Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/86971
Title: 從澳洲高等教育評鑑反思我國高等教育評鑑之發展
Reflections on the Development of Taiwan's HigherEducational Evaluation: From Australia’s Perspectives
Authors: 洪久賢博士
黃琬婷
Keywords: 高等教育評鑑
澳洲高等教育
評鑑
Issue Date: 2007
Abstract: 本研究旨在分析澳洲高等教育評鑑制度與內涵,比較其與我國評鑑制度之特點,反思我國的高等教育評鑑制度不足之處。本研究採用文件分析法、半結構式訪談,以貝瑞岱比較教育研究取向,運用描述、詮釋、並列、比較四階段作為資料分析方法。重要發現如下: 一、 發展背景:我國與澳洲發展背景雖不同,但皆經過殖民時代,現今高等教育皆由政府主導控制。 二、 高等教育評鑑制度之比較: (一) 評鑑原則因國家環境背景不同,原則性不同。 (二) 評鑑對象不同,澳洲針對機構評鑑,我國針對學門評鑑。 (三) 評鑑取向之差異為我國採認可制,澳洲採審議制,但皆為強制評鑑的方式。 (四) 評鑑結果皆以不排名方式公佈。 三、 評鑑特色與問題之比較: (一) 目前我國高等教育採美國認可制精神,卻採強制評鑑方式。 (二) 澳洲評鑑重視國際化程度與社區參與。 (三) 我國採用CIPP模式,澳洲採用ADRI模式,兩者皆重視內部自我改進。 (四) 澳洲與我國評鑑面臨問題不同,我國面臨評鑑專業人才缺乏與機構營運財政問題;澳洲面對本身自我評鑑完善之問題。
The aims of this research are to analyze the quality assurance system in Australian higher education, to compare the characteristics between Australian and Taiwan’s educational evaluation system, and to reflect on the deficiencies of higher educational evaluation system in Taiwan. This research used document analysis, semi-structural interview, and Bereday’s Comparative Education approach to collect and analyze the data. The four stages of data analysis are description, explanation, juxtaposition, and comparison. The major findings are as follow: 1. Backgrounds of higher educational evaluation: Although differences existing in their backgrounds, both Australia and Taiwan are used to be colonies and their educational evaluation systems in higher education are controlled by the governments. 2. Higher educational evaluation systems between Australia and Taiwan: a) Differences in the fundamentals of evaluation: The bases of evaluation systems are various because of different country backgrounds. b) Differences in types of evaluation: Australia implements institutional audit but Taiwan carries out program and institutional evaluation. c) Differences in evaluation approaches: Australia adopts quality audit but Taiwan adopts accreditation. However, higher educational evaluation in both countries is mandatory. d) Both countries publish the evaluation outcomes but with no ranking. 3. Evaluation characteristics and problems: a) It’s been argued that Taiwan adopts accreditation approach but still proceeds national mandatory evaluation. b) Australian audit indicator emphasizes the degree of internationalization and community involvement of the audited institutions. c) Australian audit adopts ADRI model while Taiwan adopts CIPP model. However, higher educational evaluation systems in both countries values self-improvement. d) Australia is seeking the perfection of the self-evaluation system; Taiwan is facing the problem of lacking evaluation professionals and financial problems of the institutions.
URI: http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=%22http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0693060277%22.&%22.id.&
http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/86971
Other Identifiers: GN0693060277
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
n069306027701.pdf126.46 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069306027702.pdf257.95 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069306027703.pdf112.2 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069306027704.pdf222.95 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069306027705.pdf213.63 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069306027706.pdf266.69 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
n069306027707.pdf139.72 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.