The Study of University Evaluation in Taiwan
Yi Lun Chen
The purpose of this report is to investigate the generality of the University Evaluation in Progressive countries. Establishing a universal idea and investigating the existing problems. In order to accomplish what is mentioned above, through the literature review and questionnaire survey. A total of 2500 copies of the questionnaires of were sent to public and private universities, and chi-square through the static software of SPSS version 10.0. Finally, some suggestions based on the conclusions are proposed to the authorities of educational administration and local universities for further development. Different cultural background will derive different educational evaluation systems. Although these evaluation systems differ with each other, there are 5 tendencies that are influenced by international culture exchange： 1. The promotion of efficiency and quality in University Evaluations. 2. The consideration of both the University authority and the supervising responsibility of the government. 3. The importance of communication and interparticpatin of the Evaluation Organization with the universities. 4. The agent selected to conduct the specialized evaluation should be assigned to profess ional academic institutes or associations. 5. The evaluation reports have been important references for the improvement of higher education institutions, as wall as for the allocation of funds. The study makes suggestions as following： 1. There is a need to set up a administrative body, independent from the government, to implement the evaluation process of higher education in Taiwan. 2. The ways of evaluation, which ix primarily based on external evaluation, and the departments should take as the school for their evaluation results. In order to keep the fairness of the evaluation, the process of evaluation includes both internal and external assessment. 3. The assessments of teaching and research in higher education should be carried out separately in the future. 4. The index of the specialized evaluation should meet both qualitative and quantitative requirements. 5. The time of the field visit, while undertaking external assessment, should be increased, in order to obtain a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of higher education institutions being evaluated. The most appropriate period to conduct the specialized evaluation is two days, and every three years is an appropriate cycle of evaluation. 6. The results of evaluation should be announced descriptively. 7. All the reports of evaluation should be published and open to the public. 8. The results of evaluation should be utilized as the criteria of the approval of establishment of university departments and the graduate institutes, student-numbers in admission, and the allocation of funds.
|Appears in Collections:||Thesis|