在一般學校或訓練機構進行教學成效評估的過程中，往往僅止於授課者在教學完畢之後，藉由學生學習滿意度的結果來評量老師及機構的教學成效，評估方式包括課程、講師、教材、客服等四個構面來衡量學習者的滿意程度。
本研究應用系統展示法與學習成效評估之理論，欲建構一套提供更多面向的評估結果並可適用於未來之不同領域擴充的學習成效線上評估系統，再者利用相關交叉分析與相關圖表的結果，提供授課者獲得可供教學內容調整的參考。
本研究藉由系統的實施與驗證，確認所開發之雛型系統的實用性及可用性，最後再經由個案的實證方式來驗證本系統之結果與效益，並透過個案問卷與訪談得到以下五點結論：
(1)系統可用於多面向之成效評估，且可擴充適用於未來之不同領域；
(2)完成學習成效評估系統之建置並完成系統驗證；
(3)學習成效評估系統的評估結果確實能作為教學者改善教學之參考依據；
(4)學習成效評估系統之流程設計，提高非結構化系統之客觀性與其結果之合理性，並有助於簡化評估流程，進而提升學習成效評估之效率；
(5)提供教學者教學內容剖析，進一步掌握學習者的學習狀況，改善教學內容。
根據研究結論給予教學者及機構的建議：
(1)在中學與小學的教育中，能否達成教學目標，一直是教學中一個很重要的指標，但在高等教育中，很少提到教學自主的部份，因此，可由如何引發授課者重視此部分為其目標；
(2)目前的教學評鑑多以教師評鑑為主軸，無法瞭解學生到底從中獲得了多少，此研究可以做為參考性的改善指標。
對於未來研究者的建議有三點：
(1)將學習成效評估系統與教學改善的部分加以整合；
(2)整合相關教學評鑑方法，將多樣化的教學評鑑方式加入此系統中，讓系統
功能更加完善；
(3)尋找更適切的教學目標層次與權重評估之模式，因目前教學目標的層次有所限制，若能更加完善並詳細的分類，相信可以讓此評估結果增加其信效度。

In the general learning effectiveness evaluation process conducted by schools or training institutions, the teaching effectiveness of a teacher and institution is only evaluated by the outcome of students’ learning satisfaction after the end of courses.
The evaluation methods may include 4 dimensions: course contents, lecturer, teaching materials and customer service to assess the degrees of learner’s satisfaction.
This study adopted the theories of system display method and learning effectiveness evaluation try to construct an on-line evaluation system of learning effectiveness in order to providing a multi-dimensions evaluating result which may adopted for different fields expanding in the future. Further, by the use of results of cross-correlation analysis and relative diagrams to provide the lecturers a modulating reference for their teaching content.
This study confirmed the practicability and availability of its’ developed prototype system via system implement and verification, and ultimately used empirical approach of case study to verified the outcomes and benefits of this system. We used questionnaires and in-depth interviews for data collections and found 5 findings as followed:
(1)The system may use for multi-dimensions effectiveness evaluation and may expand and adopt for different fields in the future;
(2)To complete the construction of learning effectiveness evaluation system and system verification;
(3)The evaluation results of learning effectiveness system could as the basis references for lecturers’ teaching improvement indeed;
(4)The process design for learning effectiveness system could increase objectiveness of unstructured system and consistency of the outcome, which could help evaluating process simplification and further increase the efficiency of learning effectiveness;
(5)To provide the analysis of teaching content for lecturer to well know the status of the learners and improve the teaching content.
According to our conclusions, we proposed two suggestions for educator and the institutions associated:
(1)Although whether achieving instruction objectives or not is an essential teaching index in elementary school and junior high, yet, it seldom refers teacher autonomy in Higher education. Therefore, how to motivate lecturer to value this part could be the goal.
(2)Teacher evaluation is main part of current instructional evaluation. This couldn’t well understand how much the students obtained from the courses. This study may be the references of improving index.
The three suggestions for the future researcher are as followed:
(1)To integrate the learning effectiveness evaluation system with teaching improvement.
(2)Try to integrate diversified instructional evaluation methods into this system in order to perfect the system function.
(3) To find the optimized hierarchy of instruction objectives and weight assessment mode. Owing to the limits of current instruction objectives hierarchy, the more complete and detail categories may increase the reliability and validity of system’s outcome.

1. 朱敬先，教育心理學—教學取向，台北：五南，2000。
2. 周祝瑛，淺談「大學教學評鑑」，研習資訊，第20卷，第三期，2003。
3. 季延平、郭鴻志，系統分析與設計，台北：華泰文化事業有限公司，1995。
4. 徐美惠、高薰芳，重視教師評鑑落實「教評會」功能，台灣教育，544 期，11-19，1996。
5. 秦夢群，教育行政：實務部分，台北：五南，1997。
6. 張惠貞，淡江大學教師教學評鑑之實證與研究。淡江大學統計學系碩士論文，1998。
7. 張霄亭，教學原理，台北：空大，1997。
8. 梁定澎。資訊管理研究方法總論，資訊管理學報資訊管理實證研究方法研討會特刊，第四卷，第一期，第1~6頁，1997。
9. 曾昇柏，學習績效評估系統建立之研究，國立台灣科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文，2005。
10. 黃光雄 編譯，Robert J. Kibler等四位學者合著，教學目標與評鑑(Objectives for Instruction and Evaluation/Robert J. Kibler, Donald J. Cegala, Larry L. Barker, David T. Miles 1974)，1987。
11. 黃光雄，教育評鑑的模式，台北：師大書苑，1989。
12. 葉重新，台灣地區九所大學教師對「學生評鑑教師教學」期望之研究，國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，1987。
13. 歐陽教、張德銳，教師評鑑模式之研究，教育研究資訊，第一卷，第二期，90-100頁，1993。
14. 蔡進雄，從評鑑的意涵論「學生評鑑教師教學」，深耕，第一期，2006。
15. 謝文全，教育行政-理論與實務，台北：文景，1989。
16. 謝臥龍，國中教師最重要的優良教學特質之德懷研究，高雄：國民中學教學策略國際學術研討會資料，1991。
17. 張德銳、丁一顧（2000）。台北縣國小教育人員對校長評鑑規準知覺之調查研究。載於國立新竹師院舉辦第八次教育行政論壇論文集，133-157。新竹市：國立新竹師範學院。
英文文獻
1. Abrami, P. and Mizener, D. (1985),"Student / Instructor Attitude Similarity, Student Ratings and Course Performance", Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), pp.693-702.
2. Austin, T. and Cage, B. (1980),"Personality Influences on Student and Cooperating Teacher Attitudes Toward Teaching", Paper Presented at the Mid-South Educational Research Meeting.
3. Bloom, B. S. (1969), "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals", Longman Group United Kingdom.
4. Bollington, R., Hopkins, D., and West, M. (1990), "An introduction to teacher appraisal: a professional development approach", Cassell Educational.
5. Cashin, W.E. (1990), "Student Ratings of Teaching : Recommendations for Use", Kansas States University.
6. Chen, S. J.& Hwang, C. L. (1992), "Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications", Springer-Verlag.
7. Eisenhardt, K. (1989), "Building Theories from Case Study Research", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-550,.
8. Giles, A., Martin, S., Bryce, D., and Hendry, G. (2004), "Students as partners in evaluation: 82 Student and teacher perspectives", Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 681-685.
9. Harrow, A. J. (1972), "A Taxonomy of Psychomotor Domain-A Guide for Developing Behavioral Objectives", New York: David Mckey.
10. Iwanicki, E. F. (1996), "The role of evaluation in supervision as a process of inquiry. Draft of a manuscript prepared for the handbook of research on school supervision", unpublished.
11. J. Millnan and L. Darling- Hammond (1989), "The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers", Corwin, 216-228.
12. Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B. S. and Masia, B. B. (1969), "Taxonomy of Educational Objectives - The Classification of Educational Goals", Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David Mckey.
13. Langley, P., Simon, H.A., Bradshaw, G. L. and Zytkow, J.M. (1987), "Scientific discovery: computational exploration of the creative processes", Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14. McGreal, T. L. (1983), "Successful teacher evaluation", Alexandria, Virginia ： Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
15. Seldin, Peter, and Pat Hutchings (1999), "Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching: A Practical Guide to Improved Faculty Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions", Jossey-Bass.
16. Shieh, V. (1990), "Using Delphi Technique to Determine the Most ImportantCharacteristics of Effective Teaching at Junior High School Level in Taiwan". Doctor Dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
17. Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, L. R., Merriman, H. O., and Provus, M. M. (1974), "Educational evaluation and decision-making". Itasca, IL：Peacock.
18. Tenbrink, T. D. (1974), "Evaluation： A practical guide for teachers", New York： McGraw-Hill.
19. Theall, M. and Franklin, J. (1991), " Student ratings in the context of complex evaluation systems", New Directions for Teaching and Learning.
20. Tollefson, N., Chen, J.S. and Kleinsasser, A. (1989), "The Relationship of Students’ Attitude About Effective Teaching to Students’ Ratings of Effective Teaching", Educational and Psychological Measurement, 529-536.
21. Zimmerman, H. J. (2001), "Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, 4th ed. ", Kluwer Academic Publishers.