科技校院教師評鑑的阻礙與因應

The Barriers and Solutions for Faculty Evaluation in Colleges and Universities of Technology

曾淑惠
Shu-Hui Tseng


所屬期刊: 第8卷第4期 「測驗與評量」
主編:國立政治大學心理學系教授
林邦傑
系統編號: vol031_5
主題: 測驗與評量
出版年份: 2012
作者: 曾淑惠
作者(英文): Shu-Hui Tseng
論文名稱: 科技校院教師評鑑的阻礙與因應
論文名稱(英文): The Barriers and Solutions for Faculty Evaluation in Colleges and Universities of Technology
共同作者:
最高學歷:
校院名稱:
系所名稱:
語文別:
論文頁數: 32
中文關鍵字: 教師評鑑;科技校院;評鑑阻礙
英文關鍵字: faculty evaluation;college and university of technology;barriers of evaluation
服務單位: 國立臺北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所教授
稿件字數: 20022
作者專長: 教育評鑑
投稿日期: 2012/6/23
論文下載: pdf檔案icon
摘要(中文): 雖然國外大學教師評鑑制度已施行有年,然而由於我國科技校院的設立較晚,且在大學法中也自2005年起才開始規範高等教育機構需要實施教師評鑑,因此教師評鑑在當前科技校院中尚屬新興的議題。本研究旨在探究科技校院教師對教師評鑑阻礙與因應策略的知覺,為達研究目的,本研究共訪談11位科技校院教師評鑑制定單位的主管,並經10位科技校院各職級資深教師審查以提出補充意見,再經三位具有教師評鑑相關研究的學者進行審查確認,最後以問卷調查,獲得580位科技校院教師的回應。研究結論包括:1.教師評鑑阻礙的因素模型包含教師認知與態度、評鑑標準信效度、資料呈現與登錄、行政管理與程序、結果公布與使用、以及辦法制度完整性六類別,經驗證結果模式適配情形良好;2.科技校院教師對教師評鑑在「評鑑標準信效度」與「資料呈現與登錄」兩類別呈現高度阻礙的知覺;3.教師評鑑阻礙之44項因應策略獲得科技校院教師的高度認同; 4.不同背景科技大學教師對於部分教師評鑑阻礙的知覺程度具有差異。最後提出五項建議供參。
摘要(英文): Faculty evaluation has been implemented for years overseas, but because the establishment of colleges and universities of technology in Taiwan was later development, faculty evaluation has only be regulated by University Act since 2005. Faculty evaluation in an institute of technology seems like a new issue compared with other institutes. This study aimed to explore the perception on the barriers and strategies of solution for faculty evaluation in colleges and universities of technology. To achieve the objective, 11 administrators responsible for faculty evaluation were interviewed, 10 senior faculties were invited to examine the interview data and provide supplementary suggestions. Lastly, 3 experts in faculty evaluation reviewed the process. 580 faculty members of institute of technology participated in the questionnaire investigation. The conclusions are as follows: 1.The barriers in faculty evaluation can be grouped into six categories which are faculty members’ cognition and attitude, validity and reliability of evaluation standard, data presentation and document filling, administration management and procedures, announcement and handling of evaluation results, completeness of related regulations. Confirmatory factor analysis shows that the model achieves a good fit. 2. Faculty members showed high perception on “validity and reliability of evaluation standard” and “data presentation and document filling”. 3. 44 strategies of solutions were highly recognized by faculty members. 4. Faculty members with different background have different perception on faculty evaluation barriers. Five suggestions are provided as a reference.
參考文獻: 吳明隆、涂金堂(2006)。SPSS與統計應用分析。臺北市:五南。
吳佩真、張民杰(2007)。國內大學教師教學評鑑現況分析。評鑑雙月刊,9,9-15。
莊荏惠、阮勝威(2008)。後現代主義對於科技大學教師評鑑的啟示。樹德科技大學學報,10(2),167-179。
孫志麟(2007)。績效控制或專業發展?大學教師評鑑的兩難。教育實踐與研究,20(2),95-128。
張德銳(2000)。師資培育與教師評鑑。臺北市:師大書苑。
張媛甯(2010)。大學教師對教師評鑑態度之研究-以S 科技大學為例,南台科技大學學報,35(2),91-114。
陳明和、郭靜芳(2004)。從學校本位管理觀點探究教師評鑑制度的實施。人文及社會學科教學通訊,15(4),17-37。
彭森明(2006)。大學教師評鑑機制之研究。教育部委託專案研究計畫成果報告。94A1004EI。新竹:國立清華大學。
教育部統計處(2010)。99學年度大專校院校別專任教師數 99.12.28」。100年3月9日取自http://www.edu.tw/statistics/content.aspx?site_content_sn=25760
高教簡訊(2006)。教師評鑑。高教簡訊,183期。
教育部(2005)。大學法。民國94年12月28日總統華總一義字第09400212621號令修正公布。
游家政、曾祥榕(2004)。教育評鑑的後設評鑑。教育資料集刊,29,53-94。
曾淑惠(2006)。高職學校評鑑阻礙之研究。教育政策論壇,9(3),73-98。
曾淑惠、阮淑萍、陳縊斌、劉富美(2011)。論評鑑政策輪對我國科技大學教師評鑑之啟示。技術及職業教育學報,4(1),50-80。
Ahmady, S., Changij, T., Brommels, M., Gaffney, A., Thor, J.,& Masiello, I. (2009). Contextual adaption of the personnel evaluation standards for assessing faculty evaluation system in developing countries the case of Iran. BMC Medical Education. 9-18, 28 April 2009.
Arreola, R. A. (2000). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Becker, K. L., Dang, D., Jordan, E., Kub, J., Welch, A., Smith, C. A.,& White, K. M. (2007). An evaluation frame work for faculty practice. Nursing Outlook, 55(1), 44-54.
Beerens, D. R. (2000). Evaluating faculties for professional growth, California, CA: Crowin Press, Inc.
