Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|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|
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|
|Issue Date: ||2015-05-04 09:53:56 (UTC+8)|
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|
All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.