英國、美國、台灣高等教育評鑑制度之比較研究

Abstract

本研究係採用貝瑞德(G. Z. F. Bereday)所提出之比較教育研究法，針對英國、美國、台灣高等教育評鑑制度進行比較分析，以期達成下列研究目的：一、探討高等教育評鑑制度形成之背景及內涵；二、了解英、美、台三國高等教育評鑑制度之發展沿革與評鑑機構；三、比較英、美、台三國高等教育評鑑制度之模式，包括目的原則、評鑑方式、評鑑標準與評鑑流程；四、探究英、美、台三國高等教育評鑑結果之處理與運用。 根據文獻探討結果，本研究結論發現近年來高等教育評鑑制度及其相關問題，在英、美、台皆引起相當多的討論，惟三國的發展狀況仍有異同之處。相同點包括：一、高等教育體制面臨重大轉變；二、高等教育評鑑制度發展受到重視；三、教育經費緊縮造成資源競爭；四、皆成立專責之高等教育評鑑機構；五、評鑑任務皆重視教育品質的提升；六、評鑑標準兼採量化與質化指標；七、評鑑結果處理皆為公開。相異點包括：一、評鑑關注之重點不同；二、評鑑機構性質不同；三、評鑑機構任務不同；四、評鑑進行的週期不同；五、評鑑進行的自願性不同；六、評鑑流程不同；七、評鑑結果呈現方式不同；八、評鑑結果的運用不同。 根據上述研究結論，研究者提出以下建議： 一、對台灣高等教育評鑑制度未來發展之建議 （一）發展建立本土化的高等教育評鑑指標，並依據學門之個殊性適度修正評鑑指標之內容。 （二）輔導系所與社會大眾進一步了解高等教育評鑑的意義，增強其對高等教育評鑑的知能。 （三）應重視高等教育評鑑實施後的後續追蹤評鑑工作，使高等教育機構能持續提升其教育品質。 （四）評鑑制度關注之重點，需兼重認可與品質保證之精神。 （五）評鑑制度採行之方式，可適度融入研究評鑑之作法。 （六）鼓勵私人或民間團體成立評鑑認可機構，以追求評鑑管道的多元化。 （ 七）在評鑑結果之運用上，應與相關政策進行結合，並發展出相應之配套措施。 二、對後續研究之建議 （一）針對英國、美國及台灣高等教育評鑑制度之實施情形與相關政策作更深入之探究。 （二）針對其他國家之高等教育評鑑制度進行研究與探討。

關鍵字：高等教育、高等教育評鑑、比較教育This study adopt analysis and comparative research method developed by G. Z. F. Bereday. The aim is to compare the higher education evaluation system in UK, USA and Taiwan (ROC). The purposes of this study are listed as follows: 1. to explore the background and connotation of higher education evaluation system; 2.to understand the development process and evaluation institutions of UK, USA and Taiwan (ROC); 3.to compare the higher evaluation systems of UK, USA and Taiwan (ROC), including purposes, principles, modes, standards and processes. 4. to figure out the manipulation and application of evaluation outcomes in UK, USA and Taiwan (ROC). The conclusions of this study are as follows: There are similarities and differences among these countries. The similarities are listed as follows: 1. the higher education faces impact; 2. the development of higher education evaluation system is emphasized; 3. the decrease of education subsidization causes resource competition; 4. the establishment of higher education evaluation institutions; 5. the mission of evaluation emphasize the education quality exaltation; 6. the standards of evaluation adopt both quantifiable and qualitative indicators; 7. the manipulation of evaluation outcomes are aboveboard. The differences are listed as follows: 1. the focal points of evaluation are not alike; 2. the complexion of evaluation institutions are not alike; 3. the tasks of evaluation institution are not alike; 4. the cycle of evaluation process are not alike; 5. the voluntariness of evaluation acceptance are not alike; 6. the procedures of evaluation are not alike; 7. the way to present evaluation outcomes are not alike; 8. the application of evaluation outcomes are not alike. Based on the conclusion and discoveries mentioned above, the suggestions provided in this research are as follows: 1. For development of higher education evaluation system (1) Should develop local evaluation indicators, and adjust indicators according to the speciality of curriculum. (2) Should improve public cognition of higher education evaluation. (3) Should emphasize on the follow-up tracing evaluation, and keep the improvement of higher education. (4) The focal points of evaluation should put emphasis on both accreditation and quality assurance. (5) Should adopt RAE appropriately in the mode of evaluation. (6) Should encourage the founding of private evaluation organization, to keep the diversity of higher education evaluation. (7) The application of evaluation outcomes should be integrated with related education policies. 2. For further study (1) To broaden the study to each aspect in higher education evaluation systems in UK, USA and Taiwan (ROC). (2) To broaden the study to other countries’ higher education evaluation systems.

Keyword: Higher education, Higher education evaluation, comparative study