科技校院教師評鑑的阻礙與因應

The Barriers and Solutions for Faculty Evaluation in Colleges and Universities of Technology

雖然國外大學教師評鑑制度已施行有年，然而由於我國科技校院的設立較晚，且在大學法中也自2005年起才開始規範高等教育機構需要實施教師評鑑，因此教師評鑑在當前科技校院中尚屬新興的議題。本研究旨在探究科技校院教師對教師評鑑阻礙與因應策略的知覺，為達研究目的，本研究共訪談11位科技校院教師評鑑制定單位的主管，並經10位科技校院各職級資深教師審查以提出補充意見，再經三位具有教師評鑑相關研究的學者進行審查確認，最後以問卷調查，獲得580位科技校院教師的回應。研究結論包括：1.教師評鑑阻礙的因素模型包含教師認知與態度、評鑑標準信效度、資料呈現與登錄、行政管理與程序、結果公布與使用、以及辦法制度完整性六類別，經驗證結果模式適配情形良好；2.科技校院教師對教師評鑑在「評鑑標準信效度」與「資料呈現與登錄」兩類別呈現高度阻礙的知覺；3.教師評鑑阻礙之44項因應策略獲得科技校院教師的高度認同；4.不同背景科技大學教師對於部分教師評鑑阻礙的知覺程度具有差異。最後提出五項建議供參。 Faculty evaluation has been implemented for years overseas, but because the establishment of colleges and universities of technology in Taiwan was later development, faculty evaluation has only be regulated by University Act since 2005. Faculty evaluation in an institute of technology seems like a new issue compared with other institutes. This study aimed to explore the perception on the barriers and strategies of solution for faculty evaluation in colleges and universities of technology. To achieve the objective, 11 administrators responsible for faculty evaluation were interviewed, 10 senior faculties were invited to examine the interview data and provide supplementary suggestions. Lastly, 3 experts in faculty evaluation reviewed the process. 580 faculty members of institute of technology participated in the questionnaire investigation. The conclusions are as follows: 1.The barriers in faculty evaluation can be grouped into six categories which are faculty members’ cognition and attitude, validity and reliability of evaluation standard, data presentation and document filling, administration management and procedures, announcement and handling of evaluation results, completeness of related regulations. Confirmatory factor analysis shows that the model achieves a good fit. 2. Faculty members showed high perception on “validity and reliability of evaluation standard” and “data presentation and document filling”. 3. 44 strategies of solutions were highly recognized by faculty members. 4. Faculty members with different background have different perception on faculty evaluation barriers. Five suggestions are provided as a reference.