The Construction of Meta-evaluation Indicators of Taiwan’s University Program Evaluation: JCSEE Program Evaluation Standards as a Framework

Abstract

Taiwan’s university program evaluation has become an important trend. To ensure their quality, meta-evaluation is one of the important methods. The university program evaluation is a central issue in what concerns in Taiwan’s university programs. In terms of meta-evaluation, the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE) Program Evaluation Standards have wider applications but more general standard descriptions and more trivial related checklists. This study aims at the meta-evaluation indicators of Taiwan’s university departmental self-evaluation based on the JCSEE Program Evaluation Standards. According to the weights of meta-evaluation’s five major category standards of university program evaluation analyzed in this study, the most important is Propriety Standards, and the secondary important in order are Utility Standards, Feasibility Standards, Accuracy Standards and Evaluation Accountability Standards, different from the JCSEE’s original order, which is worthy of follow-up studies. In this regard, it mainly amended and identified indicators via expert questionnaires and then used Fuzzy Delphi method questionnaires to integrate experts and scholars’ opinions on indicator importance and their weights. The data analysis of 60 meta-evaluation indicators of Taiwan’s university programs was constructed by referring to the JCSEE Program Evaluation Standards’ 30 standards in five major categories. It was concluded that the importance of meta-evaluation category standards of university program evaluation in order is U6 Meaningful Processes and Products (Utility Standards), F3 Contextual Viability (Feasibility Standards), P1 Responsive and Inclusive Orientation (Propriety Standards), A3 Reliable Information (Accuracy Standards) and E1 Evaluation Documentation (Evaluation Accountability Standards). The JCSEE’s standards were constructed, and conclusions and recommendations were provided to university departments for reference while carrying out self-evaluations.