澳洲與臺灣國家職能標準制度及其內涵之比較

Abstract

當前臺灣的職能標準制訂高度借重澳洲經驗，但兩國職能制度標準與內涵有何差異以及差異處對我國的意涵為何？為回答此一問題，本研究採貝瑞岱（George Bereday）的比較研究法，進行兩國職能標準制度與內涵異同之比較。結果發現其在制度，臺灣是由政府各部會主導及編列預算建置，偏重官方角色，但事權較分散；澳洲則是由政府支助產業主導及建置，偏重產業角色，事權相對集中；在內涵方面，臺灣以「職業」為出發，探討各職業應備能力，各該職業能力規格未再細分至單元，運用上較無彈性；澳洲以則由「資歷」出發，探討各資歷應具備能力，各該資歷係由能力單元組合而成，運用上相對靈活。本研究歸納兩國差異我國意涵如下：(1)宜由單一部會主導職能基準建置，以減少資源分散；(2)宜結合民間機構資源一同建置職業訓練內涵，以作為訓練評鑑之依據；(3)宜參考澳洲作法建立職能單元並靈活運用，以提高基準建置效率；(4)宜將職能標準制度與終身學習體系做結合，完善人才培育網絡。

The development of Taiwan’s competency standards (CS’s) has largely followed the Australian experiences. However, the following two questions have been raised: (1) What are the differences between these two countries’ systems and contents of CS’s? and (2) What are the implications of these differences to Taiwan? To answer these questions, George Bereday’s comparative method are applied in this study to compare the CS’s and their contents in the two countries. Consequently, in terms of system, it is found that in Taiwan, the central government is responsible for building CS’s and their budgeting. Namely, the government has a leading role in the development process, but the responsibilities are rather dispersing between related ministries. However, in Australia, with the support of government funding, the industry takes charge in the development of CS’s, and the responsibilities are more centralized. As for the contents of CS’s, Taiwan’s ones focus on competencies required by different types of occupations and do not further divide into units of competency. Thus, the flexibility of CS’s are insufficient when they are applied. However, the contents of Australia’s CS’s are based on qualifications consisting of units of competency. According to the differences of the CS’s between the two countries, the following implications are drawn for Taiwan: (1)The responsibility of developing CS’s could be designated to a sole governmental ministry in order to centralize various resources; (2) Non-governmental organizations (NGO’s)or individuals could be included in developing the components and assessment criteria of vocational training; (3)Australia’s experiences of units of competency could be borrowed and flexibily efficiency of CS; and (4) CS’s could be combined with lifelong learning systems in order to optimize talent development networks.