我國與澳洲高等教育品質保證制度之比較研究

A Comparative Study on the Higher Education Quality Assurance System between Taiwan and Australia.

馬扶風(Fu-Feng Ma)

指導教授 ： 楊瑩

國立暨南國際大學/教育學院/國際文教與比較教育學系/博士(2018年)

摘要

本研究主要是以文件分析法與文獻探討為主，訪談法為輔，採霍姆斯（B. Holmes）的「問題中心研究法」，針對臺灣與澳洲的高等教育品質保證制度進行比較分析。
本研究之主要目的為：
一、探討我國與澳洲高等教育之發展歷程與脈絡、制度變遷、現行作法，並分析二國現今制度實施與未來改革趨勢。
二、分析我國與澳洲高等教育品質保證制度之發展與實施歷程，釐清影響二國制度發展之背景脈絡。
三、剖析我國與澳洲高等教育品質保證制度之現行作法與推動現況，瞭解二國品質保證制度架構與實施情形。
四、藉由上述比較與分析之結果，提出可供我國高等教育品質保證政策未來改革之參考建議。
本研究之訪談對象主要包括高等教育品質保證相關領域之專家學者、澳洲高等教育保證相關領域之專家學者、接受品質保證者（以大學校院系所主管為主，其他執行人員，如教師為輔）、實際執行品保單位之成員等三類，共訪談八人。
整體而言，本研究結論如下：
一、臺灣高等教育發展主要由政府政策主導，澳洲高等教育發展則深受市場與國家力量交互影響。
二、臺灣與澳洲高等教育均為「雙軌制」體系，「一般」及「技職」併行，但澳洲之高教提供者與職業訓練提供者分屬不同部門與獨立機構監管。
三、臺灣與澳洲高等教育均面臨少子女化壓力，但澳洲以積極推動高教國際化作為因應策略。
四、臺灣高等教品質係透過大學評鑑定期檢視，澳洲則制定最低品質門檻確保高等教育品質。
五、臺灣將評鑑規範制定於不同相關法律或另訂辦法，澳洲統一於單一專法規範所有品質保證相關事宜。
六、臺灣高教評鑑多由政府委託專業評鑑機構辦理，澳洲則由官方之品質保證機構扮演規範者與執行者角色。
七、臺灣高教評鑑重視展現學校成效與特色，澳洲TEQSA規範重視實際運作與循環改善。
八、台灣與澳洲均逐漸重視學生就業能力，並透過品保機制強化高等教育與產業連結情形。
九、澳洲高等教育評鑑制度已與其資歷架構制度結合，臺灣則尚未建置資歷架構。

關鍵字

台灣 ； 澳洲 ； 高等教育 ； 品質保證 ； 大學評鑑 ； 國家資歷架構

並列摘要

This study mainly aims, via adopting B. Holmes's “Question Centered Research Method”, as well as the methods of the field interview, document analysis, and literature review, to compare the higher education quality assurance system between Taiwan and Australia. The main purposes of this study include:
1. To explore the historical development, changes, current provision, and trends of future reforms of higher education in Taiwan and Australia, respectively.
2. To analyze comparatively the historical development, and background contexts affecting the implementation of higher education quality assurance systems in Taiwan and Australia.
3.To compare the current higher education quality assurance systems in Taiwan and Australia.
4. To propose suggestions, based on the research findings, useful for the future reform of related policies in Taiwan.
The number of the interviewed of this study was 8 in total, including experienced experts in the fields of higher education quality assurance or evaluation systems, as well as academics familiar with higher education quality assurance systems in Taiwan or Australia.
The conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows:

1. The development of higher education has been mainly initiated and planned by the government in Taiwan, but the development of higher education in Australia has been a result of the interaction between the market and the state power.
2. Both of Taiwan and Australia had their “binary system” of higher education, e.g. “General” and "Technological” higher education providers coexisted. However, the higher education providers of these two sectors in Australia were supervised and regulated by different governmental departments, while these two sectors were under the supervision of the Ministry of Education in Taiwan.
3. Te decline of the number of students, caused by the declining birth rate, had been great pressure faced by both Taiwan and Australia, but Australia’s governent had tried to promote the internationalization policy, via recruiting more international students in response to the problem.
4. The quality of higher education in Taiwan had been assured by the university evaluation, initiated and conducted periodically by the government, while Australia’ government had mainly set the minimum quality threshold, and levied the responsibility of quality assurance upon the higher education providers themselves.
5. There had been various rules concerning higher education evaluation in Taiwan, while there had been a single specific law or act in Australia.
6. Higher education evaluation had been conducted by the professional evaluation agencies commissioned or assigned by the government in Taiwan, but higher education evaluation in Australia had been carried out by the official quality assurance agency, while acting as a regulator and performer simultaneously.
7. The focus of higher education evaluation had been upon the students’ learning outcomes, management effectiveness, and uniqueness of institutions in Taiwan, while higher education evaluation in Australia had been conducted in accordance with the TEQSA standard, which emphasized the actual operation and cycle improvement of the providers.
8. The employability of students or graduates had become the policy focus of higher education in both of Taiwan and Australia, and the link between higher education and industry had been reinforced by their quality assurance systems.
9. “Nation Qualification Framework” has been incorporated in the system of quality assurance in Australia, but the NQF system is still under discussion in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

Taiwan ； Australian ； Higher education ； Quality assurance ； University Evaluation ； National Qualification Framework

參考文獻

邱子葳（2007）。大學校院系所評鑑之檢視──以後設評鑑觀點視之。學校行政雙月刊，51，222-234。

黃慧心（2009）。獨立自主與多元化的香港高等教育品質保證體系。評鑑雙月刊，17，42-48。

楊國賜（2005）。我國大學自我評鑑機制與運作之探討。台灣教育，632，2-12。

楊瑩（2007）。歐洲高等教育品質保證機制九大進展—「波隆那歷程」執行成效高峰會最新成果報告。評鑑雙月刊，8，55-59。

楊瑩（2009）。英國高等教育品質保證制度之運作與實施現況。評鑑雙月刊，17，49-53。