Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49796
|
| Title: | 我國大學教師評鑑指標建構之研究
A study of the construction of taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators |
| Authors: | 洪雅琪
Hung, Ya-Chi |
| Contributors: | 吳政達
Wu, Cheng-Ta
洪雅琪
Hung, Ya-Chi |
| Keywords: | 大學教師評鑑
大學教師角色
模糊德菲術
faculty evaluation
faculty role
Fuzzy Delphi |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2010-12-09 09:38:32 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究旨在建構我國大學教師評鑑指標，以供大學做為教師續聘和升等之參考。研究方法部分，先以文獻分析歸納出我國大學教師之三大角色構面和47項教師評鑑指標，並以專家問卷和模糊德菲術問卷進行指標的刪修和確定。接著以多元度量法和集群分析的方式整合大學教師對指標的分類，以建構評鑑構面，並利用模糊德菲術整合大學教師對指標重要性之看法，最後以歸一化之方式求得各構面以及各項指標權重，完成我國大學教師評鑑指標系統。根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下：
一、本研究確立我國大學教師評鑑指標，為三大構面共34項指標。指標三大構面依權重高低依序為：研究構面（41%）、教學構面（35%）、服務構面（24%）。
二、大學教師評鑑之服務構面底下分為三個次構面，分別為專業性服務、一般性服務、學生指導。
三、研究構面之下權重最重的指標依次為：1-1.在原創性研究上獲得之榮譽或獎勵（佔7.78%）；1-2.在有外審制度之期刊發表論文（佔4.64%）；1-3.學術影響力（佔4.53％）。
四、教學構面下，2-1.教學內容的品質與適切性（佔3.54%）；2-2.優良教師獲獎（佔3.41%）；2-3.教學方法（佔3.14%）。
五、服務構面權重最重的指標為學生指導此一次構面下的指標3-10.指導碩士學位和博士學位學生論文（佔2.25%）權重最重，其次為專業性服務此一次構面下的指標3-1擔任專業期刊的主編或審查委員（佔2.14%）。
本研究依研究結果提出以下建議：
一、對高等教育主管機關之建議。
二、對大學教師之建議。
三、對未來研究之建議。
The purpose of this study is to construct the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators which aim for faculty tenure and promotion. As for research methods, by means of literature review, 47 indicators within 3 main dimensions had been organized as a raw model of Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators based on which the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire was developed and the survey was conducted with the sample of higher education experts. Symmetric triangular fuzzy number then was used to analyze experts’ opinion on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection. At the next stage, we conduct a concept mapping questionnaire to collect faculty’s opinion about how many dimensions those indicators belong, and use cluster analysis to construct the dimensions of faculty evaluation. Then, we normalize symmetric triangular fuzzy number’s total score to determine the weight of each dimensions and indicators; accordingly, the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system was constructed. The main conclusions are as follows:
1.Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system consists of 3 dimensions and 34 indicators in total. The 3 dimensions are: research (accounts for 41%), teaching (35%), and service (24%).
2.The dimension of service consists of 3 sub-dimensions, which are professional service, general service, and student counsel.
3.In the dimension of research, the indicator of honor on original research accounts for the most part (7.78%), and then the indicator of writing papers in reviewed journals accounts for 4.64%.
4.In the dimension of teaching, the indicator of the quality of teaching content accounts the most (3.54%), and the indicator of teaching awards accounts for 3.41%.
5.In the dimension of service, the indicator of advising masters’ and doctors’ theses accounts the most (2.25), and the indicator of serving as an editor or reviewer of professional journals accounts for 2.14%.
According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed：
1. suggestions for higher education administrators
2. suggestions for faculty members
3. suggestions for further study. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部份
王文科（2002）。教育研究法。台北：五南。
王如哲（2008）。國際大學研究績效評鑑。台北：高等教育文化事業有限公司。
王振世、陳芃婷（2005）。大學教師績效評量模型之建立：以新竹某國立大學為例。科技管理學刊，10（3），121-152。
王國明、顧志遠（1998）。教師績效獎勵制度建立之理論與實務。載於胡悅倫（主編）海峽兩岸大學教育評鑑之研究（頁135-150），台北市：師大書苑。
呂美花（2003）。我國技職校院教師教學服務考核指標之建構。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習－概念構圖之研究。台北：商鼎。
何信助（1985）。我國台灣地區大學教育目標之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
吳宇正（2002）。大學教師績效評估模式之研究—應用DHP法。中華大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
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。
吳政達（2004）。教育政策分析－概念、方法與運用。台北：高等教育文化事業有限公司。
吳清山、張佩韻（2007，12月）。教師評鑑之法理分析—以正當法律程序為中心。載於台灣教育政策與評鑑學會、中華民國教育行政學會、財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會、台北市立教育大學教育行政與政策研究所聯合舉辦之「教師評鑑：挑戰、因應與展望」學術研討會論文集（頁239-255），台北市。
吳政達、郭昭佑（1997）。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應用。教育與心理研究，20(2)，217-242。
國立政治大學教學發展中心（2009）。國立政治大學教學發展中心成立目的。民98年1月2日，取自：http://ctld.nccu.edu.tw/chinese/02_about/01_detail.php?aid=1
張倍禛、王健華（2002）。大學教學優良教師評鑑指標的建立—教學資源中心教師評鑑個案研究。教學科技與媒體，59，46-62。
張鈿富（1996）。教育政策分：理論與實務。台北：五南。
張鈿富（2008）。大學教師評鑑制度的建立。教育研究月刊，168，21-28。
陳琦媛（2006）。我國公立大學教師教學評鑑之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳奎憙（2001）。教育社會學導論。台北：師大書苑。
黃厚生（2007）。技職型大學教師評鑑與淘汰機制之研究。清雲教學卓越期刊，1（1），87-110。
楊智穎、蘇竟同、陳怡芬（2007，11月）。我國大學教師評鑑的現況分析極重要問題探討，論文發表於國立台灣師範大學教育系主辦之「公義社會與教育行政革新」國際學術研討會，台北市。
顏國梁（2003）。教師評鑑的基本理念、問題及做法。教育研究月刊，112，62-77。
二、英文部份
Alenoush , S., & Cheryl, A. (2001). Evaluation university teaching :Time to take stock . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 26(4),341-353.
Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Berberet, J. (1999). The professoriate and institutional citizenship: Toward a scholarship of service. Liberal Education, 85(4), 33-39.
Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American professors: A national resource imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press.
Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burbles, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching- theory and practice. NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Cashin, W. E. (1996). Developing an effective faculty evaluation system. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395536). Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED395536
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and application. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of teaching.
Crosson, P. H. (1985). Public service in higher education: Practices and priorities. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED284515). Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED284515
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Edgerton, R. (1993). The re-examination of faculty priorities. Change, 25(4), 10-25.
Hornback, B. C. (1993). Too busy to teach. State Government News, 36(4), 12-14.
Iwanicki, E. F. (l990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In J. Milllman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher Evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp.158-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Koplik, S. Z., & Welsh, J. F. (1993). Tip the delicate balance. Trusteeship, 1(5), 22-24.
Lim, T. (2006).Evaluating Faculty Research. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service (pp. 1-19). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Massachusetts Society of Professors (2004). Evaluation of faculty and librarians. Retrieved March, 14, 2008, from http//faculty.uml.edu/msp/contract.html
Mississippi State University (2008). Faculty handbook- V. promotion and tenure procedures. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.msstate.edu/web/faculty_handbook/v.html
Mooney, C. J. (1992). Syracuse tries to involve others in teaching-vs.-research debate. Chronicle of Higher Education, 38(29), 16-17.
Neal, J. E. (1988). Faculty evaluation: Its purposes and effectiveness. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380800). Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED308800
O’Meara K. (2005). Effects of encouraging multiple forms of scholarship nationwide and across institutional types. In R. E. Rice and K. O’Meara (eds.), Faculty priorities reconsidered. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Porter, L., & McKibbin, L. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reza, K., & Vassilis, S. M. (1988). Delphi Hierarchy Process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and Analytical Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 37, 347-354.
Rice, R. E. (1991a). Toward a broader conception of scholarship: The American context. In I. T. G. Whitson & R. C. Geiger (eds.), Research and higher education: The United Kingdom and the United States. Bristol, Pa.: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Rice, R. E. (1991b). The new American scholar: Scholarship and the purposes of the university. Metropolitan Universities Journal, 1(4), 7-18.
Seldin, P. (2006). Building a successful evaluation program. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service (pp. 1-19). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Sorcinelli M. D., Austin A. E., Eddy P. L. & Beach A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development-Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Trochim, M. K. & Linton, R.(1986).Conceptualization for evaluation and planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 189-308.
Williams, K. F., & Rhodes, T. M. (2002). Chief academic officers` perceptions about faculty evaluation. Paper presented at the 83rd annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Mclaughling, M. W., & Berstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A case study effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
教育行政與政策研究所
96171010
97 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096171010 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育行政與政策研究所 ] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
