體驗區
|
| 篇名 |
臺灣與澳洲高等教育品質保證制度之比較研究
|
| 並列篇名 |
A Comparative Study on the Higher Education Quality Assurance System between Taiwan and Australia
|
| 作者 |
馬扶風(Fu-Feng Ma)
|
| 中文摘要 |
本研究以文件分析法與文獻探討為主，採B. Holmes的「問題中心研究法」，針對臺灣與澳洲的高等教育品質保證制度進行比較分析。首先分析臺灣與澳洲高等教育品質保證制度之發展與實施歷程，釐清影響制度之背景脈絡，進而描述臺灣與澳洲現行制度作法與推動現況，後續進行比較與分析後提出研究結論，以及可供臺灣高等教育品質保證政策未來改革之參考建議。本研究結論如下：一、臺灣高等教育發展主要由政府政策主導，澳洲高等教育發展則深受市場與國家力量交互影響。二、臺灣定期辦理系所與校務評鑑以檢視品質，澳洲制定最低品質門檻確保高等教育提供者符合標準。三、臺灣評鑑規範制定於不同相關法律或另訂辦法，澳洲於單一專法規範所有品質保證相關事宜。四、臺灣高等教育評鑑多由政府委託專業評鑑機構辦理，澳洲由官方品質保證機構扮演規範者與執行者角色。五、臺灣高等教育評鑑重視展現學校成效與特色，澳洲TEQSA規範重視實際運作與循環改善。本研究提出建議如下：一、政府在品質保證扮演之角色應逐漸由規範制定者，轉換為政策促進者與品質管理者。二、宜思考建立完整之評鑑專法，以完整規範評鑑之定位與內涵。三、對未來高等教育評鑑制度宜進行全面及有前瞻性的系統規劃。
|
| 英文摘要 |
This study mainly aims, via adopting B. Holmes’s “question centered research method”, document analysis, and literature review, to compare the higher education quality assurance system between Taiwan and Australia. This study analysis the historical development, changes, current provision, and trends of future reforms of higher education and higher education quality assurance systems in Taiwan and Australia, countinued to compare the current in Taiwan and Australia. Finally come to a conclusion and suggestions, based on the research findings, useful for the future reform of related policies in Taiwan. The conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows: 1. The development of higher education has been mainly initiated and planned by the government in Taiwan, but the development of higher education in Australia has been a result of the interaction between the market and the state power. 2. The quality of higher education in Taiwan had been assured by the university evaluation, initiated and conducted periodically by the government, while Australia’ government had mainly set the minimum quality threshold, and levied the responsibility of quality assurance upon the higher education providers themselves. 3. There had been various rules concerning higher education evaluation in Taiwan, while there had been a single specific law or act in Australia. 4. Higher education evaluation had been conducted by the professional evaluation agencies commissioned or assigned by the government in Taiwan, but higher education evaluation in Australia had been carried out by the official quality assurance agency, while acting as a regulator and performer simultaneously. 5. The focus of higher education evaluation had been upon the students’ learning outcomes, management effectiveness, and uniqueness of institutions in Taiwan, while higher education evaluation in Australia had been conducted in accordance with the TEQSA standard, which emphasized the actual operation and cycle improvement of the providers. The recommendations of this study are as follows: 1. The government’s role in higher education quality assurance systems should shift from a norm-setter to a policy facilitator and quality manager. 2. It is necessary to establishing a single specific law or act to standardize the system of evaluation. 3. Comprehensive and visionary systematic planning should be carried out for the future higher education evaluation system.
|
| 頁次 |
099-142
|
| 關鍵詞 |
大學評鑑
、品質保證
、高等教育
、國家資歷架構
、臺灣
、澳洲
、university evaluation
、quality assurance
、higher education
、national qualification framework
、Taiwan
、Australian
|
| 卷期 |
89
|
| 日期 |
202011
|
| 刊名 |
比較教育
|
| 出版單位 |
中華民國比較教育學會
|
| DOI |
10.3966/160957582020110089004
|
|
相關文獻 :
客服信箱