National Pingtung University of Education, this research explores the stakeholders’ receptivity toward the college teacher’s evaluation system.

• Main Authors: Liao, Jiachen, 廖家成
• Other Authors: Liu, Qingzhong
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2013
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/80270715638709340272

碩士 === 國立屏東教育大學 === 教育行政研究所 === 101 === With the example of the faculty evaluation system, National Pingtung University of Education, this research explores the stakeholders’ receptivity toward the college teacher’s evaluation system. Adopting Stratified random sampling, the study sent out 840 official questionnaires, with 704 questionnaires returned and 697 of them being the usable questionnaires, achieving a return rate of official questionnaires at 83.81% and a return rate of usable questionnaires at 82.98%. Then, the following 11 conclusions were drawn by the study: 1.The development of the university's teacher evaluation evolution into the evaluation period. 2.Meta-evaluation and focus groups as a teacher evaluation checklist method. 3. Stakeholder unanimously agree on teacher evaluation, but the identity of the other aspects of difference. 4. Implication of the evaluation, the most-recognized "motivate teachers to reflect on and improve the curriculum design and teaching effectiveness”. 5. In terms of evaluation staff, the most-recognized “conduct an evaluation of their students to participate in teacher evaluation team (or committee)”. 6. Evaluation results, the most-recognized “As guidance teachers to improve teaching based on”. 7. The different stakeholders gender most women advocate"Teacher evaluation can motivate teachers play service spirit, the establishment of a teachers' professional image". 8. Other stakeholder in different identities, the teachers are the most recognized self-evaluation by teachers. 9. The students do not agree with most stakeholder "as a reference to the classification of teacher salaries." 10. Stakeholders under the age of 25 for more recognition “Students participating in the rating“, but the older the lower the degree of recognition. 11. Qualifications higher the richer identity "teacher self-evaluation, but more do not agree with" students to participate in the evaluation. Finally, according to the above conclusions, recommendations for the University, university teachers and future studies.