院之酒藥癮病房戒酒個案及北部某勒戒機構之安非他命個案為研究對象，採橫斷式的方便取樣，共計100位。信度採內部一致性信度與再測信度進行，效度採建構效度，並以酒精使用疾患確認測驗作為效標關聯效度。每位加入本研究的個案皆由1位精神科專科醫師以MINI國際神經精神科面談診斷進行會談，確認個案是否有酒精依賴的診斷，並將診斷的結果與酒精依賴嚴重度量表進行相關性分析，決定量表最佳切分點。 結果顯示，酒精依賴嚴重度量表於信度方面，內部一致信度Chronbach’s alpha值為0.92，再測信度皮爾森相關係數為0.90。效度方面，利用主成分因素分析求出量表的建構效度，結果得到單一因素，解釋變異量為79.11%。酒精使用疾患確認測驗之效標關聯效度皮爾森相關係數為0.88；在ROC區線下面積為97.8% (95%CI=.934,1.022)，最適合的切分點為4分，敏感度為96.6，特異度為95.8。 中文版酒精依賴嚴重度量表於本研究中結果顯示有不錯的信度與效度，建議未來能將此量表推廣到醫療院所或社區使用，並作為常規的檢測工具，藉以早期篩檢個案是否有酒精依賴嚴重的問題。Item How many heads are better than one? The reliability and validity of teenagers' self- and peer assessments(ELSEVIER, 2010-02-01) Sung, Y. T.; Chang, K. E.; Chang, T. H.; Yu, W. C.Self- and peer assessments are becoming more popular in classrooms, but there are few data on the reliability and validity of such assessments performed by school children. Because these factors are greatly affected by the number of raters, we conducted two studies to determine the rating behaviours of teenagers in self- and peer assessments, and how the number of raters influences the reliability and validity of self- and peer assessments. The first study involved 116 seventh graders (the first grade of middle school), where students individually playing musical recorders were subject to self- and peer assessments. The second study involved 110 eighth graders, with Web pages constructed by students being subject to self- and peer assessments. Generalizability theory and criterion-related validity were used to obtain the reliability and validity coefficients of the self- and peer ratings. Analyses of variance were used to compare differences in self- and peer ratings between low- and high-achieving students. The coefficients of reliability and validity increased with the number of raters in both studies, reaching the acceptable levels of 0.80 and 0.70, respectively, with 3 or 4 raters in the first study (involving assessments of individual performance) and with 14–17 raters in the second study (involving assessments of group work). Furthermore, low- and high-achieving students tended to over- and underestimate the quality of their work in self-assessment, respectively. The discrepancy between the ratings of students and experts was higher in group-work assessments then in individual-work assessments. The results have both theoretical and practical implications for researchers and teachers.Item 兒童內化行為問題測量工具的建立及其信效度研究(心理出版社, 2009-09-01) 游錦雲; 李思賢; 李蘭; 陳玉佩; Yu, CY; Lee, TSH; Yen, LL; & Chen, YPItem How many heads are better than one? The reliability and validity of teenagers' self- and peer assessments(Elsevier, 2010-02-01) Sung, Yao-Ting; Chang, Kuo-En; Chang, Tzyy-Hua; Yu,Wen-ChengSelf- and peer assessments are becoming more popular in classrooms, but there are few data on the reliability and validity of such assessments performed by school children. Because these factors are greatly affected by the number of raters, we conducted two studies to determine the rating behaviours of teenagers in self- and peer assessments, and how the number of raters influences the reliability and validity of self- and peer assessments. The first study involved 116 seventh graders (the first grade of middle school), where students individually playing musical recorders were subject to self- and peer assessments. The second study involved 110 eighth graders, with Web pages constructed by students being subject to self- and peer assessments. Generalizability theory and criterion-related validity were used to obtain the reliability and validity coefficients of the self- and peer ratings. Analyses of variance were used to compare differences in self- and peer ratings between low- and high-achieving students. The coefficients of reliability and validity increased with the number of raters in both studies, reaching the acceptable levels of 0.80 and 0.70, respectively, with 3 or 4 raters in the first study (involving assessments of individual performance) and with 14–17 raters in the second study (involving assessments of group work). Furthermore, low- and high-achieving students tended to over- and underestimate the quality of their work in self-assessment, respectively. The discrepancy between the ratings of students and experts was higher in group-work assessments then in individual-work assessments. The results have both theoretical and practical implications for researchers and teachers.