Boice, R. (1984). Reexamination of traditional emphases in faculty development. Research in Higher Education, 21(2), 195-209.
Bradley, K, D,& Bradley, J. W. (2010). Exploring the reliability, validity, and utility of a higher education faculty review process. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(4), 21-26.
Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend, Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 647–71
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Courneya, C-A., Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. (2008). Through what perspective do we judge the teaching of peers? Teaching and Faculty Education, 24(1), 69–79.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introduction LISERL: Aguide for the uninitiated. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dornbusch, S.M. (1979). Perspectives from sociology: Organizational evaluation of faculty performances. In D. R. Lewis, & W. E. Becker, Jr. (Eds.), Academic rewards in higher education (pp. 41-60). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Elmore, H. W. (2008). Toward objectivity in faculty evaluation, Academic, 94(3), 38-40.
Heppner, P. P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation, and research: A guide for students in the helping professions (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole.
Huber, M. T. (2002). Faculty evaluation and the development of academic careers. New Directions for Institutional Research, 114, 73-83.
Iwanicki, E. F. (l990). Faculty evaluation for school improvement. In J. Milllman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of faculty evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school facultys (pp.158-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Keller, B. (2008). Drive on to improve evaluation systems for facultys. Education Week, 27(19), 8.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolio for learning, assessment and professional development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 267-286.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Krahenbuhl, G. S. (1998). Faculty work: Integrating responsibilities and institutional needs. Change, 30, 18-25.
Loup, K. S., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C.D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication of a study of faculty evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203-226.
Neal, J. E. (1988). Faculty evaluation: Its purposes and effectiveness. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED380800).
Nolan, J. F. JR., & Hoover, L. A. (Eds.). (2008). Faculty supervision & evaluation: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Maker, V. K., Lewis, M. J. &Donnelly, M. B. (2006). Ongoing faculty evaluation: Developmental gain or just more pain. Current Surgery, 63(1), 80-84.
Mercer, J. (2005). Challenging appraisal orthodoxies: Faculty evaluation and professional development in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 273-287.
Miedzinski, L., Marks, M.,& Morrison, J. C. (2009). Faculty preparation for academic evaluation. Medical Education, 43, 1085-1086.
Mills, M., & Hyle, A. E. (1999). Faculty evaluation: A prickly pear. Higher Education, 38, 351-371.
Ory, J. C. (2000). Teaching evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 83, 13-18.
O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80.
Peterson, K. D. (2000). Faculty evaluation: A comprehension guide to new directions and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shao, L. P., Anderson, L. P.,& Newsome, M. (2007). Evaluating teaching effectiveness: Where we are and where we should be. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 32(3), 355-371.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2008). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating. Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2009). Evaluation policy and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 123, 13-32.