台北市社區大學評鑑機制之初探

The Study of The Community College Evaluation System in Taipei City

程盈廸(CHENG, YING-DI)

指導教授 ： 顧慕晴

國立臺北大學/公共事務學院/公共行政暨政策學系/碩士(2010年)

摘要

本研究目的在針對台北市社區大學評鑑機制之運作進行初步探討，應用回應性評估中利害關係人理論以及後設評鑑之四大標準，來探究評鑑機制實際運作現況與可能產生之問題，並提出改進之參考建議。
本研究主要採文獻分析法蒐集相關文獻以進行分析、歸納與解讀，並與台北市
社區大學評鑑機制實施之相關利害關係人進行深度訪談，主要訪談對象為台北市政
府教育局社教科主管、承辦人員、台北市各社區大學行政人員以及參與社區大學多
年之學者專家。最後，依據訪談結果綜合分析討論後，提出結論與建議。本研究所
獲致結論如下：
壹、評鑑機制之「效用性」標準
一、地方主管機關、各社區大學及學者專家間對於評鑑機制設置立意之看法
不同使期望與實際有些許落差，但評鑑功效仍有所發揮。
二、教育局是否發揮輔導社大的功能，看法不一。
三、現行社大評鑑指標偏重短期經營管理及辦學績效，忽視與社區互動與經營之長期目標。
四、社大評鑑的齊一式指標大致合理，但無法凸顯社大各自特色。
五、獎勵機制中的獎懲發揮作用，尤其在承辦權的決定上。
貳、評鑑機制之「可行性」標準
一、各社大之建議部分有納入評鑑機制修正之參考，但其影響有限。
二、囿於人力，社大無專人負責評鑑業務，需隨時彙整資料。
三、每年辦理評鑑使各社區大學感到負擔沉重。
參、評鑑機制之「適當性」標準
一、現行制度下，評鑑委員是由市政府決定。
二、評鑑委員多缺乏社大經營實務經驗，較不利評鑑。
三、評鑑委員缺乏實務經驗，反能以較高視野評鑑。
四、評鑑委員的多次評鑑經驗，能彌補實務上的不足。
肆、評鑑機制之「精確性」標準
一、社大自評報告以多能將事實績效呈現。
二、訪視評鑑能彌補自評報告的不足。
根據深度訪談之結果分析及發現，本研究提出對台北市政府教育局在社區大學評鑑機制執行上之政策建議，進而作為改善評鑑機制並提高各社區大學配合度及發揮評鑑機制最大功效之參考：
壹、對評鑑機制「效用性」標準之改善建議
一、評鑑機制應將「輔導」功能發揮出最大效用，而非以「管制」角度為出發點。
二、評鑑指標之設計應增加社區參與經營之比重。
三、評鑑指標之設計應「多元化」，避免使各社大「趨同化」。
貳、對評鑑機制「可行性」標準之改善建議
一、確立制度化社區大學意見回饋機制，聽取各社區大學之心聲
二、調整評鑑實施之週期。
參、對評鑑機制「適當性」標準之改善建議
一、評鑑小組成員可加入部分具有社大實務經驗者。
二、注重受評者權利以及對人性之尊重。
肆、對評鑑機制「精確性」之精進建議－提升評鑑結果的公信力

關鍵字：社區大學、評鑑機制

關鍵字

社區大學；評鑑機制

並列摘要

The purpose of this thesis is a preliminarily study to explore the community college evaluation system in Taipei City. It applies the stakeholder theory of responsive evaluation and four standards of meta- evaluation to probe for the current status of the community college evaluation system and to express the operational problems it brought, and finally the modifying suggestion will be offered.
This study utilizes literature analysis to collect the relevant documents for analysis, and makes use of the method of depth interviews with the relevant stakeholders, who are mainly the sectional chiefs of community colleges , administrators of the Social Education System in Taipei City Government, and scholars and experts who have participated in community college evaluation system for many years .
Conclusions of this research are as follows：
1. Refer to the standards of utility of the evaluation system:
(1)Although local administrators, the practioners of community colleges and scholars agree the positive effects the evaluation system produced, however, they hold different views about the initial purposes of setting up the system.
(2)The officials of the Department of Education in Taipei City have divergent views about whether the evaluation system brought into its functions.
(3)The indicators of the evaluation system emphasize on short-term management and school performance but neglect the long-term interaction and operations between community college and the locating community.
(4)The unity-indicators of the evaluation system do not reasonably highlight the different characteristics of each community college.
(5)The reward and punishment mechanism in this evaluation system brought into its effects especially on the decision if the practioners of community colleges can keep management right.
2. Refer to the standards of feasibility of the evaluation system:
(1)The suggestions proposed by community colleges do have influence on modifying the evaluation system but its impact is limited .
(2)Limited by manpower, community colleges do not have responsible officials for managing the evaluation affairs.
(3)Preparing the evaluation for each year is a heavy burden to the practioners of community colleges.
3. Refer to the standards of propriety of the evaluation system:
(1)Members of the evaluation committee are chosen mainly by the administrators of the Department of Education in Taipei City now.
(2)Being lack of practical experience on managing the community college for most of members of the evaluation committee is less favorable for the evaluation practice.
(3)Being lack of practical experience on managing the community college for most of members of the evaluation committee sometimes make them evaluating in different visions.
(4)The evaluation committee members who have more practical experiences in evaluation can make up for the deficiencies in management.
4. Refer to the standards of accuracy of the evaluation system
(1)The self-assessment report can present most of the true performance of community colleges.
(2)The visiting evaluation can supplement the deficiencies of self-assessment report.
According to the results of analysis and findings in depth interviews, this study proposes the policy suggestions to the Department of Education in Taipei City in the community college evaluation system , and then as the reference to improve the evaluation system , to raise the cooperation from communities and to bring the maximum of the effectiveness in evaluation system：
1.The improvement suggestion to the utility standards
(1)The evaluation system should bring its "assistance" function rather than "control" point of view as the starting point .
(2)The evaluation indicators should be designed to increase the proportion of community participation and operation.
(3)The evaluation indicators should be designed to emphasize "diversity".
2.The improvement suggestion to the feasibility standards
(1)To establish the institutional feedback system for community colleges and listen to their opinions.
(2)To adjust the implementation of the evaluation cycle .
3.The improvement suggestion to the propriety standards
(1)The evaluation committee can add more members who have practical experience with the community college.
(2)Pay attention to the right of the people and respect the human nature in evaluation.
4. The suggestion to the accuracy standards- to enhance the credibility of evaluation.

Key Words：community college；evaluation system.

並列關鍵字

community college；evaluation system

參考文獻

王天苗、黃俊榮、邱筑君，2009，〈中央對地方政府特殊教育行政績效評鑑實施之後設評鑑與改進意見之研究〉，《特殊教育學報》，30：1-28。

王保進，2007，〈高等教育之研究品質評核機制探討〉，《高教評鑑》，1：1：23-50。

陳錦煌、翁文蒂，2003，〈以社區總體營造推動終身學習、建構公民社會〉，《國家政策季刊》，2：3：63-90。

鄭敏惠，2009，〈臺北市社區大學績效指標建立之探討：由下而上途徑的觀點〉，《公共行政學報(政大)》，32：105-142。

Oliver,M.1996. Understanding Disability - From Theory to Practice, London: Palgrave.