資料載入處理中...
臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統
:::
網站導覽
國圖首頁
聯絡我們
操作說明
English
行動版
(18.218.65.76)
登入
字型:
**字體大小變更功能,需開啟瀏覽器的JAVASCRIPT,如您的瀏覽器不支援,
IE6請利用鍵盤按住ALT鍵 + V → X → (G)最大(L)較大(M)中(S)較小(A)小,來選擇適合您的文字大小,
如為IE7以上、Firefoxy或Chrome瀏覽器則可利用鍵盤 Ctrl + (+)放大 (-)縮小來改變字型大小。
來源文獻查詢
引文查詢
瀏覽查詢
作者權威檔
引用/點閱統計
我的研究室
資料庫說明
相關網站
來源文獻查詢
/
簡易查詢
/
查詢結果列表
/
詳目列表
:::
詳目顯示
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆
/1
頁
來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料
題名:
評鑑委員的評鑑倫理 : 爭議與守則
書刊名:
高教評鑑
作者:
曾淑惠
作者(外文):
Tseng, Shu-hui
出版日期:
2009
卷期:
3:2
頁次:
頁113-145
主題關鍵詞:
評鑑倫理
;
評鑑委員
;
倫理守則
;
Evaluation ethics
;
Evaluators
;
Ethic codes
原始連結:
連回原系統網址
相關次數:
被引用次數:期刊(
1
) 博士論文(
1
) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
排除自我引用:0
共同引用:
25
點閱:184
國內大專院校評鑑實務直至2005年科技大學評鑑時,才開始規範訪評委員倫理準則。當前雖然已有一些國外評鑑專業團體發展的評鑑倫理守則,然因在不同的國情及文化脈絡下,國內社會大眾的價值觀,明顯與歐美各國有所不同,因此若全盤移植國外評鑑倫理守則的文件,勢必面臨不同文化帶來不同價值觀的衝擊。準此,本研究旨在探究評鑑委員在評鑑中所遭遇之倫理爭議及克服爭議的倫理守則,以半結構式訪談20位專家獲取實務上的倫理爭議問題,經5位專家審議問題與守則的對應後,並對32位德懷術專家問卷調查以建構評鑑委員倫理守則,經資料分析後獲致以下結論:一、評鑑委員執行評鑑時的倫理爭議共23項,包括19項個人的議題及4項團隊的議題。二、評鑑委員因應倫理爭議應遵守的評鑑倫理守則共21項,其中核心價值倫理共5項,程序正義倫理共16項。
以文找文
Ethic guidelines for college and university evaluation did not exist until 2005, but the content has mostly related to interpersonal relationships. However, some foreign professional evaluation associations or societies have proposed evaluation ethic codes. These might differ in culture and value from Taiwan, so it would be better not to simply adopt these ethic codes. This study therefore discusses the controversial issues surrounding evaluator's ethics to construct ethic codes for evaluators. To achieve this, the current study first conducts a literature review and emphasizes three issues, including the meaning of professional evaluation ethics, evaluator ethic principles developed by the evaluation professional community, and the challenge of evaluators' ethic in evaluation practice. This research used a semi-structured interview to collect information from twenty experts (including six educational administrators, two representative agents in the evaluation association, seven experienced evaluators and five staff who never served as evaluators). The records were sent to interviewees by mail to confirm the content. The records were then coded using Atlas. ti version 5.2. and five experts were invited to review and refine the correspondence about controversial issues and ethic codes to overcome the controversial issues. After defining the ethic code, another thirty-two experts were involved in Delphi experts team (eleven evaluation experts and evaluators who were served as evaluation agents by the ministry of education, another eleven who were asked to serve as evaluation agents by the ministry of education and ten administrators from different universities.) for the third round of the Delphi questionnaire. The criterion judged whether the common consensus reached was a coefficient of variance or not. When the coefficient of variance had less value then 0.1, the common consensus was reached. The main conclusions of this study are as follows: 1. Evaluation practice comprises twenty-three controversial issues of evaluator’s ethics, including nineteen items for the individual evaluator and four items for the evaluator team. Controversial issues for the individual evaluator include the following: not fully participating in the pre-departure meeting, not recognizing the evaluation criterion, not reading the documents before the on-site visit, improper opinions resulting from being unfamiliar with universities and professions, preconceived ideas before the on-site visit, not keeping on time during the evaluation, telling other persons the findings before the evaluation result is published, disclosing the information provider, setting requests according to personal likings or specialties, censuring members of evaluation objects, inconsistency between the score and oral opinion, giving a lenient score when the result affects an individual or unit survival, giving an opinion which conflicts with the official education policy, not disclosing illegal or improper things, delaying to deliver the evaluation report, inquiring about private matters of evaluation objects, writing an evaluation report based on emotions, not adjusting or changing the score when receiving an argument, and not avoiding advantages. This study discusses controversial issues for the evaluation team as inconsistent evaluating criterion between the evaluators, and the person who adjusts the result score has significant power, and not all evaluator opinions are faithfully presented. The most discussed issues were keeping secrets, avoiding advantages, improper opinions from being unfamiliar with universities and professions. 