| dc.contributor.advisor | 吳政達 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Wu, Cheng-Ta | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 洪雅琪 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Hung, Ya-Chi | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 洪雅琪 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Hung, Ya-Chi | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2008 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 9-Dec-2010 09:38:32 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 9-Dec-2010 09:38:32 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 9-Dec-2010 09:38:32 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0096171010 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/49796 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 教育行政與政策研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 96171010 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 97 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 本研究旨在建構我國大學教師評鑑指標，以供大學做為教師續聘和升等之參考。研究方法部分，先以文獻分析歸納出我國大學教師之三大角色構面和47項教師評鑑指標，並以專家問卷和模糊德菲術問卷進行指標的刪修和確定。接著以多元度量法和集群分析的方式整合大學教師對指標的分類，以建構評鑑構面，並利用模糊德菲術整合大學教師對指標重要性之看法，最後以歸一化之方式求得各構面以及各項指標權重，完成我國大學教師評鑑指標系統。根據研究之結果與分析，歸納主要結論如下：一、本研究確立我國大學教師評鑑指標，為三大構面共34項指標。指標三大構面依權重高低依序為：研究構面（41%）、教學構面（35%）、服務構面（24%）。二、大學教師評鑑之服務構面底下分為三個次構面，分別為專業性服務、一般性服務、學生指導。三、研究構面之下權重最重的指標依次為：1-1.在原創性研究上獲得之榮譽或獎勵（佔7.78%）；1-2.在有外審制度之期刊發表論文（佔4.64%）；1-3.學術影響力（佔4.53％）。四、教學構面下，2-1.教學內容的品質與適切性（佔3.54%）；2-2.優良教師獲獎（佔3.41%）；2-3.教學方法（佔3.14%）。五、服務構面權重最重的指標為學生指導此一次構面下的指標3-10.指導碩士學位和博士學位學生論文（佔2.25%）權重最重，其次為專業性服務此一次構面下的指標3-1擔任專業期刊的主編或審查委員（佔2.14%）。 本研究依研究結果提出以下建議： 一、對高等教育主管機關之建議。 二、對大學教師之建議。 三、對未來研究之建議。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The purpose of this study is to construct the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators which aim for faculty tenure and promotion. As for research methods, by means of literature review, 47 indicators within 3 main dimensions had been organized as a raw model of Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators based on which the Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire was developed and the survey was conducted with the sample of higher education experts. Symmetric triangular fuzzy number then was used to analyze experts’ opinion on the importance of each indicator and to help indicator selection. At the next stage, we conduct a concept mapping questionnaire to collect faculty’s opinion about how many dimensions those indicators belong, and use cluster analysis to construct the dimensions of faculty evaluation. Then, we normalize symmetric triangular fuzzy number’s total score to determine the weight of each dimensions and indicators; accordingly, the Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system was constructed. The main conclusions are as follows:1.Taiwan university faculty evaluation indicator system consists of 3 dimensions and 34 indicators in total. The 3 dimensions are: research (accounts for 41%), teaching (35%), and service (24%).2.The dimension of service consists of 3 sub-dimensions, which are professional service, general service, and student counsel.3.In the dimension of research, the indicator of honor on original research accounts for the most part (7.78%), and then the indicator of writing papers in reviewed journals accounts for 4.64%.4.In the dimension of teaching, the indicator of the quality of teaching content accounts the most (3.54%), and the indicator of teaching awards accounts for 3.41%.5.In the dimension of service, the indicator of advising masters’ and doctors’ theses accounts the most (2.25), and the indicator of serving as an editor or reviewer of professional journals accounts for 2.14%.According to the conclusions, some suggestions had been proposed： 1. suggestions for higher education administrators 2. suggestions for faculty members 3. suggestions for further study. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 第一節 研究動機…………………………………………………1 第二節 研究目的…………………………………………………4 第三節 重要名詞釋義……………………………………………5 第四節 研究範圍與限制…………………………………………7第二章 文獻探討 第一節 大學教師角色構面………………………………………8 第二節 大學教師研究評鑑………………………………………18 第三節 大學教師教學評鑑………………………………………27 第四節 大學教師服務評鑑………………………………………44 第五節 我國大學教師評鑑實施現況與困境……………………56第三章 研究設計與實施 第一節 研究架構…………………………………………………70 第二節 研究對象…………………………………………………71 第三節 研究方法…………………………………………………73 第四節 實施程序…………………………………………………80 第五節 資料處理與分析…………………………………………82第四章 研究分析結果與建議 第一節 我國大學教師評鑑指標專家問卷結果………………83 第二節 模糊德菲問卷結果分析………………………………88 第三節 概念構圖問卷結果分析………………………………94第五章 結論與建議 第一節 結論……………………………………………………101 第二節 建議……………………………………………………105參考文獻………………………………………………………………108附錄一：「我國大學教師評鑑指標建構之研究」專家問卷……………………113附錄二：「我國大學教師評鑑指標建構之研究」模糊德菲術專家問卷………...118附錄三：「我國大學教師評鑑指標建構之研究」概念構圖和模糊德菲術問卷…122 圖 次圖3-1 研究架構……………………………………………………………………70圖3-2 三角模糊數…………………………………………………………………75圖3-3 研究流程圖…………………………………………………………………81圖4-1 概念構圖法指標建構34個指標之二向度座標圖……………………...…96 表 次表2-1 大學教師角色構面彙整表…………………………………………………14表2-2 大學教師角色之研究構面與活動…………………………………………19表2-3 國內大學教師評鑑相關研究－研究評鑑指標……………………………23表2-4 初擬評鑑大學教師研究指標………………………………………………25表2-5 大學教師角色之教學構面與活動…………………………………………28表2-6 國內大學教師評鑑相關研究－教學評鑑指標……………………………30表2-7 初擬評鑑大學教師教學指標………………………………………………38表2-8 評鑑大學教師教學的工具和程序摘要表…………………………………40表2-9 大學教師角色之服務構面與活動…………………………………………46表2-10 大學教師角色之公民表現構面與活動…………………………………47表2-11 國內大學教師評鑑相關研究－服務評鑑指標…………………………50表2-12 初擬評鑑大學教師服務指標……………………………………………54表2-13 動態的大學教師角色模式………………………………………………58表3-1 公私立大學專任教師抽樣數統計表………………………………………72表4-1 專家問卷成員名單…………………………………………………………83表4-2 專家問卷結果與指標內容修改對照表……………………………………84表4-3 德菲術專家問卷指標………………………………………………………85表4-4 模糊德菲專家問卷成員名單………………………………………………88表4-5 我國大學教師評鑑指標構面之三角模糊數………………………………91表4-6 我國大學教師評鑑指標之三角模…………………………………………89表4-7 我國大學教師評鑑指標構面之效用值……………………………………92表4-8 我國大學教師評鑑指標之效用值…………………………………………92表4-9 概念構圖指標建構各意見點座標表………………………………………95表4-10 我國大學教師評鑑指標構面表…………………..………………………96表4-11 我國大學教師評鑑指標構面之權重……………………………………99表4-12 我國大學教師評鑑指標之權重…………………………………………99表5-1 我國大學教師評鑑指標系統…………………………………………101 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 94819 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 135562 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 125645 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 167106 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 359457 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 490554 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 411609 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 389752 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 361048 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 339652 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 366612 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 399816 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 369837 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096171010 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 大學教師評鑑 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 大學教師角色 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 模糊德菲術 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | faculty evaluation | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | faculty role | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Fuzzy Delphi | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 我國大學教師評鑑指標建構之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title (題名) | A study of the construction of taiwan university faculty evaluation indicators | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 一、中文部份 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 王文科（2002）。教育研究法。台北：五南。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 王如哲（2008）。國際大學研究績效評鑑。台北：高等教育文化事業有限公司。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 王振世、陳芃婷（2005）。大學教師績效評量模型之建立：以新竹某國立大學為例。科技管理學刊，10（3），121-152。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 王國明、顧志遠（1998）。教師績效獎勵制度建立之理論與實務。載於胡悅倫（主編）海峽兩岸大學教育評鑑之研究（頁135-150），台北市：師大書苑。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 呂美花（2003）。我國技職校院教師教學服務考核指標之建構。國立台北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 余民寧（1997）。有意義的學習－概念構圖之研究。台北：商鼎。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 何信助（1985）。我國台灣地區大學教育目標之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳宇正（2002）。大學教師績效評估模式之研究—應用DHP法。中華大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳佩真、張民杰（2007）。國內大學教師教學評鑑現況分析，評鑑雙月刊，9，9-15。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳政達（2004）。教育政策分析－概念、方法與運用。台北：高等教育文化事業有限公司。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳清山、張佩韻（2007，12月）。教師評鑑之法理分析—以正當法律程序為中心。載於台灣教育政策與評鑑學會、中華民國教育行政學會、財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會、台北市立教育大學教育行政與政策研究所聯合舉辦之「教師評鑑：挑戰、因應與展望」學術研討會論文集（頁239-255），台北市。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 吳政達、郭昭佑（1997）。概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之應用。教育與心理研究，20(2)，217-242。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 國立政治大學教學發展中心（2009）。國立政治大學教學發展中心成立目的。民98年1月2日，取自：http://ctld.nccu.edu.tw/chinese/02_about/01_detail.php?aid=1 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張倍禛、王健華（2002）。大學教學優良教師評鑑指標的建立—教學資源中心教師評鑑個案研究。教學科技與媒體，59，46-62。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張鈿富（1996）。教育政策分：理論與實務。台北：五南。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 張鈿富（2008）。大學教師評鑑制度的建立。教育研究月刊，168，21-28。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳琦媛（2006）。我國公立大學教師教學評鑑之研究。國立政治大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，台北市。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳奎憙（2001）。教育社會學導論。台北：師大書苑。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 黃厚生（2007）。技職型大學教師評鑑與淘汰機制之研究。清雲教學卓越期刊，1（1），87-110。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 楊智穎、蘇竟同、陳怡芬（2007，11月）。我國大學教師評鑑的現況分析極重要問題探討，論文發表於國立台灣師範大學教育系主辦之「公義社會與教育行政革新」國際學術研討會，台北市。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 顏國梁（2003）。教師評鑑的基本理念、問題及做法。教育研究月刊，112，62-77。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 二、英文部份 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Alenoush , S., & Cheryl, A. (2001). Evaluation university teaching :Time to take stock . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 26(4),341-353. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Berberet, J. (1999). The professoriate and institutional citizenship: Toward a scholarship of service. Liberal Education, 85(4), 33-39. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American professors: A national resource imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Burbles, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching- theory and practice. NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Cashin, W. E. (1996). Developing an effective faculty evaluation system. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395536). Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED395536 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and application. New York: Springer-Verlag. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of teaching. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Crosson, P. H. (1985). Public service in higher education: Practices and priorities. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED284515). Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED284515 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Edgerton, R. (1993). The re-examination of faculty priorities. Change, 25(4), 10-25. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Hornback, B. C. (1993). Too busy to teach. State Government News, 36(4), 12-14. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Iwanicki, E. F. (l990). Teacher evaluation for school improvement. In J. Milllman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher Evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp.158-171). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Koplik, S. Z., & Welsh, J. F. (1993). Tip the delicate balance. Trusteeship, 1(5), 22-24. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Lim, T. (2006).Evaluating Faculty Research. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service (pp. 1-19). Bolton, MA: Anker. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Massachusetts Society of Professors (2004). Evaluation of faculty and librarians. Retrieved March, 14, 2008, from http//faculty.uml.edu/msp/contract.html | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Mississippi State University (2008). Faculty handbook- V. promotion and tenure procedures. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.msstate.edu/web/faculty_handbook/v.html | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Mooney, C. J. (1992). Syracuse tries to involve others in teaching-vs.-research debate. Chronicle of Higher Education, 38(29), 16-17. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Neal, J. E. (1988). Faculty evaluation: Its purposes and effectiveness. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380800). Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED308800 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | O’Meara K. (2005). Effects of encouraging multiple forms of scholarship nationwide and across institutional types. In R. E. Rice and K. O’Meara (eds.), Faculty priorities reconsidered. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Porter, L., & McKibbin, L. (1988). Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century. New York: McGraw-Hill. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Reza, K., & Vassilis, S. M. (1988). Delphi Hierarchy Process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and Analytical Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 37, 347-354. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Rice, R. E. (1991a). Toward a broader conception of scholarship: The American context. In I. T. G. Whitson & R. C. Geiger (eds.), Research and higher education: The United Kingdom and the United States. Bristol, Pa.: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Rice, R. E. (1991b). The new American scholar: Scholarship and the purposes of the university. Metropolitan Universities Journal, 1(4), 7-18. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Seldin, P. (2006). Building a successful evaluation program. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service (pp. 1-19). Bolton, MA: Anker. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Sorcinelli M. D., Austin A. E., Eddy P. L. & Beach A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development-Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Trochim, M. K. & Linton, R.(1986).Conceptualization for evaluation and planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 189-308. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Williams, K. F., & Rhodes, T. M. (2002). Chief academic officers` perceptions about faculty evaluation. Paper presented at the 83rd annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Mclaughling, M. W., & Berstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A case study effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. | zh_TW |
