績效控制或專業發展？--大學教師評鑑的兩難

Accountability Control or Professional Development?--A Dilemma of Faculty Evaluation in University

高等教育中的教師評鑑，乃是不同利害關係人相當關切的議題，同時承載著社會、政治及法律上的多重意涵。然而，當我們致力於改善教師表現時，各大學所採用的教師評鑑制度卻相當傳統，類似教師升等的模式，而未審慎思考其合理性。大學教師評鑑的可信度，依然是最令人詬病且敏感的問題。本研究採取批判分析的觀點，檢視教師評鑑在一所教育大學的實踐，並從理論與實務連結的角度，進一步反省大學教師評鑑的困境與出路。研究重點聚焦於教師評鑑兩種不同取向的探究－績效控制取向、專業發展取向，並比較這兩種評鑑取向在理論及實務上的差異。在本研究中，個案研究乃是作為理解大學教師評鑑如何運作以及界定教師評鑑的意義的視框。此外，這個研究也提供了教師評鑑如何決策的另一種理解。從本研究結果可以發現：在逐漸增加對大學教師工作和專業活動控制的氛圍下，學校行政人員採取了績效控制取向來評鑑教師的表現，而忽略了教師專業發展的意義。於是，教師評鑑淪為績效控制的一種工具，很難作為專業發展的有效機制。也因此，當績效掛帥進入大學校園之際，教師評鑑制度必須重新被檢視，以瞭解其是否可以兼顧組織的績效管理和教師的專業發展。

Faculty evaluation in higher education is an issue of strong interest for different stakeholders， given its social， political， and legal implications. While the efforts for improving faculty performance have been made， the systems for assessing the quality of faculty on campus remain largely traditional. The credibility of faculty evaluation is one of the most precarious and sensitive problems. This study used the critical analysis approach to examine the practice of faculty evaluation system in the context of an education university. It focused on two different approaches to faculty evaluation: an accountability control approach and a professional development approach. It further compared their differences in evaluation theory and practice. A case study was used as the lens for understanding how evaluation was conducted， and for identifying the meanings given to the evaluation system. In addition， this study provided an alternative understanding of how decisions about faculty evaluation were made. Results from this study showed that school administrators adopted an accountability control approach to the evaluation of faculty in a climate of increasing control of faculty work and professional activities. That is to say， faculty evaluation cannot simultaneously serves as a mechanism of development and a tool of accountability. Thus， as institutional calls for college and university accountability continue， faculty evaluation systems need to be reexamined to see whether they can serve both to manage organizational performance and to enhance faculty development.