课程反馈问卷设计

以下5个问项面向有机化学实验课程的关键学习成果（安全与风险管理、机理与概念整合、数据与证据评估、可持续与绿色化学、科学沟通与专业规范），以成果导向和构念一致性为原则构建，建议采用5点李克特量表（1=强烈不同意；2=不同意；3=中立；4=同意；5=强烈同意），便于量化分析与信度检验。核心维度与措辞依据化学教育与实验教学研究证据以及权威指南制定，确保可测量性与效度[1–7]。

1) 机理与概念整合
陈述：本课程有效提升了我运用有机反应机理解释实验现象与结果的能力（如中间体、选择性、速控与热控等的证据性判读）。
依据：实验促进概念理解与证据推理的作用已获广泛验证；课程目标应与实验任务对齐以支持高层次认知[1,3,7]。

2) 安全与RAMP风险管理
陈述：本课程使我能够依据RAMP原则（识别危害、评估风险、最小化风险、做好应急准备）开展有机实验的危害分析与控制（含合理选择工程/行政控制与PPE，并能查用GHS/SDS）。
依据：学术实验室安全的行为化能力（RAMP）是化学专业核心要求，需在课程中形成可迁移的安全素养[1–2]。

3) 数据素养与证据评估
陈述：本课程提升了我对实验数据进行规范记录与定量分析（含不确定度与误差来源评估）的能力，并能据光谱证据（1H/13C NMR、IR、MS）对产物结构作出有据可依的判定。
依据：数据质量、表征能力与可追溯记录是有机实验的关键学习产出，直接关联专业胜任力[1,3]。

4) 绿色化学与可持续实践
陈述：本课程促使我在试剂与溶剂选择、反应与后处理方案中应用绿色化学原则，并能使用定量指标（如原子经济性、E-factor）比较方案的环境绩效。
依据：将绿色化学原则与度量融入实验教学被证明可提升学生在真实情境中的可持续决策能力[1,4–5]。

5) 科学沟通与专业规范
陈述：本课程为我提供了规范的科学沟通训练（合规的实验记录、基于量规的书面报告与口头汇报、可重复性与学术诚信要求），帮助我达到学科写作与汇报标准。
依据：明确的沟通标准与基于标准的反馈能提升质量与可重复性，是化学专业素养的重要组成部分[1,6]。

参考文献（ACS格式）
[1] ACS Committee on Professional Training. Undergraduate Professional Education in Chemistry: ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2023. https://www.acs.org/education/policies/acs-guidelines.html
[2] ACS Committee on Chemical Safety. Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories, 8th ed.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017.
[3] Hofstein, A.; Lunetta, V. N. The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the Twenty-First Century. Science Education 2004, 88 (1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
[4] Anastas, P. T.; Warner, J. C. Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice; Oxford University Press: New York, 1998.
[5] Sheldon, R. A. The E Factor: Fifteen Years On. Green Chem. 2007, 9, 1273–1283. https://doi.org/10.1039/B713736M
[6] The ACS Guide to Scholarly Communication; American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press: Washington, DC, 2020. https://pubs.acs.org/page/achemso/gtc
[7] National Research Council. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2012. https://doi.org/10.17226/13362

Below are five evidence-based survey items suitable for an Introductory Python course. Each item targets a single construct, uses a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree), and is accompanied by a brief justification and sources.

- Item 1 (Clarity of outcomes): The course learning outcomes were clearly stated and helped me understand the knowledge and skills I was expected to acquire. 
  Rationale: Clear outcomes support constructive alignment between teaching, learning activities, and assessment, which is associated with improved coherence and learning quality (Biggs & Tang, 2011).

- Item 2 (Cognitive load and scaffolding): The explanations, examples, and practice problems were appropriately scaffolded, minimizing unnecessary complexity while supporting step-by-step mastery of core Python concepts. 
  Rationale: Instruction that manages intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load and uses scaffolding promotes efficient schema acquisition in novices (Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011).

- Item 3 (Active learning and practice): In-class coding activities and labs required me to actively practice Python and contributed meaningfully to my understanding. 
  Rationale: Active learning strategies, including practice and problem solving, are linked to higher performance in STEM courses compared to lecture-only formats (Freeman et al., 2014).

- Item 4 (Feedback quality): Feedback on my code (for example, comments, test results, or rubrics) was timely and specific enough to help me correct errors and improve subsequent work. 
  Rationale: Timely, specific feedback that guides improvement is associated with substantial gains in learning effectiveness (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Black & Wiliam, 1998).

- Item 5 (Programming self-efficacy): After completing this course, I am confident I can write small Python programs that use variables, control flow, functions, and basic data structures to solve introductory problems. 
  Rationale: Self-efficacy beliefs are robust predictors of persistence and performance in skill acquisition contexts, including programming (Bandura, 1997).

References
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
- Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
- Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
- Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
- Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
- Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

论点陈述：为确保“领导力基础”课程反馈具有决策价值，问卷应覆盖学习成效（知识与能力）、教学设计质量（目标—活动—评估的一致性）、学习迁移准备度与情境支持，以及课堂心理安全等关键维度。这些维度与培训评估四层级模型、建构性对齐理论、迁移模型与心理安全研究相一致，能提高测量效度并指导有针对性的课程改进（Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006；Biggs & Tang, 2011；Baldwin & Ford, 1988；Edmondson, 1999；Bandura, 1997；Northouse, 2022）。

使用说明：建议采用5点Likert量表（1=完全不同意，5=完全同意），并为“不适用”单独设项以避免无效评分。

1) 知识增益（理论理解）
本课程显著提升了我对领导力核心概念与主要理论范式（如情境领导、变革型领导与权变视角）的理解深度与区分能力。（Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006；Northouse, 2022）

2) 技能自我效能（关键领导行为）
经过本课程学习，我在实施关键领导行为（如目标澄清、建设性反馈与有效沟通）方面的自我效能感得到实质提升。（Bandura, 1997；Northouse, 2022）

3) 教学设计一致性（建构性对齐）
课程的学习目标、教学活动与评估任务之间具有清晰且可感知的一致性，该对齐有效促进了我达成既定学习成果。（Biggs & Tang, 2011）

4) 学习迁移准备度（应用计划与动机）
我已形成将课程所学应用于具体工作/学习情境的可操作计划，并具备明确的实施动机与时间安排。（Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006；Baldwin & Ford, 1988）

5) 学习氛围（心理安全与深度学习）
课堂互动营造了鼓励提问、试错与表达不同观点的心理安全氛围，从而促进了我的积极参与与反思性学习。（Edmondson, 1999）

参考文献（APA第7版）
- Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
- Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
- Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
- Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
- Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE.