國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 8 Conclusion
This study employed the in-depth interview method to investigate the comments on the improvements for higher education evaluation and accreditation in Taiwan.
Fifteen interviewees have been invited to participate in the interviews of this study.
Their professions include academic faculty, experts in evaluation or accreditation agencies, governmental officials, and people’s representative. Their specialty fields include education, engineering, medical science, business school, liberal arts and law school. The opinions from these interviewees reflect the general feelings and expectations about higher education quality control in Taiwan. Besides the personal in-depth interviews, the interviewees also gave quantitative ratings for the importance of 27 items in a questionnaire. The conclusion of this study is listed by the following points:
(1) More than 50-60% of the interviewees agreed that the outcomes-based evaluation is a better method than the traditional input-based approach. The spirit of the outcomes-based evaluation is yet not clear to all academic programs. Although the outcome-based evaluation is appropriate to various academic fields, the features and indices to be assessed have to be clearly defined by each program.
(2) The HEEACT is now conducting evaluation for various academic fields. More non-governmental evaluation or accreditation agencies, including those from foreign states will be recognized by our Ministry of Education. Many interviewees (about 55-60%) agreed that HEEACT should transform itself to a higher rank monitoring organization. The government has to propose policy to resolve the associated legislation problems during the transformation of HEEACT.
(3) The spirit of higher education evaluation or accreditation is to help programs on
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
continuous improvement. This is almost 100% consensus of all interviewees. A recognition system without ranking or a specific no-pass ratio is more desirable.
This agreement was reached by 80-90% of all interviewees. The governmental policy for awarding grants must consistently match with the recognition system.
(4) There are diversified opinions on the issue of exercising civil rights by the evaluation agencies. More interviewees (almost 55%) agreed that only the government, the Ministry of Education, has the civil right to perform disciplines to university programs based on the evaluation results. The evaluation agencies are just conducting work by their expertise.
(5) Global connection gives great incentives for academic programs to participate in evaluation or accreditation. About 80-90% of all interviewees have the consensus.
It is not, however, the only index to judge the university performance. We have to respect the culture and requirement of human resources of our own country.
(6) At the present time, it is not mature to apply the evaluation or accreditation results as the qualification for professional certificate examination. No consensus at all was observed from the interview results of this study.
(7) There shows very diversified opinions if the documentation work brought burden to academic programs being evaluated. The interview results demonstrated that evaluation agency should guide the program to establish the database, and to collect all the information required. More faculty members should share the loading of evaluation.
(8) All interviewees have the greatest consensus (90-100%) on the regular training of evaluators. The over subjective opinions of individual evaluators should be avoided. Evaluations should be conducted according to its pronounced criteria.
(9) It is necessary to upgrade the reliability and validity of higher education
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
results must be carried out in a systematic way. The hierarchy consistency check structure of IEET, that follows the international standards, should be a good example for other professional evaluation agencies in Taiwan. The evaluation criteria should be clear and applicable. Evaluation results according to the criteria are inevitable to maintain the validity.
(10) Training of evaluators is highly emphasized by Ministry of Education to recognize the professional evaluation agencies. It is believed that evaluators should fully understand the criteria. They should effectively apply the triangulation method to find out problems and supply suggestions. Evaluators should attend the training workshops periodically in order to take good command of the up-to-date international standards.
(11) The higher education evaluation or accreditation should lay stress on teaching instead of research. The objectives of a program, its curriculum design and assessments will be the foundation for successful education. Too much awards and promotion indexes are focused on the number of publications. The higher education evaluation or accreditation will be endangered if universities put excessive encouragement on research publications.
(12) At the present time, too many kinds of evaluation are executed by Ministry of Education. These bring too much load to universities and programs. Faculty and staff are busy in filling repeated documents without having enough time to consider the strategy for progress and continuous improvement. It is worthy for Ministry of Education to simplify various kind of evaluation.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
References
AACSB 2004, Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. http://www.accsb.edu/accred.html
AACSB DataDirect, http://www.aacsb.edu/knowledgeservices/datadirect/dd-intro.asp AEF website, http://www.apecef.org
APEC website, http://www.apec.org
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., Huff, A. S., Cognitive change strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal., 13, 15-36 (1992)
Bologna with Student Eyes, the official Bologna Process website (2007-2010) (http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/) Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009, the official Bologna Process website
(2007-2010),
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/
Chu, J. Y., Research report to the Public Construction Commission of the Executive Yuan, No. 950029 (in Chinese), December (2006).
Contractor A., The Long Road to Bologna, The Australian (online newspaper of the year), January 29 (2009) (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au)
Department of Statistics, Ministry of Education, http//:www.edu.tw/statistics
Dreyfack, M., Sony Walkman off to a running start. Marketing and Media Decision, 16 (10), 70-72 (1981)
Guler, I., Guillen, M. F., MacPherson, J. M., Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 207-232 (2002)
HEEACT, http://www.heeact.edu.tw/
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
HEEACT, Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Higher Education Evaluation, Taipei, Taiwan (2006)
Hill, R. C., When the going gets tough: A Baldridge Award Winner on the line.
Academy of Management Executive, 7 (3), 75-79 (1993).
Hsu, L. A. and Lin, M. Y., Lessons of the implementation of outcomes-based education reform in the US (in Chinese), 教育政策論壇，8(2), 55-74 (2005).
IEET website, http://www.ieet.org.tw
ieet.org.tw/download/2009 年 IEET 受認證系所研習會
Information Note, Policy Forum on Accreditation and the Global Higher Education
Market. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), Paris, June 13-14 (2005)
JABEE website, http://www.jabee.org (2008).
Julian, S. D. and Ofori-Dankwa, J. C., Is accreditation good for strategic decision making of traditional business schools? Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 5, 225-233 (2006).
Kells, H. R., The universities in a time of increased regulations: responsibilities, opportunities and dangers. Proc. 2006 International Conference on Higher Education Evaluation, HEEACT, Taipei, Taiwan (2006).
Kells, H. R., Self-study process: A guide for post-secondary institution, New-York, MacMillian Publishing, 1983.
Kerby, D., Weber, S., Linking mission objectives to an assessment plan. J. Education for Business, 75 (4) 202-209 (2000)
Konjic, T. and Sarajlic, N., Higher education structure at the faculty of electrical engineering, University of Tuzla: Influence of the Bologna agreement
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
International J. of Electrical Engineering Education, 44 (2), 166-174 (2007).
Lieven, M. and Martin, G., Higher education in a global market: the case of British overseas provision in Israel. Higher Education, 52, 41-68 (2006).
Lin, C. H., Education expansion, educational inequality, and income inequality:
edidence from Taiwan. Social Indicators Research, 80, 601-615 (2007).
Lin, W. C., Discours de la méthode（方法論） : Research method in Social Sciences (in Chinese), 工作坊寫真, Center for China Studies, National Cheng Chi University, p. 23-27, November (2005).
Mok, K. H., Globalization and higher education reconstructing in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Higher Education Research, 22, 117-129 (2003).
NCCU, Proceedings of Public Policy Forum: Evaluation and Accreditation of Professional Schools, Taipei, Taiwan (2007).
Roller, R. H., Andrew, B. K., Bovee, S. L., Specialized accreditation of business schools: A comparison of costs, benefits, and motivations. Journal of Education of Business, 78 (4), 197-204 (2003)
Romeo, E. I., AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7 (2) 245-255 (2008)
Shearman, R., Bologna: Engineering the right outcomes. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 44, 97-100 (2007).
Spady, W. G., Choosing outcomes of significance, Educational Leadership, 51, 18-22 (1994).
The Future Projects: Policy for Higher Education in a Changing World. The universal impact of competition and globalization in higher education. Brown University, http://www.futureproject.org, (2000).
Van Damme, D., Quality issues in the internationalism of higher education. Higher
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Wang, R. J., From elitism to mass higher education in Taiwan: the problems faced.
Higher Education, 46, 261-287 (2003).
White Paper of University Education Policy, Ministry of Education, Taiwan (2001).
Wikipedia Bologna Process, http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Bologna_process
Yang, Y., Report on the Effect of the Bologna Process (in Chinese), Evaluation Bimonthly, No. 8, 55-59 (2007a).
Yang, Y., The London Communiqué in the Bologna Process (in Chinese), Evaluation Bimonthly, No. 10, 57-60 (2007b).
Zaheer, A. and Zaheer, S., Riding the wave: Alertness, responsiveness, and performance in global electronic networks. Best Paper Proceedings, National Academy of Management Conferences, 72 (2005)
Zammuto, R. F., Accreditation and the globalization of business. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 256-268 (2008).
王順民，關於大學評鑑與退廠機制，國政研究報告，財團法人國家政策研究基金 會 (National Policy Foundation)，December 28 (2007).
王保進，大學自我評鑑，台北，正中書局，2002.
大學自我評鑑結果及國內外專業評鑑機構認可要點，評鑑雙月刊，19, 56-57 (2009)
方嘉麟，大學評鑑不瞭解科技整合，中國時報，時論廣場，一月九日，2009.
牟宗燦，CHEA 監督力強，國內可借鏡，評鑑雙月刊，7, 61 (2007).
邱于貞，亞太地區高等教育評鑑與學生學習成果研討會，國立台灣大學教學發展 中心電子報，6 月 30 日 (2009).
林尚平，評鑑取向的觀點，評鑑雙月刊，14, 23-28 (2008).
林金定，嚴嘉楓，陳美花，質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析，身心障礙 研究，3, No. 2, 122-136 (2005).
高教評鑑中心，系所評鑑回應，評鑑雙月刊，14, 28 (2008).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
郭明政，資源共享，還是分割，高教評鑑譴責教部政策？聯合報，民意論壇，一 月十二日，2009a.
郭明政，戕害學術，高教哀哀叫，聯合報，民意論壇，五月十三日，2009b.
