台灣與日本國立大學評鑑之比較研究

本研究採用文件分析法以及G.Z.F. Bereday的四階段比較研究法進行台灣與日本大學評鑑之比較研究。藉由收集台灣與日本兩國大學法令規章、官方報告書、相關研究論述以及實施大學評鑑機構相關計畫書與資料，整理並分析，藉此瞭解兩國在大學評鑑的演變與實施現況，再根據所收集的資料進行比較研究，以瞭解兩國在實施大學評鑑上的異同。根據本研究，可得出以下結論：一、財團法人高等教育評鑑中心基金會以及大學評價•學位授與機構都是由官方提議設置，但前者較後者更具官方色彩。二、外界對於兩個評鑑組織的評鑑委員評選方式、專業程度以及工作負擔上仍有疑慮。三、校務評鑑指標方面，台灣著重校務營運與行政效能的發揮；日本著重教學活動的協助、學生學習成果與就業情形。四、系所評鑑指標方面，台灣強調學生學習生活輔導以及教學成果的展現；日本強調課程的開設情形以及課程與實務之間的連結。五、除了日本大學校務認證評鑑之外，台灣大學校院校務評鑑、台灣大學校院系所評鑑以及日本法科大學院認證評鑑判定評鑑結果的條件都未明確表示。六、大學評鑑結果的後續處理方面，台灣大學校務評鑑與系所評鑑具有強制性，日本大學校務認證評鑑與法科大學院認證評鑑則不具有強制性。

關鍵字

台灣；日本；大學評鑑；國立大學；高等教育

並列摘要

The purpose of this thesis is to figure out the difference of university evaluation between Taiwan and Japan. The documentary analysis and the comparative method of G.Z.F. Bereday are adopted as research methods. In order to understand the development and status of university evaluation of Taiwan and Japan, collecting the laws and regulations of university evaluation, official reports, relative researches and materials is necessary. Ultimately, the research compares between Taiwan and Japan in many different aspects of university evaluation to find out the difference. According to the research, the following results are concluded: 1. The establishment of HEEACT and NIAD-UE are based on official suggestions, but the HEEACT is more official than the NIAD-UE in the position of evaluation process. 2. The evaluation committee members of HEEACT and NIAD-UE are doubted about the election, profession and the burdens by outside world. 3. On the norms of accreditation evaluation of university, Taiwan is focus on the operation of university and administration efficiency; Japan is focus on the assistance of education activities and outcomes. 4. On the norms of department evaluation, Taiwan is focusing on the guidance and assistance of student and outcomes of teaching; while Japan is focusing on the relativity between curriculums and practices. 5. Only the accreditation evaluation of university in Japan shows the standard of accreditation evaluation judgments. 6. Taiwan universities are obliged to accept follow-up evaluation or re-evaluation after the accreditation evaluation results announced.