2. Ethics for evaluators comprise twenty-one codes to follow, including five core valued ethics and sixteen process justice ethics. Core valued ethics are more significant and include full participation in the pre-departure meeting, obligation to keep secrets, fair and respectful to others, obeying the principle of advantage avoiding, evaluating seriously and taking responsibility for the evaluation results. Another sixteen process justice ethics include: agreement with evaluation design, refusal to participate if not in agreement with the evaluation design, reading the documents before the on-site visit, patiently listening to and reflecting on the valuation object's opinion, participating in the entire on-site evaluation or seeking the biggest mutual recognition for giving the evaluation score, full participation in the on-site visit, obtaining written consent from the clientage before leaving ahead of time, using explicit definitions to judge and having a clear information origin, not proposing an improper request that has nothing to do with the evaluation, consistency between the score and the oral opinion, replenishing an explanation if evaluators are unable to obtain a uniform opinion, presenting a clear evaluation result clear, discussing the report contents to reach a consensus, carefully inspecting the rationale and possible impact of the evaluation result, guaranteeing that the evaluation result is fair and just, respecting the participant’s right to privacy, finishing the work in time, and obeying the ethics and morals of an evaluator. Finally, this study provides four suggestions. This research not only addresses controversial issues of evaluator's ethics to find out corresponding ethic codes for overcoming arguments, but also seeks to provide a template for other domains for constructing ethic codes and principles.
以文找文
期刊論文
1.
Schweigert, F. J.(2007)。The priority of justice: A framework approach to ethics in program evaluation。Evaluation and Program Planning,30,394-399。
2.
Saarni, S. I.、Parmanne, P.、Halila, R.(2008)。Ethically problematic treatment decisions: A physician survey。Bioethics,22(2),121-129。
3.
Helgadottir, H.(2008)。The ethical dimension of project management。International Journal of Project Management,26,743-748。
4.
林天佑(2006)。評鑑倫理。評鑑雙月刊,4,14-15。
延伸查詢
5.
王保進、鄭珮琳(2005)。教育評鑑專業倫理準則之初探。現代教育論壇,13,407-419。
延伸查詢
6.
曾美惠(20061100)。建立評鑑倫理 專家學者提建言。評鑑雙月刊,4,14-16。
延伸查詢
7.
蔡進雄(20071100)。教育評鑑可能產生的幾種效應。評鑑雙月刊,10,54-56。
延伸查詢
8.
吳清山、王令宜(20071000)。我國大學評鑑:挑戰、因應策略與發展方向。課程與教學,10(4),15-30。
延伸查詢
9.
曾淑惠(20060900)。評鑑專業化的概念與發展對我國教育評鑑專業化的啟示。教育研究與發展期刊,2(3),171-191。
延伸查詢
10.
王令宜(20050900)。我國大學校務評鑑之發展與現況。教育研究月刊,137,80-92。
延伸查詢
11.
彭利源(2002)。教育評鑑的心理學研究。松山工農學報,1,38-50。
延伸查詢
12.
高等教育評鑑中心(2006)。做好大學系所評鑑:評鑑委員專業倫理嚴把關。評鑑雙月刊,4,17-20。
延伸查詢
13.
Goodyear, L. K.(2007)。Special issue on ethics in evaluation。Evaluation and Program Planning,30,392-393。
14.
Mcdonald, K. E.、Myrick, S. E.(2008)。Principles, promises, and a personal plea: What is an evaluator to do?。American Journal of Evaluation,29(3),343-351。
15.
Morris, M.、Cohn, R.(1993)。Program evaluation and ethical challenges: A national survey。Evaluation Review,17,621-642。
16.
Rodi, M. S.、Paget, K. D.(2007)。Where local and national evaluators meet: Unintended threats to ethical evaluation practice。Evaluation and Program Planning,30,416-421。
17.
Russ-Eft, D.(2004)。Ethics in a global world: An oxymoron。Evaluation and Program Planning,27,349-356。
18.
Schwandt, T. A.(2007)。Expanding the conversation on evaluation ethics。Evaluation and Program Planning,30,400-403。
19.
Smith, N. L.(2002)。An analysis of ethical challenges in evaluation。American Journal of Evaluation,23(2),199-206。
20.
SenGupta, S.、Hopson, R.、Thompson-Robinson, M.(2004)。Cultural competence in evaluation: An overview。New Directions for Evaluation,102,5-19。
21.
Sieber, J. E.(1980)。Being ethical: Professional and personal decisions in program evaluation。New Directions for Prograin Evaluation,7,51-61。
學位論文
1.
