我國科技大學評鑑後續調查研究

Abstract

本研究旨在透過後續調查方式探討我國科技大學評鑑受評單位的意見與看法，根據研究發現與結論，提出建議。提供相關單位作為研擬科技大學評鑑制度之改進參考，俾利建立更完備的科技大學評鑑制度。為達上述研究目的，本研究採用問卷調查進行研究，研究對象為科技大學之校長、教務長、研發長、院長、系所主管，共計發出810份問卷，實得有效問卷494份，問卷回收率為60.99%，問卷處理採SPSS for Windows 15.0統計套裝軟體進行描述性統計、t檢定、單因子變異數分析等統計分析方法。綜合文獻探討與問卷調查所得資料，得到以下結論： 一、當前科技大學評鑑制度是受到認同的。 二、填答者於「適切性」層面同意程度最高。 三、填答者於「可行性」層面同意程度最低。 四、填答者對「科技大學評鑑的正式協議」與「科技大學評鑑受評者的權利」向度的同意程度最高。 五、填答者對「科技大學評鑑完整與公正的評估」與「科技大學評鑑的項目與權重」向度的同意程度最低。 六、填答者對於「系所合一者為同一受評單位評鑑，此設計是合宜的」與「評鑑報告若與『事實不符』或『違反程序』，受評單位可依申覆辦法提出書面申請，此設計是合宜的」題項的同意程度最高。 七、填答者對「已停招但尚有學生之系所，需接受評鑑，並評定成績，此設計是合宜的」與「受評單位校友瞭解評鑑的目的與程序」題項的同意程度最低。 八、「是否擔任評鑑委員」填答者於「整體」、「可行性」、「效用性」與「精確性」層面有顯著差異。 九、不同「擔任評鑑委員年資」填答者於「整體」、「適切性」與「精確性」層面有顯著差異。

The main purposes of this study are to investigate the opinions and viewpoints of departments evaluated in University of Science and Technology by adopting the follow-up research method. According to the research discovery and conclusions, the researcher provides some suggestions for the related institutions which will design the evaluation system of University of Science and Technology, hoping to establish a perfect evaluation system. In order to complete the above-mentioned research purposes, the method adopted for the research was questionnaire survey. 810 copies of questionnaires were delivered, including college principals, the directors of academic studies, the directors of department of research and development, deans and the directors of the research institute and college departments in University of Science and Technology. After deducting invalid asked volumes, the actual number of effective volumes is 494; the returns-ratio is up to 60.99%. The statistics software tool used for the questionnaire analysis is the SPSS for Windows version 15.0. The descriptive statistics, t-test and ANOVA carry on the material analysis. The main conclusions of this study are as follows: 1. The evaluation system of University of Science and Technology is agreed. 2. The highest agreeable level is “propriety standards”. 3. The lowest agreeable level is “feasible standards”. 4. The highest agreeable dimensions are “formal discussion of University of Science and Technology” and “the rights of departments evaluated in University of Science and Technology” 5. The lowest agreeable dimensions are “well-designed and fair evaluation of University of Science and Technology” and “the items and criterions of University of Science and Technology” 6. The highest agreeable items are ”the design that combination of department and graduate school regarded as the same evaluated department is appropriate” and ”the design that if the evaluation report is incorrect or violating procedures, the evaluated department can bring up the application according to claim method is appropriate”. 7. The lowest agreeable items are “the design that the departments recruiting students but still having students must be evaluated and scored is appropriate” and “the alumnus realize the purpose and procedure of evaluation”. 8. In the item “Whether to serve as evaluators”, respondents’ degree of agreeable status obviously varies in “totality”, “feasible standards”, “utility standards”, and “accuracy standards.” 9. In the item “People with different seniority to evaluate”, respondents’ degree of agreeable status obviously varies in “totality”, “propriety standards”, and “accuracy standards.”