A Follow-up Study of the Evaluation of Universities of Science and Technology in Taiwan

• Main Author: 陳蕙均
• Other Authors: 王如哲
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/7q9r4e

碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 教育政策與行政研究所 === 97 === 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.”