鄭珮琳(2005)。我國教育評鑑人員專業倫理準則之建構(碩士論文)。臺北市立教育大學。
延伸查詢
圖書
1.
Owen, J. M.(2007)。Program evaluation: Forms and approaches。New York, NY:Guilford。
2.
Morris, M.(2008)。Evaluation Ethics for Best Practice: Cases and Commentaries。New York, NY:Guilford Press。
3.
MacKinnon, B.(2004)。Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (4th ed.)。Canada:Thomson learning Academic Resource center。
4.
Newman, D. L.、Brown, R. D.(1996)。Applied ethics for program evaluation。Thousand Oaks, CA:London:Sage。
5.
Teddlie, C.、Reynolds, D.(2000)。The international handbook of school effectiveness research。Falmer Press。
6.
曾淑惠(2002)。教育方案評鑑。臺北市:師大書苑。
延伸查詢
7.
Mabry, L.(2004)。Strange, yet familiar: Assessment driven education。Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education。New York。
8.
Morris, M.(2003)。Ethical considerations in evaluation。International handbook of educational evaluation。Netherlands。
9.
Simons, H.(2006)。Ethics in evaluation。Handbook of evaluation: Policies, programs and practice。Thousand Oaks, CA。
10.
Morris, M.(2005)。Ethics。Encyclopedia of evaluation。Thousand Oaks, CA。
其他
1.
American Evaluation Association.(2004)。Guiding Principles for Evaluators,http://www.eval.org/Guiding%20Principles.htm, 20050613。
2.
Australasian Evaluation Society(1998)。Improving the theory, practice and use of evaluation: Guidelines for the ethics conduct of evaluation,http://www.parklane.com.au/aes/guildlines.htm, 20020203。
3.
SFE(2003)。Charter of evaluation guiding principles for public policies and programmes,http://www.sfe.asso.fr, 20060502。
4.
Australasian Evaluation Society(2002)。Code of ethics,http://wwwaes.asn.au/ethics.cfm, 20050503。
5.
Canadian Evaluation Society(n.d.)。CES guidelines for ethical conduct,http://www.unites.uqam.ca/ces/ethies.html, 20050105。
6.
UK Evaluation Society(2003)。UK Evaluation Society good practice guidelines,http://www.evaluatiori.org.uk/pub_library/good_practice.htm, 20050523。
圖書論文
1.
潘慧玲(2005)。邁向下一代的教育評鑑:回顧與前瞻。教育評鑑的回顧與展望。臺北市:心理。
延伸查詢
推文
當script無法執行時可按︰
推文
推薦
當script無法執行時可按︰
推薦
引用網址
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用嵌入語法
轉寄
當script無法執行時可按︰
轉寄
top
:::
相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱
1.
我國大學學生評鑑教師教學指標之研究:概念構圖法的調整應用
2.
普通大學校訂基本素養與學生養成能力之契合度分析
3.
當前校務評鑑人員的專業倫理挑戰
4.
大學質性評鑑的挑戰:系所與外部專家評鑑觀點的一致性分析
5.
臺灣高等教育評鑑制度與實施之分析研究
6.
科技大學教師對評鑑委員專業能力與專業表現知覺之研究
7.
我國師資培育課程與教學認證標準之評析
8.
建構大學生核心能力架構之研究:分析學術界與產業界的觀點
9.
教育評鑑人員專業化指標之建構及其實證研究--以臺北市國民中小學教育評鑑人員為例
10.
技職校院中評鑑倫理兩難之探析
11.
評鑑委託單位倫理守則之建構
12.
科技大學的英語教學:教學回顧與學習成果檢視之研究
13.
我國大學評鑑:挑戰、因應策略與發展方向
14.
評鑑專業化的概念與發展對我國教育評鑑專業化的啟示
15.
我國大學校務評鑑之發展與現況
1.
建構「大學學生社團評鑑指標」之研究
2.
NGO自我評鑑個案研究-以中華民國童軍總會應用GSAT為例
3.
國民中小學校務評鑑委員專業培訓課程建構之研究
4.
兩岸大學整併變革後對組織影響之比較研究—以臺灣東華大學與大陸廣州大學為例
5.
與政策對話:國民小學教師專業發展的峰與谷
6.
大學學生事務主管專業領導力及其發展研究
7.
國民中學校務評鑑倫理之研究─以北部六縣市為例
8.
國小身心障礙資源班教師專業知能需求與職前師資培育課程內容之研究
9.
國中小校長專業發展指標建構與實證之研究
10.
機關外聘委員法律地位之研究
11.
臺灣高等教育助學機制評鑑之研究:運用理論導向模式
12.
國民中小學教育評鑑人員專業化指標建構之研究
13.
國民中小學校務評鑑專業內涵建構之研究
無相關書籍
無相關著作
1.
技職校院中評鑑倫理兩難之探析
2.
評鑑委託單位倫理守則之建構
QR Code