English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 51296/86402 (59%)
Visitors : 8171774      Online Users : 103
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/102366


    Title: 大學教師評鑑之研究 : 以S科技大學為例
    Other Titles: University faculty evaluation : a case of S University
    Authors: 江毓志;Chiang, Yu-Chih
    Contributors: 淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士在職專班
    黃一峯;Huang, Yi-Feng;邱志淳;Chiu, Chih-chun
    Keywords: 大學教師評鑑;評鑑指標;學校績效;University faculty evaluation;evaluation indicator;School Performance
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2015-05-04 09:53:56 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 依據大學法第二十一條規定,教師評鑑項目涵蓋教學、研究、輔導及服務等層面,而教育部基於大學自制,由各校自行訂定法規,規範其方法、項目、內容、比重等,造成各校教師評鑑的標準不一。再者,教師評鑑的實施將改變學校的生態,對教師造成衝擊,且教師評鑑的結果也影響學校管理教師人力的運用,因此,教師評鑑是否能夠真實反應教師的成果與績效,為學校帶來真正的效益,乃本研究關注的重點。
    本研究之目的旨在針對S科技大學教師評鑑的實際成績現況進行實證分析,以了解大學教師評鑑之實際效用,根據研究分析結果,做為改進大學教師評鑑之參考,並同時對大學教師評鑑提供建議。
    本研究利用獨立樣本t檢定和單因子變異數分析等統計方法,先就教師個人背景與教師評鑑成績及權重之間的關係進行分析,再從教師的角度來探討各構面權重以及特殊評鑑指標與教師評鑑成績的影響,獲得下列結論:
    一、教師背景變項,包含性別、年齡、院別以及任教年資等,對教師評鑑成績有顯著的影響。
    二、教師背景變項,包含性別、年齡、院別以及任教年資等,對教師評鑑構面權重有顯著的影響。
    三、教學、研究、行政服務以及輔導服務等四個構面權重分配與評鑑成績相關。
    四、與學校績效有關之特殊指標,如「教學意見回饋」、「獲得教學優良獎」、「兼任主管」、「教學研習」、「發表著作」、「承接計畫案」、「專業服務」等,與教師評鑑各構面成績相關。
    Article 21 of the University Act states that faculty evaluation at university level should cover teaching, research, guidance provision, service provision, etc. Based on the principle of university autonomy, the Ministry of Education allows individual universities to set their own rules for faculty evaluation, and to decide which methods should be used, what items and content should be covered, what weightings should be employed, etc.; this has created a situation where there is considerable variation in the standards applied to faculty evaluation. The implementation of faculty evaluation can lead to changes in the campus environment, and can be seen as constituting a threat to faculty members; the results of faculty evaluation also affect the way universities manage their faculty “manpower.” This study seeks to determine whether faculty evaluation is in fact able to reflect faculty achievements and performance and create real benefits for universities.
    The goal of the present study is to undertake empirical analysis of the S university actual results obtained in faculty evaluation, so as to gauge how effective faculty evaluation is in reality. It is anticipated that the results obtained in this analysis can provide a useful reference for improving faculty evaluation; a number of suggestions are made as to how such improvement could be carried out.
    The study makes use of the independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA analysis. The first step is to analyze the relationship between faculty members’ personal background and their faculty evaluation results and weighting. The study then proceeds to explore, from the faculty members’ perspective, the impact of the individual dimensional weightings and special evaluation indicators on faculty members’ evaluation results. The following conclusions are reached:
    1. Faculty member background variables (including gender, age, department, and years of service) have a significant impact on faculty members’ evaluation results.
    2. Faculty member background variables (including gender, age, department, and years of service) have a significant impact on the dimensional weightings in faculty evaluation.
    3. The distribution of the four dimensional weightings (teaching, research, administrative service, and guidance provision) is correlated with the evaluation results.
    4. The special evaluation indicators relating to university performance, including “teaching performance feedback,” “receipt of teaching awards,” “simultaneous holding of administrative posts,” “undergoing training in teaching methods,” “publications,” “taking on of special projects,” “provision of specialist services,” etc., are correlated with the results obtained in the individual dimensions of faculty evaluation.
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系暨研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML70View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback