大學系所內部品質保證之個案研究

Abstract

研究旨在透過將個案學校兩階段辦理系所內部品質保證的設計與規劃進行探討，透過文件分析與半結構式訪談，瞭解大學系所內部品質保證在組織規劃、指標發展、執行程序與支持系統之規劃，希冀能夠提供大學系所內部品質保證之政策建言，共邀請12位參與個案學校規劃與執行的主管參與訪談。在組織規劃之研究成果發現：（1）第一階段組織規劃係採取由上而下的模式；第二階段採由下而上的意見彙集、做成決策；（2）第二階段更加強化學院層級的角色與功能，具有溝通協調、資源分配、協助改善的輔導與支持角色；（3）「自我評鑑指導委員會」納入許多外部委員，除了給予法規制定等原則性建議外，另具有推廣學校特色、協助定位等功能；（4）第二階段內部品質保證的辦理方式，係經過校內主管討論取得共識；（5）目前參與者只有系所主管、行政人員與少數的教師，如何讓內部品質保證成為大家共同努力的方向。在指標發展的研究結果發現：（1）兩階段指標發展已從以往參照外部評鑑機構的規劃，更加強調學校特色與系所溝通之共識；（2）指標發展更加著重系所的多元與差異，並納入對於系所發展方向的期待。在執行程序之研究結果發現：（1）訪評委員產生的方式將影響到系所真誠展現問題的意願；（2）內部品質保證的重要任務，在於發現問題，才有辦法進一步尋找解決方法（3）系所發展重點的擬定會考量校務發展計畫，增加連結與整體性；（4）全校結構性的問題需由校方進行檢討與規劃。在支持系統之研究結果發現：IR制度之建立除減輕系所負擔外，也帶給學院與校方應負擔的角色省思。研究結論針對高等教育機構之建議為（1）重視利害關係人的觀點，是促成對於內部品質保證認同的關鍵；（2）指標發展兼顧整體校務運作與系所特色；（3）實地訪評委員之遴聘重視系所專業與個別差異；（4）選定發展重點聚焦核心問題改善；（5）應減輕系所資料蒐集之負擔。針對後續系所內部品質保證之建議為（1）內部品質保證是一長期、循環且整體的過程，校方可盤點相關工具並加以系統化回饋；（2）內部品質保證除了系所承擔責任外，校方亦可利用相關資料，從上位的角度處理結構性的問題；（3）透過減量指標內容，著重在重要的發展面向，並降低系所壓力與排斥感；（4）制度規劃應強調改善為核心，協助系所面對問題；（5）校內各項制度應相互串連，以提升內部品質保證。The research refers to discussing the design and planning of internal quality assurance in two stages of the case university, through document analysis and semi-structured interviews, to understand the planning of internal quality assurance in the university in organizational planning, indicator development, implementation procedures and support systems. A total of 12 supervisors who are involved in the planning and implementation of individual case university were invited to participate in the interviews.In the research results of organizational planning, it is found that: (1) the first stage of organizational planning adopts a top-down model; the second stage adopts bottom-up opinions to gather and make decisions; (2) the second stage strengthens the college Hierarchical roles and functions, with the role of communication and coordination, resource allocation, and guidance and support for improvement; (3) The “Self-evaluation Steering Committee” includes many external members. Features, assist positioning and other functions; (4) The decision of implement the internal quality assurance in the second stage, the department has reached a consensus after discussion with the supervisors at university; (5) At present, only the department director, administrative staff and a few teachers are involved. The research results of indicator development found that: (1) the two-stage indicator development has been based on the planning of external evaluation agencies from the past, and more emphasis is placed on the consensus between the university characteristics and the communication between departments; (2) the development of indicators pays more attention to the diversity and differences of departments, and include expectations for the development direction of the department. The results of the research on the implementation procedures found that: (1) the way the visiting members are formed will affect the department's willingness to sincerely present problems; (2) the important task of internal quality assurance is to find problems; (3) The development priorities of the department will consider the university development plan to increase the connection and integrity; (4) The structural problems of the whole school need to be reviewed and planned by the university. In the research results of the support system, it was found that the establishment of the IR system not only relieved the burden of the department, but also brought reflections on the roles of the college and the university.The conclusions of the study are the following suggestions for higher education institutions: (1) Paying attention to stakeholder perspectives is the key to fostering acceptance of internal quality assurance; (2) The development of indicators takes into account the overall operation of the school and the characteristics of the department; (3) The selection of on-site reviewers should respect the major and individual differences of the department; (4) The important development aspects should focus on the improvement of core problems; (5) The burden of data collection should be reduced. Suggestions for the follow-up internal quality assurance:(1) Internal quality assurance is a long-term, cyclic and overall process, and the university can take stock of relevant tools and give feedback in a systematic way; (2) In addition to the responsibility of the department, the school can also make use of relevant information, Handle structural issues from a higher-level perspective; (3) Focus on important development aspects by reducing the content of indicators, and reduce the pressure and sense of rejection; (4) The system planning should emphasize improvement as the core, and assist the department to face problems; (5) The various systems in the university should be linked to each other to improve the internal quality assurance.