陳振遠，從規劃、執行與回饋面看高教評鑑的專業分工，評鑑雙月刊，18, 17-19 (2009).
陳曼玲，結合評鑑制度，再造大學新局，專訪教育部政務次長呂木琳，評鑑雙月 刊，10, 1-3 (2007).
經濟日報社論, 消滅競爭力從亂整高教起，經濟日報，一月二十一日，2009.
楊朝祥，徐明珠，台灣高等教育指標國際化之比較研究，國政研究報告，財團法 人國家政策研究基金會 (National Policy Foundation)，August, 28 (2008).
劉維琪，管制干預或市場機制？從認可評鑑談大學招生政策，評鑑雙月刊，14, 4-5 (2008).
劉曼君，「成果導向」認證檢視畢業生核心能力，評鑑雙月刊，6, 30-31 (2007).
劉曼君，界定核心能力標準展現自我特色，評鑑雙月刊，11, 38-39 (2008).
潘慧玲，方案評鑑的緣起與概念，教師天地，117, 26-31 (2002).
盧增緒，論教育評鑑觀念之形成，中國教育學會主編，教育評鑑，台北，師大書 苑，pp. 3-59 (1995).
戴曉霞，大學評鑑的興起、模式與問題，反思台灣的高等學術評鑑研討會，9 月 25-26 日，台北 (2004).
嚴昆陽，再哀大學以及一些期待與建議，當前高教學術評鑑的並癥與解咒的可 能，反思台灣的高等學術評鑑研討會，9 月 25-26 日，台北 (2004).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Appendix A: Questionnaire for the in-depth interview of this study (Chinese version)
本研究之深度訪談問卷
各位教授及專家先進 鈞安：
非常感謝各位接受訪談，使學生之論文研究得以進行，謹此深致十二萬分的感 激。學生針對本研究之動機，向各位簡要報告，並表列訪談問題，敬請指正。
近十年來，我國高等教育有急速的膨脹，品質管制也成為重要的議題。高等教育 評鑑或認證，教育部已經委託高教評鑑中心進行各領域的系所評鑑。關於工程及 科技領域之系所認證，中華工程教育學會(IEET)已經進行 6 年的認證工作，教育 部也公告經過中華工程教育學會認證通過之系所可以免評鑑。中華工程教育學會 已經於 2006 年成為國際工程教育認證機構 Washington Accord(WA)之正式會員，
其認證結果也受到 WA 會員國之承認。國內商管院系近年也接受國際認證機構 AACSB 認證，認證通過之系所也可以免評鑑。教育部在民國 98 年也公告未來高 等教育評鑑可以經由自我評鑑，或參加國內外專業機構之評鑑而完成之。我國專 業證照之考試，也擬採認通過認證單位所頒發之證書為學歷門檻。高等教育評鑑 近年來施行之結果，受到許多討論及批評，本研究之目的，在於透過深度訪談，
匯集專家學者的意見，整理分析並與國內外文獻相互比較，完成對於我國高等教 育評鑑或認證的建議，做為未來評鑑或認證機構之參考，以及政府公共政策訂定 之依據。
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1. 國內高等教育評鑑或認證已經是國家政策，請問您對於目前進行 的評鑑或認證方式有何綜合性的看法？
1(a) 成果導向(outcomes-based)的評鑑或認證是經由學生學習成果來檢視教 育成效，不同於傳統的 input-based 評鑑，您認為成果導向是否是較佳 的方式？
1(b) 您認為成果導向的評鑑或認證是否適用於高等教育的各領域？例如：文
法、理工、醫學、管理等領域。
2. 目前國內高等教育的評鑑，大都由高教評鑑中心執行，請問您認 為由單一組織進行所有系所評鑑之優點與缺點分別為何？
2(a) 教育部已經公布法令，將認可國內外專業機構進行高教評鑑或認證，您
認為此政策的執行會有如何的困難？
2(b) 如果高教評鑑或認證經由國內外專業機構進行，您認為高教評鑑中心的
任務將做如何的調整？
2(c) 如果有多個國內外專業機構被認可進行高教評鑑或認證，您認為受評單
位的選擇，以及所衍生之公平性是否會產生爭議？
3. 您認為國內高等教育評鑑或認證結果，是否有必要維持一定的不 通過比率？
3(a) 如果需要，不同國內外專業機構所決定的比率如何維持一致性？
3(b) 如果需要，對於不通過的單位如何訂定罰則？
3(c) 如果不需訂定，如何確保受評單位之品質？
3(d) 如果不需訂定，國內外專業機構是否居於輔導者而非審查者的角色？
4. 您認為高等教育評鑑或認證是否帶給受評單位過多的負擔？
4(a) 一般而言教師研究壓力偏高，獎勵制度也偏重研究成果，是否影響教師
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
檢討教學成效的意願？
4(b) 評鑑或認證資料之收集、填寫、整合，是否造成受評單位主管過大負擔？
4(b) 評鑑或認證資料之收集、填寫、整合，是否造成受評單位主管過大負擔？