我國大學校院教師評鑑制度之研究

淡江大學機構典藏 > 教育學院 > 教育政策與領導研究所 > 學位論文 > Item 987654321/87086

jsp.display-item.identifier=請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/87086

题名:	我國大學校院教師評鑑制度之研究
其它题名:	A study on the system of faculty assessment in the universities in Taiwan
作者:	常硯鈞;Chang, Yan-Jun
贡献者:	淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士班楊瑩
关键词:	一般大學校院;技職大學校院;教師評鑑制度;General universities;Universities of Technology;Faculty Assessment
日期:	2012
上传时间:	2013-04-13 10:38:49 (UTC+8)
摘要:	本研究採用文件分析法（document analysis）、案例研究，及比較研究法(comparative study)來進行。本研究主要目的為：一、分析我國大學校院教師評鑑制度之沿革發展。二、瞭解我國一般大學校院與技職大學校院教師評鑑制度之現況。三、針對四所案例學校進行其教師評鑑制度之較深入分析。四、比較四所案例學校教師評鑑制度之異同。五、參考研究發現，提出未來可供政策改革參考之建議。本研究之主要結論共可歸納如下：壹、我國大學校院教師評鑑制度整體面一、約三成學校在《大學法》修訂前即已實施教師評鑑相關措施。二、教師評鑑對象，大多數以專任教師為主，部分學校適用對象尚包括專業技術人員。三、大多數學校均以教師評審委員會為教師評鑑之負責單位，少數學校另設置專責單位四、大多數學校均明定對未通過評鑑教師將進行輔導。五、大多數學校均將教師升等條件與教師評鑑結果掛勾。貳、四所案例學校教師評鑑之比較分析一、共同處 (一)四所學校在民國94年《大學法》修訂後均已訂定或修正相關法規，建置各該校教師評鑑制度並實施迄今。 (二)四所學校教師評鑑對象皆以專任教師為主，且四所案例學校在相關辦法中都有明訂免評教師之條件。 (三)四所學校的教師評鑑項目基本上皆依大學法規定以教學、研究、輔導與服務等項目為主，並將評分滿分訂為一百分。 (四)四所學校教師評鑑均係透過教師評審委員會來進行教師評鑑。 (五)四所學校對未通過評鑑之教師，均有權利上之限制。 (六)四所學校都對教師若對評鑑結果有異議者，建立有覆評及申訴制度。二、相異處 (一)四所學校教師評鑑辦法建置時間及法規名稱不完全相同。 (二)兩所技職校院，明確將產學合作、技術操作等訂定為教師評鑑評分項目。 (三)教師評鑑實施頻率方面，除了淡江大學教師受評期間是依其聘期兩年是否屆滿而定外，其他三所學校基本上皆為每3年即需評鑑。 (四)在四所案例學校裡，僅有淡江大學將募款金額納入輔導與服務評分項目中。 (五)除聖約翰科技大學外，其餘三所案例學校在評鑑辦法中，均有明確規定必頇通過評鑑始得提升等。 (六)除國立臺灣科技大學外，其餘三所案例學校在評鑑辦法中都有明確規定，以未通過之次數與幾年內頇通過，作為下一學年聘任制之重要參考依據。 (七)四所案例學校中，兩所一般大學在評鑑辦法有提及對於獎勵優良教師之規定，但兩所技職校院則未明訂於辦法中。 This study aims to explore the system of teacher evaluation in the universities and colleges in Taiwan. The main methods used in this study is document analysis, case study and comparative study. The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follow： Ι.As to the implementation of the faculty assessment system in Taiwan on the whole 1.All of the universities in Taiwan have established their systems of faculty assessment by law, and 30% of them have undertaken their faculty assessment before the revision of the ―University Law‖ in 2006. 2.Full-time teaching faculties are the main target of the faculty assessment in the majority of universities, but technical staff and research fellows are also included in some universities. 3. The Senate of the university is assigned as the main body responsible for the faculty assessment in most universities. 4. The majority of universities provide consultation and guidance services for the faculties fail, or with unsatisfactory result, in the assessment. 5. The result of faculty assessment is regarded as the prerequisite condition for promotion in most universities. ΙΙ. As to the case study of 4 universities chosen for the comparative study. 1.All of them have set up their own systems of faculty assessment, in accordance with their own rules, though the names of their rules vary. 2. Full-time teaching faculties are the main target of the faculty assessment in the these 4 universities and exemption for the assessment are all well defined in their rules. 3. Scores are the main performance result for the faculty assessment in these four universities, with the ceiling of 100. 4. The Senate is the main body responsible for the faculty assessment in these 4 universities. 5.Constraints of the rights for the faculties with unsatisfactory result in the assessment are regulated clearly in the rules of these 4 universities. 6. All of these 4 universities have provided the chance of appealing or complaint for their faculties with unsatisfactory result in the assessment. 7. The criteria for the faculty assessment and the weights of each criteria can be regulated by each university based on the principle of academic autonomy, so that differences and special characteristics remain in these 4 universities.
显示于类别:	[教育政策與領導研究所] 學位論文

文件中的档案:

档案	大小	格式	浏览次数
index.html	0Kb	HTML	175	检视/开启

在機構典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

TAIR相关文章

数据加载中.....