:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:績效控制或專業發展?--大學教師評鑑的兩難
書刊名:教育實踐與研究
作者:孫志麟 引用關係
作者(外文):Sun, Chih-Lin
出版日期:2007
卷期:20:2
頁次:頁95-128
主題關鍵詞:大學教師評鑑績效控制專業發展Faculty evaluationAccountability controlProfessional development
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(20) 博士論文(3) 專書(1) 專書論文(5)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:19
  • 共同引用共同引用:85
  • 點閱點閱:140
高等教育中的教師評鑑,乃是不同利害關係人相當關切的議題,同時承載著社會、政治及法律上的多重意涵。然而,當我們致力於改善教師表現時,各大學所採用的教師評鑑制度卻相當傳統,類似教師升等的模式,而未審慎思考其合理性。大學教師評鑑的可信度,依然是最令人詬病且敏感的問題。本研究採取批判分析的觀點,檢視教師評鑑在一所教育大學的實踐,並從理論與實務連結的角度,進一步反省大學教師評鑑的困境與出路。研究重點聚焦於教師評鑑兩種不同取向的探究-績效控制取向、專業發展取向,並比較這兩種評鑑取向在理論及實務上的差異。在本研究中,個案研究乃是作為理解大學教師評鑑如何運作以及界定教師評鑑的意義的視框。此外,這個研究也提供了教師評鑑如何決策的另一種理解。從本研究結果可以發現:在逐漸增加對大學教師工作和專業活動控制的氛圍下,學校行政人員採取了績效控制取向來評鑑教師的表現,而忽略了教師專業發展的意義。於是,教師評鑑淪為績效控制的一種工具,很難作為專業發展的有效機制。也因此,當績效掛帥進入大學校園之際,教師評鑑制度必須重新被檢視,以瞭解其是否可以兼顧組織的績效管理和教師的專業發展。
Faculty evaluation in higher education is an issue of strong interest for different stakeholders, given its social, political, and legal implications. While the efforts for improving faculty performance have been made, the systems for assessing the quality of faculty on campus remain largely traditional. The credibility of faculty evaluation is one of the most precarious and sensitive problems. This study used the critical analysis approach to examine the practice of faculty evaluation system in the context of an education university. It focused on two different approaches to faculty evaluation: an accountability control approach and a professional development approach. It further compared their differences in evaluation theory and practice. A case study was used as the lens for understanding how evaluation was conducted, and for identifying the meanings given to the evaluation system. In addition, this study provided an alternative understanding of how decisions about faculty evaluation were made. Results from this study showed that school administrators adopted an accountability control approach to the evaluation of faculty in a climate of increasing control of faculty work and professional activities. That is to say, faculty evaluation cannot simultaneously serves as a mechanism of development and a tool of accountability. Thus, as institutional calls for college and university accountability continue, faculty evaluation systems need to be reexamined to see whether they can serve both to manage organizational performance and to enhance faculty development.
期刊論文
1.馮明德(19951100)。我國大學實施教師績效評估制度之初探:以元智工學院為例。空大行政學報,4,307-334。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Goldstein, J.(2007)。Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review。American Journal of Education,2007(5)=113,475-508。  new window
3.王振世、陳芃婷(20050900)。大學教師績效評量模型之建立:以新竹某國立大學為例。科技管理學刊,10(3),121-151。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.Smith, A. l.(1983)。A conceptual framework for staff evaluation。New Directions for Community Colleges,11(1),3-18。  new window
5.陳芃婷、李宗耀、虞孝成、曾國雄(20031200)。大學教師績效評鑑模型之應用及探討--以一所大學為例。教育研究集刊,49(4),191-218。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.陳碧祥(20010900)。我國大學教師升等制度與教師專業成長及學校發展定位關係之探究。國立臺北師範學院學報,14,163-205+207-208。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.王國明、顧志遠(19941000)。績效奬勵制度建立之理論與實務--以元智工學院教師績效奬勵制度為例。研考雙月刊,18(5)=183,32-41。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.Cashin, W. E.(1996)。Developing an effective faculty evaluation system。Manhattan, KS:Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development。  new window
2.彭森明、施俊名(2006)。大學教師評鑑機制之研究 (計畫編號:94A1004EI)。新竹市:國立清華大學高等教育研究中心。  延伸查詢new window
3.Neal, J. E.(1988)。Faculty Evaluation: Its Purposes and Effectiveness。0。  new window
4.Johnson, T. D.(1998)。A Case Study of Horizontal Teacher Evaluation。0。  new window
5.Redmon, K. D.(1999)。Faculty Evaluation in Community Colleges: A Respones to Competing Values。0。  new window
學位論文
1.吳宇正(2002)。大學教師績效評估模式之研究--應用DHP法(碩士論文)。中華大學,新竹市。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Braskamp, L. A.、Ory, J. C.(1994)。Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance。San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass。  new window
2.Stronge, J. H.(1997)。Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice。Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press。  new window
3.Seldin, Peter(1984)。Changing practices in faculty evaluation。San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass。  new window
4.Miller, R. I.(1987)。Evaluating faculty for promotion and tenure。San Francisco:Jossey-Bass。  new window
5.孫志麟(20040000)。教育政策與評鑑研究:追求卓越。臺北:學富文化。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.Ramsden, P.(2003)。Learning to teach in higher education。Routledge Falmer。  new window
7.Gitlin, A.、Smyth, J.(1990)。Teacher Evaluation: Educative Alternatives。London:Falmer Press。  new window
8.Arreola, R. A.(2000)。Developing a Cmprehensive Faculty Evaluation System: A Handbook for College Faculty and Administrators on Designing and Operating a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System。Developing a Cmprehensive Faculty Evaluation System: A Handbook for College Faculty and Administrators on Designing and Operating a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System。Bolton, MA。  new window
單篇論文
1.Snell, J. L.(2000)。The liminal tension of performance evaluation for preservice teacher educators: A mechanism for accountability or a tool for growth?(ED 440068)。  new window
其他
1.Evaluation of Faculty and Librarians(2004)。MSP/Lowell Contract,0。  new window
圖書論文
1.Iwanicki, E. F.(1990)。Teacher evaluation for school improvement。The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers。Newbury Park, California:Sage Publications。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE